Downloads

https://doi.org/10.58195/emi.v1i1.19
Cheng, H., Ye, Q., & Liang, J. (2022). A Review: The Safety Risk Perception of the Workplace. Economics & Management Information, 1(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.58195/emi.v1i1.19
Volume 1, Issue 1, November 2022
Copyright (c) 2022 Hui Cheng; Qing Ye; Jiarui Liang
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

A Review: The Safety Risk Perception of the Workplace

Security is still an important issue in the workplace, and many scholars' security models contain variables such as security risk and security risk perception. Different levels of awareness and perception of security risks will lead to different safety behaviors of employees. This paper combs the research of global scholars on employees' safety risk perception over the past half century, mainly summarizes the concept, antecedent variables and outcome variables of safety risk perception. Based on JD-R (work resource demand) theory and risk aversion theory, it straightens out the logical relationship between safety risk perception and safety behavior, and builds a basic platform for future research.

safety risk safety risk perception work safety

References

  1. Bahn S. Workplace hazard identification and management: the case of an underground mining operation. Saf Sci 2013; 57: 129–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.01.010
  2. Albert A, Hallowell MR, Kleiner BM. Enhancing construction hazard recognition and communication with energy-based cognitive mnemonics and safety meeting maturity model: multiple baseline study. Constr Eng Manage 2013; 140 (2): 04013042 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000790
  3. 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. Safety and Health at Work 2018; 9: 427–433. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2018.01.008
  4. Pandit B, Albert A, Patil Y, Al-Bayati A. Impact of safety climate on hazard recognition and safety risk perception. Safety Science 2019; 113: 44–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.11.020
  5. Xia N, Wang X, Griffin MA, Wu C, Liu B. Do we see how they perceive risk? An integrated analysis of risk perception and its effect on workplace safety behavior. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2017, 106: 234–242. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.06.010
  6. Xia Y, Schyns B, Zhang L. Why and when job stressors impact voice behaviour: An ego depletion perspective. Journal of Business Research 2020; 109: 200–209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.053
  7. Beck U. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1992.
  8. Rosa EA. Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk. Journal of Risk Research 1998; 1: 15–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/136698798377303
  9. Aven T. The risk concept-historical and recent development trends. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 2012; 99: 33–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2011.11.006
  10. Aven T, Renn O. On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. Risk Res 2009; 12: 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870802488883
  11. Wang S, Wang J, Lin S, Li J. Public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy in china: the role of public knowledge, perceived benefit, perceived risk and public engagement. Energy Policy 2019; 126: 352–360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.11.040
  12. Lehtiranta L. Risk perceptions and approaches in multi-organizations: a research review 2000-2012. Int J Proj Manag 2014; 32: 640–653. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.09.002
  13. Micic T. Risk reality vs risk perception. Risk Res 2016; 19: 1261–1274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2015.1121900
  14. Slovic P. Understanding perceived risk. Environment 2016; 58: 25–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2016.1112169
  15. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 1999; 19 (4): 689–701. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00439.x
  16. Gyekye SA. Workers’ perceptions of workplace safety: an African perspective. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 2006; 12: 31–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2006.11076667
  17. Iversen H, Rundmo T. Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among Norwegian drivers. Pers Individ Differ 2002; 33 (8): 1251–1263. DOI: doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00010-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00010-7
  18. Douglas M. Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences; Russell Sage Foundation: New York City, NY, USA, 1986.
  19. Lu, S, & Yan, H. A comparative study of the measurements of perceived risk among contractors in China. Int. J Pro. Manage 2012; 31: 307–312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.06.001
  20. Arezes PM, Miguel AS. Risk perception and safety behaviour: a study in an occupational environment. Saf Sci 2008; 46 (6): 900–907. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.11.008
  21. Brocal F, Paltrinieri N, González-Gaya C, Sebastián MA, Reniers G. Approach to the selection of strategies for emerging risk management considering uncertainty as the main decision variable in occupational contexts. Safety Science 2021; 134:1–11.
  22. Cox S, Cheyne AJT. Assessing safety culture in offshore environments. Safety Sci 2000; 34: 111–129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00009-6
