a psychological approach to occupational safety

A psychological approach tooccupational safety

Gemma Clissold Colmar Brunton, Brisbane, Qld, Australia

Donna M Buttigieg School of Management and Information Systems, Victoria University, Footscray

Park, Vic., Australia

Helen De Cieri Monash University, Caulfield Campus, Caulfield East, Vic., Australia

The psychological approach to occupational safety is comprised of two perspectives, the behaviour-

based perspective and the person-based perspective. These two perspectives are typically applied

separately in research, leaving gaps in the explanation of safety-related behaviour. In this paper, we

argue that an integrated approach to occupational safety is required and that Bandura’s social

cognitive theory can be used to address this need. The paper is conceptual, integrating several bodies

of literature and theoretical approaches to safety-related behaviour.

Keywords: occupational health and safety, safety-related behaviour, social cognitive theory

Traditionally strategies aimed at reducing organizational injuries and accidents have reliedon technical, mechanical, ergonomic and legislative approaches toward occupational safety(Bohle and Quinlan 2000; Lee 1998). While these approaches have contributed significantlyto the reduction in organizational injuries and accidents, estimates suggest that between50% and 90% of such events can be attributed to human error (Ford and Tetrick 2008;Hofmann, Jacobs and Landy 1995). Further, research indicates that such human error isclosely related to the characteristics of the organizational environment (Cheyne et al. 1999;Christian et al. 2009; Hofmann and Stetzer 1996; Seo, Torabi and Blair 2004). Researchersare therefore increasingly focusing on unsafe behaviour and risk-taking within the contextof the organization (Conchie and Burns 2009; Weyman, Clarke and Cox 2003).

Correspondence: Professor Donna M Buttigieg, Professor of Management, School of Managementand Information Systems, Victoria University, PO Box 14428, Melbourne, Victoria 8001, Australia;e-mail: [email protected]

Accepted for publication 22 June 2011.

Key points1 There are two dominant theories of the psychological approach to safety research: the

person-based and behaviour-based perspective.

2 Bandura’s triadic framework and social cognitive theory are argued to address the

need for an integrated approach to safety research.

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources (2012) 50, 92–109 doi:10.1111/j.1744-7941.2011.00002.x

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

As a result of this shift in focus toward the human factor, the psychological approach tooccupational safety is being increasingly applied in research and practice (Bohle andQuinlan 2000; Geller 2001). The aim of the psychological approach is to facilitate anunderstanding of behaviour that enables researchers to predict and practitioners to managesafety-related behaviour. This approach is comprised of two perspectives: the behaviour-and the person-based approaches (Geller 2001).

The gap created through considering the person-based and behaviour-based perspec-tives separately has been noted in the literature previously. DeJoy (2005) argues that themanagement of occupational safety traditionally focuses on changing either behaviour (i.e.the behaviour-based perspective) or individual assumptions, attitudes, and beliefs (i.e. theperson-based perspective). DeJoy (2005) further states rather than considering thestrengths and weaknesses of each approach, it is of more benefit to consider them ascomplementary. Additionally, Lund and Aarø (2004) highlight the importance of address-ing both the person and the behaviour in occupational safety management, and also ofemphasizing the role played by the environment in determining the effectiveness of pro-grams aimed at occupational safety.

In this paper it is argued that in order to provide a comprehensive explanation ofsafety-related behaviour these two perspectives must be integrated. We propose that themost appropriate format for integrating the person-based and behaviour-based perspec-tives is a triad, a format that has been employed in previous research (Geller 2001).Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory and associated triadic framework provide a the-oretical explanation for the relationship between the person, the behaviour and the envir-onment. In applying Bandura’s (1986) research to the field of occupational safety, a morecomprehensive understanding of safety-related behaviour can be developed.

This paper will review both the behaviour-based and person-based perspectives onoccupational safety, outlining the management implications of each perspective and thegaps associated with each in the explanation of safety-related behaviour. Social cognitivetheory and the triadic framework proposed by Bandura (1986) will be reviewed as well asthe application of this triad to the field of occupational safety. The implications of usingsocial cognitive theory to understand safety-related behaviour will also be discussed interms of management research and practice.

Behaviour-based perspective on occupational safety

The behaviour-based perspective stems from Skinnerian applied behaviour analysis andbehaviour modification and is based on the idea that behaviour management techniquescan be used to change behaviour, leading to changes in individual attitudes (Geller 2001;Krause, Hidley and Hodson 1990; Tharaldsen and Haukelid 2009). Of particular import-ance in the behaviour-based perspective is Skinner’s (1971) argument that the conse-quences of behaviour influences future behaviour. Behaviour management techniques suchas incentives, rewards, feedback, goal-setting, coaching and training are applied within thecontext of occupational safety with the aim that they will influence and if necessary change

Gemma Clissold, Donna M Buttigieg and Helen De Cieri

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 93

future behaviours (Ford and Tetrick 2008; Geller 2001; Krause, Hidley and Hodson 1990;McSween 1995; Tharaldsen and Haukelid 2009).

The application of the behaviour-based perspective has been particularly dominant inprofessional publications because of its focus on specific management techniques andintervention-based applications (e.g. Geller, Perdue and French 2004; Goodrum andGangwar 2004; Sims 2004;). The argument for these types of programs is that, regardlessof what people think, they will eventually comply with the safety expectations. However,the ultimate intention is that through involvement and participation the individual willbecome involved in the process and as such their attitudes will change (Hidley andKrause 1994; Krause, Hidley and Hodson 1990). It is further argued that the behaviour-based perspective is important because it focuses on observable aspects (i.e. behaviour) asopposed to hidden aspects of safety (i.e. attitudes; Hidley and Krause 1994; Krause,Hidley and Hodson 1990). For management, the appeal lies in the notion that specificbehaviours can be managed because there is a relatively clear distinction between whetheror not someone is engaging in the safe behaviour.

