The Differences of Aviation Human Factors between Individualism and Collectivism Culture

  • Wen-Chin Li
  • Don Harris
  • Lon-Wen Li
  • Thomas Wang
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5613)

Abstract

Culture is at the root of action; it underlies the manner by which people communicate and develop attitudes towards life. This research examined statistical differences in the 18 categories of Human factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS, Shappell & Wiegmann, 2003) across 523 aviation accidents in the Republic of China (a collective culture) and 119 aviation accidents in the USA (an individual culture) . The result suggests that the culture of individualism seems to be superior for promoting aviation safety compared to collectivist cultures, however, factors such as the design of the aircraft, the management procedures and the nature of safety regulation all have a strong Western influence from the individualist culture. All of these factors are culturally congruent with the USA. It is essential to identify the potential causal roots for these differences from the underlying factors in these aviation mishaps, and identify what kind of factors drive people to act or react to dynamic situations that either lead to an accident help to develop an effective accident prevention strategy.

Keywords

Accident Investigation Aviation Safety Cross-culture Human Factors 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Diehl, A.: The Effectiveness of Training Programs for Preventing Aircrew Error. In: Sixth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, pp. 640–655. The Ohio State University (1991)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Helmreich, R.L., Merritt, A.C.: Culture at Work in Aviation and Medicine: National, Organizational and Professional Influences, Ashgate, Aldershot, England (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hofstede, G.: Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill Book Company, London (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hofstede, G.: Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Sage Publications, California (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jensen, R.S.: The Boundaries of Aviation Psychology, Human Factors, Aeronautical Decision Making, Situation Awareness, and Crew Resource Management. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology 7(4), 259–268 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jing, H.S., Lu, C.J., Peng, S.J.: Culture, Authoritarianism and Commercial Aircraft Accidents. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety 1, 341–359 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnston, N.: CRM: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. In: Wiener, E.L., Kanki, B.G., Helmreich, R.L. (eds.) Cockpit Resource Management, pp. 367–398. Academic Press, San Diego (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klein, G.: Analysis of Situation Awareness from Critical Incident Reports. In: Endsley, M.R., Garland, D.J. (eds.) Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement. Lawrence Erlbaum, London (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klein, H.A.: Cognition in Natural Settings: The Cultural Lens Model. In: Kaplan, M. (ed.) Cultural Ergonomics, pp. 249–280. Elsevier, San Diego (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li, W.-C., Harris, D.: Pilot error and its relationship with higher organizational levels: HFACS analysis of 523 accidents. Aviation Space Environmental Medicine 77(10), 1056–1061 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li, W.-C., Harris, D., Chen, A.: Eastern Minds in Western Cockpits: Meta-analysis of human factors in mishaps from three nations. Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine 78(4), 420–425 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reason, J.: Human Error. Cambridge University, New York (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Soeters, J.L., Boer, P.C.: Culture and Flight Safety in Military Aviation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology 10, 111–134 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wiegmann, D.A., Shappell, S.A.: Human Factors Analysis of Postaccident Data: Applying Theoretical Taxonomies of Human Error. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology 7(1), 67–81 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wiegmann, D.A., Shappell, S.A.: Human Error Perspectives in Aviation. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology 11(4), 341–357 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wiegmann, D.A., Shappell, S.A.: A Human Error Approach to Aviation Accident Analysis: The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System, Ashgate, Aldershot, England (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wen-Chin Li
    • 1
  • Don Harris
    • 2
  • Lon-Wen Li
    • 3
  • Thomas Wang
    • 4
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentNational Defense UniversityTaiwan, R.O.C.
  2. 2.Human Factors DepartmentCranfield UniversityUnited Kingdom
  3. 3.Training CentreNational Defense UniversityTaiwan, R.O.C.
  4. 4.Flight Safety DivisionAviation Safety CouncilTaiwan, R.O.C.

Personalised recommendations