How Does Metro Maintenance Staff’s Risk Perception Influence Safety Citizenship Behavior—The Mediating Role of Safety Attitude
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Risk Perception
2.2. Safety Attitude
2.3. Safety Citizenship Behavior
2.4. Dimensions
2.5. Research Hypotheses
3. Method and Data Analysis
3.1. Quantitative Scale
3.2. Participants and Procedure
3.3. Data Analysis Procedures
- (1)
- Descriptive statistical analysis, which describes basic information of sample;
- (2)
- KMO and Bartlett sphericity test to test the validity of the data [66];
- (3)
- (4)
- Parameter significance, convergence and discriminant validity analysis;
- (5)
- Structural equation modeling technique to test hypotheses;
- (6)
- Bootstrapping method to test the significance of indirect effects (2000 samples, interval of confidence: 0.95) [69];
- (7)
- According to the results of data analysis, specific improvement measures are considered.
3.4. Descriptive Statistics
3.5. Data Validity
3.6. Reliability Analysis
3.7. Convergence Validity Analysis and Discriminant Validity Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Hypothesis Test
4.1.1. Intermediary Effect Analysis Procedure
- (1)
- Test the influence coefficient c of RP on SCB in Model 1. If it is significant, there is a mediating effect, otherwise it will have a masking effect. Regardless of whether it is significant or not, follow-up tests are performed.
- (2)
- Test the influence coefficient a of RP on SA and the influence coefficient b of SA on SCB in turn in Model 2. If the two coefficients tested above are both significant, the indirect effect is significant. Turn to Step 4. If at least one of them is not significant, proceed to Step 3.
- (3)
- Use the Boostrap method to directly test H0: ab = 0. If it is significant, the indirect effect is significant and proceeds to Step 4, otherwise the indirect effect is not significant and the analysis should be stopped.
- (4)
- In test Model 2, if the influence coefficient c’ of RP on SCB is not significant, that is, the direct effect is not significant, this indicates that SA is completely intermediary. If it is significant, the direct effect is significant. Go to Step 5.
- (5)
- Compare the signs of ab and c’. If the signs are the same, they are part of the mediation, and the mediation effect accounts for the ab/c of the total effect. If the different signs are the cover effect, report the absolute value of the ratio of the indirect effect to the direct effect|ab/c’|.
4.1.2. Data Analysis
4.2. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- (1)
- Employees of different genders have slightly different attitudes and understandings of safety. When choosing training methods, managers should be careful not to generalize completely.
- (2)
- The growth of age and working experience makes employees’ understanding of RP, SA and SCB constantly change. Managers need to fully realize this and select targeted training content and education methods for employees of different ages and working years. In this way, managers can improve their safety level and reduce the accident release rate.
- (3)
- For low-educated employees, managers should do a good job in explaining the various safety regulations to ensure that all employees can correctly understand the meaning and purpose of the safety regulations so that they can fully accept the regulations and reduce the number of violations.
- (4)
- For positions with higher operational risks, employees with more sensitive risk perception and better safety attitudes can be selected.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Risk perception scale | RP Severity: If you encounter the following work incidents or situations, how serious do you think the potential negative consequences are? | When working on electrical equipment, accidental power transmission |
Accidentally touch the bare part of the conductor without electrical inspection | ||
Hit by objects falling from a height | ||
Falling from a height | ||
Do not wear protective equipment and perform dangerous operations such as welding, power distribution, carrying heavy objects, painting chemicals, etc. | ||
The vehicle slips due to unstable parking or no braking (or slipping occurs) | ||
Tripped over materials, equipment, grounding wires, etc. stored in the workplace | ||
RP Worry: If you encounter the following work incidents or situations, how will you worry about potential negative effects? | No electrical inspection and grounding before work | |
Perform strictly prohibited behaviors at work (such as calling, smoking, screaming, chasing, etc.) | ||
