SPE 86622
Implicit Attitudes: A New Measure of Safety Culture
Calvin Burns, Kathryn Mearns & Peter McGeorge, Industrial Psychology Research Centre, University of Aberdeen
Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at The Seventh SPE International Conference on
Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production held in Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, 2931 March 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This paper describes two studies about the explicit and
implicit attitudes held by the workforce at UK gas plants about
the trustworthiness of their workmates, supervisors and the
plant leadership. Psychologists have shown that an individual
is able to hold different evaluations of the same object (a
conscious, explicit attitude and an unconscious, implicit
attitude) and that an individuals explicit and implicit attitudes
to something do not have to be the same. Organisational
theorists have argued that climate, as measured by explicit
attitudes, is only a surface manifestation of culture and that
culture manifests itself in deeper levels of unconscious
assumptions. Thus, a model of dual attitudes about trust in
safety culture is propsed, which conceptualizes explicit
attitudes about trust as part of safety climate and implicit
attitudes about trust as part of the deeper levels of safety
culture. Attitudes about trust were investigated because
many researchers have proposed that trust is the foundation of
an effective safety culture. Explicit attitudes about trust were
measured by a questionnaire while implicit attitudes were
measured using a computerised task. The main finding of the
paper was that a different pattern of results emerged for
explicit and implicit attitudes about trust. The paper
concludes by explaining how the data support the proposed
model and poses questions for further research.
Introduction
In his report into the Piper Alpha disaster, Lord Cullen
stressed that It is essential to create a corporate atmosphere or
culture in which safety is understood to be and accepted as,
the number one priority. [1] There is considerable debate in
the literature on the definition, measurement and utility of the
concept of safety culture. [2] Many researchers have used
questionnaires to measure the workforces explicit attitudes
and perceptions about the state of safety on offshore
installations. [3-6] However, these questionnaires measure
safety climate which is the term used to describe the
indicators of an organisations underlying safety culture. [5, 7]
Schein [8] argued that climate is only a surface manifestation
of culture and that culture manifests itself in deeper levels of
unconscious assumptions. These unconscious aspects of
culture are less easy to measure simply because they are
unconscious and not directly accessible to individuals.
The concept of dual attitudes provides a way to
measure the explicit attitudes that comprise the surface
features of safety culture and the unconscious assumptions
that characterise its core. Wilson, Lindsey & Schooler [9]
defined dual attitudes as different evaluations of the same
object: a conscious, explicit attitude and an unconscious,
implicit attitude. Explicit attitudes are those attitudes that are
constrained by conscious processing whereby individuals
consider and state their attitude to attitude-objects.
Questionnaires like safety climate surveys measure explicit
attitudes. Implicit attitudes are traces of past experiences that
can mediate favourable or unfavourable feeling, thought or
action toward social objects without conscious awareness.
Compared to explicit attitudes, implicit can become active
relatively automatically and are more likely to guide
behaviour under conditions of time pressure or heavy mental
workload. Wilson et al. [9] argued that an individuals
explicit and implicit attitudes to something do not necessarily
have to be the same.
The current paper investigated attitudes about trust
because many researchers have proposed that trust is the
foundation of an effective safety culture. [10-13] Before dual
attitudes about trust are considered, it is prudent to review the
theoretical importance of trust in safety culture.
The generally accepted definition of trust and the one
which shall be used throughout this paper is a willingness to
accept vulnerability based upon the positive expectations of
2 SPE 86622
the intentions or behaviour of another [14-16]. The role of
trust in developing and maintaining safe behaviour patterns in
the workplace is made clear by considering the 3 sub-
components of a safety culture: a reporting culture, a just
culture and a learning culture [10]. With respect to a reporting
culture, it is important that the workforce believe that they will
not be penalised by the management or their fellow workers
for reporting accidents or near misses. Without this degree of
trust, a report will probably gloss over pivotal human factors
information or no report may be made. An effective reporting
culture depends largely on how the organisation deals with
blame and punishment and this is a component of a just
culture. In a just culture, a clear line must exist between
acceptable and unacceptable actions but in order to maintain
an atmosphere in which employees are willing to report their
accidents or near misses, they must trust the management to
treat them fairly. Lastly, trust is an important part of a
learning culture. Providing rapid and useful feedback when
incident reports are made should increase the workforce's trust
in the management through demonstrated commitment to
safety. Further, it should reinforce the workforce's reporting
behaviours and enhance their understanding of potential
hazards. Clearly, trust is needed to engineer an effective
safety culture.
Study 1
This study consisted of two parts: a questionnaire and a
computerised task. The questionnaire measured explicit
attitudes about trust in participants' workmates, supervisors
and the plant leadership while the computerised task measured
their respective implicit attitudes about trust. The first author
administered the questionnaire and computerised task onsite
during one-to-one meetings with participants.
Participants. Sixty-two members (approximately 50%) of the
workforce at a UK gas plant hereafter referred to as Gas Plant
A, participated in this study. The first author randomly
selected members of the workforce who were onsite during the
three-week period in which the study was conducted for
participation in the study. Participants were selected from the
operations, maintenance, construction and gas plant services
job types. Twenty-eight of the participants were employed by
the operator company while the remaining 42 were employed
by one of three different contractor companies. All
participants were male as no women were employed in the job
types sampled. Participants mean work experience in the oil
and gas industry was 17.91 years (S.D. = 8.22) and their
average work experience at that particular gas plant was 9.12
years (S.D. = 7.20). Participation in the study was completely
voluntary and employees were given time away from their
regular duties to take part.
Questionnaire. Questionnaire items were based on the model
of organisational trust proposed by Mayer, Davis &
Schoorman [14]. For the purposes of this paper, only items
relating to generalised trust in workmates, supervisors and the
plant leadership shall be reported. These items were I trust
my workmates, I trust my supervisor, and I trust the plant
leadership. All questionnaire items used a 6-point scale with
anchors of agree and disagree for each scale point.
Computerised Task. The procedure for the computerised
task was adapted from Fazio, Jackson, Dunton and Williams
[17] and consisted of 3 phases: a baseline phase, a priming
phase and a recognition memory test.
Stimulus Materials. The computerised task was
conducted on an IBM compatible laptop computer using Super
Lab version 1.03. All visual stimuli were presented on a
single line in the centre of the screen in bold Times New
Roman 60 point font. Responses were made on a 4 button
response box with keys labelled Trust, Distrust, Yes,
and No.
The target words (words indicative of trust or
distrust) used in this task were generated by 50 University of
Aberdeen first-year psychology students during a Group
Participation Practical exercise. Collectively, these students
generated 182 different words and phrases about trust and
distrust. 50 different first-year students later rated these words
and phrases for trustworthiness (1 = total lack of trust, 2 =
some lack of trust, 3 = not relevant, 4 = trust, 5 = high level of
trust). The 10 words with the highest trustworthiness ratings
were selected as targets indicative of trust and the 10 words
with the lowest trustworthiness ratings were selected as targets
indicative of distrust. It should be noted that targets were
selected so as not to include words with trust in them. As
expected, the difference in trustworthiness between the groups
of targets was significant, t(49) = 62.048, p < 0.0001.
Procedure. The purpose of the first phase was to
obtain baseline data for the target adjectives. A single target
word was presented on the computer screen. Participants were
instructed to press the key labelled Trust or the key labelled
Distrust as quickly as possible to indicate their judgement of
the word. There were 20 targets; 10 of the words were
indicative of trust and the other 10 words were indicative of
distrust. Participants performed 2 blocks of trials. Each block
consisted of the randomised presentation of the 20 words. The
average latency for any given word served as the participant's
baseline latency for that word.
The beginning of a trial was marked by the
presentation of a row of asterisks for 315 ms. Following this,
the screen blanked for 135 ms before the onset of the target
word. A given target remained on the screen until the
participant responded or for a maximum of 1.75 s. A 2.5 s
interval separated each trial. Participants responses and their
response latencies (from target onset to key press to the
nearest millisecond) were recorded. A block of practice trials
preceded this phase. The purpose of the practice block was to
SPE 86622
familiarise the participants with the procedure by using
different words than those presented in the first phase.
The second phase involved a priming task.
Participants were told that they would have to judge the
meaning of the target words just like before, but that now they
would also have to remember different job titles (primes) that
would flash before each target. Participants were told that it
was important for them to pay attention to the primes because
they had to complete a recognition memory test in the next
