Some thoughts on belief perseverance (original article thedecisionlab.com ). Believing the Titanic was unsinkable resulted in a lack of lifeboats. Countless contestants on TV’s Dragon’s Den vow to continue with their business, in spite all evidence telling them to stop. Individuals and businesses stick with original beliefs, even in the face of contradictory evidence. This is belief perseverance .For example, there is some research that eLearning has advantages over classroom learning. Most research I’ve read states the most effective solution being a mix of eLearning and classroom. Yet, many trainers continue to believe classroom is the gold standard .Many chefs I speak to distrust using electrolysed water. This is where an electrical current is passed through salt and water solution, producing hypochlorous acid (HOCl). This has been shown to be effective against a wide range of pathogens like E.Coli, Salmonella, and Listeria. Belief that ‘traditional chemicals’ are best persists .Amongst the public, there is widespread belief in the ‘hygiene hypothesis’, essentially that we are ‘too clean’. This was proposed in 1989, whilst more recent study suggests it is less contact with commensal (helpful) microbes, rather than pathogens that may contribute to increases in allergens, type 2 diabetes and auto immune diseases. The belief that we are ‘too clean’ continues . Talking of allergies, many stick to their belief that allergies are somehow exaggerated or imagined. This is despite clear evidence that allergies are increasing and life threatening .In writing this post I refuse the offers of help from AI. I’m ignoring growing evidence that I could be far more productive (and probably produce better writing) if I used AI . There are several factors that result in Belief Perseverance, including confirmation bias, where we seek evidence to support our original beliefs. Accepting that our long-held beliefs are wrong can be difficult and damaging to our ego’s, we naturally seek consistency in our views .Failure to change and adapt can result in missed opportunities, for individuals and businesses. Think of record stores such as HMV (UK) and Tower Records (USA) failing to adapt to musical downloads and online competition .However .This post originally started with The Apprentice and how a contestant insisted ‘Chic’ should be spelt ‘Chique’ even when a Frenchman stated she was wrong. She held onto her belief, despite evidence to the contrary. However, when I checked it out, it seems she WAS right. In 1962, Decca records rejected The Beatles because ‘guitars are on their way out’. Dyson, Air B&B, FedEx (according to a Google search I haven’t fact checked) are examples of success when others advised against .So, perhaps, it’s not that beliefs and ideas should be dismissed in the wake of contradictory evidence. It’s more that challenging and reflecting on our own beliefs is always worthwhile

This week I’ve read about the Availability Heuristic, with information taken from The Decision Lab.com. I’ve then tried to relate this information to safety. The availability heuristic is a mental shortcut that allows us to make choices easier and faster. We base decisions on information that comes easily to mind, rather than objective analysis of facts. For example, people may overestimate the dangers of plane crashes, shark attacks, and rare diseases if there have been recent events, vividly reported on the news. In some respects, it’s important that we do easily recall major events associated with safety. Knowledge of these incidents and help change attitudes and improve culture. The main danger, as I see it, is when memorable events aren’t easily recalled. This can lead us to underestimating the danger. For example, in food safety, we might not easily recall food poisoning outbreaks related to long, slow cooking. This might lead us to underestimate the danger, take short cuts, and not follow the correct procedures. The effect is increased when we, personally have not experienced such an incident. Recent, positive, memorable events can also result in overconfidence. For example, a recent Five rating and glowing praise from EHO can can result in overconfidence, and lessen focus on the standards that brought us the reward. This is closely related to over confidence bias, where subjective confidence in our abilities is greater than objective evidence. Often illustrated by the fact around 44% of UK marriages end in divorce, but most newly weds would estimate the likelihood of divorce for them to be around 0%. The ‘availability short cut’ is deeply ingrained and largely necessary. When starting a car journey, it’s not feasible to analyse every factor of our forthcoming journey to evaluate the risk. Being aware that car accidents do occur is sufficient to focus our attention on driving safely. As with most bias I’ve read about, it’s difficult to avoid. Even being aware of its existence doesn’t necessary mean we can overcome its dangers. In addition, as noted above, the knowledge of risks and consequences of mistakes can help drive improvements. Perhaps as a food safety and health and safety trainer I should use case studies and real-life examples to illustrate route cause failings, rather than specific subjects. For example, if I describe an horrific incident involving a deep fat fryer, learners are likely to easily recall the dangers of hot oil. They’re perhaps less likely to recall the dangers of taking shortcuts (for example not allowing enough time for the oil to cool). However, taking short cuts can equally result in accidents involving chemicals, working at height, or many aspects of food safety. I’m not in any way an expert in psychology, I’m just interested in how it relates to safety. Through my company I provide food safety and health and safety training at levels three and four. More information is available on my website Hygienie.org