Working at high places (such as working on the top of the train or on the scaffolding at an equal distance above 2 m from the falling datum) | ||
Passing (passing through) lifting movement route | ||
The ground in the workplace or walking route is uneven or has obstacles | ||
Limited space operation | ||
Work in a workplace without adequate lighting | ||
Do not wear protective equipment (such as earmuffs, masks, gloves, etc.) during work | ||
RP Insecurity: If you encounter the following work incidents or situations, how insecure would you feel about potential negative consequences? | Start working directly when the electrical equipment is not connected to the grounding wire | |
No warning signs and isolation belts are placed on high-altitude dangerous goods at the scene | ||
When working at height, the safety line is not fastened | ||
The workplace is full of debris | ||
Working in a noisy environment | ||
Straying into another person’s workplace | ||
Dimly lit workplace | ||
Safety Attitude Scale | Safety Awareness | I think safety accidents at work can be prevented |
I think wearing safety protective gear can prevent accidents | ||
I think using safe equipment can improve my job safety | ||
I think a clean and tidy workplace can help reduce the occurrence of safety incidents | ||
I think safety regulations must be strictly followed | ||
I think strict and standardized safety management will help reduce accidents | ||
Safety Emotion | I am happy to accept others’ instructions on my work safety | |
I am happy to accept help from others in my work safety | ||
I am willing to wear safety protection equipment for work | ||
Safety Intention | If I see a warning sign ahead, I will go around | |
Before I start working, I will put on safety shoes and a helmet | ||
I will carefully understand how to use protective gear and wear it at work | ||
Before starting work, I tend to check equipment and facilities for safety hazards | ||
If there is a problem with the device, I will stop working immediately | ||
Safety Citizenship Behavior Scale | Help Colleagues | I will take the initiative to help workers familiarize themselves with the environment |
I will take the initiative to help workers learn safe working procedures | ||
I will take the initiative to help workers learn safe work rules and regulations | ||
I will take the initiative to help workers understand the responsibilities and obligations related to safety | ||
I will take the initiative to help workers learn the correct use of safety protective equipment | ||
I will take the initiative to help workers learn the correct operation process of facilities and equipment | ||
I will urge workers to wear safety protection equipment neatly before work | ||
I will urge workers to check whether the facilities and equipment are in good condition before work | ||
I will urge workers to pay attention to whether the surrounding environment is safe when working | ||
I will urge the workers to follow the leadership’s task assignment for safety matters | ||
I will take the initiative to help workers use facilities and equipment safely | ||
I will take the initiative to help workers eliminate safety hazards around them | ||
I will take the initiative to help workers stay away from danger | ||
Suggestions | I will express my opinion on security issues even if others disagree | |
During the work process, I will put forward relevant suggestions to improve the status quo of construction safety | ||
I try to make suggestions for improving the safety of work tasks | ||
I tried to change the way I work to make work safer | ||
I will make corresponding safety recommendations for the working environment | ||
I will propose improvements to the protective gear currently in use | ||
I will propose improvements to the facilities and equipment currently in use | ||
I tried to change the safety policies and procedures to make work safer | ||
I will put forward the unrealistic content in the safety regulations and propose improvement measures | ||
I will take the initiative to help leaders organize safety training | ||
I will take the initiative to help leaders collect and sort out the safety issues in work | ||
Whistleblowing | I will report other people’s violations of safety regulations | |
I will report violations of safe work procedures by others | ||
I will report the behavior of others not wearing safety protection equipment | ||
I will report other people’s illegal use of the device | ||
I will report other people’s behaviors that hinder the safety of the work space (for example, random stacking of debris) | ||
I will report other people’s behavior that they started using without checking the device | ||
Safe Civic Virtues | I will take the initiative to repair and maintain work facilities and equipment | |
I will take the initiative to investigate the safety hazards in the workplace | ||
I will always pay attention to the debris left on the road and clean it up in time |
References
- Xiong, Y. Study on Assessment of Human Factors Risk of the Urban Rail Transit Operation Safety. Master’s Thesis, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Lund, J.; Aaro, L.E. Accident prevention. Presentation of a model placing emphasis on human, structural and cultural factors. Saf. Sci. 2004, 42, 271–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasmussen, J. Human errors. A taxonomy for describing human malfunction in industrial installations. J. Occup. Accid. 1982, 4, 311–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Reason, J. Generic error-modelling system (GEMS): A cognitive framework for locating common human error forms. New Technol. Hum. Error 1987, 63, 86. [Google Scholar]
- Swain, A.D.; Guttmann, H.E. Handbook of Human Reliability Analysis with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications; Final Report No. NUREG/CR-1278; SAND-80-0200; Sandia National Labs.: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Sitkin, S.B.; Pablo, A.L. Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1992, 17, 9–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mearns, K.; Flin, R. Risk perception and attitudes to safety by personnel in the offshore oil and gas industry: A review. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 1995, 8, 299–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Q.; Xu, N.; Jiang, H.; Wang, S.; Wang, W.; Wang, J. Psychological driving mechanism of safety citizenship behaviors of construction workers: Application of the theory of planned behavior and norm activation model. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 146, 04020027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Namian, M.; Albert, A.; Feng, J. Effect of distraction on hazard recognition andsafety risk perception. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144, 04018008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arezes, P.M.; Miguel, A.S. Risk perception and safety behaviour: A study in an occupational environment. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 900–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pandit, B.; Albert, A.; Patil, Y.; Al-Bayati, A.J. Impact of safety climate on hazard recognition and safety risk perception. Saf. Sci. 2019, 113, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, W.D.; Snyder, L.A. The influence of risk perception on safety: A laboratory study. Saf. Sci. 2017, 95, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bodemer, N.; Gaissmaier, W. Risk perception. In The SAGE Handbook of Risk Communication; Cho, H., Reimer, T., McComas, K.A., Eds.; SAGE Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2014; pp. 10–23. [Google Scholar]
- Slovic, P. Perception of risk. Science 1987, 236, 280–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tränkle, U.; Gelau, C.; Metker, T. Risk perception and age-specific accidents of young drivers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 1990, 22, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramsey, C.E.; Rickson, R.E. Environmental knowledge and attitudes. J. Environ. Educ. 1976, 8, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bajac, H.; Feliu-Soler, A.; Meerhoff, D.; Latorre, L.; Elices, M. Iudicium: An educational intervention for addressing risk perception of alcohol abuse in adolescents. Adicciones 2016, 28, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, Y. The roles of prevention messages, risk perception, and benefit perception in predicting binge drinking among college students. Health Commun. 2017, 33, 877–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kuttschreuter, M. Psychological determinants of reactions to food risk messages. Risk Anal. 2006, 26, 1045–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinstein, N.D.; Kwitel, A.; McCaul, K.D.; Magnan, R.E.; Gerrard, M.; Gibbons, F.X. Risk perceptions: Assessment and relationship to influenza vaccination. Health Psychol. 2007, 26, 146–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kouabenan, D.R.; Ngueutsa, R.; Mbaye, S. Safety climate, perceived risk, and involvement in safety management. Saf. Sci. 2015, 77, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ji, M.; You, X.; Lan, J.; Yang, S. The impact of risk tolerance, risk perception and hazardous attitude on safety operation among airline pilots in China. Saf. Sci. 2011, 49, 1412–1420. [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, C234–C242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perlman, A.; Sacks, R.; Barak, R. Hazard recognition and risk perception in construction. Saf. Sci. 2014, 64, 22–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gürcanlı, G.E.; Baradan, S.; Uzun, M. Risk perception of construction equipment operators on construction sites of Turkey. Int. J. Ofindustrial Ergon. 2015, 46, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kummeneje, A.M.; Rundmo, T. Attitudes, risk perception and risk-taking behaviour among regular cyclists in Norway. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2020, 69, 135–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xia, N.; Xie, Q.; Hu, X.; Wang, X.; Meng, H. A dual perspective on risk perception and its effect on safety behavior: A moderated mediation model of safety motivation, and supervisor’s and coworkers’ safety climate. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020, 134, 105350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sjöberg, L. Worry and risk perception. Risk Anal. 1998, 18, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slovic, P.; Finucane, M.L.; Peters, E.; MacGregor, D.G. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal. 2004, 24, 311–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lemée, C.; Fleury-Bahi, G.; Krien, N.; Deledalle, A.; Mercier, D.; Coquet, M.; Rommel, D.; Navarro, O. Factorial structure of the coastal flooding risk perception and validation of a French coastal flooding risk evaluation scale (CFRES) for non-experts. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2018, 155, 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lifshitz, R.; Nimrod, G.; Bachner, Y.G. Measuring risk perception in later life: The perceived risk scale. J. Am. Psychiatr. Nurses Assoc. 2016, 22, 469–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rundmo, T. Safety climate, attitudes and risk perception in Norsk Hydro. Saf. Sci. 2000, 34, 47–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Man, S.S.; Chan, A.H.S.; Alabdulkarim, S. Quantification of risk perception: Development and validation of the construction worker risk perception (CoWoRP) scale. J. Saf. Res. 2019, 71, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seaboch, T.R. Effects of Safety Instruction upon Safety Attitudes and Knowledge of University Students Enrolled in Selected Agricultural Engineering Courses. Master’s Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Oppenheim, A.N. Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1966. [Google Scholar]
- Vierendeels, G.; Reniers, G.; van Nunen, K.; Ponnet, K. An integrative conceptual framework for safety culture: The Egg Aggregated Model (TEAM) of safety culture. Saf. Sci. 2018, 103, 323–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ram, T.; Chand, K. Effect of drivers’ risk perception and perception of driving tasks on road safety attitude. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2016, 42, 162–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tam, C.M.; Fung, I.W.H.; Chan, A.P.C. Study of attitude changes in people after the implementation of a new safety management system: The supervision plan. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2001, 19, 393–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.W.; Granniss, E.R. Industrial Accident Prevention, 4th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1959; pp. 20–44. [Google Scholar]
- Monazzam, M.R.; Soltanzadeh, A. The relationship between the worker’s safety attitude and the registered accidents. J. Res. Health Sci. 2009, 9, 17–20. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Yanzhang, L.; Zhengguo, W.; Zhiyong, Y. The relationship of road accidents with motorcyclists’ riding behaviors, personality and alfitudes towards safety. Psychol. Sci. 2008, 31, 486–491. [Google Scholar]
- Li, N.W.; Huang, P. The Relationship between transformational leadership, safety attitude and safety performance—An empirical research based on coal mine enterprise. Soft Sci. 2012, 26, 68–71. [Google Scholar]
- Rau, P.P.; Liao, P.; Gou, Z. Personality factors and safety attitudes predict safety behavior and accidents in elevator workers. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Erg. 2018, 26, 719–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, S.; Cox, T. The structure of employee attitudes to safety: A European example. Work Stress 2007, 5, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenberg, M.J.; Hovland, C.I.; McGuire, W.J.; Abelson, R.P.; Brehm, J.W. Attitude Orgnaization and Change; Yale University Press: Connecticut, NH, USA, 1960; p. 232. [Google Scholar]
- Sexton, J.B.; Helmreich, R.L.; Neilands, T.B.; Rowan, K.; Vella, K.; Boyden, J.; Roberts, P.R.; Thomas, E.J. The safety attitudes questionnaire: Psychometric properties, benchmarking data, and emerging research. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2006, 6, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Loosemore, M.; Malouf, N. Safety training and positive safety attitude formation in the Australian construction industry. Saf. Sci. 2019, 113, 233–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- White, K.M.; Jimmieson, M.L.; Obse, P.L. Identifying safety beliefs among Australian electrical workers. Saf. Sci. 2016, 82, 164–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hofmann, D.A.; Morgeson, F.P. Safety-related behavior as a social exchange: The role of perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange. J. Appl. Psychol. 1999, 84, 286–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofmann, D.A.; Morgeson, F.P.; Stephen, J.G. 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] [Green Version]
- Shama, D.; Kathryn, M.; Rhona, F. Safety citizenship behavior: A proactive approach to risk management. J. Risk Res. 2009, 12, 475–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conchie, S.M.; Donald, I.J. The moderating role of safety-specific trust on the relation between safety-specific leadership and safety citizenship behaviors. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2009, 14, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Curcuruto, M.; Griffin, M.A. Prosocial and proactive “safety citizenship behavior” (SCB): The mediating role of affective commitment and psychological ownership. Saf. Sci. 2018, 104, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, S.; Zhang, P.; Ding, L. Time-statistical laws of workers’ unsafe behavior in the construction industry: A case study. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Appl. 2019, 515, 419–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stiles, S.; Ryan, B.; Golightly, D. Evaluating attitudes to safety leadership within rail construction projects. Saf. Sci. 2018, 110, 134–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Meng, X.; Zhai, H.; Chan, A.H.S. Development of scales to measure and analyze the relationship of safety consciousness and safety citizenship behavior of construction workers: An empirical study in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Weinstein, N.D.; Sandman, P.M.; Blalock, S.J. The Precaution Adoption Process Model; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, X.; Wei, Y. Risk perception, risk preference and risk management strategy of poor farmers. J. South China Agric. Univ. Soc. Sci. Ed. 2019, 18, 74–85. [Google Scholar]
- Arbuckle, J.G.; Morton, L.W.; Hobbs, J. Farmer beliefs and concerns about climate change and attitudes toward adaptation and mitigation: Evidence from Iowa. Clim. Chang. 2013, 118, 551–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kao, K.; Spitzmueller, C.; Cigularov, K. Linking safety knowledge to safety behaviors: A moderated mediation of supervisor and worker safety attitudes. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2019, 28, 206–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ledesma, R.D.; Tosi, J.D.; Díaz-Lázaro, C.M.; Poó, F.M. Predicting road safety behavior with implicit attitudes and the Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Saf. Res. 2018, 66, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Park, K.A. A Study on the influence of the perception of personal information security of youth on security attitude and security behavior. J. Korea Ind. Inf. Syst. Res. 2019, 24, 79–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, M.; Zhai, H.; Zhang, J.; Meng, X. Research on the relationship between safety leadership, safety attitude and safety citizenship behavior of railway employees. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Arezes, P.M.; Bizarro, M. Alcohol consumption and risk perception in the Portuguese construction industry. Open Occupat. Health Saf. 2011, 3, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mullen, J. Investigating factors that influence individual safety behavior at work. J. Saf. Res. 2004, 35, 275–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, L.A.; Watson, D. Construct validity basic issue in objective scale development. Psychol. Assess. 1995, 7, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.C.; Paul, E.M. Construct validity in psychological tests. J. Psychol. Bull. 1955, 52, 281–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Choe, A.S.; Nebel, M.B.; Barber, A.D.; Cohen, J.R.; Xu, Y.; Pekar, J.J.; Lindquist, M.A. Comparing test-retest reliability of dynamic functional connectivity methods. NeuroImage 2017, 158, 155–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrout, P.E.; Bolger, N. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychol. Methods 2002, 7, 422–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronback, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hair, J.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis: International Version; Pearson Educaton: Cranbury, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Peng, L.; Chan, H.S. 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] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wen, Z.; Ye, B. Mediating effect analysis: Method and model development. Prog. Psychol. Sci. 2014, 22, 731–745. [Google Scholar]
- Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2001; pp. 408–409. [Google Scholar]
- Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- McDonald, R.P.; Ho, M.H. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychol. Methods 2002, 7, 64–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meng, X.; Chan, A.H.S. Demographic influences on safety consciousness and safety citizenship behavior of construction workers. Saf. Sci. 2020, 129, 104835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Wetton, M.A.; Horswill, M.S.; Hatherly, C.; Wood, J.M.; Pachana, N.A.; Anstey, K.J. The development and validation of two complementary measures of drivers’ hazard perception ability. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2010, 42, 1232–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McLaughlin, A.C.; Fletcher, L.M.; Sprufera, J.F. The aging farmer: Human factors research needs in agricultural work. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, 1 October 2009; Volume 53, pp. 1230–1234. [Google Scholar]
- Caffaro, F.; Micheletti Cremasco, M.; Roccato, M.; Cavallo, E. It does not occur by chance: A mediation model of the influence of workers’ characteristics, work environment factors, and near misses on agricultural machinery related accidents. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 2017, 3, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, A.; Misra, S.C. A Dominance based Rough Set analysis for investigating employee perception of safety at workplace and safety compliance. J. Saf. Sci. 2020, 127, 104702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hardison, D.; Behm, M.; Hallowell, M.R.; Fonooni, H. Identifying construction supervisor competencies for effective site safety. Saf. Sci. 2014, 65, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Latent Variable | Dimension | Abbreviations |
---|---|---|
Risk Perception (RP) | RP—severity | RP1 |
RP—worry | RP2 | |
RP—unsafe | RP3 | |
Safety Attitude (SA) | Safety awareness | SA1 |
Safety emotion | SA2 | |
Safety intention | SA3 | |
Safe Citizenship Behavior (SCB) | Help colleagues | SCB1 |
Suggestions | SCB2 | |
Whistleblowing | SCB3 | |
Safe Civic Virtues | SCB4 |
Item | Classification | Number of People | Proportion |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 196 | 73.1% |
Female | 72 | 26.9% | |
Age | 20~25 | 52 | 19.4% |
26~30 | 56 | 20.9% | |
31~40 | 130 | 48.5% | |
41~50 | 26 | 9.7% | |
50 and up | 4 | 1.5% | |
Years of service | Below 1 | 16 | 6.0% |
1~3 | 29 | 10.9% | |
3~5 | 35 | 13.1% | |
6~10 | 77 | 28.7% | |
Above 10 | 111 | 41.4% | |
Educational background | High school and below | 25 | 9.3% |
College | 143 | 53.4% | |
Undergraduate | 96 | 35.8% | |
Master degree and above | 4 | 1.5% |
All scale data | KMO measure of sampling adequacy | 0.961 |
Approximate chi-square | 58,271.158 | |
Freedom | 2346 | |
Significant | 0.000 | |
RP | KMO measure of sampling adequacy | 0.958 |
Approximate chi-square | 18,761.958 | |
Freedom | 231 | |
Significant | 0.000 | |
SA | KMO measure of sampling adequacy | 0.909 |
Approximate chi-square | 7509.345 | |
Freedom | 91 | |
Significant | 0.000 | |
SCB | KMO measure of sampling adequacy | 0.966 |
Approximate chi-square | 29,743.669 | |
Freedom | 528 | |
Significant | 0.000 |
Variable | Test Item | Item Deleted Scale Mean | Scale Variance Value of Item Deleted | Corrected Item Total Correlation (CITC) | Cronbach’s Alpha Value of Item Deleted | Cronbach’s Alpha |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RP | RP1 | 12.467 | 5.537 | 0.739 | 0.836 | 0.866 |
RP2 | 12.636 | 6.133 | 0.799 | 0.760 | ||
RP3 | 12.260 | 7.551 | 0.738 | 0.835 | ||
SA | SA1 | 13.489 | 0.829 | 0.516 | 0.704 | 0.729 |
SA2 | 13.377 | 0.838 | 0.576 | 0.612 | ||
SA3 | 13.308 | 1.099 | 0.618 | 0.617 | ||
SCB | SCB1 | 18.723 | 6.071 | 0.731 | 0.859 | 0.872 |
SCB2 | 19.250 | 4.633 | 0.783 | 0.813 | ||
SCB3 | 19.212 | 4.169 | 0.739 | 0.847 | ||
SCB4 | 19.033 | 4.906 | 0.763 | 0.823 |
Construct | Item | Significance Estimation | Factor Loading | Topic Reliability | Convergent Validity | Composite Reliability | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Un-Std | S.E. | t-Value | p | Std | SMC | AVE | CR | ||
RP | RP1 | 1 | 0.799 | 0.638 | 0.704 | 0.877 | |||
RP2 | 0.993 | 0.067 | 14.874 | *** | 0.906 | 0.821 | |||
RP3 | 0.734 | 0.052 | 14.097 | *** | 0.807 | 0.652 | |||
SA | SA1 | 1 | 0.608 | 0.37 | 0.509 | 0.754 | |||
SA2 | 1.138 | 0.142 | 8.026 | *** | 0.734 | 0.539 | |||
SA3 | 0.862 | 0.109 | 7.87 | *** | 0.786 | 0.617 | |||
SCB | SCB1 | 1 | 0.793 | 0.629 | 0.667 | 0.889 | |||
SCB2 | 1.687 | 0.114 | 14.806 | *** | 0.85 | 0.723 | |||
SCB3 | 1.851 | 0.135 | 13.681 | *** | 0.793 | 0.628 | |||
SCB4 | 1.545 | 0.107 | 14.418 | *** | 0.829 | 0.688 |
SCB | SA | RP | AVE | Square Root of AVE | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SCB | 1 | 0.667 | 0.817 | ||
SA | 0.876 | 1 | 0.509 | 0.713 | |
RP | 0.164 | 0.217 | 1 | 0.704 | 0.839 |
Goodness-of-Fit Statistics | χ2/df | RMR | GFI | IFI | CFI | RMSEA | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Recommended values | 1~3 | <0.05 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | <0.08 | [71,72,73,74,75,76] |
Better value | close to 0 | close to 0 | close to 1 | close to 1 | close to 1 | close to 0 |
χ2/df | RMR | GFI | IFI | CFI | RMSEA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.503 | 0.043 | 0.981 | 0.994 | 0.994 | 0.043 |
χ2/df | RMR | GFI | IFI | CFI | RMSEA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.834 | 0.036 | 0.959 | 0.981 | 0.981 | 0.056 |
Item | Std | Unstd | Product of Coefficient | Bias-Corrected 95% CI | Percentile 95% CI | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S.E. | Z | Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | |||
RP->SA(a) | 0.217 | 0.061 | 0.031 | 1.968 | 0.015 | 0.133 | 0.016 | 0.137 |
SA->SCB(b) | 0.882 | 1.189 | 0.203 | 5.857 | 0.929 | 1.783 | 0.908 | 1.685 |
RP->SCB(c’) (direct coefficient) | −0.028 | −0.011 | 0.017 | −0.647 | −0.04 | 0.031 | −0.046 | 0.022 |
Indirect coefficient (ab) | 0.192 | 0.072 | 0.038 | 1.895 | 0.016 | 0.164 | 0.018 | 0.169 |
Path | Unstd | S.E. | C.R. | p | Std | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SA1 | <--- | RP | 0.128 | 0.044 | 2.886 | 0.004 | 0.185 |
SA2 | <--- | RP | 0.104 | 0.042 | 2.489 | 0.013 | 0.160 |
SA3 | <--- | RP | 0.089 | 0.03 | 3.021 | 0.003 | 0.194 |
SCB | <--- | SA1 | 0.161 | 0.034 | 4.799 | *** | 0.249 |
SCB | <--- | SA2 | 0.148 | 0.035 | 4.192 | *** | 0.216 |
SCB | <--- | SA3 | 0.571 | 0.055 | 10.299 | *** | 0.59 |
RP3 | <--- | RP | 1 | 0.802 | |||
RP2 | <--- | RP | 1.374 | 0.091 | 15.097 | *** | 0.915 |
RP1 | <--- | RP | 1.352 | 0.097 | 13.887 | *** | 0.788 |
SCB1 | <--- | SCB | 1 | 0.792 | |||
SCB2 | <--- | SCB | 1.546 | 0.119 | 12.99 | *** | 0.775 |
SCB3 | <--- | SCB | 1.722 | 0.143 | 12.061 | *** | 0.726 |
SCB4 | <--- | SCB | 1.503 | 0.111 | 13.582 | *** | 0.808 |
Item | Classification | Average Score of RP | Average Score of SA | Average Score of SCB |
---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 6.26 | 6.67 | 4.69 |
Female | 6.15 | 6.77 | 4.69 | |
Age | 20~25 | 6.58 | 6.73 | 4.65 |
26~30 | 6.12 | 6.54 | 4.58 | |
31~40 | 6.23 | 6.74 | 4.74 | |
41~50 | 5.79 | 6.74 | 4.73 | |
50 and up | 5.84 | 6.66 | 4.66 | |
Years of service | Below 1 | 6.48 | 6.61 | 4.46 |
1~3 | 6.55 | 6.82 | 4.59 | |
3~5 | 6.16 | 6.61 | 4.59 | |
6~10 | 6.09 | 6.62 | 4.64 | |
Above 10 | 6.23 | 6.76 | 4.81 | |
Educational background | High school and below | 6.16 | 6.73 | 4.83 |
College | 6.33 | 6.71 | 4.64 | |
Undergraduate | 6.12 | 6.66 | 4.72 | |
Master degree and above | 5.48 | 6.77 | 4.82 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhai, H.; Li, M.; Hao, S.; Chen, M.; Kong, L. How Does Metro Maintenance Staff’s Risk Perception Influence Safety Citizenship Behavior—The Mediating Role of Safety Attitude. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5466. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105466
Zhai H, Li M, Hao S, Chen M, Kong L. How Does Metro Maintenance Staff’s Risk Perception Influence Safety Citizenship Behavior—The Mediating Role of Safety Attitude. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(10):5466. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105466
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhai, Huaiyuan, Mengjie Li, Shengyue Hao, Mingli Chen, and Lingchen Kong. 2021. "How Does Metro Maintenance Staff’s Risk Perception Influence Safety Citizenship Behavior—The Mediating Role of Safety Attitude" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 10: 5466. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105466