A SEM-based study of influence of miners'Big Five personality traits and emotions on unsafe behaviors

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.08.0723

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to further prevent coal mine safety accidents triggered by miners'personality traits and psychological factors, this study adopts the Big Five personality model to assess personality traits. From the perspective of emotions, this study explores the predictive role of the Big Five personality and emotions in miners'unsafe behaviors, while also examining the moderating effect of emotions on the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and unsafe behaviors. First, SPSS 26.0 and AMOS 26.0 were used to analyze the reliability and validity of the questionnaire. Then, a SEM was established to verify the hypotheses. On this basis, the hierarchical regression analysis method was employed to test the moderating effect of emotions. The results show that: the three personality traits of extraversion, neuroticism, and openness, and negative emotions positively influence unsafe behaviors. The two personality traits of agreeableness and conscientiousness, and positive emotions negatively affect unsafe behaviors. Positive emotions play a moderating role in the relationship between the openness personality trait and unsafe behaviors. Negative emotions have a moderating effect in the relationships between the four personality traits of neuroticism, openness, extraversion, and agreeableness and unsafe behaviors. Therefore, coal mining enterprises can identify potential safety hazards and develop strategies to intervene in employees'unsafe behaviors based on workers'personality traits and emotional states, thereby enhancing the on-site safety level.

Key words: structural equation model(SEM), coal miners, Big Five personality traits, emotion, unsafe behavior

CLC Number:

X936

TIAN Shuicheng, NIE Yurong, CHEN Lei, ZHANG Xiaoya. A SEM-based study of influence of miners'Big Five personality traits and emotions on unsafe behaviors[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2025, 35(8): 22-32.