phase. There were 10 primes in total. The 3 primes of interest
were workmates, supervisor and plant leadership. The
other 7 primes served as distractors. The procedure was
similar to the first phase except that the row of asterisks was
now replaced by one of the 10 primes. On any given trial, a
prime was presented for 315 ms, followed by a 135 ms
interval before the onset of the target; thus, the stimulus onset
asynchrony was 450 ms. A 2.5 s interval separated each trial.
After a short practice block involving different
primes and targets, 5 blocks of trials were presented. In each
of the 5 blocks, every prime was paired with one target
indicative of trust and one target indicative of distrust. Over
the course of this phase, the 3 critical primes were paired with
the same 5 targets indicative of trust and the same 5 targets
indicative of distrust. The distractor primes were paired with
targets such that each of the 20 targets only appeared once per
block. Responses and response latencies (measured in
milliseconds from target adjective onset to response) were
recorded.
The third phase involved the recognition memory test
that the participants had been led to expect during the previous
phase. The purpose of this phase was to determine whether
the participants had followed the instructions to pay attention
to the primes in the previous task. (Doing so was required for
implicit attitude activation). Thus, this phase involved the
random presentation of the 10 primes used during the previous
task along with 10 new job titles (fillers) that were not
previously presented. Participants were instructed to press a
key labelled Yes if the job title was presented in the
previous task or press a key labelled No if the job title had
not been presented earlier. Each job title remained on the
screen for a maximum of 5 s or until the participant pressed a
key. A 2.5 s interval separated each trial. Responses were
recorded.
Results: Questionnaire. Table 1 displays the means and
standard deviations for pairs of items about trust for
workmates, supervisors and the plant leadership. It should be
noted that participants expressed a positive attitude about trust
for their workmates, as the mean score was 5.03. Participants
expressed a less positive attitude about trust for their
supervisors, as the mean score was 4.82 and they expressed a
slightly less positive attitude still about trust for the plant
leadership, as the mean score was 4.27. Paired samples t-tests
were conducted in order to test whether the differences
3
between these mean scores were significant. There was a
strong trend suggesting that participants trusted their
workmates more than they trusted their supervisor, as the
result, t(61) = 1.98, p = 0.052, approached significance at the
0.05 level. Participants trusted their workmates more than
they trusted the plant leadership, t(59) = 4.50, p < 0.001 and
they trusted their supervisor more than they trusted the plant
leadership, t(59) = 3.11, p = 0.003. Taken together, these
results suggest that group membership as part of the workforce
influences trust for workmates, supervisors and the plant
leadership.
Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations for Paired
Samples of Questionnaire Items
Pairs of Items n Mean S.D.
I trust my workmates 62 5.032 0.128
I trust my supervisor 62 4.823 0.141
I trust my workmates 60 5.033 0.132
I trust the plant leadership 60 4.267 0.154
I trust my supervisor 60 4.817 0.145
I trust the plant leadership 60 4.267 0.154
Results: Computerised Task. Due to time constraints, 9 of
the 62 participants were unable to take part in the
computersied task. Therefore, the following data are based on
a sample of 53 participants.
Detection Data. During the priming phase,
participants were instructed to pay attention to the primes in
order to complete a recognition memory test in the next phase.
Accordingly, participants completed a detection task in which
they had to indicate whether a given job title had or had not
been presented during the priming phase of the task. These
data were examined to check whether the participants paid
attention to the primes, as doing so was required for implicit
attitude activation. Detection scores were calculated for each
participant by subtracting the proportion of false alarms (filler
not previously presented that the participant incorrectly
identified as having been presented) from the proportion of
correctly identified hits (previously presented job title
correctly identified as such). Performance at chance levels
would be indicated by a score of 0 on this detection index.
Participants performed at better than chance levels; their mean
score was 0.76, which was statistically reliable; t(48) = 25.39,
p < 0.001.
Facilitation Scores. For each participant, baseline
latency for each target was computed from the average of the
two presentations of the target during the first phase of the
task. The latency for any given target when preceded by a
given prime was subtracted from the baseline for that target to
arrive at a facilitation score. Average trust facilitation scores
for every participant were then computed for the 3 critical
primes. The average of all participants trust facilitation
scores for the 3 critical primes are displayed in Figure 1. The
latencies for any trials on which participants made an error,
which averaged 5.53% were not included in these
computations.
4 SPE 86622