Ineffective evaluation and choice of safety programs can be costly and the programsthemselves have been criticized for providing only short-term behavioural changes asopposed to long-term cultural changes (Geller 2001; Geller, Roberts and Gilmore 1996).Research on the influence of interventions is sparse; one possible deterrent to studies mightbe the hesitance of organizations to participate in research designs that are experimentaland longitudinal (Shannon, Robson and Guastello 1999).

A substantial amount of research has found that worker participation, managementcommitment and trust are critical to ensuring that behaviour-based management programsare successful and result in the reduction of accident rates (DePasquale and Geller 1999;Quintana 1999; Vredenburgh 2002). Other specific management techniques such as obser-vation and feedback, rewards, communication and the clear specification of responsibilityand expectations have also reduced the incidence of injuries and error communication(Cigularov, Chen and Stallones 2009; DePasquale and Geller 1999; Quintana 1999; Vinod-kumar and Bhasi 2010; Vredenburgh 2002).

Williams and Geller (2000) have argued that there are two types of feedback used toimprove safety performance: specific (specific safe behaviours) and global (cumulativescore of safe behaviours). They also proposed that social comparison feedback or com-paring the extent to which safe behaviours are used between work groups will alsoimprove safety performance. The results of their research were that feedback substantiallyincreased safe work practices. They also found that specific feedback, i.e. providing afeedback percentage for each time a specific safe behaviour was observed, was superior toglobal feedback that provided only an overall score. The presence of comparisonsbetween work groups, or the social comparison feedback also increased the extent towhich the employees behaved safely.

In addition to feedback, research also indicates that goal-setting influences injury rates(Laitinen and Ruohomäki 1996; Marsh et al. 1995). Further, rewards and incentives such ascoffee and cake with the achievement of a set monthly safety goal (Laitinen and Ruohomäki

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 50

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd94

1996), external government and industry-sponsored awards (Tait and Walker 2000), gifts,gift certificates and games that reward safety behaviour with points redeemable in prizes areeffective at improving safe behaviour (Smith 2002).

While research supports the role of the behaviour-based perspective in explainingsafety-related behaviour, it can be argued that such explanations are incomplete. Thereasons people behave unsafely are relatively complex and often reflect characteristics of theperson, as opposed to the outcomes of behaviour. Reason, Parker and Lawton (1998) specifythe importance of the distinction between intentional and unintentional violations, and theimpact of good and bad rules. Unintentional violations are associated with a lack oftraining, communication and policy support. However, a critical source of problems withinorganizations is the propensity for employees to intentionally violate rules they understand.Further, Reason, Parker and Lawton (1998) suggest that, at times, safety rules and policieswork against production demands, require excessive effort to comply with or are a reactionto a recent injury. If employees neither understand the need for such a rule nor believe therule necessary, they are unlikely to comply with it (Reason, Parker and Lawton 1998).

Reason, Parker and Lawton (1998) argue that one cause of safety violations is the factthat violating behaviours provide increased psychological satisfaction. Psychological satis-faction is associated with the way the behaviour makes the person feel, the need foracceptance and the social climate of the organization. In such instances acceptable or‘normal’ behaviours may be to behave in a way that violates a rule (Hofmann and Stetzer1996; Wagenaar and Groeneweg 1987). While Hidley and Krause (1994) argue that thebehaviour-based perspective is a significant paradigm shift that is proactive, a problemidentified is that the behaviour still has to occur before the consequence can be experienced.

The role of the antecedent (such as a workplace safety sign) is vital and the behaviour-based perspective to safety advocates various forms of antecedents, for example training,physical barriers and management systems. However, a gap remains with respect to under-standing the factors that will contribute to the behaviour in the first instance. Increasingly,both academic (Barling and Hutchinson 2000; Geller 2001) and professional/industrygroups (Schultz 2004; Thatcher 2003) disagree with Hidley and Krause’s (1994) argumentthat the behaviour-based perspective provides a more effective explanation of safety-relatedbehaviour. Predominantly, scholars and practitioners are promoting an approach that takesinto account both the behaviour-based and person-based perspectives (Tharaldsen andHaukelid 2009).

Person-based perspective on occupational safety

The person-based perspective takes account of the influence of attitudes and perceptions onsafety-related behaviour (Geller 2001) and is based on a number of key assumptions. Thefirst is that attitudes inform behaviour and therefore can be used to predict behaviour(Azjen and Fishbein 1980; Fogarty and Shaw 2010). The second assumption is that anunderstanding of attitudes towards specific topics, such as safety, will facilitate the identi-fication and management of potential problem areas within organizational safety (Gulden-



mund 2000; Williamson et al. 1997). The third and final assumption is that ‘if attitudes canbe changed, a wide range of behaviour will be modified in consequence’ (Lee 1998, 236).

Safety researchers and practitioners have used two distinct methods to explore theantecedents of accidents. The first method, which is primarily reactive, analyses the series ofevents that contribute to accidents to determine both what went wrong and how to preventsimilar events from occurring again in the future (Flin et al. 2000). The bulk of ourknowledge about occupational safety stems from analysis of the events and activities thatcontributed to some of the worst industrial disasters of the twentieth century. For example,in the disaster in Bhopal India in 1984, low employee morale resulting from profit losses, thethreat of divestment, labour–management conflicts, high turnover of the most skilled staffand a lack of career opportunities led to a careless attitude toward organizational operations(Shrivastava 1987). Accident investigation has revealed that the 1986 catastrophe at Cher-nobyl in Ukraine was caused by management-driven pressure on technicians, employeestress, and technological complexity (Mould 1988).

