Investigates punishment effects on safety behavior in construction personnel, suggesting implications for compliance.
Unsafe behaviors among construction personnel have attracted significant global attention, with punishment widely recognized as an effective approach to mitigating such behaviors in the construction industry. However, existing research on the effects of punishment has primarily focused on qualitative behavioral aspects, relying heavily on self-reported measures and subjective assessments, which often result in biased interpretations and inconsistent findings. To address these limitations, this study investigates the impact of punishment at different phases and intensities on construction personnel’s safety behavior from a neuroscientific perspective, using electroencephalograms (EEG) and behavioral experiments. Twenty participants from the construction industry completed an image-based hazard recognition task, with results revealing several key findings. First, following a period of enforced punishment, the removal of punitive measures led to improved safety behavior compared with prepunishment levels. Second, workers demonstrated significantly better safety performance under high-intensity punishment compared with low-intensity punishment. Third, the increased amplitudes of error-related negativity (ERN) and feedback-related negativity (FRN) suggest that punishment enhances error monitoring and feedback processing, thereby fostering more cautious behavior and reducing errors. Finally, high-intensity punishment was found to elicit stronger external safety motivation, as evidenced by greater P300 event-related potential (P300) amplitudes under high-intensity punishment compared with low-intensity punishment, and positive feedback was more effective in triggering higher P300 amplitudes than negative feedback. These findings highlight the role of punishment in reducing cognitive conflict and enhancing attention and motivation, providing a neuroscientific basis for developing targeted and effective punishment strategies to improve safety compliance in high-risk construction environments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: