The Mediation Role of Safety Attitude in the Impact of Resilience on the Safety Behavior of Coal Miners in China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Proposal
2.1. Resilience
2.2. Safety Behavior
2.3. Safety Attitude
2.4. Hypotheses on the Relationship between Resilience, Safety Attitude, and Safety Behaviors
3. Research Tools and Methods
3.1. Research Scale
3.2. Samples and Procedures
3.3. Data Analysis Method
4. Results
4.1. Validity and Reliability of the Three Scales
4.2. Correlation Analysis
4.3. Regression Analysis of the Impact of Resilience on Safety Behavior
4.4. Regression Analysis of the Impact of Resilience on Safety Attitude
4.5. Regression Analysis of the Impact of Safety Attitude on Safety Behavior
4.6. The Mediating Role of Safety Attitude in the Impact of Resilience on Safety Behavior
5. Discussion
5.1. Relationships between Resilience, Safety Attitude, and Safety Behaviors of Coal Miners
5.2. Impacts of Demographic Variables on Coal Miners’ Resilience, Safety Attitude, and Safety Behaviors
5.3. The Resilience, Safety Attitude, and Safety Behavior of Coal Miners
5.4. Limitations and Future Research
6. Conclusions
- (1)
- The resilience scale, safety attitude scale, and safety behavior scale for coal miners have good validity and reliability.
- (2)
- Coal miners’ resilience significantly and positively influenced safety behavior. Additionally, the two dimensions of resilience significantly and positively influenced the two dimensions of safety behavior, and tenacity had a impact on safety participation and safety compliance than strength.
- (3)
- Resilience positively affected safety attitude. Moreover, tenacity and strength significantly affected team safety climate and management safety commitment. Tenacity negatively affected fatalism and job stress.
- (4)
- Safety attitude positively influenced safety behavior: there were significant relationships between each dimension of safety attitude and safety behavior. Team safety climate and management safety commitment positively affected safety participation and safety compliance. Job stress did not correlate with safety compliance. Job stress had a negative correlation but no relationship with safety participation. Fatalism had negative correlations but no relationships with safety compliance or safety participation.
- (5)
- Safety attitude played a partial mediating role in the impact of resilience on safe behavior. Furthermore, safety attitude played a partial mediating role in the effects of resilience on two kinds of safe behavior.
- (6)
- The effects of demographic variables on resilience, safety attitude, and safety behaviors of coal miners were investigated. Education level positively affected resilience and safety behavior, accident experience negatively affected safety behavior and safety participation, and management safety commitment positively affected job stress.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wang, C.; Wang, J.K.; Wang, X.H.; Yu, H.; Bai, L.; Sun, Q. Exploring the impacts of factors contributing to unsafe behavior of coal miners. Saf. Sci. 2019, 115, 339–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braun, T.J.; Hayes, B.C.; DeMuth, R.L.F.; Taran, O.A. The Development, Validation, and Practical Application of an Employee Agility and Resilience Measure to Facilitate Organizational Change. Ind. Organ. Psychol. Perspect. Sci. Pract. 2017, 10, 702–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Black, J.K.; Balanos, G.M.; Whittaker Previously Phillips, A.C. Resilience, work engagement and stress reactivity in a middle-aged manual worker population. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2017, 116, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Britt, T.W.; Castro, C.A.; Adler, A.B. Self-engagement, stressors, and health: A longitudinal study. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2005, 31, 1475–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maidaniuc-Chirila, T. The Mediation Role of Resilience on the Relationship between Workplace Bullying and Romanian Employees’ Strain. Rev. De Cercet. Si Interv. Soc. 2015, 48, 120–133. [Google Scholar]
