Influence of Social Safety Capital on Safety Citizenship Behavior: The Mediation of Autonomous Safety Motivation
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Social Capital
2.1.2. Autonomous Safety Motivation
2.1.3. Social Capital and Autonomous Safety Motivation
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Questionnaire Survey
2.2.2. Data Analysis Procedures
- The validity of the scale was tested by Cronbach’s alpha.
- The structural validity was tested by the normalized factor load (β), composite reliability (CR), and average variance extraction (AVE) of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) output.
- The discriminant validity was tested using the fitting indicators of multiple CFA models, including degrees of freedom (χ2/df), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), comparative fit index (CFI), standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).
- Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted first to extract and synthesize the overlapping parts of the original variables into factors so that it can be confirmed that there is no common method deviation.
- The hypotheses were then tested using Pearson correlation analysis and the structural equation modeling technique
- Tested the mediation effect of the autonomous safety motivation as a mediation variable.
- Tested the regression model with independent safety motivation and social safety capital as independent variables and the SCB four dimensions as dependent variables.
- Discussed the differences in different demographic groups.
3. Results
3.1. Reliability and Validity
3.2. Correlation Analysis
3.3. Path Analysis and Mediation Effect
3.4. Difference between Social Safety Capital and Autonomous Safety Motivation
3.5. Demographic Differences
4. Discussion
4.1. Mediation Effect
4.2. Difference between Social Safety Capital and Autonomous Safety Motivation
5. Conclusions
5.1. Contribuctions
5.2. Theoretical Implications and Practical Implications
5.3. Research Limitations and Future Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Concept | Code | Items |
---|---|---|
Safety citizenship behavior | HEL1 | I will help new workers to get familiar with the working environment at the construction site. |
HEL2 | Sometimes I do not pay much attention to the safety of your co-workers. | |
HEL3 | When my co-workers are working in dangerous situations, I will stop them. | |
REL1 | I think a good relationship between supervisors and subordinates will make safer behavior during the construction process. | |
REL2 | I am more inclined to comply with the regulations and meet the safety precautions made by my preferred superior. | |
REL3 | I will pay more attention to my own personal safety if the superior is concerned about me. | |
SUG1 | When I encounter safety hazards, I usually do not report it to my superior. | |
SUG2 | When facing potential risks in the construction process, I will discuss with my colleagues to find a safer way to conduct the work. | |
SUG3 | During the construction procedure, I will put forward some suggestions to improve the safety circumstances. | |
SEL1 | I always wear safety equipment (such as wearing a safety helmet) during my work even though my co-workers do not, whether supervised or unsupervised. | |
SEL2 | I often take part in safety exercises or safety information activities (accident simulation rehearsals and safety banner learning) even though my co-workers ignore these opportunities. | |
SEL3 | I will take the initiative to comply with the safety regulations even though my co-workers ignore them. | |
social safety capital | ST1 | I know my coworkers will always try and help me out if I get into difficulties |
ST2 | I can always trust my coworkers to lend me a hand if I need it | |
ST3 | I can always rely on my coworkers to make my job easier | |
SG1 | My coworkers and I always agree on what are important at work | |
SG2 | My coworkers and I always share the same ambitions and vision at work | |
SG3 | My coworkers and I are always enthusiastic about pursing the collective goals and missions of the whole organization | |
SC1 | In general, I have a very good relationship with my coworkers | |
SC2 | I always hold a lengthy discussion about safety work with my coworkers | |
SC3 | In general, the content of the conversation will help I work safely after talking about coworkers. | |
SC4 | In general, the content of the conversation will help my coworkers work safely after talking about coworkers. | |
autonomous safety motivation | SM1 | I thought that it is worth the effort to maintain or improve the personal safety of you and your co-workers? |
SM2 | I thought that it is important to maintain safe construction | |
SM3 | I thought that it is important to reduce construction accidents and losses? | |
SM4 | I thought that it is important to strictly abide by the safety regulations at work? | |
SM5 | I will feel guilty if I do not guarantee the safety of my co-workers in the working time. | |
SM6 | When I guarantee the safety of me and my co-worker in the working time, I will be satisfied |
Measure | Items | Percent | Frequency | Mean | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 79.4 | 247 | 1.210 | 0.405 |
Female | 20.6 | 64 | |||
Total | 100 | 311 | |||
Age | 20–30 | 53.7 | 168 | 1.760 | 0.955 |
31–40 | 23.5 | 73 | |||
41–50 | 16.1 | 50 | |||
51–60 | 6.8 | 21 | |||
Total | 100 | 311 | |||
Education | High school (included) below | 9.6 | 30 | 3.380 | 1.071 |
Secondary school | 6.4 | 20 | |||
College | 29.6 | 92 | |||
Bachelor | 45.0 | 140 | |||
Master | 9. | 28 | |||
PhD | 0.3 | 1 | |||
Total | 100 | 311 | |||
Work experience (in years) | 2 | 24.8 | 77 | 2.56 | 1.165 |
2–5 | 25.1 | 78 | |||
6–10 | 19.6 | 61 | |||
>10 | 30.5 | 95 | |||
Total | 100 | 311 |
References
- Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development of China-Report on the special governance actions of housing municipal engineering production safety accidents and building construction safety in 2018. Available online: http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/wjfb/201903/t20190326_239913.html (accessed on 30 October 2019).
