Understanding e-motion, Motivation, Goals and Learning in Risk – A Video
Behaviourism as a philosophy and methodology doesn’t explain why people do what they do. It is a simplistic ideology that defines persons as machines and the sum of inputs and outputs. This is not why people do what they do. Positive and negative reinforcement have a very short shelf life in motivation and this explains why such methods often don’t work in breaking habits or enacting change in the workplace.
In a similar way, populist notions of goal setting, emotion and learning plague the risk and safety industry with similar simplistic idea that confuse training and data exchange as learning. Information is not learning and exchanging data is not knowledge.
Human complexity and personhood are far more advanced than the many simplistic models of motivation proposed by Safety.
If you want a more sophisticated understanding of why people do what they do, you will need to jettison the simplistic ideas of behaviourism and focus much more on human complexity.
In this video, I explain a different understanding of motivation, e-motion, goals and learning (https://vimeo.com/1092382006).
Simplistic explanations of why people do what they do (as in Behaviour Based Safety – BBS) might be convenient and simple but they are not supported by any evidence or research in neuroscience. Indeed, the BBS model of motivation simply doesn’t work and cannot be sustained.
There is an alternative view in understanding persons, motivation, emotion, goals and learning. The model proposed in this video looks like this at Figure 1. E-motion, Motivation, Goals and Learning©
Figure 1. E-motion, Motivation, Goals and Learning
To understand this model one would need to watch the video and think critically about human enactivity, inter-affectivity and personhood. If you don’t recognise anything in this model its probably because you have been indoctrinated in safety to the assumptions of behaviourism.
If you are looking for a clearly articulated definition of personhood you can look here at Chapter 2 of the Social Psychology of Risk Handbook: https://www.humandymensions.com/product/the-social-psychology-of-risk-handbook/
Articulating a theory of personhood is essential for an ethical approach to risk.
Throwing about some idea of safety as ‘duty’ (https://safetyrisk.net/safety-is-not-a-duty/) is not an ethic of personhood but hides an ethic of deontology, a natural partner for behaviourism.
As always, if you want a different view than the traditional safety view of understanding persons, motivation, emotion, goals and learning there are alternative choices. If you want something more positive, constructive and sustainable than BBS, you can choose any of the following:
You can download free books and audiobooks here: https://www.humandymensions.com/shop/
You can do the free Introduction to SPoR here: https://vimeo.com/showcase/4233556
You can email and enquiry or request for coaching here: admin@spor.com.au
You can watch free videos here: https://vimeo.com/cllr
Or you can come to the SPoR Convention in September in Canberra: https://spor.com.au/spor-convention-2025/
Prof. Robert Long
Latest posts by Prof. Robert Long (see all)
- Have You Had That Special Safety Visit? - October 9, 2026
- Is Safety Mindful of Its Apotheosis? - October 7, 2026
- Safety Symbols as Fetishes - October 6, 2026
- Seduction and Simulacra in Safety - October 4, 2026
- Psychosocial Contexts and Risk Factors - September 27, 2026