- Bardoel, E.A.; Pettit, T.M.; De Cieri, H.; McMillan, L. Employee resilience: An emerging challenge for HRM. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 2014, 52, 279–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kitamura, H.; Shindo, M.; Tachibana, A.; Honma, H.; Someya, T. Personality and resilience associated with perceived fatigue of local government employees responding to disasters. J. Occup. Health 2013, 55, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Niazi, I.U.H.K.; Rana, I.A.; Arshad, H.S.H.; Lodhi, R.H.; Najam, F.A.; Jamshed, A. Psychological resilience of children in a multi-hazard environment: An index-based approach. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022, 83, 103397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henning, J.B.; Stufft, C.J.; Payne, S.C.; Bergman, M.E.; Mannan, M.S.; Keren, N. The influence of individual differences on organizational safety attitudes. Saf. Sci. 2009, 47, 337–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, X.; Yin, W.; Wu, C.; Li, Y. Development and Validation of a Safety Attitude Scale for Coal Miners in China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Diaz, R.I.; Cabrera, D.D.A. Safety climate and attitude as evaluation measures of organizational safety. Accid. Anal. Prev. 1997, 29, 643–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borjesson, M.; Osterberg, J.; Enander, A. Risk and Safety Attitudes among Conscripts during Compulsory Military Training. Mil. Psychol. 2011, 23, 659–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.L.; Wu, X.; Luo, X.W.; Gao, J.Q.; Yin, W.W. Impact of Safety Attitude on the Safety Behavior of Coal Miners in China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Masten, A.S. Ordinary magic. Resilience processes in development. Am. Psychol. 2001, 56, 227–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lazarus, R.S. From psychological stress to the emotions: A history of changing outlooks. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1993, 44, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Werner, E.E. Resilience in Development. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 1995, 4, 81–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luthar, S.S.; Cicchetti, D.; Becker, B. The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Dev. 2000, 71, 543–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Connor, K.M.; Davidson, J.R. Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depress. Anxiety 2003, 18, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagnild, G.M.; Young, H.M. Development and psychometric evaluation of the Resilience Scale. J. Nurs. Meas. 1993, 1, 165–178. [Google Scholar]
- Hjemdal, O.; Friborg, O.; Stiles, T.C.; Martinussen, M.; Rosenvinge, J.H. A new scale for adolescent resilience: Grasping the central protective resources behind healthy development. Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev. 2006, 39, 84–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.L.; Zhao, X.; Ding, X.X.; Yang, H.Y.; Qian, Z.Z.; Feng, F.; Lu, S.S.; Hu, C.Y.; Gong, F.F.; Sun, Y.H. A prospective study of psychological resilience and depression among left-behind children in China. J. Health Psychol. 