  23. Flin R, Mearns K, Connor PO, Bryden R. Measuring safety climate: identifying the common features. safety sci 2000; 34: 177–192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00012-6
  24. Neal A, Griffin MA. A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behaviour, and accidents at the individual and group levels. J Appl Psychol 2006; 91 (4): 946–953. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.946
  25. Christian MS, Bradley JC, Wallace JC, Burke MJ. Workplace safety: a meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. J Appl Psychol 2009; 94 (5): 1103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016172
  26. Schneider B, Ehrhart MG, Macey WH. Organizational climate and culture. Annu Rev Psychol 2013; 64: 361–388. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809
  27. Hofmann DA, Burke MJ, Zohar D. 100 Years of Occupational Safety Research: From Basic Protections and Work Analysis to a Multilevel View of Workplace Safety and Risk. J Appl Psychol 2017; 102 (3): 375–388. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000114
  28. Zohar D, Hofmann DA. Organizational culture and climate. The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology 2012; 1: 643–666. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928309.013.0020
  29. Wu TC. The validity and reliability of safety leadership scale in universities of Taiwan. Int J Technol Eng Educ 2005; (2): 27–42.
  30. Nielsen MB, Mearns K, Matthiesen SB, Eid J. Using the Job Demandse Resources model to investigate risk perception, safety climate and job satisfaction in safety critical organizations. Scand J Psychol 2011; 52 (5): 465–475. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00885.x
  31. Man S, Chan AH, Wong H. Risk-taking behaviors of Hong Kong construction workers–A thematic study. Safety Science 2017; 98: 25–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.05.004
  32. Mohamad NI, Ismail A, Mohamad NS, Yahya Z. Idual safety behavior at work. Journal of Safety Research 2016; 35 (3): 275–285.
  33. Rundmo T. Associations between affect and risk perception. Risk Res 2010; 5: 119–135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/136698702753499597
  34. Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, Schaufeli WB. The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology 2001; 86: 499–512. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
  35. Ten Brummelhuis LL, Bakker, AB. A resource perspective on the work–home interface: the work–home resources model. Am. Psychol 2021; 67 (7): 545–556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027974
  36. Nahrgang JD, Morgeson, FP, Hofmann DA. Safety at work: a meta-analytic investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 2011; 96 (1): 71–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021484
  37. Huang YH, Chen JC, DeArmond S, Cigularov K, Chen PY. Roles of safety climate and shift work on perceived injury risk: a multi-level analysis. Accid Anal Prev 2007; 39 (6): 1088–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2007.02.006
  38. Meliá JL, Mearns K, Silva SA, Lima ML. Safety climate responses and the perceived risk of accidents in the construction industry. Safety Science 2008; 46 (6): 949–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.11.004
  39. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.06.007
  40. Kouabenan DR, Ngueutsa R, Mbaye S. Safety climate, perceived risk, and in-volvement in safety management. Safety Science 2015; 77: 72–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.03.009
  41. Brewer, NT, Chapman GB, Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, McCaul KD, Weinstein ND. Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: the example of vaccination. Health Psychol: Off J Div Health Psychol Am Psychol Assoc 2007; 26 (2); 136–145. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.26.2.136
  42. Griffin MA, Hu X. How leaders differentially motivate safety compliance and safety participation: the role of monitoring, inspiring, and learning. Saf Sci 2013; 60:196–202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.07.019
  43. Didla S, Mearns K, Flin R. Safety citizenship behaviour: a proactive approach to risk management. Risk Res 2009; 12: 475–483. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870903041433
  44. Andersen LPS, Grytnes R. Different ways of perceiving risk and safety on construction sites and implications for safety cooperation. Construction Management and Economics 2021; 39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2021.1904516
  45. Taylor WD, Snyder LA. The influence of risk perception on safety: A laboratory study. Safety Science 2017; 95: 116–124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.02.011
  46. Rubin M, et al. Identifying safety culture and safety climate variables that predict reported risk-taking among Australian coal miners: An exploratory longitudinal study. Safety Science 2020; 123: 104564. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104564
  47. Brocal F, Paltrinieri N, González-Gaya C, Sebastián MA, Reniers G. (2021). Approach to the selection of strategies for emerging risk management considering uncertainty as the main decision variable in occupational contexts. Safety Science 2021; 134: 1–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105041

Supporting Agencies

  1. Funding: N/A