Improving the Safety Performance of Construction Workers through Individual Perception and Organizational Collectivity: A Contrastive Research between Mainland China and Hong Kong
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- Offering a theoretical foundation in influence path of individual perception and organizational collectivity on SP.
- (2)
- Comparing the similarities and differences in the influencing mechanism on SP between Mainland China and Hong Kong to provide targeted safety suggestions.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Safety Performance
2.2. Individual and Organizational Influence
2.2.1. Individual Perception Mechanism
2.2.2. Organizational Collectivity Mechanism
2.3. Safety Motivation
2.4. Regional Comparison
2.5. Hypotheses
2.6. Methodology
2.6.1. Questionnaire Survey
2.6.2. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Demographic Information
3.2. Validity and Reliability Tests
3.3. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
3.4. Tests of Mediating Effects
4. Discussion
4.1. Cognitional Influence on Individual Perspective
4.2. Collectivistic Influence on Organizational Perspective
4.3. Integration Role of Safety Motivation
5. Conclusions
5.1. Theoretical and Practical Contributions
5.2. Research Limitations and Further Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Shafique, M.; Rafiq, M. An overview of construction occupational accidents in Hong Kong: A recent trend and future perspectives. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development of China (MHURDC). Available online: http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/ (accessed on 1 September 2022).
- Labour Department. Occupational Safety and Health Statistics Bulletin. 2019. Available online: https://www.labour.gov.hk/eng/osh/pdf/Bulletin2018_issue19_eng.pdf (accessed on 27 August 2022).
- Gunduz, M.; Talat Birgonul, M.; Ozdemir, M. Development of a safety performance index assessment tool by using a fuzzy structural equation model for construction sites. Autom. Constr. 2018, 85, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nyoni, W.; Pillay, M.; Rubin, M.; Jefferies, M. Organizational factors, residual risk management and accident causation in the mining industry: A systematic literature review. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, Orlando, FL, USA, 22 July 2018; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Penaloza, G.A.; Saurin, T.A.; Formoso, C.T.; Herrera, I.A. A resilience engineering perspective of safety performance measurement systems: A systematic literature review. Saf. Sci. 2020, 130, 104864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammadi, A.; Tavakolan, M.; Khosravi, Y. Factors influencing safety performance on construction projects: A review. Saf. Sci. 2018, 109, 382–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atay, E.; Terpstra-Tong, J. The determinants of corporate social irresponsibility: A case study of the Soma mine accident in Turkey. Soc. Responsib. J. 2019, 16, 1433–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moosa, M.H.; Oriet, L.P. Factors affecting safety performance in the construction industry: An empirical study using structural equation modelling. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2022, 28, 779–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Besnard, D.; Albrechtsen, E. Using Human and Organizational Factors to Handle the Risk of a Major Accident in Integrated Operations. In Oil and Gas, Technology and Humans; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018; pp. 47–74. [Google Scholar]
- Grego-Planer, D. The Relationship between Organizational Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in the Public and Private Sectors. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- 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]
- Morris, P.; Sweeting, A.; Morris, P.; Sweeting, A. Education and Politics: The case of Hong Kong from an historical perspective. Oxf. Rev. Educ. 2013, 17, 249–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andel, S.A.; Porter, C.O.L.H.; Amber, B.; Lukjan, K.P.X. Differential effects of rude coworkers and patients on nurses’ safety performance: An emotional labor perspective. J. Manag. Psychol. 2022, 37, 224–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, X.; Yeo, G.; Griffin, M. More to safety compliance than meets the eye: Differentiating deep compliance from surface compliance. Saf. Sci. 2020, 130, 104852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gümüş, R.; Ayhan, M.; Gümüş, B. Safety climate in marble industry and its influence on safety performance and occupational accidents. Arch. Environ. Occup. Health 2022, 12, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, M.; Cheung, C.M.; Li, H.; Hsu, S.C. Understanding the relationship between safety investment and safety performance of construction projects through agent-based modeling. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016, 94, 8–17. [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]
- Plapp, T.; Werner, U. Understanding Risk Perception from Natural Hazards: Examples from Germany. RISK 21—Coping with Risks Due to Natural Hazards in the 21st Century; Taylor & Francis Group: London, UK, 2006; Volume 21, pp. 101–108. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.; McCabe, B.; Hyatt, D. Impact of individual resilience and safety climate on safety performance and psychological stress of construction workers: A case study of the Ontario construction industry. J. Saf. Res. 2017, 61, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bearth, A.; Siegrist, M. Are risk or benefit perceptions more important for public acceptance of innovative food technologies: A meta-analysis. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 49, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trillo-Cabello, A.F.; Carrillo-Castrillo, J.A.; Rubio-Romero, J.C. Perception of risk in construction. Exploring the factors that influence experts in occupational health and safety. Saf. Sci. 2021, 133, 104990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Organ, D.W.; Ryan, K. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Pers. Psychol. 