Simulation of subjective probability of safety accidents among engineering personnel based on similar scenario knowledge transfer

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2025.07.1047

Abstract

Abstract:

To study the influence of similar scenario knowledge transfer on the subjective probability of safety accidents of engineers under avoidance behavior, the scenario similarity variable was introduced, and a subjective probability evolution model for safety accidents among engineering personnel groups was constructed and simulated. The results show that knowledge transfer in similar scenarios accelerates the convergence of the mean subjective probability, and reduces the subjective probability differences between individuals and scenarios, but also leads to the underestimation of accident rates in high-accident-rate scenarios. There is a "high-risk" accident scenario with the largest number of fatalities, where the accident rate ranges from 0.4 to 0.8. When there is a significant mortality rate difference between two scenarios, scenario knowledge transfer reduces losses only if the low-mortality-scenario has a higher accident rate than the high-mortality one. With close mortality rates but greatly varying accident rates, incomplete knowledge transfer may cause greater losses.

Key words: scenario similarity, knowledge transfer, engineering personnel, safety accidents, subjective probability, avoidance behavior, cellular automaton (CA)

CLC Number:

X928.02事故处理

ZHANG Yu, LI Zhiwu, ZHONG Wei, HE Juanru. Simulation of subjective probability of safety accidents among engineering personnel based on similar scenario knowledge transfer[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2025, 35(7): 106-113.

Figures/Tables 9

Table 1

Fig.1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

References 21

[1]	KOUANENAN D R, NGUEUTSA R, MBAYE S. Safety climate, perceived risk, and involvement in safety management[J]. Safety Science, 2015, 77: 72-79.
[2]	李华强, 龚乐, 范春梅. 药品安全事件中公众应对行为的形成机制[J]. 公共管理学报, 2019, 16(3):97-107,172-173.
	LI Huaqiang, GONG Le, FAN Chunmei. The formation mechanism of the public's coping behavior in drug safety events[J]. Journal of Public Management, 2019, 16(3):97-107,172-173.
[3]	张羽, 赵碧柳, 刘红勇. 基于情绪分析的事故风险感知偏差研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(8):16-22. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.08.1730
	ZHANG Yu, ZHAO Biliu, LIU Hongyong. Study on accident risk perception bias based on emotion analysis[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(8): 16-22. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.08.1730
[4]	余建华, 孙丽. 国外风险认知研究:回顾与前瞻[J]. 灾害学, 2020, 35(1):161-166.
	YU Jianhua, SUN Li. A study of foreign risk perception: retrospect and prediction[J]. Journal of Catastrophology, 2020, 35(1): 161-166.
[5]	陈庆, 何泉, 陈广耀, 等. 复杂情境下不同角度及思维方式的决策表现差异:决策视角-心理距离的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(3):383-392.
	CHEN Qing, HE Quan, CHEN Guangyao, et al. The perspective-distance effect hypothesis: different perspectives and thinking modes lead to different decision-making performance in complex condition[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(3): 383-392. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00383
[6]	孙庆洲. 社会距离对概率估计偏差的影响:情绪占优抑或认知占优?[D]. 上海: 华东师范大学, 2017.
	SUN Qingzhou. Emotional Dominance or cognitive dominance? the effect of social distance on the biases of probability evaluations[D]. Shanghai: East China Normal University, 2017.
[7]	RAUE M, STREICHER B, LERMER E, et al. How far does it feel? construal level and decisions under risk[J]. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2015, 4(3): 256-264.
[8]	SUN Qingzhou, LIU Yongfang, ZHANG Huanren, et al. Increased social distance makes people more risk-neutral[J]. Journal of Social Psychology, 2017, 157(4): 502-512. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2016.1242471 pmid: 27685243
[9]	刘晓东, 刘力臻. 预期情绪动机观与经济决策悖论问题的消解[J]. 当代经济研究, 2017(7):52-58.
	LIU Xiaodong, LIU Lizhen. Resolving the paradox of expected emotional motivation and economic decision making[J]. Contemporary Economic Research, 2017(7): 52-58.
[10]	SUTER R S, PACHUR T, HERTWIG R. How affect shapes risky choice: distorted probability weighting versus probability neglect[J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2016, 29(4): 437-449.
[11]	PACHUR T, SUTER R S, HERTWIG R. How the twain can meet: Prospect theory and models of heuristics in risky choice[J]. Cognitive Psychology, 2017, 93: 44-73. doi: S0010-0285(16)30009-3 pmid: 28189037
[12]	杜秀芳, 吴顺, 孙旭, 等. 思维风格、时间压力对道德决策的影响[J]. 中国特殊教育, 2018(11):71-76.
	DU Xiufang, WU Shun, SUN Xu, et al. The effects of thinking styles and time pressure on moral decisions[J]. Chinese Journal of Special Education, 2018(11): 71-76.
[13]	FIEDLER K. Beware of samples! a cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases[J]. Psychological Review, 2000, 107(4):659-676. pmid: 11089402
[14]	SANBORN A N, CHATER N. Bayesian brains without probabilities[J]. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2016, 20(12): 883-893. doi: S1364-6613(16)30156-5 pmid: 28327290
[15]	张羽, 谯丽, 岑康. 死亡悖论视角下群体性主观概率偏差仿真研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(6):37-43. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.06.005
	ZHANG Yu, QIAO Li, CEN Kang. Simulation research on group subjective probability deviation from a perspective of death paradox[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(6): 37-43. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2021.06.005
[16]	张羽, 刘伟, 谯丽, 等. 极端损失条件下分组群体的主观概率累积偏差仿真研究[J]. 运筹与管理, 2022, 31(7):207-212. doi: 10.12005/orms.2022.0238
	ZHANG Yu, LIU Wei, QIAO Li, et al. Simulation study on subjective probability cumulative deviation of grouped population under extreme loss conditions[J]. Operations Research and Management Science, 2022, 31(7): 207-212. doi: 10.12005/orms.2022.0238
[17]	王春柳, 杨永辉, 邓霏, 等. 文本相似度计算方法研究综述[J]. 情报科学, 2019, 37(3):158-168.
	WANG Chunliu, YANG Yonghui, DENG Fei, et al. A review of text similarity approaches[J]. Information Science, 2019, 37(3): 158-168.
[18]	张鉴. 建筑工人不安全行为发生机理与管理策略研究[D]. 重庆: 重庆大学, 2021.
	ZHANG Jian. Research on the mechanism of unsafe behavior of construction workers and management strategy[D]. Chongqing: Chongqing University, 2021.
[19]	孙世梅, 赵金坤, 傅贵. 基于“2-4”模型的高处坠落事故行为原因研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2019, 29(8):23-28. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.08.004
	SUN Shimei, ZHAO Jinkun, FU Gui. Study on behavioral causes of falling accidents based on " 2-4" model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2019, 29(8): 23-28. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.08.004
[20]	CHEN Zeyou, ZHANG Zheyuan, XIANG Yong, et al. Research on the application of heterogeneous cellular automaton in the safety control and detection system of construction project implementation phase[J]. Electronics, 2023, 12(19): DOI:10.3390/electronics12194046.
[21]	RAYAN H A, MOHAMAD A N, GHIWA A, et al. An agent-based cellular automaton simulation model to study worker safety behavior on construction sites: the impacts of different social influence rules[C]. Computing in Civil Engineering 2023: Resilience, Safety, and Sustainability, 2023: 581-589.

