人格特质对非注意视盲和安全风险感知失败的影响:来自眼动试验的证据

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.08.0994

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

非注意视盲是一种与选择性注意或不注意有关的人因失误。为减少建筑工人高空作业非注意视盲导致的安全事故,选取30名被试参与一项试验,分析非注意视盲在安全风险感知失败中的重要性,以及影响非注意视盲和安全风险感知失败的人格特质相关因素,建立实用的安全管理策略。结果表明:非注意视盲占安全风险感知失败的50%。另外,人格特质与非注意视盲和安全风险感知失败有明显的关系,外向性、严谨性和开放性与非注意视盲和安全风险感知失败有显著的相关关系;低外向性、高严谨性和低开放性的作业人员拥有更低的安全风险感知失败和非注意视盲的比例。

关键词: 人格特质, 非注意视盲, 安全风险感知失败, 眼动试验, 高空作业, 危险识别

Abstract:

Inattentional blindness is a human error related to selective attention or inattention. In order to reduce safety accidents caused by inattentional blindness in high-altitude work among construction workers, 30 participants were selected for an experiment to analyze the importance of inattentional blindness in the failure of safety risk perception, as well as the personality trait-related factors that affect inattentional blindness and the failure of safety risk perception, and to establish practical safety management strategies. The results show that inattentional blindness accounts for 50% of the failure of safety risk perception. In addition, personality traits have a significant relationship with inattentional blindness and failure of safety risk perception, with extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness significantly correlated with inattentional blindness and failure of safety risk perception. Workers with low extraversion, high conscientiousness, and low openness have lower proportions of safety risk perception failure and inattentional blindness.

Key words: personality traits, inattentional blindness, failure of safety risk perception, eye-movement experiment, working at heights, hazard recognition

中图分类号:

X912安全生理学

李乃文, 崔琳琳. 人格特质对非注意视盲和安全风险感知失败的影响:来自眼动试验的证据[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(8): 11-17.

LI Naiwen, CUI Linlin. Influence of personality traits on inattentional blindness and failure of safety risk perception:evidence from an eye-movement experiment[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(8): 11-17.

图/表 8

图1

表1

图2

图3

图4

表2

表3

表4

参考文献 16

[1]	马亮, 曹东强, 查俨卿, 等. 多视角下我国房屋建筑施工事故统计特征分析及变化[J]. 工业安全与环保, 2023, 49(6):28-33.
	MA Liang, CAO Dongqiang, ZHA Yanqing, et al. Analysis and change of statistical characteristics of building construction accidents in China from multiple perspectives[J]. Industrial Safety and Environmental Protection, 2023, 49 (6): 28-33.
[2]	付汉良, 谭玉冰, 夏中境, 等. 专家危险识别轨迹对建筑工人安全教育的影响:来自眼动实验的证据[J]. 清华大学学报:自然科学版. 2024, 64(2):205-213.
	FU Hanliang, TAN Yubing, XIA Zhongjing, et al. Effects of expert hazardidentification trajectories on safety education for construction workers-Evidence from eye-tracking experiments[J]. Journal of Tsinghua University:Natural Science Edition, 2024, 64(2):205-2137.
[3]	王露露, 尘兴邦, 袁嘉淙, 等. 职业心理学视域下矿工不安全行为研究综述[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(1):48-55. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.01.0782
	WANG Lulu, CHEN Xingbang, YUAN Jiacong, et al. Review of research on miners' unsafebehavior from the perspective of occupational psychology[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(1): 48-55. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.01.0782
[4]	SIMONS D J, CHABRIS C F. Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamicevents[J]. Perception, 1999, 28(9):1 059-1 074.
[5]	MOST S B, SIMONS D J, SCHOLL B J, et al. Sustained inattentional blindness[J]. Psyche, 2000, 6(14):101-112.
[6]	袁璐一, 常若松, 马锦飞. 驾驶员为何对道路关键事件“视而不见”?“自下而上”和“自上而下”加工机制的交互作用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27(3):557-570. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00557
	YUAN Luyi, CHANG Ruosong, MA Jinfei. Why dodrivers "turn a blind eye" to road key events ? interaction of "bottom-up" and "top-down" processing mechanisms[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(3): 557-570. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00557
[7]	PAMMER K, SABADAS S, LENTERN S. Allocating attention to detect motorcycles: the role ofinattentional blindness[J]. Human Factors: The Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2018, 60(1):5-19.
[8]	THOMAS F M F, CHARLTON S G. Inattentional blindness and information relevance of variablemessage signs[J]. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2020, 140:DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2020.105511.
[9]	CHEN Jiayu, SONG Xinyi, LIN Zhenghang. Revealing the "Invisible Gorilla" in construction: estimating construction safety through mental workload assessment[J]. Automation in Construction, 2016, 63: 173-183.
[10]	LI Jue, LI Heng, WANG Hongwei, et al. Evaluating the impact of mental fatigue on construction equipmentoperators' ability to detect hazards using wearable eye-tracking technology[J]. Automation in Construction, 2019, 105:DOI:10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102835.
[11]	郑霞忠, 石博元, 陈云, 等. 融合 VR-眼动的施工现场隐患识别视觉注意与搜索特征研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2024, 24(3):1 087-1 095.
	ZHENG Xiazhong, SHI Boyuan, CHEN Yun, et al. Research on visual attention and search features of hidden danger recognition in construction site based on VR-eye movement[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2024, 24(3):1 087-1 095.
[12]	王莉莉, 许凌鹏. 基于眼动数据的管制员注意力特征评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(2):217-224. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.02.2785
	WANG Lili, XU Lingpeng. Evaluation of controllers' attention characteristics based on eye movement data[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(2): 217-224. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.02.2785
[13]	PERLMAN S B, MORRIS J P, VANDER W B C, et al. Individual differences in personality predict how people look at faces[J]. PLoS One, 2009, 4(6):DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0005952.
[14]	WU D W L, BISCHOF W F, ANDERSON N C, et al. The influence of personality on socialattention[J]. Personality and Individual Differences, 2014, 60:25-29.
[15]	PERNICE K, NIELSEN J. How to conduct eyetracking studies[J]. Nielsen Norman Group, 2009, 22(5):231-238.
[16]	JEELANI I, HAN K, ALBERT A. Automating and scaling personalized safety training using eye-trackingdata[J]. Automation in Construction, 2018, 93:63-77.