The second method of exploring antecedents of accidents is proactive and asks peopleif and why they behave unsafely, posing questions relating to the circumstances underwhich they behave unsafely. This proactive method reflects the shift in both industry andresearch to apply leading indicators of occupational safety performance such as diagnosticaudits and information relating to compliance, unsafe behaviour and safety climate, asopposed to lagging indicators such as incident rates, injuries and fatalities (Flin et al. 2000).

Understanding accidents and their causes is critical to understanding how to manageoccupational safety. Within occupational safety research and the person-based perspectivein particular, safety climate has become a dominant measure of the ‘state’ of organizationalsafety and central to the identification of areas of safety management that require improve-ment (Coyle, Sleeman and Adams 1995; Lee 1998).

One of the earliest and most frequently cited definitions of safety climate is thatprovided by Zohar (1980), who applied the work of Schneider (1975) in saying that climateis a set of shared perceptions that provide cues for behaviour. Common or shared percep-tions about an organization or its characteristics are created between people as a result ofcommon experiences and their interactions with each other and with the organization.These perceptions provide a context for individuals in which they gauge the appropriate-ness and possible consequences of their behaviour (Beus et al. 2010; Moran and Volkwein1992; Schneider 1975). Glennon (1982 as cited in Guldenmund 2000: 228) agreed thatsafety climates include perceptions that ‘have a direct impact upon their [the individual’s]behaviour to reduce or eliminate danger’.

Within discussion of the climate concept, there is some debate over the appropriate levelof analysis for climate constructs (Clarke 2010). The unit of analysis relates to whetherclimate should be analysed as an individual or organizational attribute. James (1982) arguesthat the answer to this question is associated with the source of the behaviour. If theorganization is the source of the behaviour and the environment causes the behaviour, thenthe organization is the unit of analysis. However, because we know that climate is based onthe attitudes and perceptions of the individual, the unit of analysis is the individual and



climate is understood as a perceptual construct (Glick 1985; James 1982). Therefore,because climate remains the property of the individual (Glisson and James 2002), it isconsidered as part of the person-based perspective.

Safety climate measures are valuable management tools that facilitate the monitoring,benchmarking and planning of occupational safety. Lee (1998) additionally argues thatsafety climate measures provide a starting point for determining ‘good’ and ‘bad’ or ‘lowaccident’ and ‘high accident’ organizations. Safety climate measures also enable safety to bemapped over time as it improves, thereby providing an indication of the value of safetyinterventions (Lee 1998). Safety climate measures can be used as a preventative managementtool; however, problems arise when managers rely on them to be a ‘magic solution’ to theirsafety problems. These measures should be used as a method of identifying the factors thatunderpin organizational safety, to define the ‘flavour’ of organizational safety and as amoderating factor in organizational change (Williamson et al. 1997). If implementedeffectively, safety climate tools have the capacity to diagnose, record and intervene in theweaker components of organizational systems (Coyle, Sleeman and Adams 1995; Lee 1998;Reason 1998).

The extent to which the safety climate is positive or that individuals have a positiveperception of safety is influenced by a variety of organizational attributes such as seniormanagement commitment and leadership on safety issues, communication and interactionabout safety between all levels of the organization, involvement of employees in safetydecisions, effective and practical safety policies, workforce stability and effective industrialrelations, safety schemes and systems, effective training and finally a generally positive workenvironment (Cohen 1977; Cooper 1998; Lee 1998; Mearns, Whitaker and Flin 2003). Theextent to which these attributes of the organization are positive or supportive of occupationalsafety objectives rests heavily on the ability of management to balance production with safetyand to place the well being and safety of employees at the top of the list of priorities.

The role of management in facilitating the goal of reducing accidents and injuries, andincreasing positive safety outcomes is such that their actions, words and managementstrategies significantly influence the perception of other employees toward certain issues(Christian et al. 2009; Inness et al. 2010; Williamson et al. 1997). Hofmann, Jacobs andLandy (1995, 131) argued that, in order to be effective in changing safety performance,leadership or management activities contributing to occupational safety must be overt and‘it must be seen in both what they [managers/leaders] say as well as what they do’. Trans-formational leadership, in particular has been found to be a significant variable (Conchieand Donald 2009; Inness et al. 2010; Mullen, Kelloway and Teed 2011). Traditional perspec-tives to safety management were predominantly focused on technical objectives through theuse of control and compliance (Barling and Hutchinson 2000; Herrero et al. 2002). Morecontemporary safety management systems aim to motivate individuals to perform atoptimum standards in terms of not only production but also quality and safety (Barling,Kelloway and Iverson 2003; Beckmerhagen et al. 2003). To be successful, managers must usestrategies that extend beyond compliance and begin to make safe operations and safebehaviour the responsibility and performance objective of all employees (Petersen 1994).



Occupational safety: A triadic approach

The behaviour-based and person-based perspectives are incomplete explanations, in them-selves, of safety-related behaviour (Geller 2001; Tharaldsen and Haukelid 2009). Geller(2001) has proposed a total safety culture that encompasses the person, the behaviour andthe environment. The term ‘environment’ is used by Geller (2001) to refer to equipment,tools, machinery, physical conditions, standards and operating procedures. Geller (2001)argues that the continual attention to and management of these three areas (i.e. the person,the behaviour and the environment), a total safety culture can be created. A total safetyculture is characterized by the responsibility organizational members feel toward safety, thepriority given to safety and the extent to which people proactively and actively participatein safety initiatives (Geller 2001).

While Geller’s (2001) total safety culture provides a good foundation for this review amore theoretically sound base for understanding safety-related behaviour is needed. In thispaper Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory and associated triadic framework providestheory to support the model presented by Geller (2001). This triadic relationship andrecipricol determinism, in particular, have been argued to be useful in explaining conceptssuch as safety culture, for example (Cooper 2000).