2015, 22, 627–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Zhao, Q.; Cao, P.; Ren, G. Resilience and Quality of Life: Exploring the Mediator Role of Social Support in Patients with Breast Cancer. Med. Sci. Monit. 2017, 23, 5969–5979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Theng, Y.L.; Foo, S. Does psychological resilience mediate the impact of social support on geriatric depression? An exploratory study among Chinese older adults in Singapore. Asian J. Psychiatry 2015, 14, 22–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hao, R.; Dong, H.; Zhang, R.; Li, P.; Zhang, P.; Zhang, M.; Hu, J. The Relationship between Neuroticism Fit and General Well-Being: The Mediating Effect of Psychological Resilience. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 2219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, J.Q.; Li, Y.L.; Wu, X. Revision and validation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale of coal miners in China. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2021, 85, 103191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siu, O.L.; Phillips, D.R.; Leung, T.W. Age differences in safety attitudes and safety performance in Hong Kong construction workers. J. Safety Res. 2003, 34, 199–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- 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]
- Ulleberg, P.; Rundmo, T. Personality, attitudes and risk perception as predictors of risky driving behaviour among young drivers. Saf. Sci. 2003, 41, 427–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.F. Personality, safety attitudes and risky driving behaviors-Evidence from young Taiwanese motorcyclists. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2009, 41, 963–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hystad, S.W.; Bye, H.H. Safety behaviours at sea: The role of personal values and personality hardiness. Saf. Sci. 2013, 57, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leung, M.Y.; Liang, Q.; Olomolaiye, P. Impact of Job Stressors and Stress on the Safety Behavior and Accidents of Construction Workers. J. Manag. Eng. 2016, 32, 04015019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dov, Z. Safety climate and beyond: A multi-level multi-climate framework. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 376–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, S.E. The predictive validity of safety climate. J. Safety Res. 2007, 38, 511–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Guldenmund, F.W. The nature of safety culture: A review of theory and research. Saf. Sci. 2000, 34, 215–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donald, I.; Canter, D. Employee Attitudes and Safety in the Chemical-Industry. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 1994, 7, 203–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, S.; Cox, T. The structure of employee attitudes to safety: A European example. Work Stress 1991, 5, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williamson, A.M.; Feyer, A.M.; Cairns, D.; Biancotti, D. The development of a measure of safety climate: The role of safety perceptions and attitudes. Saf. Sci. 1997, 25, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hobfoll, S.E. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am. Psychol. 1989, 44, 513–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hobfoll, S.E. The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing Conservation of Resources theory. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. Psychol. Appl. Rev. Int. 2001, 50, 337–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baser, F.; Ture, H.; Abubakirova, A.; Sanlier, N.; Cil, B. Structural modeling of the relationship among food safety knowledge, attitude and behavior of hotel staff in Turkey. Food Control 2017, 73, 438–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fugas, C.S.; Silva, S.A.; Melia, J.L. Another look at safety climate and safety behavior: Deepening the cognitive and social mediator mechanisms. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012, 45, 468–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th ed.; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; pp. 12–15. ISBN 0138132631. [Google Scholar]
