https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4677-2674
Figures
Abstract
To deeply analyze the mechanism of workplace safety climate on employee safety behavior, a conceptual model of employee safety behavior was constructed based on the theory of stimulus-organism-response (SOR). Structural equation modeling was used to test the model and hypotheses. The results show that safety communication and safety regulation have a significant positive impact on employees’ safety commitment and, consequently, on their safety compliance behavior. However, safety communication has no significant impact on employees’ safety awareness. Safety regulation can significantly improve employees’ safety awareness, which in turn enhances their compliance behavior. Employees’ safety compliance behavior directly affects their participation behavior and plays a completely mediating role in the influence of safety commitment and safety awareness on safety participation behavior.
Citation: Lu S, Zhu W, Zhang L, Ahmad H (2025) From safety commitment to safety behavior: The mediating role of safety awareness. PLoS One 20(12): e0332080. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332080
Editor: Kashif Ali, University of Central Punjab, PAKISTAN
Received: April 7, 2025; Accepted: August 26, 2025; Published: December 1, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Lu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.
Funding: The funder “National Social Science Foundation of China (21CGL063)”had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1. Introduction
The level of workplace safety has significantly improved over the last decade [1]. Employee safety behavior is crucial in reducing the occurrence of injuries and accidents. Scholars and enterprise managers have extensively studied employee safety behavior and strategies to avoid unsafe behaviors [2,3]. Employee safety behavior is closely related to the safety and health of colleagues and the public [4] and directly impacts occupational injuries and accidents [5]. Safety behavior is essential for organizational development. On one hand, it prevents physical harm; on the other hand, it positively affects the economy and society [4,6]. Current research focuses on the impacts of safety communication, safety awareness, and safety commitment on different levels of employee safety (paticipation & compliance) behavior in China. In the implementation of the “Zero Accident” initiative, safety commitment, communication, culture, and learning are key aspects [7,8]. Safety behavior is categorized into two types based on the degree of employee involvement: safety compliance behavior and safety participation behavior [9,5,10]. Safety participation behavior should be continuous rather than sporadic, as only consistent safety behavior can truly improve safety performance.
However, few studies have focused on the safety participation behavior of employees. To fill this research gap, this study examines the influence mechanism of safety climate and safety commitment on employee safety participation behavior in Chinese chemical enterprises. Drawing on the stimulus-organism-response (SOR) theory, this study clarifies how safety climate aspects (safety communication and safety regulation) impact employee’ safety perceptions (safety commitment and safety awareness) and further influence safety participation behavior. In addition to contributing to the safety management of the chemical industry, this study also contributes to the literature by discussing different levels of employee safety commitment (verbal commitment, written commitment, and behavioral commitment), which are relatively new to the safety literature. Safety behaviors can be maintained and bolstered in fire departments and companies where a positive safety climate exists [11]. From a practical perspective, this study aims to understand how to effectively maintain or increase employees’ safety participation behavior by focusing on safety commitment and safety awareness. In the long run, we discuss how to establish a good safety culture atmosphere to increase and maintain employeess’ participation behavior.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the theoretical basis and research hypotheses, focusing on Heinrich’s causal chain theory and the Stimulus-organism-response theory. Based on safety climate and safety commitment, a series of research hypotheses are proposed. Section 3 presents the chemical enterprise employee questionnaire survey data from Shandong and Anhui provinces, China, in 2023, as well as the method and processing of data analysis. Section 4 explains the results of the statistical analyses and detailed discussion of hypotheses. Finally, the conclusion of the study is summarized, and future prospects are discussed.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Heinrich’s causal chain theory
Heinrich’s causal chain theory [12] elucidates the relationship between various factors leading to casualty accidents and injuries. The theory introduces the concepts of unsafe behavior of people and unsafe states of objects. It emphasizes that the core of ensuring workplace safety is to prevent unsafe behavior and eliminate unsafe states. By removing any domino in the causal chain, the chain process of accidents can be interrupted, thereby preventing injury accidents [13]. The concept of the “event chain” of accident causes is constructed, and the importance of intervention in the course of accidents is clearly verified, providing a valuable method for subsequent studies of accident mechanisms [14].