1995, 48, 775–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burlingame, G.M.; McClendon, D.T.; Yang, C. Cohesion in group therapy: A meta-analysis. Psychotherapy 2018, 55, 384–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greer, L.L. Group cohesion: Then and now. Small Gr. Res. 2012, 43, 655–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmitz, H. Collective efficiency: Growth path for small-scale industry. J. Dev. Stud. 1995, 31, 529–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lema, R.; Vang, J. Collective efficiency: A prerequisite for cluster development. World Rev. Entrep. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 14, 348–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vedel, M.; Holma, A.M.; Havila, V. Conceptualizing inter-organizational triads. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2016, 57, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skorstad, E.J.; Karlsson, J.C. The worker collectivity and Anglo-Saxon theories of collectivity. Econ. Ind. Democr. 2017, 41, 397–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hopkins, A. The use and abuse of “culture”. In Safety Cultures, Safety Models; Springer Briefs in Applied Sciences and Technology; Springer: Cham, Switzerland; Berlin, Germany, 2018; pp. 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartley, S. An Aesthetics of Dependency: Models of Individual Responsibility and Practices of Collectivity in Community Performance. In Performing Welfare Contemporary Performance Inter Actions. Palgrave Macmillan; Springer: Cham, Switzerland; London, UK, 2020; pp. 79–115. [Google Scholar]
- Vinodkumar, M.; 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]
- Maneechaeye, P.; Potipiroon, W. The impact of fleet-level and organization-level safety climates on safety behavior among Thai civilian pilots: The role of safety motivation. Saf. Sci. 2022, 147, 105614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.F.; Chen, S.C. Measuring the effects of safety management system practices, morality leadership and self-efficacy on pilots’ safety behaviours: Safety motivation as a mediator. Saf. Sci. 2014, 62, 376–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helander, M. Safety hazards and motivation for safe work in the construction industry. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 1991, 8, 205–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hedlund, A.; Gummesson, K.; Rydell, A.; Andersson, I.M. Safety motivation at work: Evaluation of changes from six interventions. Saf. Sci. 2016, 82, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2017, 22, 273–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siegrist, M.; Árvai, J. Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research. Risk Anal. 2020, 40, 2191–2206. [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]
- Liu, S.X.; Zhou, Y.; Cheng, Y.; Zhu, Y.Q. Multiple mediating effects in the relationship between employees’ trust in organizational safety and safety participation behavior. Saf. Sci. 2020, 125, 104611. [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]
- Lewis, T. Assessing social identity and collective efficacy as theories of group motivation at work. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2011, 22, 963–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, E.K.W. Culture, Politics and Television in Hong Kong; Routledge: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, T.T. Trade Dependence within Greater China: Economy and Trade Between Mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. Asian J. Econ. Model. 2018, 6, 203–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Man, S.S.; Chan, A.H.S.; Wong, H.M. Risk-taking behaviors of Hong Kong construction workers—A thematic study. Saf. Sci. 2017, 98, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nie, B.; Huang, X.; Xue, F.; Chen, J.; Liu, X.; Meng, Y.; Huang, J. A comparative study of vocational education and occupational safety and health training in China and the UK. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2017, 24, 268–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naji, G.M.A.; Isha, A.S.N.; Mohyaldinn, M.E.; Leka, S.; Saleem, M.S.; Rahman, S.M.N.B.S.A.; Alzoraiki, M. Impact of Safety Culture on Safety Performance; Mediating Role of Psychosocial Hazard: An Integrated Modelling Approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kidwell, R.E.; Mossholder, K.W.; Bennett, N. Cohesiveness and organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals. J. Manag. 1997, 23, 775–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jex, S.M.; Bliese, P.D. Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-related stressors: A multilevel study. J. Appl. Psychol. 1999, 84, 349–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Tavakol, M.; Dennick, R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2011, 2, 53–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Harrington, D. Confirmatory Factor Analysis; Pocket Guides to Social Work Research Methods Series; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Falk, C.F.; Biesanz, J.C. Two cross-platform programs for inferences and interval estimation about indirect effects in mediational models. SAGE Open 2016, 6, 215824401562544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mueller, R.O.; Hancock, G.R. Structural equation modeling. In The Reviewer’s Guide to Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 445–456. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Y.; Zheng, J.; Darko, A. How Does Transformational Leadership Promote Innovation in Construction? The Mediating Role of Innovation Climate and the Multilevel Moderation Role of Project Requirements. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hooper, D.; Coughlan, J.; Mullen, M. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods. 2008, 6, 53–60. [Google Scholar]
- Hagger, M.S.; Chatzisarantis, N.L.D.; Barkoukis, V.; Wang, J.C.K.; Hein, V.; Pihu, M.; Soós, I.; Karsai, I. Cross-Cultural Generalizability of the Theory of Planned Behavior among Young People in a Physical Activity Context. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2007, 29, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abu-Bader, S.; Jones, T.V. Statistical Mediation Analysis Using the Sobel Test and Hayes SPSS Process Macro. Int. J. Quant. Qual. Res. Methods 2021, 9, 42–61. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3799204 (accessed on 1 November 2022).
