“赶工游戏”对外卖骑手不安全驾驶的影响:基于压力认知评价的视角

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.04.0614

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为有效防范外卖骑手不安全驾驶行为,减少由外卖骑手引发的交通安全事故,基于外卖平台“赶工游戏”的工作机制,结合压力认知评价理论,从安全态度和示范性规范角度,构建时间压力和竞争氛围感知对外卖骑手不安全驾驶行为影响的理论模型;向全国各地的外卖骑手发放问卷并收集有效样本360份,通过SPSS 27.0 和AMOS 24.0 数据分析软件分析数据的可靠性,并利用Process 4.0 进行层次回归分析验证理论模型。结果表明:时间压力和竞争氛围感知可以显著正向影响不安全驾驶行为;安全态度可以显著负向影响外卖骑手不安全驾驶行为;安全态度可以介导时间压力与不安全驾驶行为的关系,也能介导竞争氛围感知与不安全驾驶行为的关系;示范性规范可以正向调节安全态度与不安全驾驶行为的关系。

关键词: “赶工游戏”, 外卖骑手, 不安全驾驶行为, 时间压力, 竞争氛围感知

Abstract:

In order to effectively prevent the unsafe driving behavior of take-away riders and reduce the traffic accidents caused by take-away riders, based on the work mechanism of take-away platforms' "rush game", combined with the theory of stress perception evaluation, a theoretical model characterising the effects of time pressure and competitive atmosphere perception on unsafe driving behavior of take-away riders was constructed from the perspective of safety attitude and exemplary norms. A reliable questionnaire was designed through literature review, and 360 valid samples were collected from take-away riders all over the country. The data reliability was analyzed by SPSS 27.0 and AMOS 24.0 data analysis software, and the theoretical model was verified by hierarchical regression analysis using Process 4.0. The results show that time pressure and competitive atmosphere perception have significant positive effects on unsafe driving behavior. Safety attitude can significantly negatively affect the unsafe driving behavior of take-away riders. Safety attitude can mediate the relationship between time pressure and unsafe driving behavior, and also mediate the relationship between competitive atmosphere perception and unsafe driving behavior. Exemplary norms can positively regulate the relationship between safety attitude and unsafe driving behavior.

Key words: "rush game", take-away riders, unsafe driving behavior, time pressure, competitive atmosphere perception

中图分类号:

X915.2安全社会学

牛莉霞, 韩羲秀, 赵蕊. “赶工游戏”对外卖骑手不安全驾驶的影响:基于压力认知评价的视角[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(4): 17-25.

NIU Lixia, HAN Xixiu, ZHAO Rui. Effect of "rush game" on unsafe driving of take-away riders: a perspective based on evaluation of stress perception[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(4): 17-25.