- Neal, A.; Griffin, M.A.; Hart, P.M. The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behavior. Saf. Sci. 2000, 34, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofmann, D.A.; Morgeson, F.P.; Gerras, S.J. Climate as a moderator of the relationship between leader-member exchange and content specific citizenship: Safety climate as an exemplar. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 170–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Burt, C.D.B.; Banks, M.D.; Williams, S.D. Safety risks associated with helping others. Saf. Sci. 2014, 62, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Temminck, E.; Mearns, K.; Fruhen, L. Motivating Employees towards Sustainable. Bus Strateg. Environ. 2015, 24, 402–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyu, S.; Hon, C.K.H.; Chan, A.P.C.; Wong, F.K.W.; Javed, A.A. Relationships among Safety Climate, Safety Behavior, and Safety Outcomes for Ethnic Minority Construction Workers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Griffin, M.A.; Curcuruto, M. Safety Climate in Organizations. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol 2016, 3, 191–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newman, A.; Schwarz, G.; Cooper, B.; Sendjaya, S. How Servant Leadership Influences Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Roles of LMX, Empowerment, and Proactive Personality. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 145, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matta, F.K.; Scott, B.A.; Koopman, J.; Conlon, D.E. Does Seeing “Eye to Eye” Affect Work Engagement and Organizational Citizenship Behavior? A Role Theory Perspective on LMX Agreement. Acad. Manag. J. 2014, 58, 1686–1708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Townsend, J.; Phillips, J.S.; Elkins, T.J. Employee retaliation: The neglected consequence of poor leader–member exchange relations. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2000, 4, 457–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curcuruto, M.; Griffin, M.A. Prosocial and proactive “safety citizenship behaviour” (SCB): The mediating role of affective commitment and psychological ownership. Saf. Sci. 2018, 104, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curcuruto, M.; Mearns, K.J.; Mariani, M.G. Proactive role-orientation toward workplace safety: Psychological dimensions, nomological network and external validity. Saf. Sci. 2016, 87, 144–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnold, B.L.; Kay, F.M. Chapter 9—Social Capital, Violations of Trust and the Vulnerability of Isolates: The Social Organization of Law Practice and Professional Self-regulation. In Knowledge and Social Capital; Lesser, E.L., Ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Boston, MA, USA, 2000; pp. 201–222. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, L. Flow and social capital theory in online impulse buying. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 2277–2283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nahapiet, J.; Ghoshal, S. Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 242–266. [Google Scholar]
- Coleman, J.S. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am. J. Sociol. 1988, 94, 95–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Putnam, R. Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America. Political Sci. Politics 1995, 28, 664–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krackhardt, D. The Strength of Strong Ties: The Importance of Philos in Organizations. In Organizations and Networks: Structure, Form, and Action; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1992; pp. 216–239. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, J.S.; Duguid, P. Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective. Organ. Sci. 2001, 12, 99–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chao, M.C.; Hsu, M.; Wangc, E.T.G. Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decis. Support Syst. 2006, 42, 1871–1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chow, W.S.; Chan, L.S. Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing. Inf. Manag. Amst. 2008, 45, 458–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, L.; Li, F.; Li, Y.; Li, R. Leader-member exchange and safety citizenship behavior: The mediating role of coworker trust. Work 2017, 56, 387–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolino, M.C.; Turnley, W.H.; Bloodgood, J.M. Citizenship Behavior and The Creation of Social Capital in Organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 27, 505–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, C.; Ogihara, A.; Chen, H.; Wang, W.; Huang, L.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, X.; Xu, L.; Yang, L. Social capital and antenatal depression among Chinese primiparas: A cross-sectional survey. Psychiatry Res. 2017, 257, 533–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lai, C.; Chiu, C.; Yang, C.; Pai, D. The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Brand Performance: The Mediating Effect of Industrial Brand Equity and Corporate Reputation. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 95, 457–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SaukHaua, Y.; Kim, B.; Lee, H.; Kim, Y. The effects of individual motivations and social capital on employees’ tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2013, 33, 356–366. [Google Scholar]