维度	人格特征内涵	对应题目
神经质	指个体在日常状态下情绪的稳定性和消极性	1,6,11,16, 21,26,31,36
严谨性	指社会规范以及纪律对个体行为倾向的抑制性和约束性	2,7,12,17, 22,27,32,37
宜人性	指他人遭遇不幸时个体的同情心和共情能力	3,8,13,18,23, 28,33,38
开放性	指个体在面对新事物或新刺激时表现出来的态度和行为反应	4,9,14, 19,24,29,34,39
外向性	指个体的神经系统的活跃程度和对外界的开放性	5,10,15,20, 25,30,35,40

人格特征	题目数	Cronbach's α	平均值	标准差
神经质	8	0.720	29.000	4.848
严谨性	8	0.803	29.667	6.245
宜人性	8	0.772	32.333	5.315
开放性	8	0.902	31.889	7.236
外向性	8	0.910	29.222	8.333

人格特质	统计数据	非注意视盲	安全风险感知失败
外向性	皮尔逊相关性	0.882^**	0.738^*
外向性	显著性	0.002	0.023
宜人性	皮尔逊相关性	0.239	-0.035
宜人性	显著性	0.535	0.930
严谨性	皮尔逊相关性	-0.815^**	-0.830^**
严谨性	显著性	0.007	0.006
神经质	皮尔逊相关性	0.218	-0.422
神经质	显著性	0.572	0.258
开放性	皮尔逊相关性	0.750^*	0.846^**
开放性	显著性	0.020	0.004

自变量			因变量
人格特质	群体	N	安全风险感知失败						非注意视盲
人格特质	群体	N	平均值	标准差	F	p	t	p	平均值	标准差	F	p	t	p
外向性	低外向性	12	0.224	0.09	9.375	0.068	-5.705	0.001	0.12	0.049	4.772	0.065	-2.655	0.033
外向性	高外向性	6	0.537	0.024	9.375	0.068	-5.705	0.001	0.252	0.107	4.772	0.065	-2.655	0.033
宜人性	低宜人性	10	0.337	0.185	0.192	0.675	0.158	0.879	0.16	0.052	3.236	0.115	-0.115	0.914
宜人性	高宜人性	8	0.317	0.183	0.192	0.675	0.158	0.879	0.169	0.14	3.236	0.115	-0.115	0.914
严谨性	低严谨性	8	0.451	0.172	1.058	0.338	2.441	0.045	0.239	0.091	3.648	0.098	3.125	0.017
严谨性	高严谨性	10	0.229	0.1	1.058	0.338	2.441	0.045	0.104	0.033	3.648	0.098	3.125	0.017
神经质	低神经质	8	0.372	0.193	0.311	0.595	0.66	0.53	0.134	0.066	0.419	0.538	-0.906	0.397
神经质	高神经质	10	0.293	0.167	0.311	0.595	0.66	0.53	0.188	0.112	0.419	0.538	-0.906	0.397
开放性	低开放性	12	0.224	0.09	9.375	0.068	-5.705	0.001	0.12	0.049	4.772	0.065	-2.655	0.033
开放性	高开放性	6	0.537	0.024	9.375	0.068	-5.705	0.001	0.252	0.107	4.772	0.065	-2.655	0.033