2.2. Stimulus-organism-response (SOR) theory
Cho & Proctor [15] proposed the stimulus-response theory, which divides human behavior into two parts: stimulus and response. Further, stimulation is divided into internal stimulation from the individual and external stimulation from the environment. The SOR theory describes the entire process of behavior [16]. The stimulus is the factor that motivates people to perform behavior in the surrounding environment, the organism is the internal process transforming from stimulus to final behavior, and the response is the resulting behavior that the stimulus elicits. This theory has become one of the important frameworks for investigating the mechanism of external stimuli on individual psychology, behavior, and action [17]. Originally used to analyze the effects of the environment on human behavior, the SOR theory has been applied to many other fields, such as business and management.
3. Hypotheses
3.1. Safety Communication. The role of effective communication in safety culture has been extensively studied by scholars. [18] argued that effective communication is a hallmark of a positive safety culture within an organization. Effective communication is based on mutual trust [19]. Communication is considered a key element of a positive safety culture in health, safety, and environment (HSE) [20]. [21] argues that a typical sign of an organization’s positive safety culture is having a safety information communication system. With this system, safety information is transmitted through both formal and informal channels. [22] believe that an effective communication mechanism is important in encouraging employees to participate in safety matters, obtaining cooperation and support from employees, and maintaining a positive safety culture [23]. Based on the above, the following research hypotheses are proposed:
H1a. Safety communication is positively related to employees’ safety commitment.
H1b. Safety communication is positively related to employees’ safety awareness.
Safety Regulation. Safety regulation is the guideline for the safe production and business activities of enterprises [24]. However, although many enterprises have formulated a safety management system, the effectiveness of its implementation has often been unsatisfactory [25]. The safety system runs through the entire production process in coal mining enterprises, becoming a preventive measure and regulator of safety production [26]. [27] found that environmental pressure can affect the mechanism of safety accident processing. The safety system is classified as a flexible system, influenced by external factors on the cultural construction within the system.
The existing safety system still has many shortcomings, such as the lack of implementation supervision and content coherence. The overall effectiveness and credibility of the safety culture system are low, making it difficult to play the role of the system in regulating, guiding, and safeguarding [28]. The safety system, including safety regulations, still needs further improvement. Based on the above, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H2a. Safety regulation is positively related to employees’ safety commitment.
H2b. Safety regulation is positively related to employees’ safety awareness.
Safety Commitment. Safety commitment is not only the basic understanding of safety but also the degree of attention to safety and physical practice [29]. Safety commitment refers to employees’ ideological, emotional, and psychological identification and engagement in safety production behaviors. Employees are willing to undertake the safety responsibilities and obligations involved as members of the enterprise [30]. Relevant studies have confirmed that safety commitment is significantly related to safety atmosphere and million-ton mortality [31,10]. The key to shaping a safety culture lies in the safety commitment of managers, which determines the safety views and behaviors of general employees [32]. The degree to which an enterprise attaches importance to safety can be reflected by the visible safety commitment of managers to employees. Managers should strictly abide by the various safety management systems of the enterprise and play an exemplary role in safety behavior. Employees can judge the importance of safety management through the behavior of managers and then change their own behavior. Through interviews and on-site observations, three types of safety commitment behaviors in chemical enterprises were identified: verbal commitment of safety oath, written commitment of filling out a safety commitment letter, and behavioral commitment of wearing an exclusive safety card. Therefore, this paper focuses on the different levels of safety commitment and proposes the following hypotheses:
H3. Verbal safety commitment is positively related to employees’ safety awareness.
H4a. Written safety commitment is positively related to employees’safety compliance behavior.
H4b. Behavioral safety commitment is positively related to employees’safety participation behavior.
