Ma, H; Cao, S; Wang, Y and Zhang, H (2023) The moderating effect of optimism bias on ambivalence of workers' unsafe behaviors. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 149(9): 04023087, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Ambivalence brings great uncertainty to workers' decision making of intentional unsafe behaviors. It is of great theoretical and practical significance to find the factors that have significant regulating effect on workers' ambivalence. [Research Content] On the basis of constructing the decision-making model of workers' intentional unsafe behaviors under the ambivalence of workers, this paper analyzed the moderating effect of optimism bias on the ambivalence of workers, and employed the structural equation model to empirically verify the proposed hypothesis. [Empirical results] Individual optimism bias has a significant moderating effect on the ambivalence in the decision-making process of workers' behavior. Workers with higher optimism bias are more likely to have intentional unsafe behaviors. At the same time, the generation of optimism bias is related to workers' self-esteem and risk preference. [Enlightenment] Managers should pay more attention to workers' optimism bias psychology, and in particular, psychological counseling should be conducted regularly for workers engaged in high-risk work for a long time to help workers establish a correct view of risk.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | influence path; optimistic bias; structural equation model; unsafe behavior |
| Index terms: | decision-making, bias, preference, psychology, manager, unsafe behaviour, structural equation model, optimism bias, decision-making process |
| Subjects: | statistical analysis, behavioral psychology, decision analysis, cognitive psychology, financial risk, probability and distributions, decision-making and reasoning, practitioner |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Research Practice, Cost Management |
| 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