Workplace Safety Project Technical Report

St. Cloud State University

PSY 690 – Fall 2023

Adarsh Bansal, Leilani Brown, Mythili Shinde, Riya Shah

1
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents........................................................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction....................................................................................................................................4
Literature Review.......................................................................................................................... 6
Hypotheses.................................................................................................................................... 15
Methodology................................................................................................................................. 16
Results........................................................................................................................................... 19
Recommendations........................................................................................................................ 25
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 31
References..................................................................................................................................... 32
Appendices....................................................................................................................................37

2
 Executive Summary

Safety outcomes research has been studied and developed for a very long time. By

analyzing how employee attitudes, situational circumstances, and dispositions affect their safety

knowledge, motivation, engagement, and compliance, the current research seeks to reduce safety

outcomes (accidents and injuries). The second objective is to show that, in addition to

situation-related elements (safety climate), intrinsic drivers (personality and attitudes towards

safety) also contribute to the prediction of workplace safety. After reviewing of literature, the

current study aims at establishing evidence-based relationships with the factors that affect safety

outcomes. The predictors, mediators, and moderators are defined and hypotheses are made.

These hypotheses were tested and the model was obtained. Statistical analyses were conducted to

obtain an overall model of safety. Based on the result, the study recommends empowering its

employees and placing emphasis on intrinsic factors to gauge the systematic impact of safety

constructs for the consequences of safety outcomes.

3
 Introduction

The project involves understanding the dynamics shared between safety outcomes and

other components of safety and self. Safety outcomes refer to any accidents injuries or near

misses that employees recall being an incident of concern. Safety outcomes could be any

accidents and injuries, adverse events, and unsafe behaviors. Safety outcomes have been

associated with job demands, resources, burnout, and engagement (Nahrgang, Morgeson,

Hofmann, 2011). Safety outcomes have been reported to be predicted by job insecurity, where

higher job insecurity reported higher levels of injuries and accidents (Probst & Brubaker, 2001).

Similarly, safety outcomes, in some form or other are either predicted moderated, or mediated by

safety knowledge, safety attitudes, safety compliance, proactive personality, core

self-evaluations, and moral identity (Yuan et al., 2014; Hallowell et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2021;

Vinodkumar & Bhasi, 2010; Clarke, 2010; Ajmal et al., 2022).

Safety outcomes have been an important part of research in the ways in which it finds

itself to be useful. In a study by Loh et al. (2019), understanding the organizational environment

particularly, the safety climate was regarded as a crucial element in understanding employees’

health and safety. Furthermore, when accidents at work are taken into account, is it necessary to

include an analysis of specific safety interventions at work that can help reduce safety outcomes

(Dyreborg et al., 2022). This was further supported by articles that were industry-specific.

In the fishing industry, a study by Windle et al. (2008) provided evidence to the support

that safety compliance influences safety outcomes in industries where practices are mandatory.

Safety outcome has been also been an important research element for manufacturing industries,

where systematic safety, or lack thereof, has been a curious case for researchers over the years. In

the woodworking industry, a study by Michael et al. (2005) revealed that a manager’s

commitment to safety was linked to employees’s perception of its outcomes. It was related

4
positively to job-related factors and organizational commitment. Subsequently, management’s

support for safety affected commitment to safety and employees’ withdrawal behavior

negatively. The results implied that there is a type of social exchange between employees and

management that may affect employees similarly to perceived organizational support. Thus,

organizations with a strong commitment to safety may enjoy not only a reduction in

safety-related events but also an increase in desirable employee attitudes and behaviors. In

mining industries, a study by Arifin et al. (2023) cites how hazard control and prevention can

significantly relate to aspects of safety such as safety compliance, participation, motivation, and

knowledge. Additionally, safety compliance mediated the relationship between safety outcomes

and hazard control. The model can be used as guidance for practitioners and researchers in

planning and implementing hazard control and prevention to improve health and safety in the

workplace. Similarly, in the construction industry, a study has shown that safety commitment

from supervisors was related to social support and production pressure.

Finally, in relation to the factors discussed above, safety outcome research

(understanding accidents, injuries, and near misses) becomes not only an important part of

research in the near future, but it also becomes important to assess whether this method is

evidence-based. Thus our aim with this project is to ensure that we can utilize some factors

mentioned above to come up with a model of safety where the study can define potential

predictors, moderators, and mediators in understanding safety outcomes. With the literature

review, this study aims to help explain why certain relationships exist.

5
 Literature Review

The following literature serves as an attempt to help explain and provide evidence for the

various relationship safety outcomes has with certain predictors of safety and self-characteristics.

Evidence has indicated that concepts like safety knowledge, safety participation, safety attitudes,

safety motivation, safety compliance, safety climate, safety knowledge, proactive personality,

self-evaluation, and behavior control can lead to important findings in safety outcome research.

Thus, the sections in this review go over each of these relationships in brief detail.

Safety Knowledge

Safety Knowledge refers to individuals' perceptions of hazards, their ability to manage

and control these hazards, and their ability to effectively communicate and disseminate

information about possible hazards are all part of safety knowledge (Zulkifly et al., 2021). A

study aimed to assess the impact of safety management methods on employees' safety attitudes

and actions, with the ultimate goal of minimizing workplace accidents. Utilizing path analysis

through AMOS-4 software the study discovered direct and indirect relationships between

particular safety management techniques and two essential components of safety performance.

Notably, safety knowledge and motivation emerged as critical mediators in explaining these

connections. The analysis claimed that safety knowledge was critical in determining how various

safety management strategies influenced employees' attitudes and actions toward safety. The

analysis claimed that safety knowledge was critical in determining how various safety

management strategies influenced employees' attitudes and actions toward safety (Vinodkumar &

6
Bhasi, 2010). Another research studied the relationship between workers' consideration of future

safety consequences (CFSC) and various workplace safety outcomes was investigated in this

study. CFSC has become an important predictor that has a big impact on a lot of safety-related

aspects. Interestingly, workers with higher CFSC scores showed more motivation and safety

knowledge, demonstrating a stronger awareness of and dedication to safety procedures.