- Schreiber, J.B.; Nora, A.; Stage, F.K.; Barlow, E.A.; King, J. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. J. Educ. Res. 2006, 99, 323–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denis, D.J. Spss Data Analysis for Univariate, Bivariate, and Multivariate Statistics; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2018; ISBN 1119465812. [Google Scholar]
- Shin, M.; Lee, H.S.; Park, M.; Moon, M.; Han, S. A system dynamics approach for modeling construction workers’ safety attitudes and behaviors. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 68, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, S.; Shi, X.Z.; Wu, C. Measuring the effects of external factor on leadership safety behavior: Case study of mine enterprises in China. Saf. Sci. 2017, 93, 241–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rundmo, T.; Hale, A.R. Managers’ attitudes towards safety and accident prevention. Saf. Sci. 2003, 41, 557–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Chen, N.; Fu, G.; Yan, M.; Kim, Y.C. The Safety Attitudes of Senior Managers in the Chinese Coal Industry. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Harzing, A.W.; Brown, M.; Koster, K.; Zhao, S.M. Response Style Differences in Cross-National Research Dispositional and Situational Determinants. Manag. Int. Rev. 2012, 52, 341–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Items | Sample Characteristics | Number | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Age | 25 years old and below | 10 | 1.56 |
26–30 years old | 141 | 22.07 | |
31–35 years old | 212 | 33.18 | |
36–40 years old | 89 | 13.93 | |
41–45 years old | 61 | 9.55 | |
46–50 years old | 75 | 11.74 | |
51 years old and above | 51 | 7.88 | |
Length of service | 5 years and below | 121 | 18.94 |
6–10 years | 170 | 26.60 | |
11–15 years | 136 | 21.28 | |
16–20 years | 52 | 8.14 | |
21–25 years | 43 | 6.73 | |
26–30 years | 55 | 8.61 | |
31 years and above | 62 | 9.70 | |
Educational level | Junior Middle school education and below | 42 | 6.57 |
Higher school education | 218 | 34.12 | |
Junior college degree | 249 | 38.97 | |
Bachelor’s degree | 122 | 19.09 | |
Master’s degree and above | 8 | 1.25 | |
Marital Status | Unmarried | 70 | 10.95 |
Married | 556 | 87.01 | |
Divorced | 13 | 2.03 | |
Accident experience | No | 546 | 85.45 |
yes | 93 | 14.55 |
Scale (Number of Items) | KMO Value | Bartlett’s Spherical Test Significant Level | Dimension (Number of Items) | Explanation Rates | Cumulative Explanation Rate |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Standard Value | >0.8 | >50% | |||
Resilience Scale (6) | 0.887 | p < 0.01 | Tenacity (4) | 40.889% | 71.605% |
Strength (2) | 30.716% | ||||
Safety Attitude Scale (17) | 0.837 | p < 0.01 | Management Safety Commitment (5) | 18.697% | 61.153% |
Fatalism (4) | 15.407% | ||||
Team Safety Climate (4) | 14.732% | ||||
Job Stress (4) | 12.318% | ||||
Safety Behavior Scale (6) | 0.882 | p < 0.01 | Safety Compliance (3) | 38.666% | 76.716% |
Safety Participation (3) | 38.050% |
Fit Index | X2(df) | X2/df | CFI | TLI | RMSEA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Standard Value [44] | <3 | <3 | ≥0.95 | ≥0.95 | <0.08 |
