企业安全专业人员风险认知能力的组态路径与提升策略

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2026.04.1224

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为提高企业安全专业人员的风险决策效能,遏制不安全行为发生,探析风险认知能力的组态路径和提升策略。基于技能-规则-知识(SRK)认知理论将风险认知能力的前因条件划分为技能型、规则型、知识型认知能力,结合管理体系、认知负荷、认知任务来解析风险认知维度,构建涵盖危险源辨识能力、设备操作能力、隐患排查能力、隐患治理能力、情景决策能力、案例推理能力的认知理论模型;运用必要条件分析(NCA)和模糊集定性比较分析法(fsQCA)对100名安全专业人员的多维风险认知能力开展数据校准、必要性分析、充分性分析和稳健性分析;解析风险认知能力前因条件的组态路径,提出针对性的认知能力提升策略。结果表明:高风险认知能力和非高风险认知能力各有4条组态路径,其中,高风险认知能力涵盖规则和知识双驱动型、多维认知能力协同型、应急管理能力主导型3种组态类型,得出“精准赋能-多维协同-动态适配”风险认知能力提升策略,从而提高企业安全管理水平。

关键词: 安全专业人员, 风险认知能力, 组态路径, 提升策略, 技能-规则-知识(SRK), 必要条件分析(NCA), 模糊集定性比较分析(fsQCA)

Abstract:

To improve the risk decision-making effectiveness of enterprise safety professionals and curb the occurrence of unsafe behaviors, the theoretical connotation and improvement paths of risk cognitive ability were explored in this study. Based on SRK cognitive theory, the antecedent conditions of risk cognitive ability were classified into skill-based, rule-based, and knowledge-based cognitive abilities. The analysis of risk cognitive dimensions was combined from the perspectives of management systems, cognitive load, and cognitive tasks. Subsequently, a cognitive theoretical model was constructed, covering hazard identification ability, equipment operation ability, hidden danger inspection ability, hidden danger management ability, scenario decision-making ability, and case reasoning ability. NCA and fsQCA were applied to conduct data calibration, necessity analysis, sufficiency analysis, and robustness analysis on the multi-dimensional risk cognitive abilities of 100 safety professionals. Furthermore, the configurational paths of the antecedent conditions were analyzed, and targeted strategies for improving cognitive abilities were proposed. The results show that there are four configurational paths for both high risk cognitive competence and non-high risk cognitive competence. Specifically, high risk cognitive competence encompasses three configurational types: the rule-knowledge dual-driven type, the multi-dimensional cognitive ability synergistic type, and the emergency management ability dominated type. Accordingly, a “precision empowerment-multidimensional synergy-dynamic adaptation” path for improving risk cognitive ability is put forward, thereby enhancing the level of enterprise safety management.

Key words: risk cognitive ability, safety professionals, configurational paths, enhancement strategies, skill-rule-knowledge (SRK), necessary condition analysis (NCA), fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA)

中图分类号:

X913.4安全系统工程

王乾, 童心茹, 杨昂滨, 佟瑞鹏. 企业安全专业人员风险认知能力的组态路径与提升策略[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2026, 36(4): 49-56.

Wang Qian, Tong Xinru, Yang Angbin, Tong Ruipeng. Configurational paths and enhancement strategies for risk cognitive ability of enterprise safety professionals[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2026, 36(4): 49-56.

图/表 8

图1

图2

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

参考文献 15

[1]	Liu Yang, Ye Gui, Xiang Qingting, et al. Antecedents of construction workers' safety cognition: a systematic review[J]. Safety Science, 2023, 157: DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105923.
[2]	Guo Yong, Tao Jing, Yang Fuqiang, et al. An evaluation of the information literacy of safety professionals[J]. Safety Science, 2022, 151: DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105734.
[3]	Cheng Lianhua, Ren Huina, Guo Huimin, et al. Research on the evaluation method for safety cognitive ability of workers in high-risk construction positions[J]. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 20242:DOI:10.1108/ECAM-05-2024-0625.
[4]	Xiang Qingting, Liu Yang, Goh Yangmiang, et al. Investigating the impact of hazard perception failure on construction workers' unsafe behavior: an eye-tracking and thinking-aloud approach[J]. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2024, 150(7):DOI:10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-14338.
[5]	成连华, 赵旭东, 郝杰. 集成ISM与G1的建筑工人安全能力影响因素研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(4): 61-68. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.04.0962
	Cheng Lianhua, Zhao Xudong, Hao Jie. Research on influencing factors of construction workers' safety competency integrating ISM and G1 method[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(4): 61-68. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.04.0962
[6]	Zhang Shu, Hua Xinyu, Shi Xiuzhi. Measurement for risk perception ability[J]. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2024, 150(5):DOI:10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-13783.
[7]	Zong Zhaobiao, Long Tianyi, Ou Yifan, et al. Dual-path influence of risk perception on construction workers' safety participation and the moderating role of mindfulness[J]. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2025, 151(1):DOI:10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-15534.
[8]	Wang Jianmin, Yang Jingyan, Fu Qianwen, et al. A new dynamic spatial information design framework for AR-HUD to evoke drivers' instinctive responses and improve accident prevention[J]. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2024, 183: DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103194.
[9]	Read G, Schultz K, Goode N, et al. Using cognitive work analysis to identify competencies for human factors and ergonomics practitioners[J]. Ergonomics, 2022, 65(3): 348-361. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2021.1955979
[10]	李星, 谭麟, 高凌云, 等. 系统安全领域人因错误理论研究进展[J]. 中国电子科学研究院学报, 2020, 15(7): 612-619,628.
	Li Xing, Tan Lin, Gao Lingyun, et al. Research progress of human error theory in industry safety engineering[J]. Journal of China Academy of Electronics and Information Technology, 2020, 15(7): 612-619,628.
[11]	李晨博, 齐根华. 基于认知模型下的雷达工作方舱人机界面空间布局[J]. 兵工自动化, 2025, 44(5): 1-4,10.
	Li Chenbo, Qi Genhua. Space layout of man-machine interface in radar shelter based on cognitive model[J]. Ordnance Industry Automation, 2025, 44(5): 1-4,10.
[12]	张吉昌, 龙静, 王泽民. 何种数字生态系统有利于数字独角兽的诞生基于41个国家的NCA与fsQCA研究[J]. 经济与管理, 2025, 39(4): 42-51.
	Zhang Jichang, Long Jing, Wang Zemin. What kind of digital ecosystems are conducive to the birth of digital unicorns a NCA and fsQCA study based on 41 countries[J]. Economy and Management, 2025, 39(4): 42-51.
[13]	刘林, 吴金南, 梅强. 复杂性理论视角下员工安全生产违规的前因组态研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(3): 9-19. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.03.0451
	Liu Lin, Wu Jinnan, Mei Qiang. Research on configurational causes of employee work safety violations: from a complexity theoretical perspective[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(3): 9-19. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.03.0451
[14]	戴勇, 韩一博, 蒲霞. 先进制造企业数字化转型驱动路径研究:扩展NCA与fsQCA混合分析[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2025, 42(9): 107-118. doi: 10.6049/kjjbydc.2024090356
	Dai Yong, Han Yibo, Pu Xia. The driving path of digital transformation in advanced manufacturing enterprises: extended NCA and fsQCA hybrid analysis based on resource orchestration theory[J]. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 2025, 42(9): 107-118.
[15]	申霞. 基于fsQCA的灾害事故跨域协同治理共同体研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(10): 205-213. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.10.0525
	Shen Xia. Research on disaster and accident trans-regional collaborative governance community based on fsQCA[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(10): 205-213. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.10.0525

变量	测评场景	衡量标准
S₁	油气管道系统“人-机-环-管”风险图像识别	100张生产环境中风险情景图片的辨识数量得分(0~100分)
S₂	正压呼吸器穿戴及关闭阀门实操演习	正压呼吸器和阀门操作规范及完成时间的得分(0~1分)
R₁	天然气管道并加装切断阀情景模拟	25 m施工管沟的管道安装完成,辨识现场隐患的数量得分(0~60分)
R₂	成品油储罐顶部和侧面管线更换情景模拟	针对脚手架、吊车、电焊机等隐患使用整改措施的数量得分(0~30分)
K₁	专家组抽取高风险场景信息采取问答方式考察风险决策能力	5人专家小组判定复杂情景中态势感知和发散性思维得分(0~15分)
K₂	油气管道事故相关的风险因素、情景演化和应急管理的简答题	10个经典案例共100道简答题的得分(0~100分)
综合认知	法律法规、规章制度、风险和隐患清单、事故报告试题库	随机试题库共100道选择、填空、简答、论述试题测评分数(0~100分)

条件	描述性分析				数据校准
条件	均值	标准差	最小值	最大值	完全隶属	交叉	完全不隶属
S₁	79.4	10.0	53.9	100.0	93.4	80.3	65.5
S₂	0.6	0.2	0.2	1.0	1.0	0.6	0.2
R₁	31	8	14	51	43	30	19
R₂	13.6	3.7	5	22	19	14	7
K₁	11.0	1.7	4.8	14.3	13.0	11.2	8.2
K₂	62.9	12.3	34.7	88.7	80.8	64.1	42.7
SRK	85.9	6.2	65.6	95.9	92.8	87.2	79.1

变量	方法	精确度/%	上限区域	范围	效应值	P值
S₁	CR	89	0.114	0.98	0.117	0.119
S₁	CE	100	0.039	0.98	0.040	0.280
S₂	CR	94	0.046	0.93	0.050	0.432
S₂	CE	100	0.024	0.93	0.025	0.546
R₁	CR	94	0.067	0.97	0.069	0.351
R₁	CE	100	0.038	0.97	0.039	0.375
R₂	CR	85	0.192	0.96	0.200	0.012
R₂	CE	100	0.062	0.96	0.064	0.056
K₁	CR	88	0.179	0.98	0.183	0.007
K₁	CE	100	0.074	0.98	0.076	0.022
K₂	CR	89	0.189	0.96	0.197	0.000
K₂	CE	100	0.095	0.96	0.099	0.000

SRK	S₁	S₂	R₁	R₂	K₁	K₂
0	NN	NN	NN	NN	NN	NN
10	NN	NN	NN	NN	NN	NN
20	NN	NN	NN	NN	NN	NN
30	NN	NN	NN	NN	NN	NN
40	NN	NN	2.5	5.3	NN	NN
50	3.7	NN	5.4	14.6	NN	1.1
60	11.5	NN	8.3	23.8	7.3	16.4
70	19.2	1.2	11.2	33.1	26.3	31.7
80	27.0	11.4	14.2	42.3	45.3	47.0
90	34.8	21.6	17.1	51.5	64.3	62.3
100	42.6	31.8	20.0	60.8	83.3	77.6

前因条件	高风险认知能力		低风险认知能力
前因条件	一致性	覆盖度	一致性	覆盖度
S₁	0.680	0.676	0.566	0.596
~S₁	0.594	0.564	0.692	0.696
S₂	0.689	0.669	0.575	0.592
~S₂	0.580	0.563	0.679	0.698
R₁	0.747	0.703	0.579	0.577
~R₁	0.550	0.552	0.702	0.746
R₂	0.729	0.699	0.578	0.587
~R₂	0.570	0.561	0.704	0.733
K₁	0.740	0.690	0.582	0.574
~K₁	0.544	0.551	0.686	0.736
K₂	0.812	0.790	0.516	0.532
~K₂	0.519	0.503	0.796	0.817