Training for Safety 
n 

Emergencies 

Inoculating fo.r Underground 

Coal Mine Emergencies 

By Catherine Y. Kingsley Westerman, Katherine A. Margolis 

and Kathleen M. Kowalski-Trakofler 

-Emergency training for underground coal miners 

can be developed using inoculation theory. which 

has been used to explain how people may resist 

unwanted persuasion attempts by preparing 

counterarguments in advance. 

-This theory is relevant in an emergency training 

context when used to help people react quickly 

and effectively to emergencies by preparing their 

responses in advance. 

-The researchers used a NIOSH training module 

as an example of how the theory may be applied in 

a training context to prepare workers psychologically for emergencies in underground coal mines. 

but the concepts can be applied in other industries 

that require emergency safety training. 

The potential for emergencies is everpresent in coal mining. This is illustrated 

by statistics which show that "employees in 

coal mining are more likely to be killed or to incur 

a nonfatal injury or illness, and their injuries are 

more likely to be severe, than workers in private 

industry as a whole" (Rice & Jonocha, 2008, p. 1). 

As a result of this 

constant exposure 

to harm, coal miners must be highly 

trained to qeal with 

various emergency 

scenarios. For example, all underground coal miners 

must learn how to 

operate lifesaving 

emergency equipment, how to navigate out of the mine 

through smoke or 

obstacles, and how 

to administer first 

aid. This knowledge 

can help save lives 

in the event of an emergency. 

Some existing underground coal mine training focuses on rote performance of prescribed actions. For example, coal miners are taught when 

and how to put on self-contained self rescuers 

(SCSRs), which are respirators that provide 60 

minutes of breathable air. More specifically, they 

learn a rote procedure for donning SCSRs that is 

reviewed each quarter (Vaught, Brnich, Wiehagen, 

et al., 1993). Such preparation provides a basic survival skill and gives miners a good rule of thumb 

for what to do in an emergency. 

Unfortunately, it is impossible to prepare for 

every'potential situation because emergencies are 

unpredictable. When escaping miners encounter 

a situation that requires them to make a difficult 

decision, they may waste precious time considering or discussing what to do. In addition, they may 

not know how to take action when working with a 

group of people who have various and potentially 

disturbing reactions to the emergency. One way to 

help miners react quickly and effectively in such situations is to have them think through pOSSible situations and plan their likely responses in advance. · 

This article describes using inoculation theory 

principles to prepare miners for emergencies. This 

is a unique application in that, to the authors' 

knowledge, these principles have not previously 

been applied in emergency preparation training. 

Preparation based on inoculation theory principles differs from more traditional training in that 

it involves teaching trainees to think for themselves 

rather than simply teaching them how to perform a 

task or use a safety device. The simplicity of inoculation theory lends itself to trainers with content-area 

expertise who may not have formal training in adult 

education. This is particularly important in the mining industry, which relies on the master/apprentice 

style of teaching (Camm & Cullen, 2002), with older, experienced workers pulled from the mine to be-
come safety trainers. These workers' expertise is in 

mining, not teaching. Inoculation theory principles 

may be used by trainers to develop new materials or 

to modify existing training materials. 

This article defines inoculation theory, briefly 

discusses its past use, and provides a brief example 

of how the theory can be applied when using a 

training module. In addition, it suggests how practitioners can apply the principles of this theory to 

their own emergency preparation training. 

The principles of 

inoculation 

theory can 

be used for 

emergency 

safety trai ning for miners as well 

as for workers in other 

high-risk 

industries. 

Inoculation Theory Explained 

Inoculation theory was originally explicated by 

McGuire (1961), who uses a medical analogy to 

. explain the use of persuasive messages to change 

attitudes. The medical analogy is straightforward: 

similar to inoculation for a disease, wherein a 

weakened version of the disease is injected to help 

the individual develop immunity to the disease, 

inoculation for persuasive messages involves exposing people to a weakened form of counterargument to their already held beliefs in order to enable 

them to resist counterarguments when their beliefs 

are attacked. Inoculation theory has been applied 

successfully in areas such as advertising (Bither, 

Dolich & Nell, 1971; Compton & Pfau, 2004); 

public relations (Burgoon, Pfau & Birk, 1995); political campaigns (An, 2003; An & Pfau, 2004); and 

adolescent health campaigns-particularly to help 

adolescents resist ·peer pressure to drink alcohol 

(Duryea, 1983; Godbold & Pfau, 2000) . 

