||Influence of Risk Perception on Safety Behaviors in Construction Job Site
||Department of Civil Engineering
Attitude toward safety
Safety in construction industry
Working safety has been long an important issue in construction industry since cases of fatal casualty have caught much attention of many investigations and studies. Among various studies, the cause-effect relationship between attitude and behavior regarding worker’s safety is a viewpoint that might be used to explain the working safety issue of construction jobsite. This study is to propose a model to categorized worker’s attitude that affects their safety, so as to explore possible factors that make their attitude and the according behaviors change. On the basis of classic behavioral theory, people’s perception that interprets possible dangers of surrounding much depends on their attitude. And the associate behaviors thus lead to their safety as consequence. Taking this as the main assumption, a hypothesis is built named the theory of planned behavior. It argues that people’s behavior is determined by their attitude, so that all kinds of behaviors are thus as planned earlier. In this study, an attitude model is proposed to categorize four types of attitude. And risk-aversion and risk-taking are adopted as the first factor to differentiate attitude, on the other hand, people’s locus control, i.e. internal or external, is adopted as the other factor. According to the proposed two-factor model, four different types are then used to describe workers attitude that affects their behaviors in construction jobsite. Survey is conducted using web-interviews to six Korean interviewees, including three workers and three of management level supervising workers. All the interviews are divided into two sections. In the first section, a questionnaire set of 10 questions are asked to get interviewees’ answers based on their understanding and experiences in real practices. In the second section, the interview is conducted in a free-form conversation with probing questions to explore the reasons explaining their answer to each question in the earlier section. By doing so, their locus of control and the possible change of attitude can thus be explored. Results show that people of management level are very different from those workers in dealing with safety matters in construction jobsite. People who in charge of supervising worker’s safety are driven by the liability and very stressful for possible causality threaten. On the other hand, those workers are reluctant to follow tedious safety acts and complaining the requirements are not clear and depends on situations under various confusing personal interpretations. It seems that there is a gap between who tell what to do and those who are told. This gap seems introduced by the difference of the driver of their attitude; the frontier is likely driven by an internal locus of control while the latter is driven by an external locus of control. This weakens works’ willingness to follow what are demanded, including orders and rules for working safety, in the construction jobsite. Based on this study, conclusion tells that people’s attitude does affect their behavior of working safety. And it is suggested that a test run for any new safety policy or regulation is recommended to ease possible confuses and thus enhance the effectiveness of safety management safeguarding people in the construction jobsite.
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Research Background 1
1.1.1. Background 1
1.1.2. Objectives and Research Scope 3
1.2. Purpose of Research 4
1.3. Research Organization 4
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 5
CHAPTER THREE HYPOTHESES 8
CHAPTER FOUR METHODOLOGY 12
4.1. Description 12
4.2. Conceptual Development and Attitude Model 12
4.2.1. Development of Attitude Model 12
4.2.2. Proposed Attitude Model 13
4.3. Research Plan 15
4.3.1. Development Questionnaire and Regarding Interview Plan 15
4.3.2. Data Collection 16
4.3.3. Data Analysis 17
CHAPTER FIVE RESULTS 18
5.1. Questionnaire Results 18
5.1.1. Attitude in Normal Situation 18
5.1.2. Attitude in Construction Site 19
5.1.3. Summary 21
5.2. Interview 22
CHAPTER SIX DISCUSSION 26
6.1. Research Implications 26
6.2. Attitudes and Safety Management Regulations 28
6.3. Different Position Between Supervisor and Worker 29
6.4. Experience 29
CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSIONS 31
7.1. Conclusion and Summery 31
7.2. Research Limitation 32
7.3. Future Study 32
Appendix 1: Questionnaire 37
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. Action Control, 11-33.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: Atheoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 888-918.
Beland, Dedobbeleer, N., & Francois. (1991). A safety climate measure for construction sites. Journal of Safety Research, 22, 97-103.
Christian, M.S., Bradley, J.C., Wallace, J.C. & Burke, M.J. (2009). Workplace safety: A meta analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5(94), 1103-1127.
Dester, W. S., & Blockley, D. I. (1995). Safety-behaviour and culture in construction. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Mangement, 1(2), 17-26.
Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the seletion of technological and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of Califonia Press.
Gillen, M., Baltz, D., Gassel, M., Kirsch, L., & Vaccaro, D. (2002). Perceived safety climate, job demands, and coworker support among union and nonunion injured construction workers. Journal of Safety Research, 33, 33-51.
Grau, R., Martinez, I. M., Agut, S., & Salanova, M. (2002). Safety attitudes and their relationship to safety training and generalized self-efficacy. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 1(8).
Heinrich, H. W., Petersen, D., & Roos, N. (1950). Industrial accident prevention. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
Kamp, J. (2001). It’s time to drag behavioral safety into the cognitive era. Des Plaines, 10(46), 30-34.
Kidweel, B., & Jewell R. D. (2003). Anexamination of perceived behavioral control: Internal and external influences on intention. Psychology & Marketing, 20(7), 625-642.
Langford, D., Rowlinson, S., & Sawacha, E. (2002). Safety behavior and safety management: Its influence on the attitudes of workers in the UK construction industry. Blackwell Scidence Ltd.
Lee, McMaster, C., & Christina. (1991). Cognitive dissonance in tobacco smokers. Addictive Behaviors, 5(16), 349-353.
Lefcourt, H. M. (1976). Locus of control. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
McCool, J., Ameratunga, S., Moran, K., & Robinson, E. (2009). Taking a risk perception approach to improving beach swimming safety. Int.J.Behav.Med, 16, 360-366.
Murie, F. (2007). Building safety-An international perspective. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 1(13), 5-11.
Nielsen, M. B., & Eid, J. (2013). Authentic leadership and its relationship with risk perception and safety climate. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34(4), 308-325.
Ringen, K., Seegal, J., & Englund, A. (1995). Safety and health in the construction industry. Annual Review of Public Health, 16, 165–188.
Rundomo, T. (1996). Associations between risk perception and safety. Safety Science, 3(24), 197-209.
Siu, O., Phillips, D. R., & Leung, T. (2004). Safety climate and safety perormance among construction workers in Hong Kong: The role of psychological strains as mediators. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 3(36), 359-366.
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science 236(19 Aprill), 280-285.
Slovic, P., & Peters, E. (2006). Risk perception and affect. Association for Psychological Science, 6(15).
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D., G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 2(24).
Ulleberg, P., & Rundomo, T. (2003). Rersonality, attitudes and risk perception as predictors of risky driving behaviour among young drivers. Safety Science 41, 427-443.