Safety Awareness. Accidents are caused by unsafe behavior of people and the unsafe state of objects, with the unsafe state of objects often being caused by human actions [33]. The root cause of people’s unsafe behavior lies in inadequate safety awareness [34]. Safety awareness is the thought that production must be safe, established in people’s minds. People are alert to external environmental conditions that may cause harm to themselves or others in production activities [35]. Safety behavior is moderated by safety knowledge and motivation [36]. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H5a. Safety awareness is positively related to employees’ safety compliance behavior.
H5b. Safety awareness is positively related to employees’safety participation behavior.
Safety Behavior. Safety behavior refers to all actions taken by individuals who comply with operating procedures during work and are able to protect themselves, equipment, and other materials in the event of a safety accident. Neal et al. [37] further clarified safety behavior and divided it into participation behavior and obedience safety behavior. Specifically, participation behavior is the behavior of employees who take the initiative to participate in the construction of workplace safety, such as helping and supervising their colleagues and giving safety advice to leaders. Obedience safety behavior is the behavior of employees who strictly abide by the rules and regulations and work according to the provisions. Safety behaviors can also be divided into safety compliance behavior and participation behavior [38]. Safety compliance behavior refers to maintaining workplace safety by carrying out basic safety activities prescribed by leaders. Safety participation behavior refers to facilitating the development of a safety-supporting environment [39]. Safety behaviors have differences at various levels and intensities. High-level safety behavior is developed gradually from low-level safety behavior. We follow the distinction between safety compliance and participation behavior, dividing employee safety behavior into participation and compliance behavior. Safety compliance behavior may impact participation behavior. The conceptual model of hypotheses is depicted in Fig 1.
Safety climate & regulation (top) stimulate employee awareness and commitment (right), producing safety participation behavior (bottom), whose feedback via improved communication (left) continuously reinforces the organization’s safety system.
H6. Employees’ safety participation behavior is positively related to the compliance behavior.
Safety climate & regulation (top) stimulate employee awareness and commitment (right), producing safety paticipation behavior (bottom), whose feedback via improved communication (left) continuously reinforces the organization’s safety system.
4. Method
4.1. Sample and data collection
To gather data and verify the proposed hypotheses, we conducted both offline and online surveys simultaneously in two chemical enterprises located in Hefei, Anhui Province, and Zibo, Shandong Province between August 1st and August 30th, 2024. Verbal consent was obtained from participants about the distributed questionaires. Before distributing the survey, researchers conducted face-to-face interviews with the executive teams and safety officers of these enterprises. Based on feedback from professional experts, we designed and refined the final questionnaire, which included a brief introduction, measured items of constructs, and demographic descriptions.
To ensure the accuracy of the investigation results, we followed a strict process. Initially, researchers explained the significance and purpose of the investigation to the respondents. Respondents were then asked to complete the questionnaire. The online survey was conducted on the Wenjuanxing platform through Sojump.com, which distributes questionnaires via multiple terminals and channels. Before filling out the questionnaire, respondents received an informed consent form and a brief introduction to the content of the questionnaire to determine their willingness to participate. Upon confirming their participation, respondents were sent the URL link to the online questionnaire. After the survey, team members carefully reviewed the completed questionnaires. Out of 780 questionnaires collected, 175 were deemed invalid due to illogical results or missing values, leaving us with 605 valid responses. Male respondents accounted for 88.9% of the sample, reflecting the higher proportion of male employees in the chemical industry. Most respondents were middle-aged and young working-age workers: 7.3% were aged 18–25, 12.4% were aged 26–30, 38.6% were aged 31–40, and 36.4% were aged 41–50. Respondents with a junior high school degree accounted for 42.2%. The income of most respondents ranged between $9230 and $15384 yearly. The demographic characteristics of the respondents are summarized in Table 1.
4.2. Measures
All constructs in the research model were evaluated using three to five items derived from prior studies, with some items modified to fit the context of this study. We used a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” The measurement items for safety climate (safety communication and safety regulation) were adopted from [31]. Safety commitment was assessed using six items from [40]. Risk awareness was measured using a multi-item scale, including responsibility awareness and rule awareness. The items for safety compliance and participation behavior were adopted from [39]. Adjustments and improvements were made based on the actual work scenarios of employees in the chemical industry.
