Workload,Risks, and Goal Framing as Antecedents of Shortcut Behaviors

Purpose

Shortcut behaviors are methods of completing a task that require less time than typical or standard procedures. These behaviors carry the benefit of increasing efficiency, yet can also carry risks (e.g., of an accident). The purpose of this research is to understand the reasons individuals engage in shortcut behaviors, even when doing so is known to be risky.

Design/Methodology/Approach

We present two laboratory studies (N = 121 and N = 144) in which participants performed an air traffic control simulation. Participants could improve efficiency by taking shortcuts; that is, by sending aircraft off the prescribed flight paths. This design allowed for direct and unobtrusive observation of shortcut behaviors.

Findings

Individuals who were told that efficiency was an obligation tended to believe that shortcut behaviors had utility for managing high workloads, even when the risks associated with shortcuts were high. Downstream, utility perceptions were positively related to actual shortcut behavior.

Implications

Although communicating risks may be used to help individuals balance the “pros” and “cons” of shortcut behaviors, goal framing is also important. Subtle cues indicating that efficiency is an obligation can lead to elevated perceptions of the utility of shortcut behaviors, even when knowing that engaging in shortcut behaviors is very risky.

Originality/Value

Past research has provided limited insights into the reasons individuals sometimes engage in shortcut behaviors even when doing so is known to be risky. The current research speaks to this issue by identifying workload and obligation framing as antecedents of the decision to take shortcuts.

     

Searching for reliable relationships with statistics packages: an empirical example of the potential problems

Many social scientists appear to possess an overconfidence in the reliability of research results from a single, small-sample, inferential study. In this article, the authors speculate that "user-friendly" statistics packages have the potential to exacerbate statistical misinterpretation by providing researchers with a tool to explore data easily and identify what is interpreted as "reliable" relationships. This article contains an empirical demonstration of the potential problems that arise when a large number of statistical tests are interpreted. Results show that statistically significant results may be unreliable. Also, a zero relationship can erroneously appear as a medium to large effect size relationship when a small sample is used (e.g., n = 30). The authors suggest the need for multiple replications as the criterion of a reliable finding.     

Evaluating gene x psychological risk factor effects in the pathogenesis of anxiety: a new model approach

The present study evaluated the singular and interactive effects of a functional polymorphism (variation) in the serotonin transporter (5-HTT) gene and a psychological trait (anxiety sensitivity [AS], i.e., fear of arousal symptoms) in predicting subjective and physiological responses to a 35% carbon dioxide (CO2) challenge in a community sample (N = 72). Genotypes were divided into 2 groups in accord with prior research. Findings were partially supportive of the hypothesized risk model. These indicated that the Group L genotype (homozygous for the 1 allele), compared with the Group S genotype (homozygous for the s allele plus heterozygous individuals), predicted greater fearful response to the biological challenge. There was also an AS x Genotype interaction predicting heart rate variability (HRV) in response to the CO2, suggesting that high AS plus Group L status predicts decreased HRV.