The data in Figure 1 should be interpreted as follows. score that is negative indicates the lack of an implicit
A mean trust facilitation score that is positive indicates an association of the prime with trust, as the response latencies
implicit association of the prime with trust, as the response when preceded by that prime were longer than the no-prime
latencies when preceded by that prime were quicker than the baselines.
no-prime baselines. Conversely, a mean trust facilitation
Figure 1: Mean Facilitation Scores from the Computerised Task Gas Plant A
(Error Bars represent the Standard Error of the Mean)

100

80 51.1759
Facilitation Score (ms)

60

40
9.7189
Facilitation Score; Trust
20

0
Workmates Supervisor Plant Leadership
-20

-40 -7.4415

Prime

In order to determine the strength of participants Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations for Paired
implicit attitudes about trust, one-sample t-tests were Samples of Facilitation Scores
conducted on each of the facilitation scores for each prime to Pairs of Facilitation Scores Mean t df p
determine whether there was a significant difference from the Trust Workmates 51.18 -2.073 52 0.043
Trust Supervisor 9.72
baseline (i.e. a facilitation score of 0). The trust facilitation Trust Workmates 51.18 -2.388 52 0.021
score for workmates was the only facilitation score that was Trust Plant Leadership -7.44
significantly different from the baseline, t(52) = 2.05, p = Trust Supervisor 9.72 1.031 52 0.307
0.045. These results suggest that participants had a strong Trust Plant Leadership -7.44
implicit attitude about trust for their workmates but not for
their supervisors or the plant leadership. As seen in Table 2, the trust facilitation score for
workmates was stronger than that for supervisor and the plant
Paired samples t tests were also conducted in order to leadership. The difference between the trust facilitation score
test for differences in facilitation scores for trust between for supervisor and the plant leadership was not significant.
specific levels of the organisational hierarchy. Table 2
displays the means, t statistic and p value for each pair of In order to establish whether implicit and explicit
facilitation scores. attitudes about trust are separate constructs, correlation
analyses were conducted between the trust facilitation scores
and questionnaire items about trust for workmates, supervisor
and the plant leadership, respectively. Table 3 presents the
correlation coefficients and p values from these analyses. No
relationship was observed between the explicit and implicit
attitude measures of trust, respectively, for workmates,
supervisor and the plant leadership. These results are
SPE 86622
consistent with the dual attitudes literature and suggest that
explicit and implicit attitudes about trust are separate
psychological constructs.
Table 3: Correlation Coefficients and p Values for
Explicit and Implicit Attitude Measures of Trust
Trust Facilitation Score / r p
Questionnaire Item
Trust workmates -0.015 0.916
I trust my workmates
Trust supervisor -0.044 0.755
I trust my supervisor
Trust plant leadership 0.081 0.571
I trust the plant leadership
Discussion. The results of the questionnaire suggest that
group membership within the organisational hierarchy had a
significant influence on explicit attitudes about trust for other
individuals and groups within the hierarchy. In particular,
members of the workforce indicated that they trust their
workmates more than their supervisors and the plant
leadership. As evidenced in Table 1, employees also indicated
that they trust their supervisors more than the plant leadership.
These results are consistent with the predictions made by
social identity theory. [18] Social identity theory states that
individuals tend to associate positive beliefs and feelings with
the groups to which they belong (i.e. an ingroup) but the
beliefs and feelings that individuals associate with other
groups (i.e. outgroups) may be positive, negative, or neutral.
Members of the workforce trusted their workmates more than
their supervisors and the plant leadership because the latter are
members of an outgroup (i.e. the management). However,
employees trusted their supervisors more than the plant
leadership because their supervisors are part of the same work
team (i.e. an ingroup) whereas the plant leadership are
members of the senior management (i.e. an outgroup). Thus,
the effect of group membership on trust may be an artefact of
any hierarchical social system.
In order to assess safety culture more completely, the
current study measured dual attitudes about trust for
workmates, supervisors and the plant leadership. Correlation
analyses (See Table 3) revealed no relationship between
implicit and explicit attitude measures about trust for
workmates, supervisor and the plant leadership, respectively.
These results suggest that implicit and explicit attitudes about
trust are separate constructs. If implicit and explicit attitudes
about trust were the same psychological construct, then a
strong positive relationship should have emerged between
each of the trust facilitation scores and the questionnaire items
about trust because these measures would have been
measuring the same construct, just in different ways.
However, this was not the case and the results are consistent
with the predictions made by Wilson et al.s [9] model of dual
attitudes.
The concept of dual attitudes about trust has the
potential to extend current models of safety culture. Reason
5
[10] proposed that trust is the foundation of an effective safety
culture but did not differentiate between explicit and implicit
attitudes about trust. Schein [8] argued that climate, as
determined by espoused values and beliefs, is only a surface
manifestation of culture and that deeper levels of culture are
characterised by underlying and usually unconscious
assumptions that determine perceptions, thought processes,
feelings and behaviour (p. 112). Accordingly, many
researchers regard explicit attitudes and perceptions about
safety as part of safety climate, which serves as an indicator of
the organisations underlying safety culture [5, 7]. A more
complete model of safety culture is thus proposed which
conceptualises explicit attitudes about trust as part of safety
climate and implicit attitudes about trust as part of the deeper
levels of safety culture.
It is interesting to note that the implicit and explicit
attitudes about trust reported in this study produced very
different patterns of results. The trust facilitation score for
workmates was significantly greater than the baseline but the
trust facilitation scores for supervisor and the plant leadership
were not. These results suggest that participants had strong
implicit attitudes about trust for their workmates but not for
their supervisors or the plant leadership. In sharp contrast,
participants reported positive explicit attitudes about trust for
their workmates, supervisors and the plant leadership. It
should be stressed that Wilson et al.s [9] model of dual
attitudes does not preclude one from holding a positive
explicit attitude and a positive implicit attitude toward the
same thing. Dual attitudes are proposed to develop through
explicit, conscious and implicit, unconscious cognitive
systems that give rise to associative evaluations
independently. Thus, in terms of the newly proposed model,
the results are not necessarily indicative of a good safety
culture. In a good safety culture, strong positive explicit and
implicit attitudes about trust for workmates, supervisors and
the plant leadership should be expressed.
Study 2
The purpose of this study was to gather wider support for the
data presented in Study 1. It should also be noted that the
computerised task was adapted from the method described in
Study 1 in an attempt to reduce the variability in the
facilitation score data and produce a more valid measure of
implicit attitudes about trust.
The current study consisted of two parts: a
questionnaire and a computerised task. The questionnaire
measured participants explicit attitudes about trust in their
workmates, supervisors and the plant leadership while the
computerised task measured their respective implicit attitudes
about trust. The study was conducted on site by the first
author. Each participant completed his questionnaire in groups
of no more than 10 people. The computerized task was then
conducted on a one-to-one basis with the first author.
6 SPE 86622