Safety communication. Five items were used to measure employee safety communication at workplace. Employees answered the following questions: “As a group, we constantly remind each other how to work safely”, “My colleagues and I were able to communicate safety information to each other effectively”, “I can communicate safety information effectively with my colleagues in other teams or departments”, “My supervisor and I were able to communicate safety information to each other effectively”, “We have regular safety talks in workplace”.
Safety regulation. To measure safety regulation in the enterprise, six relevant questions were asked: “The current safety regulation of the enterprise is rigorous and well-formulated”, “The current safety regulation of the enterprise can ensure the orderly implementation of safe production”, “The current safety regulation of enterprises has certain deficiencies and defects”, “The current safety regulation helps me do my job successfully”, “I am very familiar with the current Safety regulation in the enterprise”, “I am very satisfied with the current Safety system in the company”.
Safety commitment. As for the measurement of employee safety commitment, six items were used. Specifically: “I will make verbal commitments at work (e.g., safety oath)”, “I will make a written commitment at work (such as: safety responsibility letter)”, “I will make behavioral commitments at work (e.g., wear a Safety commitment card)”, “I think a commitment to safety at work is important”, “I think a commitment to safety is very essential at work”, “I appreciate the commitment to safety at work”.
Safety awareness. Four items were designed to measure employee safety awareness. Specific issues include: “I think all accidents are preventable”, “I have a strong sense of safety at work”, “I think safety awareness is very important at work”, “When possible safety risks are found, I will deal with them and report them in time”.
Safety compliance behavior. Employees’ safety compliance behavior is a passive, temporary safety behavior that lacks continuity and long-term effectiveness. The measurement of compliance behavior is measured using following question items. “I will use the essential safety equipment to do my job”, “I will follow the correct safety procedures to do my job”, “I will do my job in a safe way and with safe habits”, “I will ensure the highest level of safety in the completion of my work”.
Safety participation behavior. Differently, employees’ safety behavior is a proactive, long-term safety behavior that is continuous and has lasting effects. To measure participation behavior, four specific items were asked. “I volunteer to perform tasks or activities that contribute to improving workplace safety”, “I will make an extra effort to improve workplace safety”, “I will actively share and publicize safety knowledge”, “I will give advice on the safety culture and system of the company”. Table 2 presented the constructs and measurement items.
Control variables. Several potential factors that may impact employees’ safety behaviors were considered as control variables. We controlled for employee demographics, such as age, gender, years of work experience, and education. We also controlled for employees’ accident experience. Lastly, we excluded the impact of risk perception and safety information attentiveness.
4.3. Data analysis and results
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was utilized to conduct measurement model testing and to verify the research hypotheses. The constructs described in the research model were measured using multiple items, and structural relationships exist between these constructs.
Basic model test. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using AMOS 21.0 software to test the model and evaluate the independent structure. The full model includes workplace safety climate (safety communication, safety regulation), employee reactions and perceptions (safety commitment, safety awareness), and employee safety behaviors (compliance behavior, participation behavior). The goodness-of-fit test results are shown in Table 3. The model fits well according to the results and is in line with expectations.
Measurement model test. In the measurement model testing, the reliability and validity of the constructs and measurement items were evaluated using CFA. Table 2 shows the results of the CFA. Cronbach’s alpha values for the variables were above 0.970, and the composite reliability values ranged from 0.89 to 0.95. These scores are all higher than the suggested threshold value of 0.70 [41]. The results indicate that the internal consistency of the measurement items for each construct is good, and the reliability of the measurement model is adequate.
Convergent validity and discriminant validity were both assessed to ensure that the measurement items successfully evaluated the corresponding constructs. The loadings of the measurement items and the average variance extracted (AVE) were analyzed to test convergent validity. Table 1 shows that the minimum value of AVE is 0.899, which meets the requirements. Moreover, the loadings for each item are above the reference value of 0.70. Overall, the evaluation model has adequate convergent validity. Three guidelines were used to verify discriminant validity: the loading of each item for all constructs should be higher than cross-factor loadings. The correlation values between each pair of constructs should not exceed 0.85 [42]. The square root of the AVEs should be larger than inter-construct correlations. As shown in Table 4, the loadings of all elements for the corresponding measured construct are higher than the cross-factor loadings of items for other constructs.