Furthermore, the CFSC significantly contributed to the prediction of safety rule compliance such

as safety knowledge & safety motivation safety citizenship behaviors, attitudes and behaviors

related to accident reporting, and the occurrence of workplace injuries, thus, highlighting the

significance of people who think about potential safety implications being more likely to follow

set safety procedures. Employees who were more aware of potential safety repercussions were

more likely to take proactive safety-related measures beyond simple compliance, according to

research on the positive effects of CFSC on safety conduct. The study also discovered that CFSC

affected attitudes and actions about accident reporting, showing that those who strongly

considered the implications for future safety were more likely to report incidents properly and on

time. Notably, CFSC remained important in predicting these safety outcomes even after

controlling for other relevant characteristics like conscientiousness and demographics. The

strength of these relationships emphasizes how crucial it is to take into account how workers

perceive potential safety implications as a major factor in developing a variety of workplace

safety-related behaviors and results. Safety knowledge and safety outcomes share a mediator

relationship (Probst et al., 2013).

7
Safety Motivation

Safety motivation is defined as the willingness of the employee to offer greater safety

performance is referred to as safety motivation (Al-Bayati, 2021). The present study examined

the complex interplay of risk perception, safety behavior, and safety motivation in the workplace

setting. The identification of risk perception as a critical factor that may impact safety motivation

suggests that employees' perceptions of the risks connected with their job responsibilities may

have a significant impact on their willingness to participate in safety-related behaviors. The

moderating function of safety motivation, however, adds another layer of complexity to this

connection. The fact that safety motivation acts as a moderator suggests that it has contextual

effects that affect the strength or nature of the relationship that exists between risk perception and

safety behavior. This suggests that different people have different effects from risk perception on

safety behavior depending on how motivated they are to be safe (Nini Xia et al., 2019). A study

that took place in Indonesia, looks into the increasing work accidents among industrial workers

and links it to noncompliance with safety requirements. It studies how to improve workplace

safety through safety climate and motivation. The major purpose is to investigate how safety

climate affects safety behavior directly and indirectly through safety motivation mediation.

According to the results, safety motivation partially mediates the relationship between safety

climate and safety behavior. This means that safety motivation acts as a bridge, exposing the

complex relationship between corporate safety climate and individuals' safety behavior, therefore

impacting total workplace safety (Heryati et al., 2019).

Safety Climate

A study led by Jiang, Lavaysse, and Probst (2019) examined how well various measures

of workplace safety environment predict workplace safety outcomes. The general atmosphere or

8
culture of a workplace connected to safety is called safety climate. The researchers wanted to

discover if safety climate measures that function across several sectors (universal measures) are

better at predicting safety outcomes than measures established particularly for a single industry

(industry-specific measures). They examined data from several studies and discovered that

universal safety climate measures were more successful than industry-specific ones in predicting

safety-related outcomes. In simplest terms, a one-size-fits-all strategy when assessing and

improving safety climate appears to be more successful across various industries. This shows

that there are common features of safety climate that are critical for safety in all workplaces,

regardless of industry (Jiang et al., 2018). Another study by Colley, Lincolne, and Neal (2013)

investigated the relationship between perceived organizational values, safety climate, and safety

outcomes. They did this study to learn how workers perceive their organization's values with

safety-related variables. The study discovered a significant association between employees'

opinions of organizational values, the safety climate in their workplace, and safety outcomes.

This implies that aligning organizational values that focus on safety with an ideal safety climate

could result in enhanced employee safety performance and outcomes (Colley et al., 2013).

Perceived Behaviour Control

Perceived behavioral control is denoted as people's perception of their ability to or

control over performing a given behavior (Yzer, 2012). In the original version of the Theory of

Planned Behavior, it was proposed that the degree of control a person feels (perceived behavioral

control) not only influences intentions independently but also influences how much attitudes and

subjective norms influence intentions. However, until recently, this concept had received little

attention. This initial hypothesis was supported in a new research project conducted in Germany

and the United Kingdom. This is what they found: People's attitudes influenced their intentions

9
more when they believed they had more control over their behaviors (greater perceived

behavioral control). Simply put, if someone had a good attitude toward exercising or conserving

energy and also felt they had control over the situation, they were more likely to want to do so.

However, as perceived behavioral control grew, so did the effect of what others anticipated

(subjective norms) on intentions. This suggests that while people felt more in control of their

actions, what others thought about it became less significant in predicting their intentions. In this

article, Perceived behavioral control was discovered to function as a moderator between

subjective norm attitude (core-self assessments) and intention. Intention is defined as the

deliberate attempt to commit an action. (La Barbera & Ajzen, 2021)

Core Self Evaluation

The term "core self-evaluations" describes a person's basic appraisal of their value,

self-worth, and competence (Chang et al., 2012). The study looked at the potential influences of

an individual's core self-evaluations on safety behavior. It was suggested that those who have a

favorable core self-evaluation could be more likely to use safe work practices. In the cabin crew

line of work, safety-related activities and behaviors are shaped and promoted by an individual's

core self-evaluations (Chen & Chen, 2014). The article by Yuan et al found that core self

evaluation was connected with safety performance and stress. Positive core self evaluation that

has an individual with a positive outlook on the individual’s job performance and personality

lead to increased job performance (Yuan et al., 2014). The authors suggested that core self

evaluation with positive stressors can lead to fewer accidents and increased performance and

how negative stressors and a lower self evaluation can lead to increased accidents and lower job

performance.

10
Safety Participation:

Safety participation can be defined as performing actions such as actively promoting

safety behaviors and showing initiative to demonstrate effort to make the work environment a

safer place. In the study by Choi and Lee (2022) they define participation in safety as extra role

participation in safety activities, active participation in safety meetings, enthusiastically helping

their colleagues to complete tasks, and giving safety recommendations to one another actively.

Choi and Lee focus on individual behavior called organizational citizenship behavior where

behaviors can lead to develop shared perceptions of organizational goals that affect their safety

behaviors (Choi & Lee, 2022). The authors discuss individual work conditions and the

interactions with management. If an employee can understand and “identify with” the

organizations they find that good management and environment are mediators that can promote

increased safety participation.

The study by Liu et al 2020 found that higher manager attitudes towards safety

participation leads to an increase in “prosocial” safety behaviors. Higher attitudes in the upper

management lead to increased safety trust which leads to increased safety participation among

employees. Liu defined prosocial behaviors as employees putting in effort to help with safety

behaviors (Liu,2020). There was found to be a relationship between safety participation and the

safety attitudes of higher managers in an organization. Increased trust in the organization leads to

higher levels of safety participation. Liu defined ETSM as the belief that upper management has

the ability to follow the safety rules that are set by the organization. The study found that ETSM

had a positive effect on prosocial behavior. Increased ETSM has led to more trust in the belief in

the safety policies that leads to increased safety behavior.