Resilience Scale | 16.152(8) *** | 2.019 | 0.995 | 0.991 | 0.040 |
Safety Attitude Scale | 391.714(113) *** | 3.466 | 0.929 | 0.915 | 0.062 |
Safety Behavior Scale | 20.525(8) ** | 2.567 | 0.994 | 0.989 | 0.050 |
Scale (Number of Items) | Dimension (Number of Items) | Cronbach’s Alpha | |
---|---|---|---|
Resilience Scale (6) | Tenacity (4) | 0.833 | 0.872 |
Strength (2) | 0.759 | ||
Safety Attitude Scale (17) | Management Safety Commitment (5) | 0.840 | 0.657 |
Fatalism (4) | 0.787 | ||
Team Safety Climate (4) | 0.702 | ||
Job Stress (4) | 0.811 | ||
Safety Behavior Scale (6) | Safety Compliance (3) | 0.856 | 0.892 |
Safety Participation (3) | 0.837 |
Variables | Age | Length of Service | Education Level | Marital Status | Accident Experience | Resilience | Safety Attitude | Safety Behavior |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 1 | |||||||
Length of Service | 0.881 ** | 1 | ||||||
Academic Degree | −0.359 ** | −0.259 ** | 1 | |||||
Marital Status | 0.296 ** | 0.250 ** | −0.153 ** | 1 | ||||
Accident Experience | 0.117 ** | 0.146 ** | −0.056 | 0.056 | 1 | |||
Resilience | −0.080 * | −0.063 | 0.120 ** | 0.070 | −0.049 | 1 | ||
Safety Attitude | 0.006 | 0.001 | −0.010 | −0.024 | −0.016 | 0.161 ** | 1 | |
Safety Behavior | −0.047 | −0.060 | 0.090 * | 0.006 | −0.121 ** | 0.559 ** | 0.234 ** | 1 |
Dimensions | Tenacity | Strength |
---|---|---|
Safety Compliance | 0.457 ** | 0.416 ** |
Safety Participation | 0.539 ** | 0.464 ** |
Dimensions | Management Safety Commitment | Fatalism | Team Safety Climate | Job Stress |
---|---|---|---|---|
Safety Compliance | 0.498 ** | −0.083 * | 0.607 ** | 0.010 |
Safety Participation | 0.463 ** | −0.152 ** | 0.549 ** | −0.141 ** |
Dimensions | Management Safety Commitment | Fatalism | Team Safety Climate | Job Stress |
---|---|---|---|---|
Tenacity | 0.426 ** | −0.178 ** | 0.397 ** | −0.191 ** |
Strength | 0.377 ** | −0.129 ** | 0.350 ** | −0.141 ** |
Variable | Safety Behavior | |
---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | |
Age | 0.023 (0.720) | 0.040 (1.501) |
Length of Service | −0.026 (−0.990) | −0.029 (−1.328) |
Education Level | 0.059 (2.087 *) | 0.019 (0.783) |
Marital Status | 0.039 (0.688) | −0.045 (−0.951) |
Accident Experience | −0.189 (−2.841 **) | −0.150 (−2.712 **) |
Resilience | 0.510 (16.775 **) | |
R2 | 0.024 | 0.325 |
Value of F | F (5,633) = 3.090, p = 0.009 | F (6,632) = 50.617, p = 0.000 |
△R2 | 0.024 | 0.301 |
Value of △F | F (5,633) = 3.090, p = 0.009 | F (1,632) = 281.408, p = 0.000 |
Variable | Safety Compliance | Safety Participation | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | |
Age | 0.016 (0.628) | 0.027 (1.209) | 0.026 (0.710) | 0.043 (1.393) |
Length of Service | −0.015 (−0.709) | −0.016 (−0.910) | −0.031 (−1.049) | −0.034 (−1.357) |
Education Level | 0.022 (0.966) | −0.005 (−0.268) | 0.081 (2.477 *) | 0.038 (1.387) |
Marital Status | −0.013 (−0.292) | −0.067 (−1.699) | 0.074 (1.142) | −0.008 (−0.148) |
Accident Experience | −0.089 (−1.700) | −0.064 (−1.388) | −0.246 (−3.222 **) | −0.208 (−3.243 **) |
Strength | 0.126 (4.150 **) | 0.153 (3.621 **) | ||
Tenacity | 0.222 (6.723 **) | 0.424 (9.255 **) | ||
R2 | 0.008 | 0.236 | 0.032 | 0.323 |
F | F (5,633) = 0.993, p = 0.421 | F (7,631) = 27.871, p = 0.000 | F (5,633) = 4.175, p = 0.001 | F (7,631) = 43.007, p = 0.000 |
△R2 | 0.008 | 0.228 | 0.032 | 0.291 |
△F | F (5,633) = 0.993, p = 0.421 | F (2,631) = 94.334, p = 0.000 | F (5,633) = 4.175, p = 0.001 | F (2,631) = 135.646, p = 0.000 |
Variable | Safety Attitude | |
---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | |
Age | 0.007 (0.287) | 0.010 (0.452) |
Length of Service | −0.003 (−0.179) | −0.004 (−0.217) |
Education Level | −0.005 (−0.243) | −0.014 (−0.681) |
