Research on influence of work underload on risk perception ability of coal mine monitoring inspectors

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.02.0460

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to explore the mechanism of the influence of work underload on the risk perception ability of coal mine monitoring inspectors, boredom proneness and mind wandering were introduced as mediating variables to construct a chain mediation model of the four. A structured questionnaire was made with four scales: work underload, boredom proneness, mind wandering and risk perception. Quantitative studies were conducted on questionnaire samples from 263 coal mine monitoring inspectors, and the sample data were analyzed using Pearson correlation analysis and mediation effect tests. The results show that work underload has a direct negative effect on the risk perception ability of coal mine monitoring inspectors. Furthermore, work underload also affects risk perception through the independent mediating effects of boredom proneness and mind wandering, and the chain mediating effect of boredom proneness and mind wandering. Therefore, timely detection and intervention of work underload, boredom proneness and mind wandering of inspectors can effectively improve their risk perception ability and prevent accidents.

Key words: work underload, coal mine monitoring inspectors, risk perception ability, boredom proneness, mind wandering

CLC Number:

X915.2安全社会学

LI Naiwen, SU Ziyi, FANG Xiaokai. Research on influence of work underload on risk perception ability of coal mine monitoring inspectors[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(2): 31-36.

Figures/Tables 6

Fig.1

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Fig.2

Tab.4

References 16

[1]	MELAMED S, BEN-AVI I, LUZ J, et al. Repetitive work, work underload and coronary heart disease risk factors among blue-collar workers:the CORDIS study[J]. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 1995, 39(1): 19-29. doi: 10.1016/0022-3999(94)00088-M
[2]	YOUNG M S, STANTON N A. Malleable attentional resources theory: a new explanation for the effects of mental underload on performance[J]. Human Factors, 2002, 44(3): 365-375. pmid: 12502155
[3]	ANDREI D M, GRIFFIN M A, GRECH M, et al. How demands and resources impact chronic fatigue in the maritime industry. The mediating effect of acute fatigue, sleep quality and recovery[J]. Safety Science, 2020, 121: 362-372. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.09.019
[4]	JIMMIESON N L, TUCKER M K, WALSH A J. Interaction effects among multiple job demands:an examination of healthcare workers across different contexts[J]. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 2017, 30(3): 317-332.
[5]	BAKKER A B. A job demands-resources approach to public service motivation[J]. Public Administration Review, 2015, 75(5):723-732. doi: 10.1111/puar.2015.75.issue-5
[6]	METIN U B, TARIS T W, PEETERS M C W. Measuring procrastination at work and its associated workplace aspects[J]. Personality and Individual Differences, 2016, 101: 254-263. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.006
[7]	张晖, 倪定安, 曾科, 等. 人机共驾环境下驾驶疲劳研究综述[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(3):204-211. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.03.0512
	ZHANG Hui, NI Dingan, ZENG Ke, et al. A review of driving fatigue research in human-machine co-driving environment[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(3):204-211. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.03.0512
[8]	SAXBY D J, MATTHEWS G, WARM J S, et al. Active and passive fatigue in simulated driving: discriminating styles of workload regulation and their safety impacts[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 2013, 19(4): 287-300. doi: 10.1037/a0034386
[9]	EASTWOOD J D, FRISCHEN A, FENSKE M J, et al. The unengaged mind defining boredom in terms of attention[J]. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2012, 7(5):482-495. doi: 10.1177/1745691612456044
[10]	SMALLWOOD J, RIBY L, HEIM D, et al. Encoding during the attentional lapse: accuracy of encoding during the semantic sustained attention to response task[J]. Consciousness and Cognition, 2006, 15(1): 218-231. pmid: 16115782
[11]	LAVIE N. Attention, distraction, and cognitive control under load[J]. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2010, 19(3): 143-148. doi: 10.1177/0963721410370295
[12]	李乃文, 刘亚平, 牛莉霞. 不合规任务对新生代矿工不安全行为的影响[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(10):18-24. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.10.2111
	LI Naiwen, LIU Yaping, NIU Lixia. Impact of non-compliant tasks on the unsafe behavior of the new generation miners[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(10):18-24. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.10.2111
[13]	CHAM B S, ANDREI D M, GRIFFIN M A, et al. Investigating the joint effects of overload and underload on chronic fatigue and wellbeing[J]. Work & Stress, 2021, 35(4): 344-357. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2021.1888822
[14]	刘勇, 陈健芷, 姜梦, 等. 多维状态无聊量表中文版在中国大学生中的应用[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2013, 21(4):558-561,540.
	LIU Yong, CHEN Jianzhi, JIANG Meng, et al. The chinese version of the multidimensional state boredom scale(MSBS):it's applicability in Chinese college students[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2013, 21(4):558-561,540.
[15]	宋晓兰, 唐孝威. 心智游移[M]. 杭州: 浙江大学出版, 2012:194-196.
[16]	李广利. 煤矿员工风险感知量表开发与应用[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2022, 18(7):128-134.
	LI Gangli. Development and application of risk perception scale for coal mine employees[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2022, 18(7):128-134.

量表名称	维度	题项	计分结果	α	χ²/df	CFI	RMSEA	NNFI
工作欠载^[13]	—	包括“我没有足够多的任务要做”等4个题项	得分越高,工作欠载情况越严重	0.93	2.73	0.94	0.04	0.93
无聊倾向^[14]	注意缺乏、时间知觉、脱离感、低唤醒和高唤醒	包括“对我来说,时间是漫长的”等24个题项	得分越高,无聊倾向越严重	0.94	2.16	0.97	0.03	0.96
心智游移^[15]	自发思维、注意失控和总体性评价	包括“我不自觉地产生很多的联想”等22个题项	得分越高,心智游移越严重	0.92	2.35	0.96	0.04	0.95
风险感知能力^[16]	风险知识及态度、风险后果认知	包括“工作中的风险是可以观测到的吗”等11个题项	得分越高,风险感知能力越高	0.88	2.51	0.93	0.05	0.93

变量	M	S	1	2	3	4
1工作欠载	3.487	0.691	1	—	—	—
2无聊倾向	3.491	0.707	0.422^**	1	—	—
3心智游移	3.512	0.695	0.590^**	0.489^**	1	—
4风险感知能力	2.583	0.731	-0.499^**	-0.399^**	-0.482^**	1

模型	χ²/df	CFI	RMSEA	NNFI	SRMR
假设模型	1.782	0.971	0.052	0.967	0.034
完全中介模型	3.213	0.948	0.070	0.940	0.080
部分中介模型Ⅰ	3.829	0.937	0.064	0.951	0.114
部分中介模型Ⅱ	1.973	0.959	0.055	0.964	0.057
部分中介模型Ⅲ	2.676	0.958	0.063	0.952	0.064

作用路径	效应值	Boot标准误差	Boot CI下限	Boot CI上限	相对中介效应/%
总间接效应	-0.23	0.05	-0.42	-0.29	46.18
间接效应1	-0.07	0.03	-0.12	-0.04	13.89
间接效应2	-0.12	0.03	-0.17	-0.05	22.79
间接效应3	-0.04	0.02	-0.08	-0.02	9.50