Participants. Twenty members (approximately 20%) of the
workforce at a UK gas plant hereafter referred to as Gas Plant
B, participated in both parts of this study.
The 20 participants were drawn from all job types
except operations. Three of the participants were employed
by the operator company while the remaining 17 were
employed by one of three different contractor companies.
Eighteen of the participants were male and two were female.
Participants mean work experience in the oil and gas industry
was 13.15 years (S.D. = 10.70) and their average work
experience at the current plant was 4.97 years (S.D. = 4.07).
Participation in the study was completely voluntary and
employees were given time away from their regular duties to
take part.
Questionnaire. Questionnaire items were based on the model
of organisational trust proposed by Mayer, Davis &
Schoorman [14]. For the purposes of this paper, only items
relating to generalised trust in workmates, supervisors and the
plant leadership shall be reported. These items were I trust
my workmates, I trust my supervisor, and I trust the plant
leadership. All questionnaire items used a 6-point scale with
anchors of agree and disagree for each scale point.
Computerised Task. The procedure for the computerised
task was adapted from the previous study and consisted of 3
phases: a baseline phase, a priming phase and a recognition
memory test.
Stimulus Materials. The stimulus materials were
exactly as per Study 1.
After a short practice block involving different
primes and targets, 10 blocks of trials were presented. Each
block consisted of 10 randomised trials, in which each of the
primes appeared twice, followed by one of the 20 target
words. In order for each prime to be followed by all 20 target
words in a systematic manner, trust targets were paired
randomly with distrust targets to yield 10 pairs of target
words. The 10 pairs of target words were then paired with
each of the primes such that over the course of the 10 blocks,
each pair of target words followed each prime but did not
appear more than once per block. It was presumed that
pairing each prime with 10 trust targets and 10 distrust targets
would produce more valid measures of implicit attitudes about
trust than was offered by the previous study. However, due to
time constraints, the current study only used five primes in
order to keep the number of trials the same as in the previous
study.
The third phase involved the recognition memory test
that participants had been led to expect during the previous
phase. The purpose of this phase was to determine whether
participants had followed the instructions to pay attention to
the primes in the previous task. Thus, this phase involved the
random presentation of the five primes used during the
previous task along with five new job titles (fillers) that were
not presented previously. Participants were instructed to press
the key labelled Yes if they thought the job title was
presented in the previous task or press the key labelled No if
they thought the job title had not been presented earlier. Each
job title remained on the screen for a maximum of 5.00 s or
until the participant pressed a key. A 2.50 s interval separated
each trial. Responses were recorded.

Procedure. The baseline phase in the current study
was conducted exactly like the baseline phase described in
Study 1. The purpose of this phase was to obtain baseline data
for the target words.
The second phase involved a priming task.
Participants were told that they would have to judge the
meaning of the target words just like before, but now they
would also have to remember different job titles (primes) that
would flash before each target word. Participants were told
that it was important for them to pay attention to the primes
because they had to complete a recognition memory test in the
next phase. There were five primes in total. The three critical
primes were workmates, supervisor and plant their supervisors more than the plant leadership may be due to
leadership. The other two primes served as distractors. The
procedure was similar to the first phase except that the row of
asterisks was now replaced by one of the five primes. On any
given trial, a prime was presented for 315 ms, followed by a
135 ms interval before the onset of the target; thus, the
stimulus onset asynchrony was 450 ms. Responses and
response latencies (measured in milliseconds from target word
onset to response) were recorded. A 2.50 s interval separated
each trial.
Results: Questionnaire. Participants expressed a positive
attitude about trust for their workmates, as the mean score was
4.70. Participants expressed a less positive attitude about trust
for their supervisors, as the mean score was 4.42 and they
expressed a slightly less positive attitude still about trust for
the plant leadership, as the mean score was 4.37. A repeated
measures analysis of variance, with 3 within subject factors,
revealed that there was no significant difference between
participants trust for their workmates, supervisors and the
plant leadership. This finding is contrary to the pattern of
results reported in Study 1, which supported social identity
theory. The fact that participants in this study did not trust
their workmates more than their supervisors and did not trust
the small, unrepresentative sample of the workforce.
Results: Computerised Task. The results of the
computerized task are as follows.
Detection Data. During the priming phase,
participants were instructed to pay attention to the primes in
order to complete a recognition memory test in the next phase.
Accordingly, participants completed a detection task in which
they had to indicate whether a given job title had or had not
SPE 86622 7