Structural model test. Hypotheses testing on the basic model and the standardized path coefficients and significance tests were conducted. The results of the coefficients are as follows: Safety communication can predict safety commitment (β = 0.809, p < 0.001), but it has no significant impact on safety awareness (β = −0.05, p > 0.05). Safety regulation has a positive effect on both safety commitment (β = 0.441, p < 0.001) and safety awareness (β = 0.337, p < 0.001). Safety commitment can predict safety awareness (β = 0.522, p < 0.001) and safety compliance behavior (β = 0.854, p < 0.001), but it does not significantly predict safety participation behavior (β = 0.018, p > 0.05). Similarly, safety awareness has a positive impact on safety compliance behavior (β = 0.308, p < 0.001), but it does not significantly impact safety participation behavior (β = 0.043, p > 0.05). Safety compliance behavior can predict participation behavior (β = 0.759, p < 0.001). The results are shown in Fig 2.
Safety regulation drives safety participation behavior (0.759) and compliance behavior (0.308); both enhance safety commitment and safety commitment (0.522, 0.441), which strongly predicts safety behavior (0.854, R2 = 0.940), while safety communication shows no significant effect.
Safety regulation drives safety participation behavior (0.759) and compliance behavior (0.308); both enhance safety commitment and safety commitment (0.522, 0.441), which strongly predicts safety behavior (0.854, R2 = 0.940), while safety communication shows no significant effect.
The proposed research hypotheses were verified by examining the results of the data analysis. The overall model demonstrates that safety communication has a significant positive impact on safety commitment, supporting Hypothesis 1a (H1a). However, safety communication does not significantly affect safety awareness, leading to the rejection of Hypothesis 1b (H1b). Safety regulation positively influences both safety commitment and safety awareness, thereby supporting Hypotheses 2a and 2b (H2a-H2b). Safety commitment has a positive effect on safety awareness, confirming Hypothesis 3 (H3). Safety commitment significantly predicts safety compliance behavior but not participation behavior, supporting Hypothesis 4a (H4a) while rejecting Hypothesis 4b (H4b). Similarly, safety awareness positively affects safety compliance behavior but not participation behavior, supporting Hypothesis 5a (H5a) and rejecting Hypothesis 5b (H5b). Lastly, safety compliance behavior is found to predict participation behavior, confirming Hypothesis 6 (H6). The detailed results of the hypothesis tests are presented in Table 5.
4.4. Mediating effect test
The results of the hypotheses testing indicate that safety commitment not only directly influences safety behaviors but also indirectly impacts them through safety awareness. In contrast, safety commitment and safety awareness have a direct effect on safety compliance behavior but not on participation behavior. Therefore, this study explores the mediating effect of safety awareness through the following three steps: First, the influence of the independent variable (safety commitment) on the dependent variable (safety behavior) is examined and should be significant. Second, the mediator (safety awareness) should be significantly impacted by the independent variable (safety commitment). Finally, both the independent variable and the mediator are included in a regression model to assess their effects on the dependent variable. If the dependent variable is significantly determined by the mediator but not by the independent variable, a complete mediating effect of the mediator is suggested. Conversely, if both the mediator and the independent variable significantly determine the dependent variable, a partial mediating effect is indicated. If the effects in either the first or second step are insignificant, the mediator is deemed to have no mediating effect.
Table 6 presents the results of the mediating effect test based on the above principles. For safety compliance behavior, the direct influence of safety commitment is significant (β = 0.448, p < 0.001), and the indirect effect of safety commitment mediated by safety awareness is also significant (β = 0.339, p < 0.001). These results suggest that safety awareness partially mediates the impact of safety commitment on compliance behavior, accounting for 26.5% of the effect.