Theoretical perspectives such as the theory of planned behaviour and attribution theoryhave been applied in the past (Fogarty and Shaw 2010; Gyekye 2010; Lingard and Yesilyurt2003; Wills, Watson and Biggs 2009). The theory of planned behaviour is aligned with theperson-based approach and argues that:

an individual’s behavior is a direct function of behavior intention and perceived behavioral

control. Intentions are themselves shaped by attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behav-

ioral control. These determinants of behavior intention are based on an underlying belief

structure (Fogarty and Shaw 2010, 1456).

This is consistent with Bandura’s social cognitive theory and the triadic approach (asenvironment is implicit in perceived behavioural control) but is not tested in this paper.Further, attribution theory argues that individuals find explanations by covarying cause andeffect. Attributions have three causal dimensions: locus of control, stability and controlla-bility (Gyekye 2010). Once again attribution theory is consistent with Bandura’s socialcognitive theory and the triadic approach (as locus of control and controllability are alsoimplicitly associated with environment) but remains unexplored in this paper.

Figure 1 depicts the relationship between Geller’s (2001) model and Bandura’s socialcognitive theory and triadic approach. In social cognitive theory, people are considered to beneither completely driven by internal factors, nor controlled entirely by external stimuli.Human functioning is explained as an outcome of the interaction that occurs between theperson or cognition, behaviour and the environment (Bandura 1986). The triadic frame-work represents the reciprocal relationships that Bandura proposes exist between the per-sonal, the behavioural and environmental determinants (Bandura 1989). The reciprocalrelationships between the personal, the behavioural and environmental determinants arebest explained through five basic human capabilities (Stajkovic and Luthans 1998).



The following section will review these capabilities, and relate them to occupationalsafety.

The first of these capabilities is to symbolize, which is associated with the individual’sability to process and transform symbols and visual experiences into cognitive models thatinform behaviour (Stajkovic and Luthans 1998). In the context of safety, it is argued that ifthe safety climate of the organization provides sufficient information to the individual,significant accidents are prevented. Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) compare such a capabilitywith reinforcement theory, which states that the individual tests a behaviour through actionand then makes future decisions based on the consequences of such behaviour. Stajkovicand Luthans (1998) further suggest that, if the first capability is developed, the individualwill have the capacity to symbolically test the behaviour prior to engaging in any form ofaction. In terms of safety, a high sense of risk awareness, safety standards, and procedures asoutlined by Geller (2001) supports this capability.

The second capability is forethought, which relates to the notion that individuals planactions and goals for the near future, while taking into account the possible consequencesof such action and goals (Stajkovic and Luthans 1998). Again using an occupational safetycontext and reflecting on Geller’s (2001) work, if there is little understanding of organiza-tional systems, poor communication about possible consequences of actions, and an ambi-guity of performance standards, the individual’s capacity to show forethought andcomprehend possible consequences will be negatively affected.

Figure 1 An integration of Geller and Bandura’s approach



The third capability is to engage in vicarious or observational learning, in which theindividual learns through observing the actions or behaviours of others, as well as theconsequences of such behaviours (Stajkovic and Luthans 1998). With respect to observa-tional learning, Grusec (1992) notes the important role of imitation observed by Banduraand Walters (1963) in their work on social cognitive theory. People learn behaviours byimitating others and, in terms of occupational safety, if the behaviour of others does notreflect a proactive approach to occupational safety, then accidents and injuries will result.

The fourth capability is to self-regulate, which involves individuals comparing theirinternally set standards of performance, with their actual standards of performance(Stajkovic and Luthans 1998). The final capability is self-reflection. The ability to be self-reflective is associated with the process through which employees, for example, considerand analyse their experiences. From these they develop perceptions of themselves and theirenvironment. These perceptions are termed self-efficacy and have become a major focus ofcontemporary research in social cognitive theory (Bandura 2002; Bandura and Locke 2003;Martocchio 1994; O’Neill and Mone 1998; Ozer and Bandura 1990). The individual’sinternal safety standards are influenced by the standards or expectations of organizationalleaders, managers, and systems of production. If these standards are poor, the individual’sbehaviour will be impacted. If the person’s experience of such behaviour is not necessarilythought-provoking, then behaviour may be negatively impacted.

Implications and directions for future research

Theoretical implicationsThe application of Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory and triadic framework hassignificant implications not only for occupational safety research, but also for the integra-tion between the occupational safety, management and organizational behaviour fields ofresearch. These implications are considered with respect to the three components of thetriad.

In social cognitive theory, a range of cognitive mechanisms are associated with theperson (Bandura 1986; Stajkovic and Luthans 1998), which could be explored in futureresearch of the contributors to unsafe behaviour. Research associated with the relationshipsbetween occupational safety and personality types has tended to be controversial because ofthe association with accident proneness. However, Iverson and Erwin (1997) found thatpeople with higher levels of positive affectivity, who were also more likely to actively controltheir environment, experienced a lower injury level than those with high negative affectiv-ity. Personality factors were also deemed important in a study by Clarke (2006).

Aside from the role of personality in explanations of individual behaviour within anorganizational context, Wood and Bandura (1989) state that three capabilities associatedwith social cognitive theory are important: 1) developing cognitive, social, and behaviouralcompetencies through mastery modelling; 2) creating individuals’ belief in their capabil-ities to use their talents and make changes effectively; and 3) the development of motivationthrough goal-setting.



The concept of observational learning and more specifically mastery modelling havebeen extensively researched. In summary, mastery modelling is the extent to which theindividual can, through observing the behaviours of those around them, learn new behav-iours or patterns of behaviour (Bandura 1986). Vecchio-Sadus and Griffiths (2004, 608)state that ‘employees imitate management’s attitudes or their perceptions of managementattitudes, therefore, if management commitment to OHS is not evident to the employees,their behavior is likely to reflect this’. Taking the role of a trade or skill teacher with a focuson safety, the ‘master’ or ‘good colleague’ is also an important element of safety culture,according to Richter and Koch (2004), and of safety training outlined by Vredenburgh(2002).

