Brains built for survival not mine sites: Why psychology shows safety depends on catching slips and designing work with human limits in mind

In mining, some of the biggest risks don’t come from broken equipment or unstable ground - they come from the way our brains are wired.

That was the message from Associate Professor Guy Hawkins, a cognitive scientist at the University of Newcastle, who presented Minds at Work in Mines: Cognitive Demands and Safety at the NSW Resources Regulator Mechanical Engineering Safety Seminar (MESS 2025). In a room full of engineers and safety professionals, Guy brought a psychologist’s perspective: mining safety is as much about understanding human cognition as it is about mechanical systems.

Smart people, risky decisions

“If there’s one thing I want you to take away from this talk, it’s this: smart people can make risky decisions,” Guy said.

He stressed that poor choices on site don’t necessarily mean workers are careless or incompetent. Instead, they reflect cognitive limits that every human shares. “It doesn’t mean they’re not smart or that they’ve done the wrong thing. It means there are limitations in the way we think and perceive the world. The challenge is to design systems and procedures that work with those limitations rather than against them.”

Mining, with its high-pressure environments, monotonous tasks, and constant demand for precision, is a perfect case study in how the human brain can become a hidden risk factor.

A brain built for survival, not risk management

Guy drew an analogy between engineering systems and what he called our “1.3 kilogram biological control system.” The human brain, he explained, is the hardware that has evolved over tens of thousands of years - but not for the world we live in today.

“Our brains evolved to help us survive in hunter-gatherer societies. They were never designed for modern risk management or for the kinds of environments that exist on mine sites,” he said.

The result: the very qualities that make people adaptable and resourceful can also increase the likelihood of error when working under pressure.

Speed versus accuracy: the trade-off

Humans excel at making quick, flexible decisions with incomplete information - an ability that has helped our species thrive. But there’s a trade-off.

“The faster you push someone to act, the less carefully they can perform the task,” Guy explained. “You can’t maximise speed and accuracy at the same time.”

For mine supervisors and safety managers, that trade-off has real consequences. Tight schedules and production pressure may lead workers to prioritise speed, but the cost is a higher chance of error. Conversely, building in time for accuracy can reduce errors but slows down operations. Understanding this balance is key to safe work design.

The brain’s blind spots

One of the most striking parts of Guy’s presentation was his demonstration of inattentional blindness.

He described the well-known “gorilla experiment” where participants asked to count basketball passes among players often fail to notice a person in a gorilla suit walking across the scene. “Around 50 percent of people don’t see the gorilla at all,” he said.

The lesson for mining is clear: attention works like a spotlight. The harder someone focuses on one task, the less able they are to notice unexpected events happening outside their immediate focus.

“Our brains feel confident because we’re concentrating hard,” Guy said. “But we’re not taking in everything in the environment. That’s why cross-checks, checklists, and team interventions matter. They act like additional spotlights to capture what one person might miss.”

The risks of mind wandering

Guy also highlighted another cognitive challenge: mind wandering.

“Think about a haul truck operator on an eight-hour shift. The task is monotonous, the conditions steady, and after a while, the brain goes on autopilot,” he explained. “That’s not laziness or carelessness - it’s simply how our brains work.”

While mind wandering can sometimes be useful - helping us plan or solve problems - it poses risks when sudden, rare events occur. “The problem is that mind wandering often goes unnoticed. Workers might look like they’re performing normally, but their attention isn’t fully on the task. When something unexpected happens, they can be slower to detect it or even miss it entirely,” he said.

The implication for mining professionals: work systems must be designed to capture and recapture attention throughout a task, not just at the start.

The slow slide into risk

Another concept Guy introduced was what he called “the slow slide into risk” - the way small, seemingly harmless deviations from rules or procedures can accumulate over time.

“Most incidents aren’t caused by one big mistake,” he said. “They build up through a series of small, incremental departures from standard practice.”

For example, a driver edging a little over the speed limit because it feels safe may gradually normalise faster speeds. On a mine site, repeated small deviations can add up across teams, compounding risk in ways that no one fully recognises until an incident occurs.

The message: catch small slips early, and don’t let them become the new normal.

The diffusion of responsibility

Teamwork is essential in mining, but it comes with a risk of its own: the diffusion of responsibility.

Guy referred to classic research where bystanders to an emergency assumed “someone else would act” and therefore failed to intervene. “The same thing can happen in large teams. Responsibility feels shared, so individuals may be less likely to step in.”

The solution, he said, is clarity: explicit assignment of primary and secondary responsibilities, along with handovers that make accountability clear.

Supervisors shape attention

Supervisors, Guy argued, play a crucial role not just in outcomes but in directing attention.

“What supervisors choose to highlight is what workers will notice,” he said. “If the focus is only on outputs, workers will tune in to that. But if supervisors guide attention to safety behaviours during the task, that’s what workers will internalise.”

He likened this to parenting. “If you want your kids to do more of the behaviours you like, you give positive attention to those and less attention to the behaviours you don’t. The same principle applies in the workplace.”

Importantly, guiding attention in the moment is more effective than correcting errors afterward. “Correcting after the fact creates a memory challenge. Workers have to recall what they did, absorb what they should have done, and remember it for the future. It’s far easier to shape behaviour while the task is unfolding.”

Designing systems for human minds

The through-line of Guy’s presentation was the need to design safety systems that align with how people actually think, rather than how we wish they thought.

That means recognising limits in memory, attention, and probability judgments, and building in safeguards:

• Checklists and reminders to capture attention at key moments
• Cross-checks and team interventions to counter inattentional blindness
• Dynamic systems that account for fluctuating attention over long tasks
• Clear role assignments to reduce diffusion of responsibility
• Supervisor guidance that emphasises process and focus, not just outcomes

“The more we design with human cognition in mind, the more resilient our systems become,” Guy concluded.

A new lens for mining safety

Mining safety has long been shaped by engineering, geology, and regulation. Guy’s talk was a reminder that psychology belongs on that list too. The risks created by human attention, memory, and decision-making are every bit as real as those created by equipment failure or rock instability.

By reframing safety through the lens of cognitive science, mining professionals can gain fresh tools for tackling old problems. And as Guy put it: “We don’t need to fix people. We need to design systems that anticipate the brain’s blind spots.”