Cross-level influence of safety climate on safety behavior from group perspective

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.12.2365

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to effectively promote construction workers' safety behavior and improve safety management level of the construction industry, based on social exchange theory and social cognition theory, a cross-level theoretical model of safety climate affecting individual safety behavior was constructed, and the cross-level mederating effect of group psychological capital and the cross-level moderating effect of group trust were tested. The data were collected by questionnaire survey. The survey subject were 448 construction workers (including team leaders and team members) in 68 construction teams. HLM method was used for empirical research. The results show that the safety climate of group layer is significantly and positively correlated with construction workers' safety behavior. Group psychological capital has a significant cross-level partial mediating effect between safety climate and construction worker's safety behavior. Group trust positively regulates the relationship between group psychological capital and construction workers' safety behavior. The safety climate of group level influences construction workers' safety behavior directly or indirectly through group psychological capital, and group trust can promote the process.

Key words: safety climate, safety behavior, cross-level influence, group psychological capital, group trust, construction workers, hierarchical linear model (HLM)

WANG Dan, HE Yang. Cross-level influence of safety climate on safety behavior from group perspective[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(12): 25-31.

Figures/Tables 5

Fig.1

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Fig.2

References 22

[1]	李生才, 笑蕾. 2021年11—12月国内生产安全事故统计分析[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2022, 22(1):538-540.
	LI Shengcai, XIAO Lei. Statistics of industrial accidents in China during the period from november to december in 2022[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2022, 22(1):538-540.
[2]	CHOUDHRY R M, FANG D. Why operatives engage in unsafe work behavior: investigating factors on construction sites[J]. Safety Science, 2008, 46(4):566-584. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.027
[3]	成家磊, 祁神军, 张云波. 组织氛围对建筑工人不安全行为的影响机理及实证研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2017, 13(11):11-16.
	CHENG Jialei, QI Shenjun, ZHANG Yunbo. Influence mechanism and empirical study of organizational climate on unsafe behavior of construction workers[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2017, 13(11):11-16.
[4]	叶新凤, 李新春, 王智宁. 安全氛围对员工安全行为的影响:心理资本中介作用的实证研究[J]. 软科学, 2014, 28(1):86-90.
	YE Xinfeng, LI Xinchun, WANG Zhining. Safety climate and safety behavior: the mediating role of psychological capital[J]. Soft Science, 2014, 28(1):86-90.
[5]	王霞. 安全氛围、心理资本对空中交通管制员违章行为的影响[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2017, 17(6):2263-2267.
	WANG Xia. On the relation between the psychological empowerment and the violation behaviors of the airport security staff members[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2017, 17(6):2263-2267.
[6]	ZOHAR D. Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and applied implications[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1980, 65(1):96-102. pmid: 7364709
[7]	ZOHAR D, LURIA G. The use of supervisory practices as leverage to improve safety behavior: a cross-level intervention model[J]. Journal of Safety Research, 2003, 34(5):567-577. pmid: 14733991
[8]	NEAL A, GRIFFIN M A, HART P M. The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behavior[J]. Safety Science, 2000, 34(1/2/3):99-109. doi: 10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00008-4
[9]	LU Chinshan, TSAI C L. The effect of safety climate on seafarers' safety behaviors in container shipping[J]. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2010, 42(6):1999-2006. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.06.008
[10]	BRONDINO M, SILVA S A, PASINI M. Multilevel approach to organizational and group safety climate and safety performance: co-workers as the missing link[J]. Safety Science, 2012, 50(9):1847-1856. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2012.04.010
[11]	徐劲松, 陈松. 群体资源对个体知识共享的跨层次影响:心理资本的视角[J]. 科研管理, 2018, 39(3):101-109.
	XU Jinsong, CHEN Song. Multilevel effects of group resources on individual knowledge sharing from the perspective of collective psychological capital[J]. Science Research Management, 2018, 39(3):101-109.
[12]	BERGHEIM K, EID J, HYSTAD S W, et al. The role of psychological capital in perception of safety climate among air traffic controllers[J]. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 2013, 20(2):232-241.
[13]	徐振亭, 罗瑾琏, 孙秀明. 群体心理资本对员工创造力的跨层次影响[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2016, 33(15):139-144.
	XU Zhenting, LUO Jinlian, SUN Xiuming. A cross-level examination of collective psychological capital and employee creativity[J]. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 2016, 33(15):139-144.
[14]	SARGENT L D, SUE-CHAN C. Does diversity affect group efficacy? the intervening role of cohesion and task interdependence[J]. Small Group Research, 2001, 32(4):426-450. doi: 10.1177/104649640103200403
[15]	HASHIM K F, TAN F B. The mediating role of trust and commitment on members' continuous knowledge sharing intention: a commitment-trust theory perspective[J]. International Journal of Information Management, 2015, 35(2):145-151. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.11.001
[16]	MAAS C J M, HOX J J. Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling[J]. Methodology, 2005, 1(3): 86-92. doi: 10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86
[17]	梅强, 张超, 李雯, 等. 安全文化、安全氛围与员工安全行为关系研究:基于高危行业中小企业的实证[J]. 系统管理学报, 2017, 26(2):277-286.
	MEI Qiang, ZHANG Chao, LI Wen, et al. Relationship among safety culture, safety climate and staffs' safety behavior:an empirical analysis of SMEs in high-risk industry[J]. Journal of Systems & Management, 2017, 26(2):277-286.
[18]	高伟明. 中国伦理型领导对员工安全行为的影响[D]. 徐州: 中国矿业大学, 2016.
	GAO Weiming. The impact of chinese ethical leadership on employee safety behavior: based on the empirical research of coal mining enterprises[D]. Xuzhou: China University of Mining and Technology, 2016.
[19]	陈颖欣. 重大科研项目团队互动对团队合作质量的影响[D]. 广州: 华南理工大学, 2018.
	CHEN Yingxin. The effect of team interaction on teamwork quality in major research teams[D]. Guangzhou: South China University of Technology, 2018.
[20]	HU Litze, BENTLER P M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives[J]. Structural Equation Modeling, 1999, 6(1):1-55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
[21]	JAMES L R, DEMAREE R G, WOLF G. Rwg: an assessment of within-group interrater agreement[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1993, 78(2):306-309. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306
[22]	BLIESE P D, HALVERSON R R. Group size and measures of group-level properties: an examination of eta-squared and ICC values[J]. Journal of Management, 1998, 24(2):157-172. doi: 10.1177/014920639802400202

