Sing, C P; Love, P E D; Fung, I W H and Edwards, D J (2014) Personality and occupational accidents: Bar benders in Guangdong Province, Shenzhen, China. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(7): 05014005, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Limited research has been undertaken to explore how Chinese construction workers' personality affects their safety behavior. Inappropriate behavior on-site can instigate serious accidents, injuries, or fatality as well as incur significant costs and loss of corporate reputation. To address this dearth within the extant literature, this paper uses Eysenck Personality Questionnaire to examine the complex relationship between the personality of Chinese construction workers (especially, bar benders) and occupational accidents. A significant relationship between personality, unsafe behaviors, and the extent of injury was identified. Using the results generated, a series of practical recommendations are proffered to reinforce behavioral safety training (and reduce accidents on-site), including suggestions for conducting training programs that can be tailored to construction workers with different personality traits.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | eysenck personality questionnaire; labor and personnel issues; occupational accidents; personality; unsafe behavior |
| Index terms: | safety behaviour, personality, safety training, construction worker, occupational accident, personnel, unsafe behaviour, injury, China, program, questionnaire |
| Subjects: | financial risk, Geography, software systems, management, health risk and incident analysis, behavioral psychology, health conditions and diseases, occupational health and safety management, practitioner, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Cost Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Roles and Professions, Digital Applications, Human Resources |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here