Figures/Tables 10

Fig.1

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Fig.2

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Fig.3

References 33

[1]	倪坤, 刘闯, 王妍. “十四五”时期世界煤炭工业发展现状及趋势研究[J]. 中国煤炭, 2024, 50(8):235-245.
	NI Kun, LIU Chuang, WANG Yan, et al. Research on the current situation and trends of world coal industry development during the 14^th Five Year Plan Period[J]. China Coal, 2024, 50(8):235-245.
[2]	李琰, 赵梓焱, 田水承, 等. 矿工不安全行为研究综述[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2016, 12(8): 47-54.
	LI Yan, ZHAO Ziyan, TIAN Shuicheng, et al. Review on unsafe behavior of miners[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2016, 12(8): 47-54.
[3]	付玉平, 陈兆波, 赵振保, 等. 煤矿安全事故的综合致因模型[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2024, 24(7):2731-2740.
	FU Yuping, CHEN Zhaobo, ZHAO Zhenbao, et al. Research on the comprehensive causative model of coal mine safety accidents[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2024, 24(7):2731-2740.
[4]	MOHAMMADI A, TAVAKOLAN M, KHOSRAVI Y. Factors influencing safety performance on construction projects: a review[J]. Safety Science, 2018, 109:382-397.
[5]	李广利, 温情, 苏锴轩, 等. 矿工不安全情绪对其风险偏好的影响研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2024, 24(8):3154-3164.
	LI Guangli, WEN Qing, SU Kaixuan, et al. Study on the influence of miners'unsafe emotions on their risk preferences[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2024, 24(8):3154-3164.
[6]	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.
[7]	田水承, 匡秘姈, 丁洋. 风险偏好中介作用下矿工工作压力对不安全行为的影响[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2023, 23(1): 132-138.
	TIAN Shuicheng, KUANG Miling, DING Yang. Effect of work stress on unsafe behaviors of miners under the mediating role of risk preference[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2023, 23(1):132-138.
[8]	LEWIN K. Field theory and learning[M]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942: 242.
[9]	牛玥铧, 聂百胜. 人格特征对驾驶人驾驶行为的影响研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(2):117-123. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.02.1266
	NIU Yuehua, NIE Baisheng. Study on influence of personality traits on drivers'driving behavior[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 34(2):117-123.
[10]	FOGARTY J G, SHAW A. Safety climate and the theory of planned behavior: towards the prediction of unsafe behavior[J]. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2009, 42(5): 1455-1459.
[11]	SING P C, LOVE P E D, FUNG I W H, et al. Personality and occupational accidents: bar benders in Guangdong province, Shenzhen, China[J]. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2014, 140(7): DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000858.
[12]	赵大龙, 田水承, 王璟, 等. 矿工大五人格特质对煤矿险兆事件上报的影响[J]. 西安科技大学学报, 2018, 38(3): 360-366.
	ZHAO Dalong, TIAN Shuicheng, WANG Jing, et al. Influence of miners'big-five personality trait on coal mine near-miss reporting[J]. Journal of Xi'an University of Science and Technology, 2018, 38(3):360-366.
[13]	王笑妍. 人格和情绪对大学生风险决策的影响[J]. 中国健康心理学杂志, 2014, 22(12):1804-1807.
	WANG Xiaoyan. Personality and emotion impact on the risk decision making for college[J]. Chinese Journal of Health Psychology, 2014, 22(12):1804-1807.
[14]	周路平, 孔令明. 情绪状态和人格特质对无意视盲的影响[J]. 人类工效学, 2010, 16(4):32-35.
	ZHOU Luping, KONG Lingming. The effects of emotional state and personality trait on inattentional visual blindness[J]. Chinese Journal of Ergonomics, 2010, 16(4):32-35.
[15]	STOLARSKI M, BITHER J. Time perspective, emotional intelligence and discounting of delayed awards[J]. Time Society, 2011, 20(3): 346-363.
[16]	GOLDBERG L R. From ace to zombie: some exploration in the language of personality[J]. Advance in Personality Assessment, 1982, 1(3):203-204.
[17]	LAURIOLA M, LEVIN I P. Personality traits and risky decision making in a controlled experimental task: an exploratory study[J]. Personality Individual Differences, 2001, 31(2): 215-226.
[18]	杨东, 杨依轩, 徐瑞, 等. 电力员工安全意识、大五人格和不安全行为的关系研究[J]. 西南大学学报, 2021, 43(8): 129-137.
	YANG Dong, YANG Yixuan, XU Rui, et al. Research of the relationship among safety awareness, five-factor personality and unsafe behavior of electric employees[J]. Journal of Southwest University, 201, 43(8):129-137.
[19]	张小庭. 影响行为安全的人格特质研究[D]. 北京: 清华大学, 2017.
	ZHANG Xiaoting. Research on personal characteristics which influence behavior safety[D]. Beijing: Tsinghua University, 2017.
[20]	NICHOLSON N, SOANE E, FENTON-O'CREEVY M, Personality and domain-specific risk taking[J]. Journal of Risk Research, 2005, 8(2):157-176.
[21]	盖玺. 人格特质对石油工人不安全行为作用机理分析[D]. 西安: 西安科技大学, 2016.
	GAI Xi. Research on the influence of personality traits on the petroleum workers'unsafe behavior[D]. Xi'an: Xi'an University of Science and Technology, 2016.
[22]	张瑶璐. 情绪对高中体育生冒险行为的影响:抑制控制的中介作用和心理韧性的调节作用[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳体育学院, 2023.
	ZHANG Yaolu. The effect of emotions on risk-taking behavior of high school sports students:the mediating role of Inhibitory control and the moderating role of resilience[D]. Shenyang: Shenyang Sport University, 2023.
[23]	田水承, 郭方艺, 杨鹏飞. 不良情绪对胶轮车驾驶员不安全行为的影响研究[J]. 矿业安全与环保, 2018, 45(5): 115-119.
	TIAN Shuicheng, GUO Fangyi, YANG Pengfei. Research on the effect of bad emotion on unsafe behavior of drivers of rubber-tyred car[J]. Mining Safety & Environmental Protection, 2018, 45(5):115-119.
[24]	陈白云. 主动性人格、情绪、风险情境对风险决策影响的实验研究[D]. 南昌: 江西师范大学, 2013.
	CHEN Baiyun. An experimental research on the effects of proactive personality, emotion, risk situation on risk decisions[D]. Nanchang: Jiangxi Normal University, 2013.
[25]	刘春莉, 江琦, 刘佳凝, 等. 变革型领导对进谏行为的影响:主动性人格和正性情绪、负性情绪的作用[J]. 西南大学学报, 2020, 42(6):100-109.
	LIU Chunli, JIANG Qi, LIU Jianing, et al. The effect of transformational leadership on employee voice behavior: the roles of proactive personality, positive emotion and negative emotion[J]. Journal of Southwest University, 2020, 42(6):100-109.
[26]	王大伟, 乔秀青, 苏香, 等. 具体情绪与人格特质对决策信息加工过程的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2017, 15(3):295-301.
	WANG Dawei, QIAO Xiuqing, SU Xiang, et al. The effect of specific emotion and personality traits on information process of decision-making[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2017, 15(3):295-301.
[27]	ZHANG Xintong, WANG Mengcheng, HE Lingnan, et al. The development and psychometric evaluation of the chinese big five personality inventory-15[J]. PloS One, 2019, 14(8): DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221621.
[28]	WATSON D, CLARK L A, TELLEGEN A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect the PANAS scales[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1988, 54(6): DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.
[29]	任英莎. 工作负荷对煤矿工人不安全行为影响研究[D]. 西安: 西安科技大学, 2022.
	REN Yingsha. Research on the influence of workload on unsafe behavior of coal miners[D]. Xi'an: Xi'an University of Science and Technology, 2022.
[30]	章少康, 谭钦文, 刘娟, 等. 基于大五人格特质理论的有意不安全行为研究[J]. 工业安全与环保, 2020, 46(6): 51-55.
	ZHANG Shaokang, TAN Qinwen, LIU Juan, et al. A study of intentional unsafe behavior based on big-five personality traits theory[J]. Industrial Safety and Environmental Protection, 2019, 46(6):51-55.
[31]	GAO Yifan, GONZALEZ V A, YIU T W. Exploring the relationship between construction workers'personality traits and safety behavior[J]. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2020, 146(3): DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001763.
[32]	胡喆, 胡昊, 徐峰, 等. 融入人格特质的个性化建筑工人安全管理研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2023, 23(4): 1194-1201.
	HU Zhe, HU Hao, XU Feng, et al. Research on personalized safety management for construction workers considering personality traits[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2023, 23(4): 1194-1201.
[33]	张舒, 王双, 史秀志. 不安全行为决策中情绪作用机制的脑电研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(1): 32-40. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.01.2435
	ZHANG Shu, WANG Shuang, SHI Xiuzhi. An EEG study of emotion mechanism in unsafe behavior decision-making[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(1):32-40. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.01.2435