- NicolaGiordano, G.; Ohlsson, H.; Lindström, M. Social capital and health—Purely a question of context? Health Place 2011, 17, 946–953. [Google Scholar]
- Neal, A.; Griffin, M.A. Safety Climate and Safety Behaviour. Aust. J. Manag. 2002, 27, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gagné, M.; Forest, J.; Gilbert, M.; Aubé, C.; Morin, E.; Malorni, A. The Motivation at Work Scale: Validation Evidence in Two Languages. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2010, 70, 628–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sultan, P.; Tarafder, T.; Pearson, D.; Henryks, J. Intention-behaviour gap and perceived behavioural control-behaviour gap in theory of planned behaviour: Moderating roles of communication, satisfaction and trust in organic food consumption. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 81, 103838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bopp, C.; Engler, A.; Poortvliet, P.M.; Jara-Rojas, R. The role of farmers’ intrinsic motivation in the effectiveness of policy incentives to promote sustainable agricultural practices. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 244, 320–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Y.; Gardner, D.G.; Chen, H. Relationships Between Work Team Climate, Individual Motivation, and Creativity. J. Manag. 2016, 44, 2094–2115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandura, A. Relationship Between Time Orientation, Knowledge of AIDS, and Self-Reported Sexual Behavioral Changes in College Students. Available online: https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-5023591884&origin=inward&txGid=42d74387abbf7a73203b5b5ddc7bb219 (accessed on 25 July 2019).
- Zohar, D.; Huang, Y.; Lee, J.; Robertson, M.M. Testing extrinsic and intrinsic motivation as explanatory variables for the safety climate–safety performance relationship among long-haul truck drivers. Transp. Res. Part F. Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2015, 30, 84–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, H.H.; Chuang, S. Social capital and individual motivations on knowledge sharing: Participant involvement as a moderator. Inf. Manag. 2011, 48, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, X.; Zhai, H.; Chan, A.H.S. Development of Scales to Measure and Analyse the Relationship of Safety Consciousness and Safety Citizenship Behaviour of Construction Workers: An Empirical Study in China. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/8/1411 (accessed on 17 June 2019).
- Barbaranelli, C.; Petitta, L.; Probst, T.M. Does safety climate predict safety performance in Italy and the USA? Cross-cultural validation of a theoretical model of safety climate. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2015, 77, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Q.Z.; Ding, L.Y.; Zhou, C.; Luo, H.B. Analysis of factors influencing safety management for metro construction in China. Acci. Anal. Prev. 2014, 68, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fang, D.; Wu, H. Development of a Safety Culture Interaction (SCI) model for construction projects. Saf. Sci. 2013, 57, 138–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murie, F. Building safety—An international perspective. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 2007, 13, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xia, N.; Wang, X.; Griffin, M.A.; Wu, C.; Liu, B. Do we see how they perceive risk? An integrated analysis of risk perception and its effect on workplace safety behavior. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 106, 234–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wright, K.B. Researching Internet-Based Populations: Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Survey Research, Online Questionnaire Authoring Software Packages, and Web Survey Services. J. Comput-Mediat. Commun. 2017, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, H.; Zhang, S. Impact of supervisors’ safety violations on an individual worker within a construction crew. Saf. Sci. 2019, 120, 679–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choe, A.S.; Nebel, M.B.; Barber, A.D.; Cohen, J.R.; Xu, Y.; Pekar, J.J.; Caffo, B.; Lindquist, M.A. Comparing test-retest reliability of dynamic functional connectivity methods. Neuroimage 2017, 158, 155–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cronbach, L.J.; Meehl, P.E. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol. Bull. 1955, 52, 281–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Flynn, B.B.; Schroeder, R.G.; Sakakibara, S. A framework for quality management research and an associated measurement instrument. J. Oper. Manag. 1994, 11, 339–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blunch, N.J. Introduction to Structural Equation Modelling Using SPSS and AMOS; SAGE Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 20–25, 35, 110–115. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F., Jr.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; London United States of America: London, UK, 2014; p. 605. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, B.J.; Jung, S.Y. The Mediating Role of Job Strain in the Transformational Leadership–Safety Behavior Link: The Buffering Effect of Self-Efficacy on Safety. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shen, Y.; Ju, C.; Koh, T.Y.; Rowlinson, S.; Bridge, A.J. The Impact of Transformational Leadership on Safety Climate and Individual Safety Behavior on Construction Sites. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.P.N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindell, M.K.; Whitney, D.J. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markus, K.A. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling by Rex, B. Kline. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 2012, 19, 509–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, D.; Wu, C.; Wu, H. Impact of the Supervisor on Worker Safety Behavior in Construction Projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 4015001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hooper, D.; Coughlan, J.; Mullen, M.R. Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 2008, 6, 53–60. [Google Scholar]
- MacKinnon, D.P.; Lockwood, C.M.; Hoffman, J.M.; West, S.G.; Sheets, V. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychol. Methods 2002, 7, 83–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40, 879–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preacher, K.J.; Rucker, D.D.; Hayes, A.F. Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2007, 42, 185–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, L.; Chan, A.H. Exerting Explanatory Accounts of Safety Behavior of Older Construction Workers within the Theory of Planned Behavior. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aryal, A.; Parish, M.; Rohlman, D.S. Generalizability of Total Worker Health® Online Training for Young Workers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peng, L.; Chan, A.H.S. A meta-analysis of the relationship between ageing and occupational safety and health. Saf. Sci. 2019, 112, 162–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, K.; Lu, H. Intention to Continue Using Facebook Fan Pages from the Perspective of Social Capital Theory. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2011, 14, 565–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, Y.; Cannella, A.A., Jr. Toward a Social Capital Theory of Director Selection. Corp. Gov. 2008, 16, 282–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sacco, V.F. Gender, fear, and victimization: A preliminary application of power-control theory. Soc. Spectr. 1990, 10, 485–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.; Chen, S. Measuring the effects of Safety Management System practices, morality leadership and self-efficacy on pilots’ safety behaviors: Safety motivation as a mediator. Saf. Sci. 2014, 62, 376–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vinodkumar, M.N.; Bhasi, M. Safety management practices and safety behaviour: Assessing the mediating role of safety knowledge and motivation. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2010, 42, 2082–2093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maslow, A.H. A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 1943, 50, 370–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Guagnano, G.; Santarelli, E.; Santini, I. Subjective poverty in Europe: The role of household socioeconomic characteristics and social capital. Giornate di Studio sulla Popolazione (GSP) 2013, 113, 27. [Google Scholar]
Author | Relational | Cognitive | Structural | Nature of Research |
---|---|---|---|---|
Chow et al. [21] | social trust | shared goals | social network | knowledge-sharing |
Zhou et al. [24] | —— | social trust social reciprocity | social network social participation | antenatal depression |
Chiu et al. [20,25] | trust, identification norm of reciprocity | shared vision shared language | social interaction ties | knowledge-sharing |
Sauk et al. [26] | social trust | social goals | social tie | knowledge-sharing |
Giordano et al. [27] | interpersonal trust | reciprocity | social participation | public health |