图/表 8

图1

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

图2

表6

参考文献 25

[1]	李胜蓝, 江立华. 新型劳动时间控制与虚假自由:外卖骑手的劳动过程研究[J]. 社会学研究, 2020, 35(6): 91-112,243-244.
	LI Shenglan, JIANG Lihua. A new mode of labor time control and fake experience of freedom:a study on the labor process of take-out platform riders[J]. Sociological Studies, 2020, 35(6): 91-112,243-244.
[2]	强部署、强举措、强力度!松原交警持续整治外卖配送违法车[EB/OL]. (2022-07-15). https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/lvtDNvh2sBzCw4vFbuFqNA.
[3]	张玲瑞, 刘阳. 外卖骑手的个人属性对风险驾驶行为的影响分析[J]. 中国物流与采购, 2022(9): 55-57.
[4]	吕慧. 外卖行业安全管理现状与治理路径研究[J]. 社会治理, 2022(9):89-96.
	LYU Hui. Research on the current situation of safety management in the takeaway industry and the path of governance[J]. Social Governance Review, 2022(9):89-96.
[5]	WANG Zhuo, NEITZEL R L, ZHENG Wenlong, et al. Road safety situation of electric bike riders: a cross-sectional study in courier and take-out food delivery population[J]. Traffic Injury Prevention, 2021, 22(7): 564-569.
[6]	杨陈, 唐明凤. 竞争氛围感知对员工知识隐藏行为的影响机制[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2018, 35(17): 131-138.
	YANG Chen, TANG Mingfeng. Influencing mechanism of perceived competitive climate on employees' knowledge hiding[J]. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 2018, 35(17): 131-138.
[7]	PAWAR N M, KHANUJA R K, CHOUDHARY P, et al. Modelling braking behaviour and accident probability of drivers under increasing time pressure conditions[J]. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2020, 136:DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2019.105401.
[8]	SZOLLOS A. Toward a psychology of chronic time pressure: conceptual and methodological review[J]. Time & Society, 2009, 18(2/3): 332-350.
[9]	高雪原, 张志朋, 钱智超, 等. 零工工作者工作压力:形成机理与量表开发[J]. 南开管理评论, 2023, 26(3): 244-256.
	GAO Xueyuan, ZHANG Zhipeng, QIAN Zhichao, et al. Gig-worker's work pressure: formation mechanism and scale development[J]. Nankai Business Review, 2023, 26(3): 244-256.
[10]	FOLKMAN S, LAZARUS R S, DUNKEL-SCHETTER C, et al. Dynamics of a stressful encounter: cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986, 50(5): 992-1003. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.50.5.992 pmid: 3712234
[11]	CUM JR J W. Effects of trait competitiveness and perceived intraorganizational competition on salesperson goal setting and performance[J]. Journal of Marketing, 1998, 62(4): 88-98.
[12]	JEBELLI H, HWANG S, LEE S H. EEG-based workers' stress recognition at construction sites[J]. Automation in Construction, 2018, 93: 315-324.
[13]	YU Min, LI Jizu. Psychosocial safety climate and unsafe behavior among miners in China: the mediating role of work stress and job burnout[J]. Psychology Health & Medicine, 2020, 25(7): 793-801.
[14]	CHEYNE A, COX S, OLIVER A, et al. Modelling safety climate in the prediction of levels of safety activity[J]. Work & Stress, 1998, 12(3): 255-271.
[15]	TIAN Kai, MARKKULA G, WEI Chongfeng, et al. Impacts of visual and cognitive distractions and time pressure on pedestrian crossing behaviour: a simulator study[J]. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2022, 174:DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2022.106770.
[16]	WANG Tao, XIE Sihong, YE Xiaofei, et al. Analyzing e-bikers' risky riding behaviors, safety attitudes, risk perception, and riding confidence with the structural equation model[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020, 17(13):DOI:10.3390/ijerph17134763.
[17]	陈彦霖, 黄文炜, 李弘扬. 建筑企业差错管理氛围与工人安全绩效关系[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(5):28-34. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.05.1754
	CHEN Yanlin, HUANG Wenwei, LI Hongyang. Relationship between error management climate and workers' safety performance in construction enterprises[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(5): 28-34. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.05.1754
[18]	PANDIT B, ALBERT A, PATIL Y, et al. Impact of safety climate on hazard recognition and safety risk perception[J]. Safety Science, 2019, 113: 44-53.
[19]	BOSNJAK M, AJZEN I, SCHMIDT P. The theory of planned behavior: selected recent advances and applications[J]. Europes Journal of Psychology, 2020, 16(3): 352-356. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v16i3.3107 pmid: 33680187
[20]	ZHU Yuqian, GARDNER D G, CHEN Houngee. Relationships between work team climate, individual motivation, and creativity[J]. Journal of Management, 2018, 44(5): 2094-2115.
[21]	GREENBERGER E, CHEN C S, DMITRIEVA J, et al. Item-wording and the dimensionality of the rosenberg self-esteem scale: do they matter?[J]. Personality and Individual Differences, 2003, 35(6): 1241-1254.
[22]	ULLEBERG P, RUNDMO T. Personality, attitudes and risk perception as predictors of risky driving behaviour among young drivers[J]. Safety Science, 2003, 41(5): 427-443.
[23]	AJZEN I. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior[J]. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2002, 32(4): 665-683.
[24]	周建亮, 胡飞翔, 邢艳冬, 等. 工作压力、职业倦怠对建筑工人不安全行为的影响[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(11):14-22. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.11.2539
	ZHOU Jianliang, HU Feixiang, XING Yandong, et al. Influence of job stress and burnout on unsafe behaviors of construction workers[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(11): 14-22. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.11.2539
[25]	KILDUFF G J, GALINSKY A D, GALLO E, et al. Whatever it takes to win: Rivalry increases unethical behavior[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2016, 59(5): 1508-1534.

模型描述	χ²	df	χ²/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
5因子模型(A、B、C、D、E)	1 213.434	892	1.360	0.929	0.925	0.032
4因子模型(A+B、C、D、E)	1 358.133	896	1.516	0.898	0.893	0.038
3因子模型(A+B、C+D、E)	2 014.926	899	2.241	0.755	0.742	0.059
2因子模型(A+B、C+D+E)	2 362.455	901	2.622	0.679	0.662	0.067
单因子模型(A+B+C+D+E)	2 735.228	902	3.032	0.597	0.577	0.075
加入共同方法因子	1 110.704	848	1.310	0.942	0.936	0.029

变量	平均值	标准差	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1.性别	1.156	0.363	1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
2.年龄	2.517	0.867	-0.044	1	—	—	—	—	—	—
3.学历	2.125	0.703	-0.087	-0.435^**	1	—	—	—	—	—
4.工作年限	2.447	0.806	-0.077	0.673^**	-0.296^**	1	—	—	—	—
5.时间压力	3.514	0.779	-0.004	-0.031	-0.055	-0.036	1	—	—	—
6.竞争氛围感知	3.517	0.791	0.009	0.008	-0.010	-0.058	0.604^**	1	—	—
7.安全态度	2.693	0.753	-0.066	-0.053	0.002	-0.015	-0.357^**	-0.514^**	1	—
8.示范性规范	2.800	0.635	0.019	0.077	0.008	0.004	-0.144^**	-0.156^**	-0.112^*	1
9.不安全驾驶行为	3.376	0.509	0.022	0.010	0.003	-0.018	0.437^**	0.551^**	-0.389^**	0.282^**

类别		安全态度		不安全驾驶行为
类别		模型1	模型2	模型3	模型4	模型5	模型6
控制变量	性别	-0.146	-0.158	0.031	0.041	-0.008	0.013
	年龄	-0.081	-0.097	0.027	0.040	0.006	0.023
	学历	-0.038	-0.072	0.009	0.037	-0.001	0.024
	工作年限	0.030	0.020	-0.028	-0.020	-0.020	-0.016
自变量	时间压力	—	-0.352^***	—	0.289^***	—	0.226^***
中介变量	安全态度	—	—	—	—	-0.263^***	-0.178^***
R²		0.009	0.141	0.002	0.195	0.152	0.255
ΔR²		0.009	0.132	0.002	0.193	0.150	0.060
F		0.813	11.595^***	0.159	17.140^***	12.693^***	20.090^***
ΔF		0.813	54.234^***	0.159	84.912^***	62.719^***	28.247^***

类别		安全态度		不安全驾驶行为
类别		模型1	模型2	模型3	模型4	模型5	模型6
控制变量	性别	-0.146	-0.143	0.031	0.029	-0.008	0.015
	年龄	-0.081	-0.044	0.027	0.000	0.006	-0.004
	学历	-0.038	-0.043	0.009	0.012	-0.001	0.008
	工作年限	0.030	-0.026	-0.028	0.013	-0.020	0.010
自变量	竞争氛围感知	—	-0.490^***	—	0.355^***	—	0.308^***
中介变量	安全态度	—	—	—	—	-0.263^***	-0.096^**
R²		0.009	0.273	0.002	0.304	0.152	0.319
ΔR²		0.009	0.263	0.002	0.302	0.150	0.015
F		0.813	26.525^***	0.159	30.935^***	12.693^***	27.539^***
ΔF		0.813	128.210^***	0.159	153.768^***	62.719^***	7.651^**

类别		不安全驾驶行为
类别		模型7	模型8	模型9
控制变量	性别	0.031	-0.014	-0.011
	年龄	0.027	-0.016	-0.011
	学历	0.009	-0.010	-0.018
	工作年限	-0.028	-0.007	-0.025
主效应	安全态度	—	-0.246^***	-0.265^***
主效应	示范性规范	—	0.195^***	0.153^***
调节效应	安全态度×示范性规范	—	—	-0.227^***
R²		0.002	0.210	0.261
ΔR²		0.002	0.208	0.051
F		0.159	15.639^***	17.790^***