Hoo boy, this principle, summed up in the subheading - “… if we think we got away with something, we’ll also think we can get away with it again” - is prevalent everywhere you care to look. I once worked at a family-owned tech business where ignoring the procedural norms was commonplace. It was even considered somewhat of a virtue, because it cut time off the production processes “as necessary” to meet shipping schedules. As the manufacturing and process engineer, I pushed back against this practice whenever I saw it, but the owner’s sons were the ones who managed production. They knew how much they could skew things toward the edges of the process envelopes and still have a reasonable expectation of success. yet on a regular basis, product would be returned by customers for noncompliance or even nonfunction due to defects. The owner would personally rub these customers’ shoulders over the phone and pledge that all units would be replaced ASAP. #1 & #2 Sons got a talking to and nothing else, and it was likely the replacements were rushed through mfg in the same manner as the originals which had been returned. I had to find another job because the situation was unacceptable.
Aviation has a lot of Stuff that pilots must keep at the forefront of their awareness. Finding an easy way to reduce the mental workload is sometimes welcomed, even when the pilot KNOWS it’s asking for trouble. It’s been said the FARs are written in blood, due to having found the limits of whtever envelope had been tested, and the results were then on display. Seriously - if a procedure has been identified that maximizes the probability of success, why not use it? The mfg business I worked for had a banner on the wall which read “If I don’t have time to do it right, when will I find time to do it over?” Apparently nobody read it. Unfortunately aviation seems to have a very restricted number of available do-overs.