- Oah, S.; Na, R.; Moon, K. The influence of safety climate, safety leadership, workload, and accident experiences on risk perception: A study of Korean manufacturing workers. Saf. Health Work 2018, 9, 427–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Măirean, C.; Havârneanu, G.M.; Popușoi, S.A.; Havarneanu, C.E. Traffic locus of control scale–Romanian version: Psychometric properties and relations to the driver’s personality, risk perception, and driving behavior. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2017, 45, 131–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeelani, I. Improving Safety Performance in Construction Using Visual Data Analytics and Virtual Reality. Ph.D. Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Hutchinson, D.; Luria, G.; Pindek, S.; Spector, P. The effects of industry risk level on safety training outcomes: A meta-analysis of intervention studies. Saf. Sci. 2022, 152, 105594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Javaras, K.N.; Williams, M.; Baskin-Sommers, A.R. Psychological interventions potentially useful for increasing conscientiousness. Pers. Disord. Theory Res. Treat. 2019, 10, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tasa, K.; Taggar, S.; Seijts, G.H. The development of collective efficacy in teams: A multilevel and longitudinal perspective. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tower, C.; Van Nostrand, E.; Misra, R.; Barnett, D.J. Building Collective Efficacy to Support Public Health Workforce Development. J. Public Heal. Manag. Pract. 2021, 27, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheer, V.C. Transformational and paternalistic leaderships in Chinese organizations: Construct, predictive, and ecological validities compared in a Hong Kong sample. Intercult. Commun. Stud. 2010, 19, 121. Available online: https://www-s3-live.kent.edu/s3fs-root/s3fs-public/file/09VivianSheer.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2022).
- Li, H.; Yuan, B.; Yu, Y.; Li, J.; Meng, Q. Work Motivation of Primary Health Workers in China: The Translation of a Measurement Scale and Its Correlation with Turnover Intention. Risk Manag. Healthc. Policy 2022, 15, 1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pandit, B.; Albert, A.; Patil, Y.; Al-Bayati, A.J. Fostering safety communication among construction workers: Role of safety climate and crew-level cohesion. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019, 16, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kholil, K.; Widowati, D. Communication Strategy to Encourage Employee Participation for Osh Performance Improvement at Pt Global Dairi Alami Subang West Jawa Province Indonesia. Arch. Bus. Res. 2021, 9, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muchiri, M.K.; McMurray, A.J.; Nkhoma, M.; Pham, H.C. How transformational and empowering leader behaviors enhance workplace safety: A review and research agenda. J. Dev. Areas 2019, 53, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferrer, R.A.; Klein, W.M.; Avishai, A.; Jones, K.; Villegas, M.; Sheeran, P. When does risk perception predict protection motivation for health threats? A person-by-situation analysis. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0191994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paine, J.W.; Federspiel, F.; Seifert, M.; Zou, X. Take a risk or proceed with caution: Prevention motivation moderates responses to near-loss events. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2020, 33, 505–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, Q.; Zhou, Z.; Ye, G.; Shen, L. Unveiling the mechanism of construction workers’ unsafe behaviors from an occupational stress perspective: A qualitative and quantitative examination of a stress–cognition–safety model. Saf. Sci. 2022, 145, 105486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCall, H.C.; Beahm, J.D.; Fournier, A.K.; Burnett, J.L.; Carleton, R.N.; Hadjistavropoulos, H.D. Stakeholder perspectives on internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy for public safety personnel: A qualitative analysis. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 2021, 53, 232. Available online: https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2020-63772-001 (accessed on 1 November 2022). [CrossRef]