The second important element of social cognitive theory in the organizational contextis the individual’s belief in their capability to achieve modelled outcomes and make changes(Wood and Bandura 1989). The concept of taking control and making changes is inter-related with self-efficacy. It is argued that self-regulation and self-efficacy are capabilitiesthat can be developed, the implications of which are that, while personality is trait-like andas such not able to be easily changed, strengths like self-efficacy can be developed (Luthans2002).

Bandura (1986) further argues that these experiences of self-efficacy and control aregrounded within environmental transactions and the nature of reality. If individuals believethey can control and contribute in their jobs, they have a greater tendency to be successfulin making change (Bandura 1986). If the organizational systems are transparent and fair,provide opportunities, are open to communication, and are supportive of the needs of theindividual, the members’ behaviours will reflect the commitment. These ideas are prom-inent within not only social cognitive theory but also social exchange theory (e.g. organ-izational support and citizenship behaviours) and they are also found in the context ofoccupational safety (Hofmann and Morgeson 1999; Hofmann, Morgeson and Gerras2003). Further, Prussia, Brown and Willis (2003) hypothesized that safety efficacy, anadaptation of Bandura’s (1986) self-efficacy, positively predicts safety-related behaviour; arelationship that is positive, although not significant. Further, a study by Newnam, Griffinand Mason (2008) found that self-efficacy predicted motivation to drive safely.

Research conducted by Huang et al. (2006) found that safety control, or the extent towhich the individual feels they can control safety behaviour, was a significant predictor ofself-reported injury incidence. Another study by Snyder et al. (2008) found that safetycontrol moderates the relationship between situational constraints and injuries. Further, astudy by Cigularov, Chen and Stallones (2009) found that individuals with a high locus ofcontrol and those who perceived a good safety climate communicated their mistakes interms of safety. The nature of this relationship requires further investigation.

The third element of social cognitive theory important within the organizationalcontext is motivation through goal-setting, associated with the capability of self-regulationand the comparison of internal goals with actual behaviours (Wood and Bandura 1989). Astrong safety climate or safety culture is characterized by the shared assumptions betweenemployees, shared mental models, group cohesiveness and the belief that high levels of



safety performance are a condition of work and employment (Cohen 1977; Lee 1998;Prussia, Brown and Willis 2003).

Individuals may also have overly optimistic attitudes toward safety and believe that anindustrial accident will never happen to them. Research conducted by Prussia, Brown andWillis (2003) found that having a cavalier attitude toward safety, which included items suchas ‘Employees feel that safety procedures are not necessary’ was significantly related to safetybehaviour. Seo (2005) similarly found that issues such as having a cavalier attitude towardssafety and scepticism about the efficacy of safety measures mediated the relationshipbetween safety climate and safety-related behaviour.

In terms of behaviour, Bandura (1986) argues that traditionally we understand behav-iour in terms of antecedents and consequences but that this model of behaviour does notconsider the extent to which an individual is driven or motivated intrinsically. In socialcognitive theory the motivation that is relevant to organizational settings lies in the cap-ability of forethought, rather than in the receipt of incentives. For example, researchsuggests that in certain organizational settings rewards based on safety performance lead tothe decreased reporting of accidents and injuries (Hopkins 1984). However, Bandura(1986) argues that goal-setting, the establishment of internal standards and the achieve-ment of self-satisfaction are also important motivators to consider. In relation to futureoccupational safety research therefore, the establishment of such standards must be tiedin with organizational and safety culture. Wood and Bandura (1989) also emphasize theimportance of goals to self-motivation. Within the organizational context, individuals setinternal goals that they work towards, which are reviewed once these goals have beenreached. In terms of safety, it is critical we expand our understanding of the extent to whichsafe work is a personal goal, and then explore ways in which we can reinforce the import-ance of such goals through interventions.

Finally, the role of the environment and in particular the way people perceive theirenvironment is also central to the application of social cognitive theory to occupationalsafety research. Safety climate is a critical concept in the environment component of thetriadic approach. However, through this and other research in the field it is becomingincreasingly evident that focusing on safety-specific elements of the organizational envir-onment is not going to continue to reduce accident and injury rates. Occupational safetyresearch must extend beyond this narrow focus and consider the spectrum of environ-mental issues. Further, there is a need for this research to be undertaken using multi-method and longitudinal designs.

Implications for management practiceOccupational safety research outlines broadly that if organizations are to improve theiroccupational injury and accident rates there are a number of requirements that must beconsidered. Specifically there is a need to facilitate discussion and dialogue, encourage asystem of self-regulation and the strengthening of organizational defenses and criticallyincreased levels of organizational learning to support safety systems (Carroll 1998; Lee1998; Madsen 2009; Pidgeon 1998; Zacharatos, Barling and Iverson 2005). While such ideas



are in theory quite progressive, there remains a need for occupational safety research topresent a more comprehensive stance in terms of the psychological approach. The intentionin doing so is to facilitate the translation of such ideas into practice. Such a gap betweenknowing or understanding and doing is not uncommon in fields such as this (Pfeffer andSutton 1999), but one effective way to move forward is through the provision of a morecomplete framework that can be applied more readily to management strategies, trainingand eventually change.