However, the direct influence of safety commitment on participation behavior is not significant (β = 0.018, p > 0.05), indicating that the mediating effect of safety awareness on participation behavior is not supported. This may be because safety awareness alone may not be sufficient to stimulate an increase in participation behavior. Future research should consider the combined effects of safety commitment and safety awareness.
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical implications
Several theoretical contributions can be summarized from this research. This study systematically investigates the influencing factors and formation mechanisms of safety participation behavior among employees in the chemical industry. First, the Stimulus-Organization-Reaction (SOR) model is expanded. Awareness is highlighted as a crucial element in explaining behavioral reactions. Similarly, this study focuses on safety awareness and extends the SOR model by incorporating additional variables, namely safety communication, safety regulation, and safety commitment. These three factors are interrelated and have a significant impact on safety behavior. Moreover, the formation mechanism of employee safety participation behavior is explained in detail.
5.2. Practical implications
The results of this study provide practical implications for improving safety participation behavior among employees in the chemical industry. The findings can help encourage employee safety behavior and reduce production accidents in China. Specifically, the study offers several recommendations for business managers and policymakers:Unsafe behavior is proven to have a direct effect on safety participation behavior. Therefore, efforts should be made to improve employees’ unsafe behavior in the initial stage. Operating procedures and norms should be clarified in the workplace. In addition, the safety awareness of employees should be improved. Two examples of how enterprises can embed the findings into daily safety protocols are as follows: On the one hand, add the Pre-Task Commitment Cards. Require every work team to fill out a pocket-sized card that states: (a) the critical step, (b) the personal protective action they commit to, and (c) the colleague who will verify it. Cards are photographed and uploaded to the HSE dashboard;completion rates are tracked in real time. Furthermore, actively organizing Regulation-to- Action Huddles is also a good choice. Within 24 h of any new safety regulation, supervisors conduct a 5-minute floor huddle using a laminated “Regulation-to-Action” template that translates the rule into three observable behaviors. Compliance is checked during the next routine audit. Authorities should strive to enhance workers’ safety commitment through measures such as safety oaths, safety responsibility letters, and safety commitment cards. Promoting Safety Communication is also important. Safety communication has a positive influence on safety commitment, which means reducing communication barriers is essential. Specifically, creating a culture and comprehensive communication channels that support barrier-free communication within the enterprise is crucial. Safety regulation is crucial to both safety commitment and awareness. Business managers can establish top-down regulations for employee safety behavior, including reward and punishment systems. Government departments should enact effective laws and regulations on occupational safety, and industry experts should provide guidance and training to reduce accidents. Government officials should continue to strengthen publicity efforts regarding severe production accidents and increase attention to safety awareness and responsibility through multiple channels. For enterprises, it is meaningful to establish a secure platform to help employees understand the risks of unsafe behavior. Strengthening safety legislation remains necessary to further improve employees’ safety awareness and behaviors.
5.3. Limitations and prospects
This study enriches the research on employee safety behavior from both theoretical and practical aspects. Despite obtaining meaningful results for safety culture and behaviors, the present study contains several limitations, which provide opportunities for future research. First, given the difficulty of obtaining data on real behavior, this study measured potential behavioral reactions rather than actual actions. Future research could explore the key predictors and influencing mechanisms of employee safety participation behavior through a two-stage investigation. Specifically, common-method bias may inflate the observed relationships because all measures were collected via the same self-report questionnaire at a single point in time. To overcome these limitations, we plan to collect multi-wave data (e.g., baseline, 3-month, and 6-month follow-ups) to examine the temporal ordering of the variables and to test reciprocal effects. Second, the expanded SOR model is presented as the conceptual foundation to verify the mechanism of employee behaviors. Future research could focus on the safety behavior mechanisms of leaders and the influencing factors.Third, the present study focuses on the chemical industry in China. Future studies could explore differences across different regions and industries.
6. Conclusions
This research provides an in-depth investigation into how safety stimulus factors influence employee safety behavior, including safety communication and regulation, safety commitment, and safety awareness. The study explores the crucial influencing factors and explains the underlying mechanisms based on the extended model of stimulus-organization-reaction.
The findings indicate that safety communication can enhance employees’ safety commitment, while safety regulation has a positive impact on both safety commitment and safety awareness. Safety commitment also significantly influences safety awareness. Both safety awareness and safety commitment play significant roles in promoting unsafe behavior. Furthermore, safety awareness partially mediates the impact of safety commitment on unsafe behavior. However, safety commitment and safety awareness do not directly trigger safety participation behavior. Instead, they indirectly influence participation behavior by affecting unsafe behavior. In other words, safety awareness and commitment can only improve unsafe behavior rather than directly enhancing participation behavior. Unsafe behavior serves as a starting point and foundation for participation behavior. The improvement ofparticipation behavior is not achieved overnight; it requires persistence and continuous effort.
References
- 1. Hofmann DA, Burke MJ, Zohar D. 100 years of occupational safety research: From basic protections and work analysis to a multilevel view of workplace safety and risk. J Appl Psychol. 2017;102(3):375–88. pmid:28125258
- 2. Hofmann DA, Stetzer A. A Cross‐level investigation of factors influencing unsafe behaviors and accidents. Personnel Psychology. 2010;49(2):307–39.
- 3. Hofmann DA, Stetzer A. A cross‐level investigation of factors influencing unsafe behaviors and accidents. Personnel Psychology. 2010;49(2):307–39.
- 4. Burke MJ, Sarpy SA, Tesluk PE, Smith‐crowe K. General safety performance: a test of a grounded theoretical model. Personnel Psychology. 2002;55(2):429–57.
- 5. Clarke S. Safety leadership: A meta‐analytic review of transformational and transactional leadership styles as antecedents of safety behaviours. J Occupat & Organ Psyc. 2012;86(1):22–49.
- 6. Zohar D. The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and assigned priorities on minor-injuries in work groups. J Organ Behav. 2002 23(1):75–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.130
- 7. Zwetsloot GIJM, Kines P, Ruotsala R, Drupsteen L, Merivirta M-L, Bezemer RA. The importance of commitment, communication, culture and learning for the implementation of the Zero Accident Vision in 27 companies in Europe. Safety Science. 2017;96:22–32.
- 8. He C, McCabe B, Jia G. Effect of leader-member exchange on construction worker safety behavior: Safety climate and psychological capital as the mediators. Safety Science. 2021;142:105401.
- 9. Christian MS, Bradley JC, Wallace JC, Burke MJ. Workplace safety: a meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. J Appl Psychol. 2009;94(5):1103–27. pmid:19702360
- 10. Neal A, Griffin MA. A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels. J Appl Psychol. 2006;91(4):946–53. pmid:16834517
- 11. Kao K-Y, Thomas CL, Spitzmueller C, Huang Y. Being Present in Enhancing Safety: Examining the Effects of Workplace Mindfulness, Safety Behaviors, and Safety Climate on Safety Outcomes. J Bus Psychol. 2019;36(1):1–15.
- 12. Heinrich HW. Industrial accident prevention: a scientific approach. Ind Labor Relat Rev. 2011;4(4):609. https://doi.org/10.2307/2518508
- 13. Meilinger T, Franz G, Bülthoff HH. From Isovists via Mental Representations to Behaviour: First Steps toward Closing the Causal Chain. Environ Plann B Plann Des. 2012;39(1):48–62.
- 14. Yan WT, Dong JY, Di F. Behavior based accident causation the “2-4” model and its safety implications in coal mines. Journal of China Coal Society. 2013;38(7):1123–9.
- 15. Cho YS, Proctor RW. Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects. Psychon Bull Rev. 2003;10(1):45–73. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196468
- 16. Holland PC. Cognitive versus stimulus-response theories of learning. Learn Behav. 2008;36(3):227–41. pmid:18683467
- 17. Zhu L, Li H, Wang F-K, He W, Tian Z. How online reviews affect purchase intention: a new model based on the stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) framework. AJIM. 2020;72(4):463–88.