- Roberts, B.W.; Lejuez, C.; Krueger, R.F.; Richards, J.M.; Hill, P.L. What is conscientiousness and how can it be assessed? Dev. Psychol. 2014, 50, 1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Russo, V.; Rago, A.; Proietti, R.; Di Meo, F.; Antonio Papa, A.; Calabrò, P.; D’Onofrio, A.; Nigro, G.; AlTurki, A. Efficacy and safety of the target-specific oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: The real-life evidence. Ther. Adv. Drug Saf. 2017, 8, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Assessments | Criteria | References |
---|---|---|
Consistency reliability |
| [51] |
Convergent validity |
| [52] |
Discriminant validity |
| [53] |
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) |
| [54] |
Demographic Variable | Mainland China (197) | Hong Kong (180) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | Percentage (%) | N | Percentage (%) | ||
Gender | Male | 115 | 58.38 | 146 | 81.11 |
Female | 82 | 41.62 | 34 | 18.89 | |
Education background | Primary school or below | 22 | 11.17 | 27 | 15.00 |
Junior high school | 101 | 51.27 | 42 | 23.33 | |
High school | 46 | 23.35 | 66 | 36.67 | |
University or above | 28 | 14.21 | 45 | 25.00 | |
Age | 20–30 | 83 | 42.13 | 36 | 20.00 |
30–40 | 91 | 46.19 | 60 | 33.33 | |
40–50 | 14 | 7.11 | 72 | 40.00 | |
≥50 | 9 | 4.57 | 12 | 6.67 | |
Weekly working hours | <40 | 4 | 1.02 | 10 | 5.56 |
35–40 | 11 | 5.58 | 11 | 6.11 | |
41–45 | 49 | 24.87 | 46 | 25.56 | |
46–50 | 85 | 43.15 | 48 | 26.67 | |
51–55 | 41 | 20.81 | 31 | 16.11 | |
≥55 | 7 | 3.55 | 34 | 18.89 | |
Years of working service | <3 | 39 | 19.80 | 19 | 10.56 |
4–6 | 68 | 34.52 | 21 | 11.67 | |
7–9 | 44 | 22.34 | 38 | 21.11 | |
10–12 | 27 | 13.71 | 8 | 4.44 | |
13–15 | 11 | 5.58 | 74 | 41.11 | |
≥16 | 8 | 4.06 | 20 | 11.11 | |
Job Title | Quality inspector | 30 | 15.23 | 35 | 19.44 |
Safety inspector | 33 | 16.75 | 24 | 13.33 | |
Project manager | 19 | 9.64 | 22 | 12.22 | |
Constructor | 72 | 36.55 | 59 | 32.78 | |
Technician | 43 | 21.83 | 40 | 22.22 |
Construct | Dimension | Item | Factor Loading (HK) | Factor Loading (MC) | Cronbach’s Alpha (HK) | Cronbach’s Alpha (MC) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RPC | Probability | 1 | 0.855 | 0.863 | 0.804 | 0.821 |
2 | 0.774 | 0.708 | ||||
3 | 0.692 | 0.637 | ||||
Seriousness | 4 | 0.706 | 0.615 | |||
5 | 0.797 | 0.674 | ||||
6 | 0.823 | 0.756 | ||||
7 | 0.732 | 0.802 | ||||
Worry and unsafety | 8 | 0.694 | 0.721 | |||
9 | 0.673 | 0.652 | ||||
10 | 0.705 | 0.726 | ||||
11 | 0.827 | 0.804 | ||||
12 | 0.882 | 0.755 | ||||
13 | 0.762 | 0.653 | ||||
OC | Group cohesion | 1 | 0.636 | 0.674 | 0.792 | 0.806 |
2 | 0.689 | 0.712 | ||||
3 | 0.742 | 0.763 | ||||
4 | 0.753 | 0.835 | ||||
5 | 0.824 | 0.867 | ||||
6 | 0.777 | 0.814 | ||||
7 | 0.795 | 0.684 | ||||
8 | 0.852 | 0.863 | ||||
Collective efficiency | 9 | 0.691 | 0.788 | |||
10 | 0.752 | 0.687 | ||||
11 | 0.823 | 0.842 | ||||
12 | 0.884 | 0.798 | ||||
SMO | 1 | 0.836 | 0.743 | 0.811 | 0.847 | |
2 | 0.792 | 0.785 | ||||
3 | 0.654 | 0.726 | ||||
4 | 0.799 | 0.821 | ||||
5 | 0.823 | 0.673 | ||||
SP | SP1 | 1 | 0.809 | 0.884 | 0.859 | 0.755 |
2 | 0.746 | 0.887 | ||||
3 | 0.602 | 0.852 | ||||
SP2 | 4 | 0.763 | 0.810 | |||
5 | 0.746 | 0.872 | ||||
6 | 0.783 | 0.963 |