McGuire (1961) suggests that people tend to 

avoid information that disagrees with their beliefs. 

As a result, when their beliefs are attacked, they 

are particularly vulnerable because they are not expecting the attack and are unprepared for the arguments against their beliefs. In the case of a mine 

emergency, it may be that miners believe it will not 

happen at their mine or, if it does, that their buddy 

AI will know what to do-they may avoid the idea 

that it could happen and that AI might not be there. 

Thus, they may feel confident that an emergency 

will not happen or, ifit does, that someone else will 

make sure they are okay. When an emergency does 

occur, these individuals could be highly vulnerable 

because of a lack of preparation. 

Inoculation theory requires that two elements be 

present: threat and refutational preemption (Compton & Pfau, 2005). Threat, defined as "a warning of 

possible future attacks on attitudes and the recognition of attitude vulnerability to change" (Szabo & . 

Pfau, 2002, p. 235), is necessary to motivate an indi-

. vidual to prepare to defendhis/her belief. 

For example, let's assume that Jack believes 

it is important to follow the safety procedures at 

his manufacturing job exactly as written. A threat 

could be generated through a warning that some 

people think following safety procedures slows 

them down and that someone may try to convince 

Jack that it is not necessary to follow all the procedures as written. Refutational preemption, which 

Szabo and Pfau define as "the process of replying 

. to counterargurnents before they occur" (p. 235), 

gives individuals the tools (i.e., refutations) to use 

against future attacks as well as giving them practice in how to generate their own tools. 

Relative to the cited example, a refutational preemption might occur when Jack is told a story about 

a person who was careless about safety procedures 

and was injured as a result. Jack could then use 

this anecdote (i.e., refutation) when he encounters 

those who do not believe safety procedures must 

be followed exactly. In addition, hearing this story 

might spur Jack to think of additional reasons why 

he wants to follow safety procedures as written. As 

a result of formulating his own reasons, he will be 

armed both with the refutation given to him (the 

anecdote) and his own personal refutations that he 
has now generated in advance of a 

confrontation. 

Application of these principles 

in an emergency preparation settingis simple. Expose miners to the 

idea that an emergency can happen and what it will be like if it does 

(i.e., threat); then provide miners 

with some ways of dealing with the 

emergency (i.e., conduct a refutational preemption to provide tools) 

and engage them in thinking about 

how they would respond in an actual emergency. This should help 

miners deal with emergencies more 

efficiently and potentially more effectively than had they not thought 

through the possibilities and potential responses in advance. By expos~ 

ing individuals to this weakened 

"emergency reality," inoculation 

training can increase their ability to 

survive emergencies in two ways: 

1) by providing them with tools to counteract the 

emergency situation; and 2) by prompting them to 

come up with their own plans for such a situation. 

Although inoculation theory has not previously 

been used to prepare for emergencies, researchers 

in emergency management research and training 

have suggested that advance preparation for emergencies is warranted (Colligan & Cohen, 2004) . In 

an experiment, Boer (2002) observes that when 

drivers entered a tunnel and became stuck behind 

a smoking vehicle, they were slow to act (e.g., wait-

. ed in cars or left cars but did not use emergency exit 

doors) . Boer reconunends that advance instruction 

for drivers in this area would improve their evacuation behavior during a real tunnel emergency. 

Ockerby (2001) also recommends that people 

should be trained in forms of behavior under stress. 

He found that in past emergencies, the perception 

that warning people would cause a panic resulted 

in delayed evacuation efforts and worse consequences. If people are familiar with the situation 

and know what to do, they can carry out a behavior 

such as evacuation. A study by Harbst and Madsen 

(1993) shows that once people are properly warned 

of an emergency situation, 85 % will take protective 

action and less than 3% will panic. 

Klein (1989) also supports the importance of 

advance preparation. In his recognition-primed 

decision model of decision making, Klein suggests 

that if decision makers are already familiar with a 

given situation, then they immediately have available information specific to that situation, including plausible goals, critical cues and causal factors, 

expectancies and typical actions. These decision 

makers will immediately be able to select a workable course of action based on their experience. 

Applying the principles of inoculation theory in 

mining or similar industries would provide workers with this type of knowledge. 

In the context of mine emergencies, familiarizing miners with potential situations and how 

they may handle them in advance will help them 

in a real emergency. Vaught, Bmich, Mallett, et al. 