- 18. Silla I, Navajas J, Koves GK. Organizational culture and a safety-conscious work environment: The mediating role of employee communication satisfaction. J Safety Res. 2017;61:121–7. pmid:28454857
- 19. Liu S, Zhu Y, Chen Q, Mei Q. Research on the influencing factors of grassroots employees’ safety behavior from the perspective of informal groups in workplace. Safety Science. 2023;158:105959.
- 20. Lingard H, Zhang RP, Oswald D. Effect of leadership and communication practices on the safety climate and behaviour of construction workgroups. ECAM. 2019;26(6):886–906.
- 21. Cooper MD. Towards a model of safety culture. Safety Science. 2000;36(2):111–36.
- 22. Yeong SS, Shah Rollah AW. The Mediating Effect of Safety Culture on Safety Communication and Human Factor Accident at the Workplace. ASS. 2016;12(12):127.
- 23. Tang Z. Safety Culture in The Construction Industry: A Proposed Enhanced Safety Management Program. JBMS. 2025;7(1):98–125.
- 24. Gunningham N. Best practice mine safety regulation: are we there yet? Journal of Occupational Health & Safety Australia & New Zealand. 2006;22(3):237–49.
- 25. Weisman DL, Doren PV. The risk of too much air safety regulation. Regulation. 2020;43(1):6–9.
- 26. Li Y, Guldenmund FW. Safety management systems: A broad overview of the literature. Safety Science. 2018;103:94–123.
- 27. Wei J, Lu S. Investigation and penalty on major industrial accidents in China: The influence of environmental pressures. Safety Science. 2015;76:32–41.
- 28. Hale A, Borys D, Adams M. Safety regulation: The lessons of workplace safety rule management for managing the regulatory burden. Safety Science. 2015;71:112–22.
- 29. Beus JM, Mccord MA, Zohar D. Workplace safety: a review and research synthesis. Organizational Psychology Review. 2016;6:352–81.
- 30. Fruhen LS, Mearns KJ, Flin R, et al. Skills, knowledge and senior managers’ demonstrations of safety commitment. Saf Sci. 2014;69:29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.08.024
- 31. Probst TM, Brubaker TL, Barsotti A. Organizational injury rate underreporting: the moderating effect of organizational safety climate. J Appl Psychol. 2008;93(5):1147–54. pmid:18808232
- 32. Naveh E, Katz-Navon T, Stern Z. Active learning climate and employee errors: the moderating effects of personality traits. J Organ Behav. 2015;36(3):441–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2000
- 33. Trapp M, Schneider D, Weiss G. Towards Safety-Awareness and Dynamic Safety Management. In: 2018 14th European Dependable Computing Conference (EDCC), 2018. 107–11.
- 34. Walters AUC, Lawrence W, Jalsa NK. Chemical laboratory safety awareness, attitudes and practices of tertiary students. Safety Science. 2017;96:161–71.
- 35.
Pasquier D, Simoes JA, Kredens E. Agents of mediation and sources of safety awareness: a comparative overview. Children, risk and safety on the Internet. Bristol university press digital. 2012. p.219–30.
- 36. Vinodkumar MN, Bhasi M. Safety management practices and safety behaviour: assessing the mediating role of safety knowledge and motivation. Accid Anal Prev. 2010;42(6):2082–93. pmid:20728666
- 37. Neal A, Griffin MA, Hart PM. The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behavior. Saf Sci. 2000;34(1–3):99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00008-4
- 38. Xia N, Griffin MA, Xie Q, Hu X. Antecedents of Workplace Safety Behavior: Meta-Analysis in the Construction Industry. J Constr Eng Manage. 2023;149(4).
- 39. Griffin MA, Neal A. Perceptions of safety at work: a framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. J Occup Health Psychol. 2000;5(3):347–58. pmid:10912498
- 40. Luria G, Rafaeli A. Testing safety commitment in organizations through interpretations of safety artifacts. J Safety Res. 2008;39(5):519–28. pmid:19010125
- 41.
Hair JF. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. 2009.
- 42.
Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 2nd ed. 2010.