been presented during the priming phase of the task. These Table 5: Means, t Statistic and p Value for Pairs of
data were examined to check whether the participants paid Facilitation Scores
attention to the primes, as doing so was required for implicit Pairs of Facilitation Scores Mean t df p
attitude activation. Detection scores were calculated for each Trust Workmates 94.679 1.177 19 0.254
participant by subtracting the proportion of false alarms (filler Trust Supervisor 79.600
not previously presented that the participant incorrectly Trust Workmates 94.679 2.832 19 0.011
identified as having been presented) from the proportion of Trust Plant Leadership 48.984
Trust Supervisor 79.600 3.111 19 0.006
correctly identified hits (previously presented job title Trust Plant Leadership 48.984
correctly identified as such). Performance at chance levels
would be indicated by a score of 0 on this detection index. As seen in Table 5, the trust facilitation score for
Participants performed at better than chance levels; their mean workmates was greater than that for the plant leadership, p =
score of 0.89, was significantly greater than the chance score 0.011 but not greater than that for supervisor. These findings
of 0; t(19) = 32.91, p < 0.001. indicate that participants had stronger implicit attitudes about
trust for their workmates than they did for the plant leadership
Facilitation Scores. For each participant, baseline but not for their supervisors. Also, the trust facilitation score
latency for each target was computed from the average of the for supervisor was greater than that for the plant leadership, p
two presentations of the target during the first phase of the = 0.006. This finding indicates that participants had stronger
task. The latency for any given target when preceded by a implicit attitudes about trust for their supervisors than they did
given prime was subtracted from the baseline for that target to for the plant leadership.
arrive at a facilitation score. Average trust facilitation scores
for every participant were then computed for the 3 critical In order to provide further support that implicit and
primes. The average of all participants trust facilitation explicit attitudes about trust are separate constructs,
scores for the 3 critical primes are displayed in Figure 2. The correlation analyses were conducted between the trust
latencies for any trials on which participants made an error, facilitation scores and questionnaire items about trust for
which averaged 1.95% were not included in these workmates, supervisor and the plant leadership, respectively.
computations. Table 6 presents the correlation coefficients and p values from
these analyses. No strong positive relationship was observed
The data in Figure 2 should be interpreted as per that between the explicit and implicit attitude measures of trust,
in Figure 1. However, it is likely that the current study offers respectively, for workmates, supervisor and the plant
a more valid measure of implicit attitudes about trust because leadership. These results are consistent with the findings of
each prime was paired with 10 trust targets, whereas in the the previous study and provide further evidence that explicit
previous study each prime was only paired with five trust and implicit attitudes about trust are separate psychological
targets. constructs.
In order to determine the strength of participants
implicit attitudes about trust, one-sample t-tests were Table 6: Correlation Coefficients and p Values for
conducted on each of the facilitation scores to determine Trust Facilitation Scores and Questionnaire Items
whether there was a significant difference from the baseline about Trust
(i.e. a facilitation score of 0). As seen in Table 4, all Trust Facilitation Score / n r p
facilitation scores were significantly greater than the baseline. Questionnaire Item
These results suggest that participants had strong implicit Trust workmates 20 -0.003 0.991
attitudes about trust and for their workmates, supervisors and I trust my workmates
Trust supervisor 19 0.326 0.173
the plant leadership. I trust my supervisor
Trust plant leadership 20 0.186 0.433
I trust the plant leadership
Table 4: Means, t Statistic and p Value for One
Sample Test (Test Value = 0)
Discussion. In order to assess safety culture more completely,
Facilitation Score Mean t df p the current study measured dual attitudes about trust for
Trust Workmates 94.680 4.261 19 < 0.001 workmates, supervisors and the plant leadership. Correlation
Trust Supervisor 79.600 3.912 19 0.001
analyses (See Table 6) revealed no relationship between
Trust Plant Leadership 48.984 2.441 19 0.025
implicit and explicit attitude measures about trust for
workmates, supervisor and the plant leadership, respectively.
Paired samples t tests were also conducted in order to
These results are consistent with the findings of the previous
test for differences in facilitation scores for trust between
study and suggest that implicit and explicit attitudes about
specific levels of the organisational hierarchy. Table 5
trust are separate constructs. If implicit and explicit attitudes
displays the means, t statistic and p value for each pair of
about trust were the same psychological construct, then a
facilitation scores.
strong positive relationship should have emerged between
8 SPE 86622
each of the trust facilitation scores and the questionnaire items
about trust because these measures would have been
measuring the same construct, just in different ways.
However, this was not the case and the results are consistent
with the predictions made by Wilson et al.s [9] model of dual
attitudes.
The previous study proposed a model of dual
attitudes about trust which conceptualizes explicit attitudes
about trust as part of the superficial levels of safety culture
(i.e. safety climate) and implicit attitudes about trust as part of
the deeper levels of safety culture. The current findings
provide further support for this model as implicit and explicit
attitudes about trust were found to be separate constructs.
It is interesting to note that the implicit and explicit
attitudes about trust reported in this study produced a more
similar pattern of results than in the previous study. In the
current study, the trust facilitation scores for workmates,
supervisor and the plant leadership were significantly greater
than the baseline. These results suggest that participants had
strong implicit attitudes about trust for their workmates,
supervisors and the plant leadership. Also, participants
expressed positive explicit attitudes about trust for their
workmates, supervisors and the plant leadership. In sharp
contrast, the previous study found that the trust facilitation
score for workmates was significantly greater than the
baseline but the trust facilitation scores for supervisor and the
plant leadership were not. These results suggest that
participants in the previous study had strong implicit attitudes
about trust for their workmates but not for their supervisors or
the plant leadership. However, these participants still reported
positive explicit attitudes about trust for their workmates,
supervisors and the plant leadership. In terms of the newly
proposed model, strong positive explicit and implicit attitudes
about trust for workmates, supervisors and the plant leadership
should be expected from a good safety culture. Thus, the
results from the current study are more indicative of a good
safety culture than are the results of the previous study. It
would be inappropriate to compare the facilitation scores from
the two studies more formally due to the fact that the current
study used a slightly different method to measure implicit
attitudes in an attempt to develop a more reliable and valid
measure. Also, due to time constraints, the current study did
not have as large and representative a sample of the workforce
as did the previous study. Future studies should use the
current method in order to validate the model of dual attitudes
about trust in safety culture by comparing implicit and explicit
attitudes about trust and safety performance between gas
plants or offshore installations.
Acknowledgements
The first author gratefully acknowledges Shell Exploration &
Production (UK) and the University of Aberdeen for funding
this research as part of a PhD studentship. The first author is
also indebted to Dr. Kathryn Mearns and Dr. Peter McGeorge
of the University of Aberdeen for their substantial
contributions to all stages of the research.
References
1. Cullen, W.D., The public inquiry into the Piper Alpha
disaster. 1990, London: HMSO.
2. Cox, S. and R. Flin, Safety culture: Philosopher's stone or
man of straw? Work & Stress, 1998. 12: p. 189-201.
3. Cox, S. and A. Cheyne, Measuring safety culture in the
offshore environment. 1998, HMSO: Norwich.
4. Flin, R., et al., Risk perception and safety in offshore oil
workers. Safety Science, 1996. 22: p. 131-145.
5. Mearns, K., et al., Human and organisational factors in
offshore safety. 1997, HMSO: Norwich.
6. Mearns, K., et al., Measuring safety climate on offshore
installations. Work & Stress, 1998. 12: p. 238-254.
7. Reichers, A. and B. Schneider, Climate and culture: An
evolution of constructs, in Organisational climate and
culture, B. Schneider, Editor. 1990, Jossey Bass: San
Francisco.
8. Schein, E., Organizational Culture. American
Psychologist, 1990. 45: p. 109-119.
9. Wilson, T.D., S. Lindsey, and T.Y. Schooler, A model of
dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 2000. 107: p. 101-
126.
10. Reason, J., Managing the risks of organizational accidents.
1997, Aldershot: Ashgate.
11. Westrum, R., Organisational dynamics and safety, in
Applications of psychology to the aviation system, N.
McDonald, N. Johnston, and R. Fuller, Editors. 1995,
Avebury: Aldershot.
12. Hudson, P., Developing an aviation safety culture. SAA
Journal, 2001.
13. Helmreich, R. and A. Merritt, Culture at work in aviation
and medicine. 1998, Aldershot: Ashgate.
14. Mayer, R.C., J.H. Davis, and F.D. Schoorman, An
integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of
Management Review, 1995. 20: p. 709-734.
15. Rousseau, D.M., et al., Not so different after all: A cross-
discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review,
1998. 23: p. 393-404.
16. Williams, M., In whom we trust: Group membership as an
affective context for trust development. Academy of
Management Review, 2001. 26: p. 377-396.
17. Fazio, R.H., et al., Variability in automatic activation as an
unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide
pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1995. 69: p. 1013-1027.
18. Tajfel, H. and J.C. Turner, The social identity theory
of intergroup behaviour, in Psychology of intergroup
relations, S. Worchel and W.G. Austin, Editors.
1986, Nelson-Hall: Chicago. p. 7-24.
SPE 86622 9

Figure 2: Mean Facilitation Scores from the Computerised Task Gas Plant B
(Error Bars represent the Standard Error of the Mean)

140

120
Facilitation Score (ms)

100

80
Facilitation Score; Trust
60
94.68
40 79.6

48.98
20

0
Workmates Supervisor Plant Leadership
Prime