相似系数	高处坠落	物体打击	坍塌事故	起重伤害
高处坠落	1	0.66	0.42	0.59
物体打击	0.66	1	0.51	0.67
坍塌事故	0.42	0.51	1	0.51
起重伤害	0.59	0.67	0.51	1

变量	值域
事故死亡概率R_α/DR	[0,1]
事故发生概率AR_α/AR	[0,1]
事件发生概率ER_α/ER	[0,1]
累计时间T	[0,1 000]
初始个体数量IN	[0,1 000]
情景相似度S	[0,1]
群体幸存人数NS	[0,1 000]
群体平均知识量, 即经历的事故数量AK	[0,﹢∞]
社会主观概率均值M_α/M	[0,1]
社会主观概率离散系数CV_α/CV	[0,﹢∞]

试验	情景	死亡率	事故率	时间步数	相似度
1	1	0.003	0.4	600	0.1/0.5/0.9
1	2	0.003	0.007	600	0.1/0.5/0.9
2	1	0.003	0.001→1	600	0.1/0.5/0.9
2	2	0.003	0.007	600	0.1/0.5/0.9
3	1	0.003	0.001→1	600	0.1/0.5/0.9
3	2	0.6	0.007	600	0.1/0.5/0.9
4	1	0.003	0.8	50/300/ 600/1 000	0.01→0.99
4	2	0.8	0.003	50/300/ 600/1 000	0.01→0.99
5	1	0.003	0.1/0.3/0.5	600	0.01→0.99
5	2	0.003	0.9/0.7/0.5	600	0.01→0.99

S	因变量	情景1(L1)	情景2(L2)	综合情景(L)
0.1	主观概率值	0.327	0.033	0.124
0.1	离散系数	0.220	2.978	0.695
0.5	主观概率值	0.242	0.117	0.176
0.5	离散系数	0.266	0.681	0.408
0.9	主观概率值	0.218	0.198	0.208
0.9	离散系数	0.218	0.251	0.234