Many people will have seen it happen: a well-trained employee with solid risk awareness and safe behavior is placed in a team. Before long, the learned behavior seems to fade and risky habits of teammates are adopted. How is it possible that a well-functioning internal alarm bell is quickly sidelined and unsafe behavior emerges? Brain research in rats provides clues that help us understand this process.
Human and rat brains
For some time now, it has been clear that the functioning of rat and human brains shows striking similarities. Both are intelligent and display high social intelligence. This is one of the reasons why researchers at the Nederlands Herseninstituut also conduct brain research with rats. Recently (12-2019), Han et al. published a paper in PLOS Biology on empathy in rats in dangerous situations. The study shows that rats’ responses to danger depend on the behavior of their peers. The social environment apparently influences their experience of fear and, consequently, their behavior. To better understand this process, a brief overview of the research and its conclusions follows.
A brief tour of the brain
The brain consists of two symmetrical hemispheres, fused at the midline and base. Viewed from above, a deep fissure separates the two halves. The side walls of this fissure—particularly the front part (the anterior cingulate cortex)—play an important role in both humans and rats, not only in the experience of pain and fear of danger, but also in understanding each other’s experiences. This capacity for understanding forms a key component of what we call empathy.
By injecting an anesthetic into this fissure in rats, the functioning of these regions can be temporarily weakened while other brain areas continue to function normally. Empathy is briefly switched off, making it possible to better understand the contribution of empathy to overall behavior.
Experiment 1: Risk awareness
The studies by Han et al. are relevant for understanding how fear operates in relation to social behavior. First, the researchers examined the extent to which rats respond to each other’s fear. Rats were exposed to an electric shock via a metal floor in part of a cage. When shocked, rats startle and briefly jump. The question was what other rats do when they observe this event.
Rats that had previously experienced an electric shock themselves reacted much more strongly to the startle response of others than rats that did not know what caused the reaction. Without personal experience of the danger, the observing rat did not develop empathetic responses. Personal experience is therefore crucial for empathic reactions. The function of empathy is to enable rats to prepare each other for danger.
The parallel with safety management lies in the design of onboarding programs. These should devote ample attention to learning to feel the dangers in the work. Risk awareness does not arise automatically; it must be cultivated.
Experiment 2: The impact of empathy on the experience of danger
After all rats had developed risk awareness, one rat was again placed in the dangerous condition. Other rats could observe this up close without being exposed to danger themselves. The observing rats were then divided into two groups that alternated participation. One group received an anesthetic in brain regions responsible for empathy in dangerous situations; the other group did not.
The non-anesthetized group reacted strongly when seeing a peer receive an electric shock. In turn, the rat receiving the shock reacted more strongly than in earlier test situations without an audience. A shared emotional response amplifies the reaction to danger for all rats.
In the anesthetized group, the empathy function was temporarily switched off. These rats showed little empathetic response and barely reacted to the startled peer. This lack of empathetic response also affected the rat receiving the shock, which reacted far less intensely. Put differently, the absence of an empathic reaction among observers weakened the response to danger. If no one reacts, it must not be that dangerous.
In summary, the intensity of the response to danger depends on how strongly peers react to the situation. Empathic responses amplify the experience; their absence diminishes it.
Analysis
The experiments show that the experience of danger is a two-step process. First, awareness of danger must be learned through direct exposure. Once the danger has been learned, a second step follows in which this experience is strengthened or weakened by the responses of peers in the environment.
From other research, we know that processing these stimuli occurs in the prefrontal cortex, an area directly behind the forehead. Apparently, this area weighs signals by linking the ringing of the internal alarm bell to observed reactions of peers. The severity of danger is thus assessed in relation to how others respond. The conclusion is that risk awareness is not a constant but fluctuates depending on the conditions in which a person operates.
Translation to safety practice
The study also examined whether it mattered whether observers were familiar peers or strangers. This turned out not to affect the results. Being placed in a new or familiar team therefore makes no difference to this process.
The message is that safe behavior starts with thorough onboarding. That investment can either pay off—or be completely undermined—depending on the behavior of the environment in which the person comes to work. This explains why a well-trained new employee can quickly be tempted into unsafe behavior if there are role models displaying such behavior. The internal alarm bell loses out to the prevailing model set by peers.
In short, a strong onboarding phase is a crucial prerequisite for safe behavior. However, the return on that investment is ultimately determined by the team in which the employee works.
Juni Daalmans,
May 2020