Safety Construct | Composite Reliability (HK) | Average Variance Extracted (HK) | Composite Reliability (MC) | Average Variance Extracted (MC) |
---|---|---|---|---|
OC | 0.945 | 0.594 | 0.948 | 0.608 |
RPC | 0.948 | 0.587 | 0.934 | 0.524 |
SMO | 0.887 | 0.613 | 0.865 | 0.564 |
SP | 0.880 | 0.554 | 0.953 | 0.772 |
OC | RPC | SMO | SP | |
---|---|---|---|---|
OC | 0.780 (MC) 0.768(HK) | |||
RPC | 0.586 ** (MC) 0.563 ** (HK) | 0.724 (MC) 0.766 (HK) | ||
SMO | 0.428 ** (MC) 0.572 ** (HK) | 0.525 ** (MC) 0.492 ** (HK) | 0.751 (MC) 0.783 (HK) | |
SP | 0.502 ** (MC) 0.485 ** (HK) | 0.479 ** (MC) 0.453 ** (HK) | 0.526 ** (MC) 0.465 ** (HK) | 0.879 (MC) 0.744 (HK) |
χ2/df | SRMR | TLI | CFI | RMSEA | GFI | AGFI | PGFI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hong Kong Model | 4.723 | 0.055 | 0.965 | 0.952 | 0.054 | 0.893 | 0.875 | 0.679 |
Mainland Model | 4.357 | 0.043 | 0.953 | 0.941 | 0.062 | 0.913 | 0.896 | 0.682 |
Standard |
Comparison | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Hong Kong vs. Mainland China | 0.011 ** | 18 ** | 72.35 ** | 0.011 ** |
Safety Construct | Sig (HK) | Sig (MC) | |
---|---|---|---|
RPC→SMO | 0.701 *** | 0.353 ** | |
RPC→SP | 0.725 *** | 0.425 ** | |
OC→SMO | 0.744 *** | 0.384 ** | |
OC→SP | 0.634 *** | 0.347 ** | |
SMO→SP | 0.692 *** | 0.382 ** |
Influence Path | Mediating Effect | Bootstrapping | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percentile 95% CI | Bias-Corrected Percentile 95% CI | Sig (Two Tiled) | ||||
Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | |||
RPC→SMO→SP (HK) | 0.579 | 0.527 | 0.631 | 0.527 | 0.631 | *** |
OC→SMO→SP (HK) | 0.611 | 0.509 | 0.713 | 0.510 | 0.714 | *** |
RPC→SMO→SP (MC) | 0.293 | 0.195 | 0.391 | 0.196 | 0.392 | ** |
OC→SMO→SP (MC) | 0.315 | 0.219 | 0.411 | 0.220 | 0.412 | ** |
RPC | OC | SMO | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
SMO | Total | 0.700 *** | 0.744 *** | |
Direct | 0.700 *** | 0.744 *** | ||
Indirect | ||||
SP | Total | 0.887 **** | 0.886 **** | 0.692 *** |
Direct | 0.725 *** | 0.634 *** | 0.692 *** | |
Indirect | 0.162 * | 0.252 * |
RPC | OC | SMO | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
SMO | Total | 0.352 ** | 0.384 ** | |
Direct | 0.352 ** | 0.384 ** | ||
Indirect | ||||
SP | Total | 0.576 *** | 0.538 *** | 0.381 ** |
Direct | 0.422 ** | 0.347 ** | 0.381 ** | |
Indirect | 0.154 * | 0.191 * |
No. | Hong Kong | Mainland China |
---|---|---|
Hypothesis 1 | Accepted | Accepted |
Hypothesis 2 | Accepted | Accepted |
Hypothesis 3 | Accepted | Accepted |
Hypothesis 4 | Accepted | Accepted |
Hypothesis 5 | Accepted | Accepted |
Hypothesis 6 | Accepted | Accepted |
Hypothesis 7 | Accepted | Accepted |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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
Meng, X.; Chan, A.H.S. Improving the Safety Performance of Construction Workers through Individual Perception and Organizational Collectivity: A Contrastive Research between Mainland China and Hong Kong. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 14599. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114599
Meng X, Chan AHS. Improving the Safety Performance of Construction Workers through Individual Perception and Organizational Collectivity: A Contrastive Research between Mainland China and Hong Kong. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(21):14599. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114599
Chicago/Turabian StyleMeng, Xiangcheng, and Alan H. S. Chan. 2022. "Improving the Safety Performance of Construction Workers through Individual Perception and Organizational Collectivity: A Contrastive Research between Mainland China and Hong Kong" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 21: 14599. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114599