Hua, X; Zhang, S; Shi, X and Zhang, Y (2025) Differences in risk analysis between workers and managers: Study from the perspective of neuroscience. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 151(7): 04025079, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
In the realm of construction safety, disparities in risk perception among workers and frontline managers impede risk communication and undermine risk management endeavors. Building upon previous research, this study zeroes in on a pivotal aspect of risk perception: risk analysis. We executed a behavioral experiment to validate the presence of discrepancies in risk analysis between workers and managers. Event-related potential (ERP) experiments were undertaken to delve into the neural underpinnings of these discrepancies. The results revealed that workers displayed a pronounced bias, extended reaction times, and diminished accuracy rates in both probability and damage judgments, in comparison with managers. Furthermore, the ERP experiment findings suggested notable differences in brain information processing regarding risk analysis between the two groups. In the probability judgment task, workers exhibited higher average amplitudes of N100 and N130, but lower P100 amplitudes than managers. During the damage judgment task, workers showed greater N130 amplitudes and reduced P100 and late positive potential (LPP) amplitudes compared with managers. These results indicated that managers allocated more attentional resources and maintained a broader attention scope during the early attention stage, whereas in the subsequent cognitive stage, they experienced stronger emotional responses and employed more cognitive resources than workers. Moreover, a risk analysis distinction model was developed to discern between the worker and manager cohorts. Employing ERP technology in this investigation enhances our comprehension of the neural mechanisms contributing to risk analysis differences and broadens the scope of related research. This study uncovers the underlying cognitive neuroscientific reasons for the observed differences in risk analysis between workers and managers. The results provide essential references for the scientific development of safety training programs by focusing on three key areas: attention allocation, emotional arousal, and distribution of cognitive resources. Additionally, it furnishes recommendations for the establishment of improved risk communication strategies between managers and workers.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction safety; differences in risk perception; event-related potential; risk analysis |
| Index terms: | investigation, experiment, information processing, risk perception, risk analysis, program, presence, manager, bias, disparity, judgment, risk management, safety training, strategy, construction safety, accuracy |
| Subjects: | practitioner, dispute resolution, data collection methods, occupational health and safety management, data science, software systems, environmental health, probability and distributions, social justice, environmental hazards, professional development, risk assessment, environmental science, management |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Ethics, Research Practice, Legal Issues, Business Strategy, Information Management, Risk Management, Digital Applications, Roles and Professions, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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