Activator-behavior-consequence model

Figure 15.2 illustrates how person factors interact wdth the basic activator-behavior-consequence model of behavior-based psychology (adapted from Kreitner, 1982). As detailed earlier, activators direct behavior (Chapter 10) and consequences motivate behavior (Chapter 11). However, as shown in Figure 15.2, these events are first filtered through the person. 

In Chapter 9,1 showed how the Activator-Behavior-Consequence (ABC) model can be used to diagnose the contributing factors to an incident or at-risk behavior and to decide on a plan for corrective action. With this chapter, we begin our discussion of intervention design and implementation to improve safety-related behavior. As such, the ABC model is used as introduced in Chapter 8—-as a framework for designing behavior-change interventions. 

Using animal models, determine the importance of CYP2D deficiency or high catalytic activity to the toxicity and behavioral consequences of amphetamines, as models of active drugs of abuse with metabolites of different pharmacologic activity. 

Behavior-based safety trainers and consultants teach the ABC model (or three-term contingency) as a fi amework to understand and anatyze behavior or to develop interventions for improving behavior. As given in Principle 3, the A stands for activators or antecedent events that precede behavior B, and C refers to the consequences following behavior and produced by it. Activators direct behavior consequences motivate behavior. 

One of the best way to describe behaviors is by using the ABC model (antecedents (activators), behaviors (at-risk events), and consequences (of exposure)). While this model has been around for many years, it is not always fully understood or used properly in assessing the workplace. 

Even at 0 K, molecules do not stand still. Quantum mechanically, this unexpected behavior can be explained by the existence of a so-called zero-point energy. Therefore, simplifying a molecule by thinking of it as a collection of balls and springs which mediate the forces acting between the atoms is not totally unrealistic, because one can easily imagine how such a mechanical model wobbles aroimd, once activated by an initial force. Consequently, the movement of each atom influences the motion of every other atom within the molecule, resulting in a com-... 

It should be emphasized that, to date, the ability to quantify the complex chemical reaction phenomena that occur in the subsurface and also integrate the variability in flow behavior caused by natural heterogeneity and fluctuating boundary (land surface) conditions remains very limited. As a consequence, developing and improving the predictive capabilities of models is an area of active research. 

For a surface active betaine ester the rate of alkaline hydrolysis shows significant concentration dependence. Due to a locally elevated concentration of hydroxyl ions at the cationic micellar surface, i.e., a locally increased pH in the micellar pseudophase, the reaction rate can be substantially higher when the substance is present at a concentration above the critical micelle concentration compared to the rate observed for a unimeric surfactant or a non-surface active betaine ester under the same conditions. This behavior, which is illustrated in Fig. 10, is an example of micellar catalysis. The decrease in reaction rate observed at higher concentrations for the C12-C18 1 compounds is a consequence of competition between the reactive hydroxyl ions and the inert surfactant counterions at the micellar surface. This effect is in line with the essential features of the pseudophase ion-exchange model of micellar catalysis [29,31]. 

If it is further assumed that there is an exponential dependence of nt on Eu and the distribution of site energies is such that the activation energy values extend between the limits El to E2, it may be shown that the preexponential term includes a factor exp( + 1/y) and, in consequence, there is compensatory behavior. More complete treatments of this model, including further references, are given by Laidler [(33), pp. 119 and 195] and by Bond [(3), p. 143],... 

The theoretical and mechanistic explanations of compensation behavior mentioned above contain common features. The factors to which references are made most frequently in this context are surface heterogeneity, in one form or another, and the occurrence of two or more concurrent reactions. The theoretical implications of these interpretations and the application of such models to particular reaction systems has been discussed fairly fully in the literature. The kinetic consequence of the alternative general model, that there are variations in the temperature dependence of reactant availability (reactant surface concentrations, mobilities, and active areas Section 5) has, however, been much less thoroughly explored. 

---