量表名称	变量	Cronbach's α			CR	AVE
大五人格量表	神经质	0.907	0.840	0.886	0.887	0.725
	尽责性	0.871			0.899	0.749
	宜人性	0.901			0.872	0.694
	开放性	0.900			0.901	0.752
	外倾性	0.887			0.908	0.767
正负情绪量表	正性情绪	0.940	0.953		0.940	0.612
正负情绪量表	负性情绪	0.936	0.953		0.936	0.593
不安全行为量表	不安全行为	0.914			0.914	0.570

潜变量	神经质	尽责性	宜人性	开放性	外倾性	正性情绪	负性情绪	不安全行为
神经质	0.851	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
尽责性	-0.239^***	0.865	—	—	—	—	—	—
宜人性	-0.108^*	0.440^***	0.831	—	—	—	—	—
开放性	0.457^***	-0.255^***	-0.301^***	0.868	—	—	—	—
外倾性	0.500^***	-0.288^***	-0.264^***	0.542^***	0.876	—	—	—
正性情绪	-0.199^***	0.107^*	0.058^*	-0.084	-0.135^**	0.782	—	—
负性情绪	0.289^***	-0.254^***	-0.253^***	0.469^***	0.394^***	-0.025^*	0.770	—
不安全行为	0.529^***	-0.430^***	-0.433^***	0.744^***	0.707^***	-0.186^***	0.608^***	0.755

评价指标	χ²/df	GFI	AGFI	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
参考标准	<5	>0.9	>0.9	>0.9	>0.9	<0.08
模型拟合指数	1.158	0.893	0.879	0.972	0.97	0.031

路径关系			标准化回归系数	统计标准误差SE	组成信度CR	假设检验值P	显著性
不安全行为	←	神经质	0.097	0.024	2.62	0.009	显著
不安全行为	←	尽责性	-0.104	0.023	-3.012	0.003	显著
不安全行为	←	宜人性	-0.127	0.024	-3.591	^***	显著
不安全行为	←	开放性	0.36	0.029	8.352	^***	显著
不安全行为	←	外倾性	0.301	0.026	7.322	^***	显著
不安全行为	←	正性情绪	-0.072	0.026	-2.496	0.013	显著
不安全行为	←	负性情绪	0.233	0.033	6.511	^***	显著

变量	不安全行为
变量	模型1	模型2		模型3	模型4	模型5
神经质	0.283^***	—		—	—	—
正性情绪	-0.09^*	—		—	—	—
正性情绪×神经质	0.044	—		—	—	—
尽责性	—	-0.243^***		—	—	—
正性情绪	—	-0.131^***		—	—	—
正性情绪×尽责性	—	-0.039		—	—	—
宜人性	—	—		-0.254^***	—	—
正性情绪	—	—		-0.14^***	—	—
正性情绪×宜人性	—	—		0.001	—	—
开放性	—	—		—	-0.423^*	—
正性情绪	—		—	—	-0.128^***	—
正性情绪×开放性	—		—	—	0.047^*	—
外倾性	—		—	—	—	0.394^***
正性情绪	—		—	—	—	-0.077^*
正性情绪×外倾性	—		—	—	—	-0.021