In considering the management implications, it important to consider how each ofthe triadic elements, the person, the behaviour and the environment, can be incorporatedinto management strategy. In a literature review of safety interventions Lund and Aarø(2004) found that interventions aimed at the individual attitudes, behaviours andenvironment (e.g. physical environment, legislative, and procedural) had the greatestinfluence on changing safety-related behaviour. There are a range of strategies that can beemployed to appeal to the person and behavioural elements of occupational safety. Lundand Aarø (2004) emphasize the role of education and training in changing attitudes andsocial norms, and several scholars (Lavack et al. 2007; Stephenson et al. 2005; Vecchio-Sadus and Griffiths 2004) highlight the role of marketing campaigns and persuasive mes-sages to enhance safety culture and change behaviour. Further, Hickman and Geller(2003) outline the way in which self-management interventions promote increased par-ticipation in safety-related behaviour. What emerges from the literature is that educationand training, as well as marketing campaigns are necessary to promote safety behaviour.Further, within the context of Bandura’s triadic framework there is a need to ensure thata safe environment through adequate policy, transformational management, engineeringstandards and safe and adequate tools and equipment (Bandura 1986; Geller 2001).Finally, governments have a role to play by ensuring that legislative requirements areappropriate and are also enforced. For example, legislation in Australia on occupationalhealth and safety will be unified by January 2012 across the states with codes of practiceand national standards (McCrystal and Smith 2011).

Conclusion

The field of occupational safety has developed over the past twenty to thirty years. In spiteof this, a lack of theoretical development in the contemporary behaviour-based and person-based perspectives is hampering the field. While the research applying these perspectivesdoes not seem to be ceasing or slowing because of this criticism, it does raise concerns forthe future of the field and for management strategies.

This paper has aimed to provide support for the application of Bandura’s (1977) triadicframework of the person, behaviour and environment to occupational safety literaturegenerally. Bandura’s (1977) triad and social cognitive theory provides an integrative frame-work for research in occupational safety. In this paper the implications of such a triad formanagement have been highlighted because poor occupational safety performance is anextremely salient management issue. The implications of implementing a triadic frame-



work to occupational safety are that, to be successful, interventions must be designed toencompass and influence all three aspects of the triad, the person, the behaviour and theenvironment.

Gemma Clissold (PhD, Monash) is the group account director at Colmar Brunton. She was the UK

head of stakeholder management for TNS-RI based in London. Prior to this, Gemma worked as a

research officer in the then Department of Sustainability and Environment with the Victorian state

government in Australia and as a lecturer with Monash University in Melbourne. In her PhD Gemma

examined the extent to which safety behaviour is understood using Bandura’s social cognitive theory.

Gemma’s commercial research experience encompasses various stakeholder relationships including

customer experience management, employee engagement and corporate reputation in a range of

sectors but predominantly finance.

Donna Buttigieg (PhD) is a professor at Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. Prior to this, she

was the director of research at the School of Business and Economics and was the acting director of

the Family and Small Business Research Unit at Monash University, Gippsland. She has also been a

bureaucrat for Industrial Relations Victoria and has worked at Oxford University and the University

of Melbourne. She has a number of articles in top tier journals and is an associate editor of Labour and

Industry. Further, she has presented at a number of international and national conferences. Her

current research interests include trade unions, OHS, vulnerable workers and strategic HRM.

Helen De Cieri (PhD) is director of the Australian Centre for Research in Employment and Work

(ACREW) and a professor in the Department of Management at Monash University. She is an

associate editor for Human Resource Management and her current editorial board memberships

include Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. Helen has published widely on a range of HRM

research topics. Her current research interests are focused on relationships between HRM, employee

well-being and organizational performance. Helen is a member of the advisory council for The 100%

Project (www.the100percentproject.com.au), a non-profit organization that provides leadership on

the advancement of women in management.

References

Azjen I and M Fishbein (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting behavior. Prentice-Hall, Engle-

wood Cliffs, NJ.

Bandura A (1977) Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Bandura A (1986) Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Bandura A (1989) Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist 44(9), 1175–1184.

Bandura A (2002) Growing primacy of human agency in adaptation and change in the electronic era.

European Psychologist 7(1), 2–16.

Bandura A and EA Locke (2003) Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied

Psychology 88(1), 87–99.

Bandura A and RH Walters (1963) Learning and personality development. Holt, Rinehart and Winston,

New York.

Barling J and I Hutchinson (2000) Commitment vs. control-based safety practices, safety reputation,

and perceived safety climate. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 17(1), 76–84.



Barling J, EK Kelloway and RD Iverson (2003) High-quality work, job satisfaction, and occupational

injuries. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(12), 276–283.

Beckmerhagen IA, HP Berg, SV Karapetrovic and WO Willborn (2003) Integration of management

systems: Focus on safety in the nuclear industry. International Journal of Quality and Reliability

Management 20(2), 210–228.

Beus JM, SC Payne, ME Bergman and JW Arthur (2010) Safety climate and injuries: An examination

of theoretical and empirical relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology 95(4), 713–727.

Bohle P and M Quinlan (2000) Managing occupational health and safety: A multidisciplinary approach,

2nd edn. Macmillan, Sydney, NSW.

Carroll JS (1998) Safety culture as an ongoing process: Culture surveys as opportunities for enquiry

and change. Work and Stress 12(3), 272–284.

Cheyne A, JM Tomás, S Cox and A Oliver (1999) Modelling employee attitudes to safety: A compari-

son across sectors. European Psychologist 4(1), 1–10.

Christian MS, JC Bradley, JC Wallace and MJ Burke (2009) Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the

roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology 94(5), 1103–1127.

Cigularov KP, PY Chen and L Stallones (2009) Error communication in young farmers: Its relation-

ship to safety climate and safety locus of control. Work and Stress 23(4), 297–312.

Clarke S (2006) Contrasting perceptual, attitudinal and dispositional approaches to accident involve-

ment in the workplace. Safety Science 44(6), 537–550.

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 Organ-

izational Psychology 83, 553–578.

Cohen A (1977) Factors in successful occupational safety programs. Journal of Safety Research 9(4),

168–178.

Conchie SM and C Burns (2009) Improving occupational safety: Using a trusted information source

to communicate about risk. Journal of Risk Research 12(1), 13–25.

Conchie SM and IJ Donald (2009) The moderating role of safety-specific trust on the relation

between safety-specific leadership and safety citizenship behaviors. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology 14(2), 137–147.