Marital Status | −0.028 (−0.679) | −0.046 (−1.135) |
Accident Experience | −0.019 (−0.390) | −0.010 (−0.217) |
Resilience | 0.111 (4.268 **) | |
R2 | 0.001 | 0.029 |
F | F (5,633) = 0.148, p = 0.981 | F (6,632) = 3.163, p = 0.005 |
△R2 | 0.001 | 0.028 |
△F | F (5,633) = 0.148, p = 0.981 | F (1,632) = 18.219, p = 0.000 |
Variable | Management Safety Commitment | Team Safety Climate | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | |
Age | 0.063 (1.496) | 0.080 (2.095 *) | 0.041 (1.163) | 0.055 (1.689) |
Length of Service | −0.030 (−0.880) | −0.033 (−1.067) | −0.032 (−1.124) | −0.034 (−1.320) |
Education Level | 0.063 (1.690) | 0.023 (0.668) | −0.018 (−0.574) | −0.051 (−1.767) |
Marital Status | 0.009 (0.125) | −0.070 (−1.051) | −0.034 (−0.545) | −0.098 (−1.728) |
Accident Experience | −0.261 (−2.990 **) | −0.224 (−2.851 **) | −0.209 (−2.851 **) | −0.179 (−2.682 **) |
Strength | 0.170 (3.283 **) | 0.143 (3.252 **) | ||
Tenacity | 0.365 (6.493 **) | 0.283 (5.945 **) | ||
R2 | 0.021 | 0.213 | 0.017 | 0.191 |
F | F (5,633) = 2.693, p = 0.020 | F (7,631) = 24.384, p = 0.000 | F (5,633) = 2.179, p = 0.055 | F (7,631) = 21.276, p = 0.000 |
△R2 | 0.021 | 0.192 | 0.017 | 0.174 |
△F | F (5,633) = 2.693, p = 0.020 | F (2,631) = 76.996, p = 0.000 | F (5,633) = 2.179, p = 0.055 | F (2,631) = 67.868, p = 0.000 |
Variable | Fatalism | Job Stress | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Model 7 | Model 8 | Model 9 | Model 10 | |
Age | −0.096 (−1.832) | −0.103 (−1.979 *) | 0.012 (0.287) | 0.007 (0.173) |
Length of Service | 0.030 (0.704) | 0.031 (0.733) | 0.014 (0.424) | 0.014 (0.447) |
Education Level | −0.088 (−1.897) | −0.070 (−1.533) | 0.001 (0.026) | 0.014 (0.405) |
Marital Status | −0.021 (−0.227) | 0.009 (0.103) | −0.067 (−0.934) | −0.044 (−0.620) |
Accident Experience | 0.074 (0.681) | 0.059 (0.555) | 0.263 (3.129 **) | 0.252 (3.044 **) |
Tenacity | −0.241 (−3.150 **) | −0.203 (−3.418 **) | ||
Strength | −0.018 (−0.262) | −0.004 (−0.070) | ||
R2 | 0.013 | 0.045 | 0.021 | 0.054 |
F | F (5,633) = 1.698, p = 0.133 | F (7,631) = 4.229, p = 0.000 | F (5,633) = 2.676, p = 0.021 | F (7,631) = 5.194, p = 0.000 |
△R2 | 0.013 | 0.032 | 0.021 | 0.034 |
△F | F (5,633) = 1.698, p = 0.133 | F (2,631) = 10.432, p = 0.000 | F (5,633) = 2.676, p = 0.021 | F (2,631) = 11.272, p = 0.000 |
Variable | Safety Behavior | |
---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | |
Age | 0.023 (0.720) | 0.021 (0.671) |
Length of Service | −0.026 (−0.990) | −0.025 (−0.974) |
Education Level | 0.059 (2.087 *) | 0.061 (2.205 *) |
Marital Status | 0.039 (0.688) | 0.048 (0.872) |
Accident Experience | −0.189 (−2.841 **) | −0.183 (−2.827 **) |
Safety Attitude | 0.326 (6.111 **) | |
R2 | 0.024 | 0.078 |
F | F (5,633) = 3.090, p = 0.009 | F (6,632) = 8.947, p = 0.000 |
△R2 | 0.024 | 0.054 |
△F | F (5,633) = 3.090, p = 0.009 | F (1,632) = 37.344, p = 0.000 |
Variable | Safety Compliance | Safety Participation | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | |
Age | 0.016 (0.628) | −0.009 (−0.469) | 0.026 (0.710) | −0.006 (−0.210) |
Length of Service | −0.015 (−0.709) | 0.000 (0.015) | −0.031 (−1.049) | −0.010 (−0.405) |
Education Level | 0.022 (0.966) | 0.017 (0.971) | 0.081 (2.477 *) | 0.075 (2.787 **) |
Marital Status | −0.013 (−0.292) | 0.001 (0.018) | 0.074 (1.142) | 0.084 (1.586) |
Accident Experience | −0.089 (−1.700) | 0.005 (0.118) | −0.246 (−3.222 **) | −0.093 (−1.466) |
Management Safety Commitment | 0.153 (6.655 **) | 0.170 (4.819 **) | ||
Fatalism | −0.012 (−0.749) | −0.040 (−1.641) | ||
Team Safety Climate | 0.333 (12.395 **) | 0.451 (10.929 **) | ||
Job Stress | 0.061 (2.932 **) | −0.046 (−1.435) | ||
R2 | 0.008 | 0.415 | 0.032 | 0.361 |