11
Safety Attitudes:

Clarke defines safety attitudes as perceptions of safety rules and how the person views

safety rules and their responsibility towards safety and preventing accidents. In the study by

Clarke 2006 looked at safety attitudes, safety climates, and safety behaviors. Clarke found

perceptions of the work environment predict safety attitudes as well as the safety behavior of

employees. The author found that attitudes were found to be a significant predictor of both

attitudes and safety behaviors. They found that decreased safety attitudes lead to unsafe

behaviors among the employees. Positive safety attitudes in the study were found to lead to

positive safety behaviors and less unsafe behaviors. Although the author found that safety

attitudes had a statistically significant relationship, the safety climate did not have a relationship

with safety behaviors.

Safety Compliance:

Röhsig et al 2020 defined as following the safety laws set in place. In the study this is the

laws of patient safety In the study by Röhsig et al 2020 discussed the presence of the surgical

safety checklist discussed how the presence of the safety checklist increased safety compliance.

The research edited the surgery safety checklist and implemented a collaborative intervention

that involved an intervention class that involved the risk-benefit and the participation of

everyone including upper management in meetings. Adding the list increased safety compliance

with the need for a “time out phase”. They found that collaboration in the intervention

encouraged more collaboration in the safety behaviors among the employees in the study leading

to the increased compliance to safety behaviors.

Safety compliance was also found to be a mediator between safety participation and

safety attitudes. In the study by Abdullah et al. (2016) they found that 97.1 percent of the abattoir

12
workers in the study in Malaysia held positive towards the safety laws that were currently set

into place and 77 percent of the employees had good reported safety practice. There was found to

be a statistically significant relationship between safety compliance and safety attitudes. They

also measured understanding of the safety laws regarding the spread of animal spread illnesses to

the public and a majority of the public and the research found that there was a negative

relationship between safety participation, safety knowledge, and safety compliance and the

spread of animal spread illness. The study found that as the employees’ knowledge, compliance,

and participation in the safety behaviors the illness spread diseases (Abdullah et al., 2016).

Moral Identity

Liu et al 2021 defines moral identity as an internal schema that is a mental representation

of an individual’s moral character and how their behavior expressed it. This study looks at the

relationship between moral identities and prosocial behavior. The authors focused on moral

identity as having two dimensions: internalization and symbolization with internalization being

an individual’s moral traits and symbolization being an individual’s representation to the public

(Liu et al, 2021). The study found a positive relationship between prosocial behaviors with those

who have a higher moral identity. Moral identity was also found to have relationships as a

moderator with safety compliance.

In the study by Sharma et al. (2023) focused on moral identity as a moderator with safety

compliance. The study focuses on an individual’s psychological entitlement to follow COVID-19

protocols that were implemented by OSHA. They focused on the relationship of high

psychological entitlement leading to less moral behavior (Sharma et al., 2023). The study found

that lower moral identity leads to less safety compliance. They found that moral identity is a

moderator with safety participation and safety. Furthermore, lower levels of moral

13
disengagement have been related to safety culture, safety culture and also predicts employee’s

tendency to under-report an accident. Tus, in the study by Petitta et al. (2017), moral

disengagement mediated the relationship between safety culture and under-report of safety

outcomes.

Proactive Personality

A proactive personality is defined as a natural desire to take personal initiative to improve

present working conditions or create new ones (Bakidamteh et al., 2022). Research in Indonesia

examines how micro-entrepreneurs in cities innovate in order to survive in business. 307

entrepreneurs were part of the study, and they used the Hayes' PROCESS macro in SPSS to

discover that core self-evaluations (CSE) are positively related to creative behavior. Proactive

personality promotes creative behavior favorably, functioning as a mediator in the

CSE-innovation relationship. This shows that CSE has a beneficial influence on proactive

personality, which in turn improves creative thinking behavior (Purba & Paundra, 2018).

Another study looks at how proactive personality affects job search clarity in 495 nursing

students. The findings demonstrate a positive association, with core self-evaluation and career

exploration entirely moderating the link between proactive personality and job search clarity.

The findings imply that interventions concentrating on building a proactive personality,

increasing core self-evaluation, and encouraging career exploration might greatly improve job

search clarity, although the study doesn't relate to safety but it explains the relationship in terms

of proactive personality with core self-evaluation (Zhu et al., 2021).

14
 Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were made based on the literature review. They will later be tested in

the results section.

Hypothesis 1: Safety Attitudes mediates the relationship between Safety Participation and Safety

Outcomes.

Hypothesis 2: Safety Motivation mediates the relationship between Safety Climate and Safety

Outcomes.

Hypothesis 3: Safety Knowledge mediates the relationship between Safety Climate and Safety

Outcomes.

Hypothesis 4: Core-Self Evaluations mediates the relationship between Proactive Personality and

Safety Outcomes.

Hypothesis 5: Safety Compliance moderates the relationship between Safety Participation and

Safety Attitudes.

Hypothesis 6: Moral Identity moderates the relationship between Proactive Personality and

Core-Self Evaluations.

Hypothesis 7: Perceived Behavioral Control moderates the relationship between Core-Self

Evaluations and Safety Outcomes.

These hypotheses formulated the overall safety model (Appendix C).

15
 Methodology

Companies that consent were given access to a private online survey that measures the

following workplace safety-related characteristics using the Qualtrics online survey platform The

item definitions have been reviewed and each item has been reverse coded. Factor scores were

created for each scale and were computed by mean.

Participants:

Participants in this study were recruited by email, phone calls, and in-person workplace

visits. There were a total of 319 participants with an age range between 20 and 64 (M = 41.9

years, SD = 11.385, n = 318). The participants comprised of 258 Caucasians (80.9%), 21 African

American (6.6%), 18 Hispanic/Latino (5.6%), 19 Asian-Pacific Islander (6%), and 3% others.

About 60.8% of the participants identified as males (n = 194) and 39.2% identified as females (n

= 125). The majority of the participants were individuals who completed 4-year college degrees

(n = 122 participants). About 22.6% of participants continued their school to master’s, doctoral,

or professional degree (n = 48 participants, n = 12 participants, n = 12 participants, respectively),

and about 39.25 of participants received education that was either a high school diploma, some

college or two-year college degree (n = 26 participants, n = 59 participants, n = 40 participants,

respectively). (Appendix A)

Scales and Measures

As mentioned above, the items in each scale were reverse coded as per the item

definition. Factor scores were computed by taking the mean for each item on the scale. The

following scales were used to establish the study survey. The reliability are reported in Appendix

B.

