Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea (대한인간공학회지)

Ergonomics Society of Korea (대한인간공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Effect of Personality Type on Human Performance Tool Compliance and General Recommendations for Enhancement of the its Practical Utilization

  • Lee, Kyung-Sun (Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI), I&C/Human Factors Research Division) ;
  • Lee, Jong-Hyun (Ajou University, College of Social Sciences Social Science Research Institute) ;
  • Lee, Yong-Hee (Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI), I&C/Human Factors Research Division)
  • Received : 2014.11.21
  • Accepted : 2014.12.05
  • Published : 2015.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of personality type on human performance tool compliance in nuclear power plants (NPPs) and to propose general recommendations for an enhancement of its practical utilization. Background: Various guidelines, regulating criteria, and recommendations have been developed to prevent human errors in NPPs. Despite these efforts, the accidents sometimes caused by human errors have steadily occurred, and therefore, various human performance tools have been adopted as countermeasures against human errors. The major and inevitable contributing factors among the many hazards to human errors might be the trait and personality, which are considered to be the inner world of humans. Thus, we try to investigate the utilization of human performance tools by considering the different types of operating crew personalities, and we suggested more practical recommendations to prevent human errors according to the personality. Method: We developed the Questionnaire using the Big 6 (HEXACO) models, which are human performance tools for workers in NPPs, and individual (condition) variables to investigate the effect of personality types on human performance tools. We slightly modified them to help the survey respondents understand them better. A survey was conducted for ordinary people over the age of 20. SPSS 22.0 was used to perform a correlation analysis and a hierarchical regression analysis to find the relationship between personality types and human performance tools. Results: The utilization of human performance tools shows significant differences statistically by personality. The correlation result reveals that the types of Honesty (H), Extraversion (X), Conscientiousness (C), and Openness to experience (O) show a higher utilization of human performance tools. In hierarchical regression results, human performance tools of task preview, questioning attitude, stopping when unsure, self-checking, effective communication, and place-keeping show a higher utilization with personality types. However, the Agreeableness (A) type did not show significant differences statistically with human performance tools. Conclusion: We tried to investigate the utilization of human performance tools by considering the different types of human personality and provide more practical recommendations to prevent human errors according to the personality. These results will be able to prevent human errors owing to the characteristics (advantages and disadvantages) of personality types. Application: This information can be utilized as guidelines for proactive recommendations according to the workers' personalities for more practical human performance tools to prevent human errors in an NPP.

