slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Susanna Larsson, Anders Pousette, Marianne Törner 3RD International Conference WORKING ON SAFETY

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 19

Susanna Larsson, Anders Pousette, Marianne Törner 3RD International Conference WORKING ON SAFETY - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 70 Views
  • Uploaded on

Psychological Climate and Safety in the Construction Industry – Mediated Influence on Safety Behaviour. Susanna Larsson, Anders Pousette, Marianne Törner 3RD International Conference WORKING ON SAFETY 12-15 September 2006. 2. Aim.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Susanna Larsson, Anders Pousette, Marianne Törner 3RD International Conference WORKING ON SAFETY' - jethro


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1
Psychological Climate and Safety in the Construction Industry – Mediated Influence on Safety Behaviour

Susanna Larsson, Anders Pousette, Marianne Törner

3RD International Conference

WORKINGONSAFETY

12-15 September 2006

slide2
2Aim
  • Examining mechanisms by which the psychological climate (PC) may influence self-reported safety behaviour (SB)

?

?

PC

SB

?

?

Mediated relationsships

psychological climate
3 Psychological climate

Individual perceptions of the work environment

encompass the psychological work characteristics:

  • Job/Role

role clarity, work control, information access, possibilities for work development

  • Leadership

quality of planning, solving conflicts, social support, feedback

  • Workgroup

social support, sense of community, feedback

(Jones and James, 1979)

slide4
4Data
  • Cross-sectional questionnaire data
  • - assembled in a study of safety in Swedish construction industry 2004
  • questionnaire comprised dimensions of psychological climate(8), individual attitudes(4) and safety behaviour(3)
sample
5Sample
  • Non-managerial construction workers (N=189)

-mean age 45.3

- mean job tenure 23.4

- 1/3 at least high school education

- 100% male

  • Response rate 85%
statistical analysis
6Statistical Analysis
  • Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)
  • Hypothesis testing:
  • Is the hypothesised model a good representation of the empirical data ?
  • Comparison between different hypothesised models
  • -which model is the best representation of the empirical data?
mechanisms
7

Structural Interactive Personal safety behaviour

Mechanisms

Four hypothetical models: The models A and B, C and D

(Parker et al., 2003; Neal et al., 2000)

(Parker et al., 2003);Neal et al., 2000; Pousette et al., 2004)

Psychological climate

Safety knowledge

Workplace commitment

Job satisfaction

Safety motivation

analysis
8Analysis
  • Three steps:
  • Assessment of fit between each of the four hypothesised models and empirical data (c2, RMSEA, CFI, c2/df)
  • Comparisons between the four hypothesised models (c2- difference test, AIC)
    • Significant regression parameters
    • tested in competition (C.R.>1.96; p.<.05)
    • Non-significant regression parameters
  • were removed – parsimonius model
result
9Result

Step 1.

Assessment of fit - all four models acceptable fit

Model AModel BModel CModel D

c2 =1717.4 c2 =1706.0 c2 =1700.2 c2 =1707.3

RMSEA=.0067 RMSEA=.0067 RMSEA=.0067 RMSEA=.0067

CFI=.969 CFI=.969 CFI=.970 CFI=.969

c2/df=1.849 c2/df=1.842 c2/df=1.836 c2/df=1.842

RMSEA: .05-.08 acceptable fit ; <.05=closer fit

CFI>.900 acceptable fit

c2/df: values between 1-2 acceptable fit

result1
10Result

Step 2.

Comparisons between the models

A, B, C, D

Model AModel BModel CModel D

… Dc2(A)=11.4** Dc2(A)=17.2*** Dc2(A)=10.1**

AIC=2019.372 AIC=2013.962 AIC=2008.243 AIC=2013.320

df=929 df=926 df=926 df=927

c2 =1706.0 c2 =1700.2c2 =1707.3

Dc2(D)=7.1***

**: significantly better than Model A (p<.05)

***significantly better than Model A, D (p<.01)

AIC: lower values better fit

result2
11Result

Model C the best representation of empirical data

Psychological climate

Safety knowledge

Workplace commitment

Job satisfaction

Safety motivation

Personal

safety behaviour

Structural safety behaviour

Interactive

safety behaviour

result3
12Result

Step 3.

Significant regression parameters from the models B and D, introduced in model C

Non-significant parameters removed one by one

result4
13Result

Final model

c2 =1700.4

RMSEA=.066

CFI=.970

AIC=1998.448

c2/df=1.826

Illustrations of significant paths (p<.05)

Psychological climate

Job satisfaction

Work site commitment

Safety knowledge

Safety motivation

Structural safety behaviour

Interactive safety behaviour

Personal safety behaviour

discussion
14Discussion
  • The psychological climate related to safety behaviour both directly and indirectly
  • an important area for safety at work
  • Testing four possible mediators in competition clear indication that:
  • - safety knowledge and safety motivation key mediators explaining how the influence between the psychological climate and safety behaviour may occur
discussion1
15Discussion
  • In a favourable psychological climate the individual:
  • acquires better knowledge on safety
  • becomes more motivated to behave safely
discussion2
16Discussion
  • Fostering a favourable psychological climate - within the management scope
  • Changing workers safety behaviour could be achieved through improvning managerial behaviour
discussion3
17Discussion

Different mechanisms explaining the three aspects of safety behaviour:

  • Personal safety behaviour
  • …using safety equipment, employing safety rules
  • safety motivation
  • - safety knowledge
  • Interactive safety behaviour
  • …raise safety issues in daily work, prevent co-workers and managements hazardous behaviour, provide suggestions for safety improvment
  • - safety motivation
discussion4
18Discussion
  • Structural safety behaviour:
  • …participation in safety inspections, safety analyses, risk assessment, safety campaigns
  • direct influence from the psychological climate
  • none of the four hypothesised mediators at work
  • due to work role/assignment?
  • a supportive psychological climate important
conclusions
19Conclusions
  • Psychological climate, safety motivation and safety knowledge
  • important areas for improving safety at work

- safety knowledge and safety motivation key mediators explaining the influence between the psychological climate and safety behaviour

- different mechanisms at work behind different aspects of safety behaviour

ad