(2000), provide an example of a mine emergency 

simulation. They suggest that although vicarious 

experience of a mine emergency is not enough 

preparation for a real emergency, it is superior to · 

having had neither preparation nor advance discussion of decisions and issues that will undoubtedly arise in an emergency. 

Inoculation theory can provide a basis for developing a store of information and responses to 

emergency situations. The mining industry in particular has relied "heavily on the mentorlleamer 

(master/apprentice) relationship to train new miners" (Camm & Cullen, 2002, p. 37). Because of the 

technical nature of mining, trainers are often pulled 

from mining ranks and do not receive speCialized 

training in education. Rather, they are content experts. The principles of inoculation theory are sufficiently basic that they can easily be understood and 

applied when developing new training or modifying existing training. 

In the case of the 

refuge chamber 

module used to test 

this application of 

the theory, the refutational preemption 

gives miners the 

knowledge that all 

the physiological .

and psychological 

reactions discussed 

in the training 

are normal and 

expected. 

Sample Application: 


Refuge Chamber Expectations Training 


The training used as an example was designed for 

underground coal miners. Refuge Chamber Expectations Training (Margolis, Kowalski -Trakofler & 

Kingsley Westerman, 2009) teaches miners about 

the physical and psychological conditions they may 

experience if they become trapped in a mine during 

an emergency and must enter a refuge chamber. 

To clearly explain the example, a brief review of 

refuge chambers and the program itseli is provided 

(for full details, see Margolis, et al., 2009). In short, 

refuge chambers are kept at specified intervals in an 

underground coal mine to provide a safe haven for 

trapped miners; chambers contain breathable air, 

food, water, waste disposal, first-aid supplies and 

other necessities that will support life for 96 hours .. 

In the event of an emergency, miners are strongly 

advised to escape the mine if possible; however, if 

they are physically blocked from exiting the mine 

or cannot walk out of amine, they may need to enter a refuge chamber to be protected from a potentially toxic and smoky atmosphere until they can be 

rescued. This program describes the physiolOgical 

and psychological responses miners may have to 

being in a confined space for up to 4 days. 

Based on inoculation theory principles, training should include two elements: threat and refutational preemption. Such training should also 

include practice at generating tools. Therefore, 

training should aim to provide enough exposure to 

the circumstances of a traumatic event to stimulate an individual's defenses (i.e., threat). Training also should include a refutational preemption; 

that is, miners should be given a refutation to the 

threat-a tool to help them deal with the situation. 

In addition, training should stimulate the miners to 

generate their own tools for potential emergencies. 

Table 1 provides examples of elements from using 

inoculation theory in a training program. 

The training shows partiCipants the potential 
threat by discussing some physical and psychological responses they might experience in a refuge 

chamber, including responses such as sweating, 

body aches; and aggressive or withdrawn behavior. The refutational preemption gives miners the 

knowledge that all the physiological and psychological reactions discussed in the training are normal and expected. Another element to combat the 

threat of physiological and psychological responses 

is the information that contrary to popular knowledge, people do not tend to panic in an emergency 

(Ockerby, 2001; Harbst & Madsen, 1993). Simply 

possessing this knowledge can help a miner avoid 

panicking and concentrate on the situation at hand. 

The training also provides some practice at generating solutions to the threat in the postviewing 

discussion questions. These questions specifically 

ask trainees to think about how they would handle 

the responses described in the program. The instruCtor is encouraged to generate more discussion 

targeted to the particular group and the potential 

issues at the specific mine where the training is being conducted. 

Table 1

Inoculation Theory Applied to Training

Elements needed for 

inoculation

Refuge chamber expectations 

training example

Sample of content

Threat Content on disturbing physical 

and psychological symptoms

People may behave aggressively

Refutation/tool Content on “normal” responses It is to be expected that some 

people will react in this way 

during a stressful situation. 

Practice at generating tools Post-viewing discussion 

questions on how trainees might 

handle different reactions

Did you know how people may 

respond emotionally? For 

example, some may get quiet? 

What might you do to handle 

this?

Applying Inoculation Theory 

To apply inoculation theory when oeveloping 

new training or modifying existing training, one 

must remember three main components: generate threat, give tools and practice developing tools. 