Cooper D (1998) Improving safety culture: A practical guide. John Wiley, Brisbane.

Cooper MD (2000) Towards a model of safety culture. Safety Science 36(2), 111–136.

Coyle IR, SD Sleeman and N Adams (1995) Safety climate. Journal of Safety Research 26(4), 247–254.

DeJoy DM (2005) Behavior change versus culture change: Divergent approaches to managing work-

place safety. Safety Science 43(2), 105–129.

DePasquale JP and ES Geller (1999) Critical success factors for behavior-based safety: A study of

twenty industry-wide applications. Journal of Safety Research 30(4), 237–249.

Flin R, K Mearns, P O’Connor and R Bryden (2000) Measuring safety climate: Identifying the

common features. Safety Science 34, 177–192.

Fogarty GJ and A Shaw (2010) Safety climate and the theory of planned behavior: Towards the

prediction of unsafe behavior. Accident Analysis and Prevention 42, 1455–1459.

Ford MT and LE Tetrick (2008) Safety motivation and human resource management in North

America. International Journal of Human Resource Management 19(8), 1472–1485.

Geller ES (2001) The psychology of safety handbook. Lewis, London.

Geller ES, DS Roberts and MR Gilmore (1996) Predicting propensity to actively care for occupational

safety. Journal of Safety Research 27(1), 1–8.



Geller ES, SR Perdue and A French (2004) Behaviour-based safety coaching: 10 guidelines for suc-

cessful application. Professional Safety 49(7), 42–49.

Glick WH (1985) Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls

in multilevel research. Academy of Management Journal 10(3), 601–616.

Glisson C and LR James (2002) The cross-level effects of culture and climate in human service teams.

Journal of Organizational Behaviour 23(6), 767–794.

Goodrum PM and M Gangwar (2004) Safety incentives: A study of their effectiveness in construction.

Professional Safety 49(7), 24–34.

Grusec JE (1992) Social learning theory and developmental psychology: The legacies of Robert Sears

and Albert Bandura. Developmental Psychology 28(5), 776–786.

Guldenmund FW (2000) The nature of safety culture: A review of theory and research. Safety Science

34, 215–257.

Gyekye SA (2010) Occupational safety management: The role of causal attribution. International

Journal of Psyhology 45, 405–416.

Herrero S, M Saldana, M del Campo and DO Ritzel (2002) From the traditional concept of safety

management to safety integrated with quality. Journal of Safety Research 33(1), 1–20.

Hickman JS and ES Geller (2003) A safety self-management intervention for mining operations.

Journal of Safety Research 34(3), 299–308.

Hidley JH and TR Krause (1994) Behavior-based safety: Paradigm shift beyond the failures of

attitude-based. Professional Safety 39(10), 28–33.

Hofmann DA and P Morgeson (1999) Safety-related behavior as a social exchange: The role of

perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology

84(2), 286–296.

Hofmann DA and A Stetzer (1996) A cross-level investigation of factors influencing unsafe behaviors

and accidents. Personnel Psychology 49(2), 307–339.

Hofmann DA, R Jacobs and F Landy (1995) High reliability process industries: Individual, micro and

macro organizational influences on safety performance. Journal of Safety Research 26(3), 131–149.

Hofmann DA, FP Morgeson and SJ Gerras (2003) Climate as a moderator of the relationship between

leader–member exchange and content specific citizenship: Safety climate as an exemplar. Journal

of Applied Psychology 88(2), 170–178.

Hopkins A (1984) Blood money? The effect of bonus pay on safety in coal mines. Australian/New

Zealand Journal of Sociology 20(1), 23–46.

Huang Y-H, M Ho, GS Smith and PY Chen (2006) Safety climate and self-reported injury: Assessing

The mediating role of employee safety control. Accident Analysis and Prevention 38(3), 425–433.

Inness M, N Turner, J Barling and CB Stride (2010) Transformational leadership and employee safety

performance: A within-person, between jobs design. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology

15(3), 279–290.

Iverson RD and PJ Erwin (1997) Predicting occupational injury: The role of affectivity. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology 70(2), 113–128.

James LR (1982) Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology

67(2), 219–229.

Krause TR, JH Hidley and SJ Hodson (1990) The behavior-based safety process: Managing involvement

for an injury-free culture. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Laitinen H and I Ruohomäki (1996) The effects of feedback and goal setting on safety performance

at two construction sites. Safety Science 24(1), 61–73.



Lavack AM, SL Magnuson, S Deshpande, DZ Basil, MD Basil and JH Mintz (2007) Enhancing

occupational health and safety in young workers: The role of social marketing. International

Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 13, 193–204.

Lee T (1998) Assessment of safety culture at a nuclear reprocessing plant. Work and Stress 12(3),

217–237.

Lingard H and Z Yesilyurt (2003) The effect of attitudes on the occupational safety actions of

Australian construction workers: The results of a field study. Journal of Construction Research 4(1),

59–69.

Lund J and LE Aarø (2004) Accident prevention: Presentation of a model placing emphasis on

human, structural and cultural factors. Safety Science 42(4), 271–324.

Luthans F (2002) Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological

strengths. Academy of Management Review 16(1), 57–75.

Madsen PM (2009) These lives will not be lost in vain: Organizational learning from disaster in US

coal mining. Organization Science 20(5), 861–875.

Marsh TW, IT Robertson, AR Duff, RA Phillips, MD Cooper and A Weyman (1995) Improving

behaviour using goal setting and feedback. Leadership and Organization Development Journal

16(1), 5–12.

Martocchio JJ (1994) Effects of conceptions of ability on anxiety, self-efficacy, and learning in

training. Journal of Applied Psychology 79(6), 819–825.

McCrystal S and B Smith (2011) Industrial legislation in 2010. Journal of Industrial Relations 53(3),

288–302.