模型编号	所含因子	χ²/df	RMSEA	GFI	CFI	TLI
1	4因子:SC;GPC;SB;GT	1.270	0.025	0.889	0.975	0.973
2	3因子:SC;GPC;SB+GT	2.246	0.053	0.793	0.883	0.877
3	3因子:SC;GPC+SB;GT	2.813	0.064	0.719	0.830	0.821
4	2因子:SC;GPC+GT+SB	5.568	0.101	0.554	0.569	0.550
5	单因子:SC+GPC+GT+SB	7.247	0.118	0.439	0.410	0.384

变量		均值	标准差	1	2	3	4
个体层	1.性别	1.130	0.336	—	—	—	—
	2.年龄	2.672	0.863	-0.061	—	—	—
	3.工龄	2.993	1.002	-0.051	0.761^***	—	—
	4.学历	1.645	0.979	0.052	-0.011	0.027	—
	5.安全行为	2.433	0.812	-0.043	-0.044	-0.086	-0.022
群体层	1.班组成立时间	1.536	0.661	—	—	—	—
	2.班组的规模	2.411	0.746	0.229^***	—	—	—
	3.安全氛围	3.595	0.656	-0.054	-0.161^**	—	—
	4.群体心理资本	3.428	0.608	-0.075	0.075	0.313^***	—
	5.群体信任	2.235	0.802	-0.029	-0.005	0.148^**	0.300^***

变量类型		因变量	安全行为
变量类型		模型	M₁	M₂	M₃	M₄	M₅
—		截距项	2.273^***	2.057^***	2.381^***	2.243^***	2.401^***
控制变量	个体层	性别	-0.095	-0.093	-0.116	-0.111	-0.118
		年龄	-0.030	-0.029	-0.034	-0.033	-0.037
		工龄	0.013	0.016	0.019	0.020	0.023
		受教育程度	-0.001	0.004	0.002	0.005	0.001
	群体层	班组成立时间	-0.064	-0.045	0.023	0.013	0.023
	群体层	班组的规模	0.165	0.235^**	0.073	0.130	0.066
自变量		安全氛围	—	0.645^***	—	0.332^*	—
中介变量		群体心理资本	—	—	0.852^***	0.665^***	0.840^***
调节变量		群体信任	—	—	—	—	0.115
交互项		群体心理资本×群体信任	—	—	—	—	0.535^*
组内方差σ²			0.363	0.363	0.363	0.363	0.363
组间方差T₀₀			0.305	0.216	0.172	0.156	0.153