Keywords

References

  1. Ashton, M.C. and Lee, K.B., The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality, Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 340-345, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890902935878
  2. Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K., The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A Meta-analysis, Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
  3. Barratt, E., Anxiety and impulsiveness related to psychomotor efficiency, Perceptual and Motor skills, 9, 191-198, 1959. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1959.9.3.191
  4. Chung, C.W., The case of railroad officials accident involvement = The role of personality in predicting safety, The Korean Journal of Industrial and Organization Psychology, 13(1), 41-60, 2000.
  5. Cheppelow, J.W., Remedies for aircrew error (Report No. 664). Farnborough, UK: Royal Air Force Institute for Aviation medicine, 1989.
  6. Clarke, S. and Robertson, I.T., A meta-analytic review of the Big Five personality factors and accident involvement in occupational and non-occupational settings, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(3), 355-376, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X26183
  7. Damasio, A., A Second chance for emotion, In R. D. Lane, & L. Nadel (Eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
  8. Dupont, G., The Dirty Dozen errors in aviation maintenance, Canada: Transport, 1990.
  9. Diaz, R.I. and Cabrera, D.D., Safety climate and attitude as evaluation measures of organizational safety, Accident analysis and Prevention, 29(5), 643-650, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(97)00015-8
  10. Farmer, E., Personality factors in aviation, International Journal of Aviation Safety, 2, 175-179, 1984.
  11. Figner, B., Mackinlay, R.J., Friedrich, Wilkening, F. and Weber, E.U., Affective and deliberative processes in risky choice: age differences in risk taking in the Columbia card task, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(3), 709-730, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014983
  12. Greenwood, M. and Woods, H.M., A report on the incidence of industrial accidents with special reference to multiple accidents (Industrial Fatigue research board report No. 4). London: Her Majesty's Stationary office, 1919.
  13. Henning, J.B., Stufft, C.J., Payne, S.C. and Bergman, M.E., The influence of individual differences on organizational safety attitudes, Safety science, 47(3), 337-345, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2008.05.003
  14. Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI)., Development report for work suitability criteria, 2010.
  15. Korea Transportation Safety Authority (KTSA)., A study on knowledge information system of human factors in aviation, 2011.
  16. Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S., Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, New York: Springer, 1984.
  17. Lee, C.W. and Jung, Y.O., A study of factor structures of the Barratt impulsiveness scale in Korean university students, The Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 16(1), 117-129, 1997.
  18. Lee, H.H., Kim, E.J. and Lee, M.G., A validation study of Korea positive and negative affect schedule, The Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 23(4), 935-946, 2003.
  19. Lee, K.S., Lee, J.H. and Lee, Y.H., "An enhancement of the practical utilization of human performance tools by considering the personality", Proceedings of the Fall Conference of the Ergonomic Society of Korea, (pp. 1-7), Won-Ju, Gangwon-do., 2014.
  20. Lee, K.S., Lee, J.H. and Lee, Y.H., Guideline of personal traits for countermeasures against to the human error in Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs), KAERI/TR-5659/2014, 2014.
  21. Lee, W.Y., The interacting effects of cognitive failure, consciousness and job stress on safety behavior and accident, The Korean Journal of Industrial and Organization Psychology, 19(3), 475-497, 2006.
  22. Lee, Y.H., Jang, T.L., Lee, Y.H., Oh, Y.J., Kang, S.H. and Yun, J.H., Research activities and techniques for the prevention of human errors during the operation of nuclear power plants, Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea, 30(1), 75-86, 2011. https://doi.org/10.5143/JESK.2011.30.1.75
  23. Lee, Y.H. and Yoon, J.H., A study on the effect of the coincidences between group traits and personal traits upon the job stress, J. KISE, 35(2), 19-27, 2012.
  24. Lee, Y.H., "A review on the effective countermeasures to the recent human errors in high-reliability industrial systems", Proceedings of the Fall Conference of the Ergonomic Society of Korea, (pp. 1-6), Won-Ju, Gangwon-do., 2014.
  25. Mano, H., Risk-Taking, Framing Effects, and Affect, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 57(1), 38-58, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1003
  26. Maslach, C., Jackson, S.E. and Leiter, M.P., Maslach burnout inventory manual (3rd ed), Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1996.
  27. Neal, A. and Griffin, M.A., A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels, Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 946-953, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.946
  28. Newbold, E.M., Practical applications of the statistics of repeated events, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 92, 487-535, 1927.
  29. Pervin, L.A. and John, O.P., Personality: Theory and Research, New York, NY, US: Guilford Press, 1997.
  30. Seo, S.B., Railway safety from a view point of human science, Korean Society of Civil Engineers, 55(3), 116-125, 2007.
  31. Shappel, S., Human factors analysis & classification. Prentice Hall, 2000.
  32. Shin, G.H., The Maslach Burnout inventory-General survey (MBI-GS). The Korea Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16(3), 1-17, 2003.
  33. Steel, Z. and Blaszczynsk, A., Impulsivity, personality disorders and pathological gambling severity, Addiction, 93(6), 895-905, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1360-0443.1998.93689511.x
  34. Stewart, G.L., Trait bandwidth and stages of job performance: Assessing differential effects for conscientiousness and its sub traits, Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 959-968, 1996.
  35. Yoo, T.Y., The relationship between HEXACO personality factors and variety of performance in work organization, The Korean Journal of Industrial and Organization Psychology, 20(3), 283-314, 2007. https://doi.org/10.24230/ksiop.20.3.200708.283
  36. Von Thaden, T.L., Kessel, J. and Ruengvisesh, D., Measuring indicators of safety culture in a major european airline's flight operations department, The Proceedings of the 8th International symposium of the Australian Psychology Association. MovotelBrightonBeach, Sydney, 8-11 April, 2008.
  37. Wallace, J.C., Workplace safety performance: conscientiousness, cognitive failure, and their interaction, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(4), 316-327, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.8.4.316
  38. Watson, D., Clark, L.A. and Tellegen, A., Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scale, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070, 1988. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
  39. Whiteside, S. and Lynam, D., The five factor model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity, Personality and Individual Differences, 30(4), 669-689, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00064-7