16
 Attitude towards Safety scale included 6 items from the study by Henning, Stufft ,Payne,

Bergman, Mannan, and Keren (2009). Participants were to rate their agreement on statements

such as “Rules and instructions relating to personal safety sometimes make it difficult to keep up

with production targets,” “Sometimes it is necessary to take risks to get a job done,” “Safety

measures only shift the danger from one area to another.” and were to rate these statements from

1(strongly disagree) to 5(strongly agree). The scale reported good reliability (α =.790)

Safety Climate was derived from items the study by Neal, Griffin, and Hart (2000), where

the current study reported a very good reliability (α =.892). This exceeds beyond the Nunnally

standard that is acceptable of α = 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978). Safety Motivation, derived from the

same study, reported similar reliability (α =.841). Safety Compliance was also adapted from the

same article and reported good reliability (α =.879), along with Safety Participation reported

good reliability (α =.864). These items were coded 1(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Core Self-Evaluations will be measured using the Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES)

developed by Judge et al. (2003). The instrument combines items measuring the traits of

neuroticism (Sometimes I feel depressed), self-esteem (Overall, I am satisfied with myself),

self-efficacy (When I try I generally succeed), and locus of control (Sometimes, I do not feel in

control of my work). Items were rated on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Core Self Evaluation Scale reported a lower reliability (α =.682). Given the fact that core self

evaluation was only observed to be a mediator in a relationship, it is advisable to proceed with

caution on the lower reliability scores.

Proactive Personality was measured using items from the Seibert et al(2003) study, which

was a 10-item adaptation from the original study by Bateman and Crant’s (1993) Proactive

Personality Scale. The items were indicating that people with proactive intentions agree on items

17
such as “Nothing is more exciting than seeing my ideas turn into reality,” or “If I see something I

don't like I fix it,” or “I can spot a good opportunity long before others can.” The scales, in this

study reported exceptional reliability (α =.911) indicating that items were reliable and indicated

proactive personality from non-proactive personality.

Perceived Behavior Control was reported to have good reliability (α =.896). The items

were to be scored on a scale of 1(strongly disagree) to 5(strongly agree). Participants were to rate

their agreement on items like, “Being at the wrong place at the wrong time is what causes

accidents,” “My success is mainly a matter of chance,” “In a tight situation, I trust to fate.”

Moral Identity was assessed using items that measured assessing ethics, moral loyalty

and consistency of morality. Items were worded in a way where participants can rate their

agreement on a scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). Moral Identity reported good

reliability (α =.817).

Safety Knowledge was derived from the items in the study by Vinodkumar and Bashi

(2010). Items were to be rated in a 5-point Likert Scale ranging from 1(strongly agree) and

5(strongly disagree). The items included “I know how to use safety equipment and standard

work procedures,” “I know how to reduce the risk of accidents and incidents in the workplace,”

and “I know how to perform my job in a safe manner.” The scale items reported good reliability

(α =.860).

18
 Results

Correlations

A correlation matrix was obtained using all variables (Appendix D). Notable findings

included a significant relationship between safety attitudes with safety outcomes (r = -.459, p <

.001), core-self evaluations with safety outcomes (r = .418, p < .001), and safety motivation with

safety outcomes (r = -.125, p = .025). This shows that safety attitudes, core-self evaluations, and

safety motivation are all significant predictors of safety outcomes and therefore formed the basis

for our model. Additionally, safety participation (r = .074, p = .186), safety climate (r = -.045, p

= .421), and proactive personality (r = .064, p = .253) all had very small correlations with safety

outcomes. All of the described correlations above form the basis for the path analysis described

in the coming sections.

Multiple Regression

Based on the findings above, as well as the literature review, a regression equation was

tested using the following four predictors: safety attitudes, safety motivation, core-self

evaluation, and safety knowledge. These variables were regressed on safety outcomes. Overall,

safety attitudes (b = -0.296, t(315) = -4.52, p < .001) and core-self evaluations (b = 0.234, t(315)

= 3.61, p < .001) were found to be significant predictors of safety outcomes. Meanwhile, safety

motivation (b = -0.112, t(315) = -1.56, p = .121) and safety knowledge (b = -0.02, t(315) = 0.276,

p = .782) were found to be insignificant predictors of safety outcomes. Since these variables did

not display statistical significance, effect sizes were calculated to determine practical

significance, as supported by the literature. Effect sizes for both safety motivation and safety

knowledge as they pertain to their specific relationship with safety outcomes were both found to

19
be about 0.40. Per various sources, an effect size of 0.50 is considered moderate, therefore, it can

be said that there is moderate practical significance for safety knowledge and safety motivation

to be included as direct predictors of safety outcomes in the overall model. Overall, the model as

a whole was found to be significant (R2 = .246, F(4, 314) = 25.63, p < .001). In other words,

safety attitudes, core-self evaluations, safety knowledge, and safety motivation account for about

25% of the variance in safety outcomes.

Hierarchical Regression

To test whether intrinsic factors add to the prediction of workplace safety above and

beyond situational-related factors, a hierarchical regression was conducted. Results showed that,

among the intrinsic factors, only safety attitudes added a significant amount of prediction for

safety outcomes above and beyond safety climate (▵R2 = .210, F(1, 316) = 84.339, p < .001)

whereas proactive personality did not (▵R2 = .008, F(1, 316) = 2.415, p = .121). These values

were obtained by running two separate hierarchical regressions and putting either safety attitudes

or proactive personality in the second block.

Mediation Analysis

Mediation Analysis was conducted to test if each of the 4 proposed mediating

relationships does exist. This was tested using the PROCESS 4.3 Syntax by Hayes.