Authority bias is our tendency to be influenced by authority figures. A 1960’s experiment had members of the public (volunteers) ask questions to people hidden behind a screen. Those answering the questions were played by actors. Under the guidance of authority figures, the volunteers administered an electric shock for every wrong answer. The actors would cry out in pain, and so far as the volunteers were concerned, the pain was real. Under instruction, the current was increased for every wrong answer, some exceeding a level that would be fatal. I know a city centre restaurant where someone from head office arrived unannounced one weekend to monitor the sites performance. By Monday morning they had gained access to the safe and the takings. At no point did anyone challenge their authority, or check they were from head office. Many will have experienced the frustration of having their work suggestion dismissed…. Only for later, a senior manager make the same suggestion and having it adopted. If a group decision is to be made, the decision will usually reflect the opinions of the most senior manager in the room. Our tendency is to focus on the messenger rather than the message. There are positive aspects to authority bias. During a global pandemic it helps that millions of people will follow the advice of authority figures. Of course, some people will lean in the opposite direction and have a distrust of all authoritarian advice. This can result in conspiracy theories, particularly is someone with authority, an ‘expert’ encourages the distrust. Most people would advocate a balance. For example, to follow professional advice, but where possible, to fact check and seek alternative opinions. Which brings us to safety. Employees must follow safety policies and food safety management systems. Environmental health officers’ documented actions on inspection reports must be completed. However, when EHO’s recommend soaking cloths (for wiping down surfaces) in a bleach solution, it’s reasonable to consider alternative methods. If EHO’s insist food must be cooled to below 8°C in 90 minutes you might question is this is feasible. When a safety officer insists you wear a hard hat, they must be worn. Although on one course a delegate, who was ex forces told me that on manoeuvres they camouflaged vehicles with netting. During this task they were made to remove army helmets and replace with construction hard hats. Of course, I’ve no way of fact checking this. I do recall one company who, for years had been using the wrong chemical to disinfect surfaces. If an employee identifies such mistakes, it’s good they question rather than blindly follow. Unfortunately, whether these concerns are heard may depend on whether they’re an officer, senior manager, or perceived to be an expert. (PS, I’m not an expert in any of the above, I’m just interested in the subject) The original source of this material was an article in ‘thedecisionlab.com’

I’m continuing to read and consider how aspects of psychology might be relevant to safety. This week, I was reading about Attention bias. This is where our attention might be biased towards certain elements in our environment, whilst ignoring others. It’s like ‘zooming in’ on certain information which renders us blind to other factors. The implications for safety audits and checks are clear. If we have a pet hate (like, oh, I don’t know, people putting things other than food on chopping boards; car keys, glasses, delivery notes and such) we might focus on this and miss other contraventions. There are wider concerns for management such as ignoring someone for promotion because we’re focussed on their weaknesses whilst ignoring strengths and potential. Or focussing on one measurement of an employee’s productivity. It’s possible to ruin work and personal relationships by focussing on a specific flaw. The tendency to focus on the negative can also be detriment to our own mental health. There are several factors that can bias our attention. External events such as the past performance of an individual, emotional stimuli such as anger, and internal states such as hunger (which can bias our attention towards donuts and chocolate). Avoiding attention bias is difficult. Our brains have a limited capacity of focus, and a mental shortcut such as this helps maintain cognitive efficiency. In some circumstances it helps to avoid stimuli. So, when giving up smoking, our habit might be linked to a cup of tea. When drinking a cup of tea, the stimulus focuses our attention on cigarettes, and it’s hard to stop thinking about having a smoke. I’m not sure if this is relevant to safety. And in some ways, attention bias is a useful trait in safety. There are evolutionary reasons for the bias. Those early humans more aware of dangers in their environment were more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Being aware of hazards is clearly a good thing in safety. I also considered this bias in terms of how we can influence others. For example, if a manager is angry or confrontational with an EHO, there may be a strong tendency for the EHO to focus on negative information. Conversely, if we’re calm, confident and welcoming, others are more likely to focus on positive information about us. The original source of this material was an article in ‘thedecisionlab.com’ I claim no expertise in psychology; I am just keen to learn more. I train food safety and health and safety to levels three and four. Through my website, Hygienie.org I offer online and live streaming courses to individuals and businesses.

Affect Heuristic

The danger of doing something rather than nothing

Clostridium Botulinum

The importance of monitoring and verification

Is the term Danger Zone misleading?