One way to generate threat would be to discuss salient examples of emergencies. Research on adult 

education suggests that "adults are motivated to 

learn as they experience needs . . . that learning will 

satisfy" (Knowles, Holton III & Swanson, 2005, 

p. 39). Establishing a threat's existence by giving 

examples and scenarios demonstrates to trainees 

that they need to learn about these emergency situations and, thus, should enhance their learning. 

For example, trainers could discuss injuries that 

have occurred or present real-life scenarios about 

people who were in emergency situations. Trainers 

in the mining industry can access real accident reports through MSHA's digital library (www.msha 

.gov/trainingllibrary/mshaportal/index.html). 

Other industries may have similar reports or existing training scenarios that would be applicable. In 

addition, some trainees may have experience with 

emergencies that they can share. 

Providing tools to trainees simply involves teaching them some ways of dealing with the threat presented in training. These tools are likely already the 

main focus of existing training; they may be safety 

devices, such as refuge chambers or ear plugs, or 

they may be procedures, such as knowing the chain 

of command for reporting a mine emergency. 

Finally, trainers must engage trainees in generating their own tools, to use in emergencies by asking 

what they would do in an emergency. One technique for achieving this is role-play. Role-playing 

directly involves trainees (Lawson, 2009) and compels them to think about how they would react. 

Brainstorming as a group or wo.rIqng in teams to 

solve a problem may also help trainees. 

For example, suppose decision making is one focus. Coal miners must decide what to do with an 

injured worker (e.g., leave him behind or stay to-. 

gether). It would be useful to role-play or generate 

ideas in teams to simulate the conditions of group 

decision making. Inoculation theory principles 

may be best suited to training that deals with situations which have uncertainty surrounding them, 

such as injured workers or other uncomfortable 

situations. They may not be as necessary or useful 

for rote training (e.g., operation of a refuge chamber), although they could be used to think through 

responses if a device does something unexpected. 

Inoculation theory also could be applied to other 

fields that require quick responses to situations that 

involve uncertainty. For example, the theory could 

have been used in an attempt to avoid the Challenger explOSion in 1986. This explOSion was traced back 

to failed O-rings on the shuttle; it was determined 

the explosion was preventable. The problem was 

poor communication among engineers, their managers and high-level decision makers. Engineers 

knew the launch was not safe because of the low 

temperatures on the day of the launch; however, 

under pressure to produce, managers reversed their 

recommendation to halt the launch. 

Training to address this issue remains key in industries where high-level officials with decisionmaking power may not be as familiar with the 

workings of products as those performing the work. 

In this case, workers in a training session would be 

presented with a threat that in a high-pressure product launch situation, decision makers may not listen 
to expert advice if that advice is negative. Refutational preemption could be carried out by sharing 

the Challenger story as an anecdote about the results 

of overruling the advice of those most familiar with 

the product. Refutational preemption also could 

include providing the name of a high-level person 

with whom concerns about the product launch can 

be shared and who will then present them to highlevel decision makers. During the training, workers 

also could be encouraged to generate ideas about 

what they would do if they urgently needed to stop 

a product launch for safety reasons but decision 

makers would not listen to their concerns. 

Inoculation theory also may be useful for training· 

workers in an industry such as steel, oil or nuclear 

power who must know how to respond on the spot 

if emergencies arise. For example, a steel worker 

may see an emergency developing and know that 

the best solution is to shut down the production 

line. However, s/he may believe the boss will disagree with that decision and, therefore, may hesitate 

to take action. Inoculation theory training would 

help demonstrate to the worker that a threat exists 

(e.g., supervisor's opinion that production should 

never be shut down) and provide a refutational preemption by giving the trainee some tools for dealing with the threat (e.g., pointing out the company's 

value statement that safety is number one and production is number two). Finally, trainees could be 

asked to devise their own solutions to the situations. 

Conclusion 

The principles of inoculation theory can be used 

for emergency safety training for miners as well as 

for workers in other high-risk industries. Trainers with content expertise should be able to apply these principles and practice using the tools. 

Although the main example focused on training 

miners for incidents involving refuge chambers at 

underground coal mines, other mine emergency 

response groups such as command center personnel and mine rescue teams, along with workers in 

high-risk industries, firefighters, police and other 

first responders, could benefit from using these 

principles to prepare for emergencies. 

References 

An, C. (2003). Efficacy of inoculation strategies in 

promoting resistance to potential attack messages: A source 

credibility perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, 

University of Oklahoma. 