Hypothesis 1 Safety Participation → Safety Attitudes → Safety Outcomes

- Safety Participation significantly predicts Safety Attitudes (b = 0.224, SE = 0.054, t(317)

= 4.19, p < .001)

20
 - Safety Attitudes significantly predicts Safety Outcomes (b = 7.633, SE = 0.840, t(317) =

9.09, p < .001)

- The Direct Effect of Safety Participation on Safety Outcomes is not significant (b =

-0.525, SE = 0.821, t(317) = -0.639, p = .524)

- The Indirect Effect (IE = 1.711) of Safety Participation on Safety Outcomes as mediated

by Safety Attitudes was found to be significant (95% CI = 0.75, 2.78)

Given that the Direct Effect is insignificant and the Indirect Effect is significant, it can be

determined that Safety Attitudes acts as a true mediator between Safety Participation and Safety

Outcomes such that the presence of Attitudes improves the relationship between Participation

and Outcomes.

Hypothesis 2: Safety Climate → Safety Motivation → Safety Outcomes

- Safety Climate significantly predicts Safety Motivation (b = 0.330, SE = 0.039, t(317) =

8.39, p < .001)

- Safety Motivation significantly predicts Safety Outcomes (b = -2.639, SE = 1.258, t(317)

= -2.10, p = .037)

- The Direct Effect of Safety Climate on Safety Outcomes is not significant (b = 0.156, SE

= 0.973, t(317) = 0.160, p = .873)

- The Indirect Effect (IE = -0.870) of Safety Participation on Safety Outcomes as mediated

by Safety Attitudes was found to be significant (95% CI = -1.92, -0.164)

21
 Given that the Direct Effect is insignificant and the Indirect Effect is significant, it can be

determined that Safety Motivation acts as a true mediator between Safety Climate and Safety

Outcomes such that the presence of Motivation improves the relationship between Climate and

Outcomes.

Hypothesis 3: Safety Climate → Safety Knowledge → Safety Outcomes

- Safety Climate significantly predicts Safety Knowledge (b = 0.333, SE = 0.036, t(317) =

9.16, p < .001)

- Safety Knowledge does not significantly predict Safety Outcomes (b = -1.413, SE =

1.370, t(317) = -1.03, p = .303)

- The Direct Effect of Safety Climate on Safety Outcomes is not significant (b = -0.244, SE

= 0.996, t(317) = - 0.24, p = .807)

- The Indirect Effect (IE = -0.470) of Safety Participation on Safety Outcomes as mediated

by Safety Attitudes was not found to be significant (95% CI = -1.48, 0.350)

Given that both the Direct Effect and the Indirect Effect are insignificant, it can be

determined that Safety Knowledge does not act as a true mediator between Safety Climate and

Safety Outcomes. However, since the Direct Effect is not significant, that leaves room for Safety

Knowledge to act as a partial mediator. Additionally, both the literature as well as the effect size

support this notion. Overall, the presence of Knowledge improves the relationship between

Climate and Outcomes.

22
Hypothesis 4: Proactive Personality → Core Self-Evaluations → Safety Outcomes

- Proactive Personality significantly predicts Core-Self Evaluations (b = 0.290, SE = 0.042,

t(317) = 6.82, p < .001)

- Core-Self Evaluations significantly predicts Safety Outcomes (b = 10.687, SE = 1.286,

t(317) = 8.31, p < .001)

- The Direct Effect of Proactive Personality on Safety Outcomes is not significant (b =

-1.869, SE = 1.041, t(317) = -1.796, p = .073)

- The Indirect Effect (IE = 3.10) of Proactive Personality on Safety Outcomes as mediated

by Core-Self Evaluations was found to be significant (95% CI = 1.91, 4.55)

Given that the Direct Effect is insignificant and the Indirect Effect is significant, it can be

determined that Core-Self Evaluations acts as a true mediator between Proactive Personality and

Safety Outcomes such that the presence of Core-Self Evaluations improves the relationship

between Proactive Personality and Outcomes.

Overall, three out of the four mediation hypotheses were supported.

Moderation Analysis

There are 3 moderators in the proposed safety model (Appendix C). These 3 hypotheses

were tested using moderation analysis. To determine if a variable acted as a moderator, a 3-step

process was followed. Firstly, standardized values were created for the IV as well as proposed

moderator using descriptive stats. Next, an interaction term was calculated using the product of

the aforementioned variables (IV and Moderator). Finally, the IV and interaction term were

regressed on the DV. For Hypothesis 5, safety compliance does act as a true moderator between

23
safety participation and safety attitudes as the interaction term was found to be significant (B =

-0.049, SE = .023, t(317) = -2.118, p = .035) such that an increase in compliance results in a

stronger relationship between participation and attitudes. For Hypothesis 6, moral identity does

act as a true moderator between proactive personality and core-self evaluations as the interaction

term was found to be significant (B = -0.058, SE = .027, t(317) = -2.133, p = .034) such that an

increase in moral identity results in a stronger relationship between proactive personality and

core-self evaluations. Finally, for hypothesis 7, perceived behavioral control does moderate the

relationship between core-self evaluations and safety outcomes as the interaction term is

significant (B = 1.753, SE = .596, t(317) = 2.941, p = .004) such that an increase in perceived

behavioral control results in a stronger relationship between core-self evaluations and outcomes.

Overall, these 3 moderators proposed in the model were confirmed to be moderators

based on the results of this path analysis. Despite some of the negative beta weights and

correlations obtained, the proposed model will have all positive relationships as supported by the

literature. In other words, each moderator described here has a positive effect on the relationship

it is moderating. Therefore, an increase in the magnitude of that construct (moderator) will

improve the respective bivariate relationship for hypotheses 5-7.

24
 Recommendations

Based on the content of this report, there are several potential recommendations that

organizations should consider to help improve safety within.

1) Place Greater Importance on Intrinsic Factors

The two strongest predictors of safety outcomes were both variables that were intrinsic in

nature, including both safety attitudes and core-self evaluations. These variables had the

strongest beta weights and correlations, thus further supporting this claim. In fact, safety attitudes

were seen to add additional prediction to workplace safety above and beyond situational-related

factors such as safety climate. Safety climate itself was found to be very unrelated to safety

outcomes as a whole, thus necessitating the presence of a mediator between these two variables.

Additionally, proactive personality was found to be significantly related to every single variable

in this study, as demonstrated by Appendix D. The culmination of these findings suggests that an

individual’s perception of safety and their dispositions overall tend to significantly influence

their actions as they pertain to safety. An organization that promotes a strong safety culture will

see a positive shift in the safety perceptions of their employees which in turn will reduce safety

outcomes. Specifically, organizations can do this by having employees undergo safety training,

including video modules and hands-on examples. Additionally, providing numbers and context

behind organizational workplace accidents across the world can help employees gain an

understanding of the importance of this field.

Procedure (Recommendation #1): In order to promote intrinsic factors such as safety

attitudes, an intervention should be administered whereby employees are placed in hypothetical

situations (i.e. situational judgment test). A random group of employees will be selected and put

25
in a multitude of situations to understand their attitudes/dispositions/tendencies in these

scenarios. These questions will also gauge employee perceptions of potential outcomes of the

decisions they make. These scenarios would simply be items written on a piece of paper, to save

company costs. A pretest will be conducted to establish a baseline of attitudes. This entire

process will be capped off, and evaluated, with a final assessment consisting of completely new

situations to assess individual score differences relative to the pre-assessment. A

dependent/paired-sample t-test would be the most effective course of analysis to see if the

intervention had a significant change in intrinsic factors such as safety attitudes. Similar

assessments may be conducted for constructs beyond safety attitudes if the company deems it

necessary or has the time/resources to fund it. Overall, this would not be costly to organizations.

A small team of I/O Psychologists, around three individuals, would be brought in to create item

stems and rate responses. The creation process should not take more than a week. Additionally,

employees would have to take time from their workday to complete these assessments. Overall,

the costs would be hiring a small team of I/O Psychologists for a week as well as potential,

short-term productivity loss. The benefits would be an improvement in intrinsic factors such as

safety attitudes. These benefits would save organizations money in the long run due to an overall

reduction in safety outcomes.

2) Empower employees

Safety knowledge and motivation can help to directly explain safety outcomes. Even

though the relationship between knowledge and outcomes wasn’t necessarily supported by the

regression or path analysis, previous literature cites this relationship as a strong one and one that

has been consistently demonstrated throughout organizations. Empowering employees to learn

26
safety principles will increase both their knowledge and confidence in their abilities to

demonstrate workplace safety. Oftentimes, motivation for good safety practices is lacking simply

because employees do not have a firm understanding of all the various rules, regulations, and

procedures in place. Additionally, based on the results, it seems as if employees’ perceptions of

how their managers view safety are relatively unrelated to outcomes in general. This indicates

that some employees may be more intrinsically autonomous in nature, therefore not being as

influenced by others, even their higher-ups. This is all to say that, in order to improve safety

outcomes, the change should start with the employees themselves. Providing them with adequate

resources can function as an effective mechanism for generating positive safety results in an

organization rather than having managers/supervisors constantly preaching about it. It can be

hard to force someone to like something or do it, instead, this process should be as natural as

possible. Let the employees take their own path and learning experience. This can help to create

change champions. Both safety knowledge and safety motivation are critical components for this.

Procedure (Recommendation #2): Different intervention approaches can be conducted to

empower staff in improving safety knowledge and motivation. We can start by initiating

seminars or training sessions that cover all aspects of safety concepts, policies, regulations, and

procedures. Interactive learning modules could be employed to allow employee engagement

through real-life demonstrations and case studies. The employees’ knowledge can be tested using

pre-training and post-training assessments to evaluate the intervention's effectiveness. Secondly,

creating a platform as a resource center where staff can take their own time to access

safety-related guidelines, materials, and other learning resources. This will foster self-learning

behavior helping them to align with individuals’ autonomy who are intrinsically motivated. The

implementation of self paced virtual learning resources can include the highly autonomous

27
employees who may not be as likely to respond to the upper management telling them what to do

to give them an independent path to help improve their knowledge along with the other

intervention and this can help with assessments and give them a resource they can look back on

to refresh their safety knowledge if they need it any time in the future past the intervention for

the company. Adding the resource onto the independent learning module can help encourage the

intrinsically motivated employees to look back at the given resources to give them a higher locus

of control on their behaviors towards their safety knowledge where they will be encouraged to

continue to improve their safety knowledge without the feeling that they are being told to do it

by their upper management. This can help decrease any added accidents or near misses because

the employees each would have resources they can look back for reference if they are unsure

how to safely do a task and this can help the company save money on accidents if these resources

can help all employees feel that they have some control in their environment to make the

workplace a safer and they may feel like they are actively participating because of the training

that is interactive and the self paced training that they can look back on in the future and this can

help lower the rate of accidents. Lastly, launching motivational plans or campaigns that

emphasize the significance of each person's involvement in a safe workplace. To increase

motivation, we can announce examples of accomplishments, and apply recognition programs, or

incentives. Surveys on employees' perceived knowledge, motivation levels, and confidence

should be given before and after the intervention to analyze its impact. To get an in-depth

understanding of the employees' experience, qualitative techniques like focus groups can be

used alongside quantitative analysis such as a paired-sample t-test. The long-term advantages of

this intervention include a staff that is not just knowledgeable but also driven to promote safety

inside the company, even if it may come with certain expenses, such as resource development

28
and some temporary productivity loss during training. This methodology is consistent with the

notion that cultivating inherent drive and awareness might result in long-term favorable safety

consequences. The groups in the paired sample t-test can evaluate safety knowledge and

behavior prior and after the interventions where the baseline and final scores can be computed to

show the differences before and after the interventions.

3) Find a balance between intrinsic and extrinsic factors

As mentioned earlier, safety attitudes, motivations, knowledge, and core-self evaluations

are among the significant, direct antecedents proposed in this safety model. These variables

themselves have unique relationships with other variables, including antecedents, mediators, and

moderators. These relationships couple both intrinsic factors and extrinsic factors together. For

example, safety participation should lead into safety attitudes which will then lead to reduced

safety outcomes. Furthermore, this relationship between participation and attitudes can be

moderated by compliance. So, stronger safety compliance can indeed strengthen the relationship

between participation and attitudes. In other words, the degree to which someone adheres to the

safety rules of an organization can affect both the extrinsic factor (participation) as well as the

intrinsic factor (attitudes) whereby stronger participation actually can then lead to better

attitudes. This same ideology can be applied to the example referenced in the previous

recommendation regarding the extrinsic safety climate and intrinsic knowledge and motivation.

Procedure(Recommendation #3): In an approach to strengthen safety compliance, which

ultimately affect participation and attitudes, one can make sure that employees in an organization

are motivated. Since motivation is a direct aspect affecting safety outcomes, one can introduce

aspects of gamification to safety compliance. In simple steps and procedures, each employee can

29
be given a checklist of items important for them to follow (safety compliance), and then the

highest number of check in that list for the day are recorded and an online dashboard can be

created. Nowadays, software such as Google Tasks, Microsoft Teams, Microsoft Excel and

Google Sheets can be a good tool to pilot this checklist. Within each team, sub-teams of 3-5

people can be introduced. Each team can be dedicated on one Excel file with 3-5 sheet

individual to the team member. They will be required to electronically input their completed task

towards safety (shutting the monitor on your way home, ensuring all machines are turned off to

sleep before the assigned shift leader leaves, etc). For companies that delegate tasks in the

learning management system, a separate website or sidebar can be introduced in any of the

systems by making this compliance training a part of their LMS systems where completing the

checklist on a timely basis earns them points that can be dedicated towards either a free

certification course fee, or dedicated to monthly reward schemes.

30
 Conclusion

Overall, this technical report has covered the process for the development of a safety

model with the hopes of reducing safety outcomes. Firstly, the literature review set up the

foundation for the various hypotheses that were then explored using an eclectic of data analytic

techniques. This process yielded 4 direct antecedents/mediators of safety outcomes as well as 3

moderators. Both the literature and results supported the relationship of safety attitudes

mediating the relationship between safety participation and safety outcomes. Additionally, safety

compliance was found to be a moderator in the first path of this relationship. Next, both safety

knowledge and safety motivation were supported as mediators between safety climate and safety

outcomes. Even though the results did not really support this (knowledge less than motivation),

moderate practical significance was established given the calculated effect size. In tandem with

the literature review, this effect size was viewed as satisfactory evidence to maintain these

relationships within the model. Finally, core-self evaluations were found to be a direct predictor

of safety outcomes, thereby mediating the relationship between proactive personality and safety

outcomes. The first and second paths of this relationship were found to be moderated by moral

identity and perceived behavioral control, respectively. Furthermore, intrinsic factors were found

to add additional explained variance of the criterion variable safety outcomes above and beyond

that of situational-related factors. The culmination of these findings formed an overall model for

safety, which further accentuates the proposed recommendations. The three recommendations

included placing greater emphasis on intrinsic factors, empowering employees, as well as

integrating both extrinsic and intrinsic factors together such that an appropriate balance is

established. These findings and recommendations can certainly help an organization improve its

safety outcomes.

31
 References

Abdullahi, A., Hassan, A., Kadarman, N., Saleh, A., Baraya, Y. S., & Lua, P. L. (2016). Food
safety knowledge, attitude, and practice toward compliance with abattoir laws among the
abattoir workers in Malaysia. International Journal of General Medicine, 9(Issue 1), 79–87.
https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S98436

Ajmal, M., Isha, A. S. N., Nordin, S. M., Rasheed, S., Al‐Mekhlafi, A. B. A., & Naji, G. M. A.
(2022). Safety management and safety outcomes in oil and gas industry in Malaysia: Safety
compliance as a mediator. Process Safety Progress, 41, S10-S16.

Al-Bayati, A. J. (2021). Impact of construction safety culture and construction safety climate on
safety behavior and safety motivation. Safety, 7(2), 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety7020041

Arifin, K., Ali, M. X. M., Abas, A., Ahmad, M. A., Ahamad, M. A., & Sahimi, A. S. (2023). The
influence of hazard control and prevention toward safety behaviors and safety outcomes in
coal-fired power plants using PLS-SEM. Journal of Safety Research, 86, 376–389.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2023.07.017

Bakidamteh, S. A., Teye-Kwadjo, E., & Abdul-Nasiru, I. (2022). Understanding the Role of
Proactive Personality in Occupational Health and Safety at Oil and Gas Service Stations in
Accra. SAGE Open, 12(2), 21582440221089949.

Caldwell, C. (2021, July 29). Moral identity and the leader’s response - a peer-reviewed
academic articles: GBR. Graziadio Business Review | Graziadio School of Business and
Management | Pepperdine University.
https://gbr.pepperdine.edu/2021/07/moral-identity-and-the-leaders-response/

Chang, C. H., Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan, J. A. (2012). Core
self-evaluations: A review and evaluation of the literature. Journal of management, 38(1),
81-128.

Chen, C. F., & Chen, S. C. (2014). Investigating the effects of safety management system
practice, benevolent leadership and core self-evaluations on cabin crew safety behavior.
Asian transport studies, 3(2), 187-204.

Choi, B., & Lee, S. (2022). The psychological mechanism of construction workers’ safety
participation: The social identity theory perspective. Journal of Safety Research, 82,
194–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2022.05.011

32
Clarke, S. (2010). An integrative model of safety climate: Linking psychological climate and
work attitudes to individual safety outcomes using meta‐analysis. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational psychology, 83(3), 553-578.

Clarke, S. (2006). Safety climate in an automobile manufacturing plant: The effects of work
environment, job communication and safety attitudes on accidents and unsafe behaviour.
Personnel review, 35(4), 413-430.

Clarke, S. (2012). The effect of challenge and hindrance stressors on safety behavior and safety
outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(4), 387–397.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029817

Colley, S. K., Lincolne, J., & Neal, A. (2013). An examination of the relationship amongst
profiles of perceived organizational values, safety climate and safety outcomes. Safety
science, 51(1), 69-76.

Curcuruto, M., Conchie, S. M., Mariani, M. G., & Violante, F. S. (2015). The role of prosocial
and proactive safety behaviors in predicting safety performance. Safety Science, 80, 317–323.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.07.032

Dyreborg, J., Lipscomb, H. J., Nielsen, K., Törner, M., Rasmussen, K., Frydendall, K. B., ... &
Kines, P. (2022). Safety interventions for the prevention of accidents at work: A systematic
review. Campbell systematic reviews, 18(2), e1234.

Griffin, M. A., Haslam, R. A., Kouabenan, D. R., … Farh, J. L. (2019, November 10). A dual
perspective on risk perception and its effect on safety behavior: A moderated mediation
model of safety motivation, and supervisor’s and coworkers’ safety climate. Accident
Analysis & Prevention

Hallowell, M. R., Hinze, J. W., Baud, K. C., & Wehle, A. (2013). Proactive construction safety
control: Measuring, monitoring, and responding to safety leading indicators. Journal of
construction engineering and management, 139(10), 04013010.

Henning, J. B., Stufft, C. J., Payne, S. C., Bergman, M. E., Mannan, M. S., & Keren, N. (2009).
The influence of individual differences on organizational safety attitudes. Safety Science,
47(3), 337–345.

Heryati, A. N., Nurahaju, R., Nurcholis, G., & Nurcahyo, F. A. (2019). Effect of safety climate
on safety behavior in employees: The mediation of Safety Motivation. Psikohumaniora:
Jurnal Penelitian Psikologi, 4(2), 191. https://doi.org/10.21580/pjpp.v4i2.3346

33
Jiang, L., Lavaysse, L. M., & Probst, T. M. (2019). Safety climate and safety outcomes: A
meta-analytic comparison of universal vs. industry-specific safety climate predictive validity.
Work & Stress, 33(1), 41-57.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self‐evaluations scale:
Development of a measure. Personnel psychology, 56(2), 303-331.

La Barbera, F., & Ajzen, I. (2021). Moderating role of perceived behavioral control in the theory
of planned behavior: A preregistered study. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 5(1),
35-45.

Liu, N.-T., Chen, S.-C., & Lee, W.-C. (2022). How does moral identity promote employee voice
behavior? The roles of work engagement and leader secure-base support. Ethics & Behavior,
32(5), 449–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2021.1923498

Liu, S.-X., Zhou, Y., Cheng, Y., & Zhu, Y.-Q. (2020). Multiple mediating effects in the
relationship between employees’ trust in organizational safety and safety participation
behavior. Safety Science, 125, 104611-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104611

Loh, M. Y., Idris, M. A., Dormann, C., & Muhamad, H. (2019). Organizational climate and
employee health outcomes: A systematic review. Safety Science, 118, 442–452.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.05.052

Michael, J. H., Evans, D. D., Jansen, K. J., & Haight, J. M. (2005). Management commitment to
safety as organizational support: Relationships with non-safety outcomes in wood
manufacturing employees. Journal of safety research, 36(2), 171-179.

Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Safety at work: a meta-analytic
investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and
safety outcomes. Journal of applied psychology, 96(1), 71.

Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). A Study of the Lagged Relationships Among Safety Climate,
Safety Motivation, Safety Behavior, and Accidents at the Individual and Group Levels.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 946–953. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.946

Neal, A., Griffin, M. A., & Hart, P. M. (2000). The impact of organizational climate on safety
climate and individual behavior. Safety science, 34(1-3), 99-109.

Nini Xia, The impact of risk perception on safety behavior, Bakker, A. B., Barbaranelli, C.,
Brondino, M., Bronkhorst, B., Chen, C. F., Dov, Z., Evans, M. G., Fang, D. P., Fogarty, G. J.,

Petitta, L., Probst, T. M., & Barbaranelli, C. (2017). Safety culture, moral disengagement, and
accident underreporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 141, 489-504.

34
Probst, T. M., & Brubaker, T. L. (2001). The effects of job insecurity on employee safety
outcomes: cross-sectional and longitudinal explorations. Journal of occupational health
psychology, 6(2), 139.

Probst, T. M., Graso, M., Estrada, A. X., & Greer, S. (2013). Consideration of future safety
consequences: A new predictor of employee safety. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 55,
124-134.

Röhsig, V., Maestri, R. N., Parrini Mutlaq, M. F., Brenner de Souza, A., Seabra, A., Farias, E. R.,
& Lorenzini, E. (2020). Quality improvement strategy to enhance compliance with the World
Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist in a large hospital: Quality improvement
study. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 55, 19–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2020.04.027

Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success.
Journal of applied psychology, 84(3), 416.

Sharma, V., Eissa, G., Newman, A., Lester, S. W., & Pandey, J. (2023). Psychological
Entitlement and Moral Disengagement as Antecedents of Compliance with COVID‐19
Workplace Safety Protocols and the Moderating Role of Moral Identity. Applied Psychology.

Vinodkumar, M. N., & Bhasi, M. (2010). Safety management practices and safety behaviour:
Assessing the mediating role of safety knowledge and motivation. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 42(6), 2082-2093.

Windle, M. J., Neis, B., Bornstein, S., Binkley, M., & Navarro, P. (2008). Fishing occupational
health and safety: a comparison of regulatory regimes and safety outcomes in six countries.
Marine Policy, 32(4), 701-710.

Yang, X., Zhang, B., Wang, L., Cao, L., & Tong, R. (2021). Exploring the relationships between
safety compliance, safety participation and safety outcomes: considering the moderating role
of job burnout. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(8),
4223.

Yuan, Z., Li, Y., & Lin, J. (2014). Linking challenge and hindrance stress to safety performance:
The moderating effect of core self-evaluation. Personality and Individual Differences, 68,
154-159.

Yzer, M. (2012). Perceived behavioral control in reasoned action theory: A dual-aspect

35
Zhu, H., Zhang, H., Tu, A., & Zhang, S. (2021). The mediating roles of Core self-evaluation and
career exploration in the association between proactive personality and job search clarity.
Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 609050

Zulkifly, S. S., Baharudin, M. R., & Hasan, N. H. (2021). Safety Leadership and Safety
Knowledge-Attitude-Behaviour (KAB) in Malaysia’s Manufacturing SMEs: A Higher Order
Two-Stage Approach of PLS-SEM. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202106.0527.v1

36
 Appendices

Appendix A: Descriptives

Age Years in the Company

Mean 41.59 2.55

Std. Deviation 11.385 1.159

Range 44 4

37
Appendix B: Reliability Statistics

Scales Reliability

Safety Attitudes .790

Safety Climate .892

Safety Participation .864

Safety Motivation .841

Safety Compliance .879

Safety Knowledge .860

Proactive Personality .911

Perceived Behavior Control .896

Core Self-evaluations .682

Moral Identity .817

38
Appendix C: Safety Model

39
Appendix D: Correlation Matrix

Correlations

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 SafeOut 1

2 ProPers .604 1

3 CoreSelf .418** .358** 1

4 MoralID -.020 .525** .121* 1

5 SafeMoti -.125* .457** .059 .524** 1

6 SafeKno -.072 .522** .067 .558** .725** 1

7 SafeClim -.045 .369** .093 .274** .426** .458** 1

8 SafeCom -.045 .546** .155** .503** .728** .697** .434** 1

9 SafePart .074 .655** .278** .455** .478** .488** .347** .606** 1

10 PerBehC .403** .342** .734** .090 -.004 .018 .138* .124* .296** 1

11 RSafeAtt -.459** -.225* -.638** .081 .139* .089 .010 .042 -.229** -.692** 1

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

40