McSween TE (1995) The values-based safety process: Improving your safety culture with a behavioral

approach. Van Nostrand Reinhold, London.

Mearns K, SM Whitaker and R Flin (2003) Safety climate, safety management practice and safety

performance in offshore environments. Safety Science 41(8), 641–680.

Moran ET and JF Volkwein (1992) The cultural approach to the formation of organizational climate.

Human Relations 45(1), 19–47.

Mould RF (1988) Chernobyl: The real story. Pergamon, Sydney, NSW.

Mullen J, KE Kelloway and M Teed (2011) Inconsistent style of leadership as a predictor of safety

behavior. Work and Stress 25(1), 41–54.

Newnam S, MA Griffin and C Mason (2008) Safety in work vehicles: A multilevel study linking safety

values and individual predictors to work-related driving crashes. Journal of Applied Psychology

93(3), 632–644.

O’Neill BS and MA Mone (1998) Investigating equity sensitivity as a moderator of relations between

self-efficacy and workplace attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology 83(5), 805–816.

Ozer EM and BA Bandura (1990) Mechanisms governing empowerment effects: A self-efficacy

analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58(3), 472–486.

Petersen D (1994) Integrating safety into total quality management. Professional Safety 39(6), 28–30.

Pfeffer J and RI Sutton (1999) The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge into action.

Harvard University Press, Boston.

Pidgeon N (1998) Safety culture: Key theoretical issues. Work and Stress 12(3), 202–216.

Prussia GE, KA Brown and PG Willis (2003) Mental models of safety: Do managers and employees see

eye to eye? Journal of Safety Research 34(2), 143–156.

Quintana R (1999) A task-delineated safety approach for slip, trip and fall hazards. Safety Science

33(1-2), 31–45.



Reason J (1998) Achieving a safe culture: Theory and practice. Work and Stress 12(4), 293–306.

Reason J, D Parker and R Lawton (1998) Organizational controls and safety: The varieties of rule-

related behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 71(4), 289–299.

Richter A and C Koch (2004) Integration, differentiation and ambiguity in safety cultures. Safety

Science 42(8), 703–722.

Schneider B (1975) Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology 28(4), 447–479.

Schultz D (2004) Employee attitudes – a must have. Occupational Health and Safety 73(6), 66–71.

Seo DC (2005) An explicative model of unsafe work behavior. Safety Science 43(3), 187–211.

Seo DC, MR Torabi and EH Blair (2004) A cross-validation of safety climate scale using confirmatory

factor analytic approach. Journal of Safety Research 35(4), 427–445.

Shannon HS, LS Robson and SJ Guastello (1999) Methodological criteria for evaluating occupational

safety intervention research. Safety Science 31(2), 161–179.

Shrivastava P (1987) Bhopal: An anatomy of a crisis. Ballinger, Cambridge.

Sims B (2004) Do incentives programs lead to injury hiding? Occupational Health and Safety 73(6),

102–104.

Skinner BF (1971) Beyond freedom and dignity. Alfred A Knopf, New York.

Smith S (2002) Safety incentives: It’s not just a breakfast anymore. Occupational Hazards 64(6), 57–

61.

Snyder LA, AD Krauss, PY Chen, S Finlinson and Y Huang (2008) Occupational safety: Application

of the job-demand-control-support model. Accident Analysis and Prevention 40, 1713–1723.

Stajkovic AD and F Luthans (1998) Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy: Going Beyond tradi-

tional motivational and behavioral approaches. Organizational Dynamics 26(4), 62–74.

Stephenson MT, K Witte, C Vaught, BL Quick, S Booth-Butterfield, D Patel and C Zuckerman (2005)

Using persuasive messages to encourage voluntary hearing protection among coal miners. Journal

of Safety Research 36(1), 9–17.

Tait R and D Walker (2000) Motivating the workforce: The value of external health and safety awards.

Journal of Safety Research 31(4), 234–251.

Tharaldsen JE and K Haukelid (2009) Culture and behavioral perspectives on safety – towards a

balanced approach. Journal of Risk Research 12(3-4), 375–388.

Thatcher JJ (2003) Culture or behavior: Which comes first? Occupational Hazards 65(4), 52–54.

Vecchio-Sadus AM and S Griffiths (2004) Marketing strategies for enhancing safety culture. Safety

Science 42(7), 601–619.

Vinodkumar MN and M Bhasi (2010) Safety management practices and safety behaviour: Assessing

the mediating role of safety knowledge and motivation. Accident Analysis and Prevention 42,

2082–2093.

Vredenburgh AG (2002) Organizational safety: Which management practices are most effective in

reducing employee injury rates. Journal of Safety Research 33(2), 259–276.

Wagenaar WA and J Groeneweg (1987) Accidents at sea: Multiple causes and impossible conse-

quences. International Journal of Man-machine Studies 27(5-6), 587–598.

Weyman A, DD Clarke and T Cox (2003) Developing a factor model of coal miners’ attributions on

risk-taking at work. Work and Stress 17(4), 306–320.

Williams JH and ES Geller (2000) Behaviour-based intervention for occupational safety: Critical

impact of social comparison feedback. Journal of Safety Research 31(3), 135–142.

Williamson AM, A-M Feyer, D Cairns and D Biancotti (1997) The development of a measure of safety

climate: The role of safety perceptions and attitudes. Safety Science 25(1-3), 15–27.



Wills A, B Watson and H Biggs (2009) An exploratory investigation into safety climate and work-

related driving. Work (Reading, MA) 32, 81–94.

Wood R and A Bandura (1989) Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of

Management Review 14(3), 361–384.

Zacharatos A, J Barling and RD Iverson (2005) High-performance work systems and occupational

safety. Journal of Applied Psychology 90(1), 77–93.

Zohar D (1980) Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications.

Journal of Applied Psychology 65(1), 96–102.



a psychological approach to occupational safety

Documents