Factors considered in our study | safety trust | safety goal | safety communication | construction safety |
Constructs | Abbreviations | Item Number | Reference | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Safety citizenship behavior | Mutual aid among workers | HEL | 3 | [3,37] |
Relationship between superior and subordinate | REL | 3 | ||
Participation of suggestion-making | SUG | 3 | ||
Self-control | SEL | 3 | ||
Autonomous safety motivation | Autonomous safety motivation | SM | 6 | [29] |
Social safety capital | Safety trust | ST | 3 | [20,26,27] |
Safety goal | SG | 3 | ||
Safety communication | SC | 4 |
Model | χ2/df | TLI | CFI | RMSEA | SRMR | Model Comparison Test | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model Comparison | △χ2 | Sig. | △df | ||||||
Model 1 | 1.950 | 0.911 | 0.925 | 0.055 | 0.054 | ||||
Model 2 | 2.516 | 0.858 | 0.880 | 0.070 | 0.173 | 2 vs. 1 | 169.991 | *** | 1 |
Model 3 | 2.513 | 0.858 | 0.880 | 0.070 | 0.178 | 3 vs. 1 | 169.149 | *** | 1 |
Model 4 | 2.407 | 0.868 | 0.888 | 0.067 | 0.152 | 4 vs. 1 | 137.577 | *** | 1 |
Model 5 | 2.268 | 0.881 | 0.899 | 0.064 | 0.133 | 5 vs. 1 | 96.360 | *** | 1 |
Model 6 | 5.655 | 0.564 | 0.597 | 0.123 | 0.111 | 6 vs. 1 | 1254.971 | *** | 28 |
Constructs | Items | β | CR | AVE | Cronbach’s Alpha | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
safety citizenship behavior | HEL | HEL1 | 0.564 | 0.708 | 0.450 | 0.745 |
HEL2 | 0.696 | |||||
HEL3 | 0.740 | |||||
REL | REL1 | 0.765 | 0.676 | 0.512 | ||
REL3 | 0.662 | |||||
SUG | SUG1 | 0.639 | 0.784 | 0.552 | ||
SUG2 | 0.710 | |||||
SUG3 | 0.862 | |||||
SEL | SEL1 | 0.677 | 0.780 | 0.543 | ||
SEL2 | 0.699 | |||||
SEL3 | 0.826 | |||||
social safety capital | ST | ST1 | 0.691 | 0.805 | 0.580 | 0.901 |
ST2 | 0.791 | |||||
ST3 | 0.797 | |||||
SG | SG1 | 0.820 | 0.802 | 0.582 | ||
SG2 | 0.875 | |||||
SG3 | 0.556 | |||||
SC | SC1 | 0.748 | 0.864 | 0.614 | ||
SC2 | 0.799 | |||||
SC3 | 0.782 | |||||
SC4 | 0.803 | |||||
autonomous safety motivation | SM1 | 0.785 | 0.838 | 0.467 | 0.823 | |
SM2 | 0.524 | |||||
SM3 | 0.631 | |||||
SM4 | 0.743 | |||||
SM5 | 0.703 | |||||
SM6 | 0.681 |
Mean | Standard Deviation | 1. HEL | 2. REL | 3. SUG | 4. SEL | 5. ST | 6. SG | 7. SC | 8. SM | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. HEL | 4.543 | 0.571 | 1 | |||||||
2. REL | 4.614 | 0.577 | 0.395 ** | 1 | ||||||
3. SUG | 4.333 | 0.705 | 0.428 ** | 0.440 ** | 1 | |||||
4. SEL | 4.684 | 0.504 | 0.515 ** | 0.474 ** | 0.400 ** | 1 | ||||
5. ST | 4.239 | 0.614 | 0.227 ** | 0.205** | 0.310 ** | 0.296 ** | 1 | |||
6. SG | 4.128 | 0.678 | 0.206 ** | 0.262 ** | 0.285 ** | 0.274 ** | 0.567 ** | 1 | ||
7. SC | 4.239 | 0.606 | 0.322 ** | 0.288 ** | 0.466 ** | 0.357 ** | 0.718 ** | 0.628 ** | 1 | |
8. SM | 4.768 | 0.344 | 0.353 ** | 0.390 ** | 0.386 ** | 0.371 ** | 0.357 ** | 0.335 ** | 0.398 ** | 1 |
Effect Types | Effect Value | Boot SE | Z | Sig. | Boot 95% CI | Relative Effect | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Under | Upper | ||||||
Total effect | 0.5645 | 0.0918 | 6.1495 | *** | 0.3538 | 0.7115 | |
Direct effect | 0.3684 | 0.1055 | 3.4915 | *** | 0.1322 | 0.5489 | 65.3% |
Indirect effect | 0.1962 | 0.0448 | 4.3787 | *** | 0.1190 | 0.3035 | 34.7% |
Dependent Variable | HEL | REL | SUG | SEL | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature | |||||
gender | 0.000 * | 0.941 | 0.260 | 0.443 | |
age | 0.007 * | 0.025 * | 0.037 * | 0.420 | |
education | 0.001 * | 0.988 | 0.030 * | 0.002 * | |
Work experience | 0.016 * | 0.311 | 0.432 | 0.975 |
Subgroups | Percent (%) | Direct Effect | Indirect Effect | Boot LLCI | Boot ULCI | Model Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | 24.8 | 0.158 | 0.106 | 0.010 | 0.246 | * |
2–5 | 25.1 | 0.285 *** | 0.122 | 0.019 | 0.225 | *** |
6–10 | 19.6 | 0.312 *** | 0.126 | 0.015 | 0.237 | *** |
10 | 30.5 | 0.267 *** | 0.128 | 0.048 | 0.241 | *** |
All sample | 100 | 0.249 *** | 0.125 | 0.074 | 0.180 | *** |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhang, J.; Zhai, H.; Meng, X.; Wang, W.; Zhou, L. Influence of Social Safety Capital on Safety Citizenship Behavior: The Mediation of Autonomous Safety Motivation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 866. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030866
Zhang J, Zhai H, Meng X, Wang W, Zhou L. Influence of Social Safety Capital on Safety Citizenship Behavior: The Mediation of Autonomous Safety Motivation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(3):866. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030866
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Junjie, Huaiyuan Zhai, Xiangcheng Meng, Wanxue Wang, and Lei Zhou. 2020. "Influence of Social Safety Capital on Safety Citizenship Behavior: The Mediation of Autonomous Safety Motivation" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 3: 866. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030866