F | F (5,633) = 0.993, p = 0.421 | F (9,629) = 49.525, p = 0.000 | F (5,633) = 4.175, p = 0.001 | F (9,629) = 39.530, p = 0.000 |
△R2 | 0.008 | 0.407 | 0.032 | 0.329 |
△F | F (5,633) = 0.993, p = 0.421 | F (4,629) = 109.339, p = 0.000 | F (5,633) = 4.175, p = 0.001 | F (4,629) = 81.082, p = 0.000 |
Variable | Safety Attitude | Safety Behavior | |
---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
Age | 0.040 (0.452) | 0.110 (1.501) | 0.104 (1.443) |
Length of Service | −0.018 (−0.217) | −0.093 (−1.328) | −0.090 (−1.309) |
Education Level | −0.029 (−0.681) | 0.028 (0.783) | 0.032 (0.915) |
Marital Status | −0.047 (−1.135) | −0.033 (−0.951) | −0.026 (−0.763) |
Accident Experience | −0.009 (−0.217) | −0.090 (−2.712 **) | −0.089 (−2.714 **) |
Resilience | 0.170 (4.268 **) | 0.556 (16.775 **) | 0.532 (16.037 **) |
Safety Attitude | 0.146 (4.458 **) | ||
R2 | 0.029 | 0.325 | 0.345 |
F | F (6,632) = 3.163, p = 0.005 | F (6,632) = 50.617, p = 0.000 | F (7,631) = 47.521, p = 0.000 |
△R2 | 0.028 | 0.301 | 0.021 |
△F | F (1,632) = 18.219, p = 0.000 | F (1,632) = 281.408, p = 0.000 | F (1,631) = 19.871, p = 0.000 |
Variable | Safety Attitude | Safety Compliance | |
---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 4 | Model 5 | |
Age | 0.040 (0.452) | 0.096 (1.235) | 0.083 (1.148) |
Length of Service | −0.018 (−0.217) | −0.069 (−0.920) | −0.063 (−0.902) |
Education Level | −0.029 (−0.681) | −0.012 (−0.305) | −0.002 (−0.063) |
Marital Status | −0.047 (−1.135) | −0.065 (−1.781) | −0.050 (−1.467) |
Accident Experience | −0.009 (−0.217) | −0.048 (−1.362) | −0.045 (−1.376) |
Resilience | 0.170 (4.268 **) | 0.484 (13.716 **) | 0.430 (12.862 **) |
Safety Attitude | 0.321 (9.753 **) | ||
R2 | 0.029 | 0.235 | 0.336 |
F | F (6,632) = 3.163, p = 0.005 | F (6,632) = 32.429, p = 0.000 | F (7,631) = 45.524, p = 0.000 |
△R2 | 0.028 | 0.228 | 0.100 |
△F | F (1,632) =18.219, p = 0.000 | F (1,632) =188.136, p = 0.000 | F (1,631) =95.119, p = 0.000 |
Variable | Safety Attitude | Safety Participation | |
---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 6 | Model 7 | |
Age | 0.040 (0.452) | 0.107 (1.461) | 0.101 (1.400) |
Length of Service | −0.018 (−0.217) | −0.097 (−1.382) | −0.095 (−1.365) |
Education Level | −0.029 (−0.681) | 0.046 (1.275) | 0.050 (1.427) |
Marital Status | −0.047 (−1.135) | −0.013 (−0.365) | −0.005 (−0.154) |
Accident Experience | −0.009 (−0.217) | −0.105 (−3.154 **) | −0.104 (−3.167 **) |
Resilience | 0.170 (4.268 **) | 0.542 (16.243 **) | 0.515 (15.486 **) |
Safety Attitude | 0.158 (4.826 **) | ||
R2 | 0.029 | 0.317 | 0.341 |
F | F (6,632) = 3.163, p = 0.005 | F (6,632) = 48.899, p = 0.000 | F (7,631) = 46.718, p = 0.000 |
△R2 | 0.028 | 0.285 | 0.024 |
△F | F (1,632) = 18.219, p = 0.000 | F (1,632) = 263.849, p = 0.000 | F (1,631) = 23.289, p = 0.000 |
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
Li, Y.; Gao, J.; Qian, C.; Wu, X. The Mediation Role of Safety Attitude in the Impact of Resilience on the Safety Behavior of Coal Miners in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 15164. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192215164
Li Y, Gao J, Qian C, Wu X. The Mediation Role of Safety Attitude in the Impact of Resilience on the Safety Behavior of Coal Miners in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(22):15164. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192215164
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Yuanlong, Jingqi Gao, Chongyang Qian, and Xiang Wu. 2022. "The Mediation Role of Safety Attitude in the Impact of Resilience on the Safety Behavior of Coal Miners in China" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 22: 15164. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192215164