An, C. & Pfau, M. (2004). The efficacy of inoculation 

in televised political debates. Journal ofCommunication, 

54, 421-436. 

Bither, S.W., Dolich, I.H. & Nell, E.B. (1971). The 

application of attitude immunization techniques in marketing. Journal ofMarketing Research, 18, 56-61. 

Boer, L.c. (2002). Behavior by motorists on evacuation of a tunnel (INO Report No. TM-02-C034). Study 

commissioned by the Ministry of Transport, Public 

Works and Water Management. Retrieved Jan. 6, 2010, 

from www.rijkswaterstaat.nIJrwslbwd/home/pdf/ 

tunneUtno/tno_rep.pdf. 

Burgoon, M., Pfau, M. & Birk, T.S. (1995). An inoculation theorv exolanation for the effects of corporate 

issue/advocacy advertising campaigns. Communication 

Research, 22, 485-505. 

Camm, T.W. & Cullen, E.T. (2002). Releasing the 

energy of workers to create a safer workplace: The value 

of using mentors to enhance safety training. In R.H. 

Peters (Ed.), Strategies for improving miners' training. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), CDC NIOSH. 

Colligan, M.J. & Cohen, A. (2004). The role bf 

training in promoting workplace safety and health. In J. 

Barling & M.R. Frane (Eds.), The psychology ofworkplace 

safety (pp. 223-248). Washington, DC: American PsycholOgical Association. 

Compton, J.A. & Pfau, M. (2004). Use of inoculation 

to foster resistance to credit card marketing targeting 

college students. Journal of Applied Communication 

Research, 32, 343-364. 

Compton, J.A. & Pfau, M. (2005). Inoculation theory 

of resistance to influence at maturity: Recent progress in 

theory development and application and suggestions for 

future research. Communication Yearbook, 29, 97-145. 

Duryea, E.J. (1983). Utilizing tenets of inoculation 

theory to develop and evaluate a preventive alcohol 

education intervention. Journal ofSchool Health, 53(4), 

250-256. 

Godbold, L.c. & Pfau, M. (2000). Conferring resistance to peer pressure among adolescents. Communication Research, 27(4), 411-437. 

Harbst, G. & Madsen, F. (1993). The behavior of 

passengers in a critical situation on board a passenger 

vessel or ferry (Technical report). Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Investment Foundation. 

Klein, G.A. (1989). Recognition-primed decisions. 

In W. Rouse .(Ed.), Advances in man-machine systems 

research (pp. 47-92). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 

Knowles, M.S., Holton III, E.F. & Swanson, R.A. 

(2005). The adult learner (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: 

Elsevier. 

Lawson, K (2009). The trainer's hanrIbook (3rd ed.). 

San Francisco: Pfeiffer. 

Margolis, KA., Kowalski-Trakofler, KM. & Kingsley Westerman, c.y. (2009). Refuge chamber expectations training (Information circular 9516). Washington, 

DC: DHHS, CDC, NIOSH. 

McGuire, W.J. (1961). The effectiveness of supportive and refutational defenses in immunizing defenses. 

Sociometry, 24,184-197. 

MSHA. MSHA digital library. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Labor (DOL), Author. Retrieved Nov. 20, 

2009, from www.msha.gov/trainingllibrary/msha 

portaUindex.html. 

Ockerby, P. (2001). Evacuation of a passenger ship. 

Is panic a major factor? Australian Journal of Emergency 

Management, 16, 8-14. 

Rice, J.B. & Jonocha, J.A. (2008). Coal mining injuries, illnesses and fatalities in 2006. Washington, DC: 

DOL, BLS. Retrieved Nov. 17, 2009, from www.bls 

.gov/opub/cwc/sh20080623arOlp1.htm. 

Szabo, E.A. & pfau, M. (2002). Nuances in inoculation: Theory and applications. In J.P. Dillard & M. Pfau 

(Eds.), The persuasion handbook (pp. 233-258). Thousand 

Oaks, CA Sage. 

Vaught, c., Bmich, M.J., Mallett, L.G.,.et al. (2000). 

Behavioral and organizational dimensions of underground mine fires (IC 9450). Washington, DC: DHHS, 

CDC, NIOSH. 

Vaught, c., Bmich, M.J., Wiehagen, W.J., et al. 

(1993). An overview of research on self-contained selfrescuer training (Bulletin 695). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.