THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CORRECTED. SEE LAST PAGE Journal of Applied Psychology 2015, Vol. 100, No. 2, 481– 498

© 2014 American Psychological Association 0021-9010/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037916

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

A Meta-Analysis of Personality and Workplace Safety: Addressing Unanswered Questions Jeremy M. Beus

Lindsay Y. Dhanani and Mallory A. McCord

Louisiana State University

University of Central Florida

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to address unanswered questions regarding the associations between personality and workplace safety by (a) clarifying the magnitude and meaning of these associations with both broad and facet-level personality traits, (b) delineating how personality is associated with workplace safety, and (c) testing the relative importance of personality in comparison to perceptions of the social context of safety (i.e., safety climate) in predicting safety-related behavior. Our results revealed that whereas agreeableness and conscientiousness were negatively associated with unsafe behaviors, extraversion and neuroticism were positively associated with them. Of these traits, agreeableness accounted for the largest proportion of explained variance in safety-related behavior and openness to experience was unrelated. At the facet level, sensation seeking, altruism, anger, and impulsiveness were all meaningfully associated with safety-related behavior, though sensation seeking was the only facet that demonstrated a stronger relationship than its parent trait (i.e., extraversion). In addition, meta-analytic path modeling supported the theoretical expectation that personality’s associations with accidents are mediated by safety-related behavior. Finally, although safety climate perceptions accounted for the majority of explained variance in safety-related behavior, personality traits (i.e., agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism) still accounted for a unique and substantive proportion of the explained variance. Taken together, these results substantiate the value of considering personality traits as key correlates of workplace safety. Keywords: safety, personality, five-factor model, accidents, safety climate

plan & Tetrick, 2011; Shaw & Sichel, 1971). This effort requires the identification of individual difference factors that can predict future accident involvement and has spawned research in a variety of domains (Lawton & Parker, 1998). Personality traits have been some of the most commonly considered individual difference predictors of workplace accidents (Kaplan & Tetrick, 2011; Lawton & Parker, 1998), due likely to the manifestation of personality in worker decisions and behaviors (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hogan, 1991). The relevance of personality in the domain of workplace safety is evidenced by at least three meta-analyses that have reported population estimates of relationships between personality traits and safety-related outcomes (Christian, Bradley, Wallace, & Burke, 2009; Clarke & Robertson, 2005, 2008). However, despite this body of research, several pertinent questions regarding the role of personality in workplace safety have been insufficiently addressed. These concern the magnitude and meaning of personality’s associations with workplace safety, how personality is associated with workplace safety, and whether personality’s associations with workplace safety remain meaningful when considered simultaneously with perceptions of the social context. We expand upon these issues below. First, because existing meta-analyses have predominantly examined the associations between personality traits and workplace accidents (i.e., Clarke & Robertson, 2005, 2008), the degree to which personality traits are related to the more immediate outcome of safety-related behavior is unclear. Although Christian et al. (2009) reported meta-analytic associations between conscientious-

Each year, workplace accidents result in thousands of fatalities, millions of lost work hours, and billions of dollars in expenses in the United States alone (Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, 2012; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012). Most workplace accidents—safety incidents resulting in worker injury, property damage, or both—are estimated to be at least partly due to human error (Hollnagel, 1993; Wiegmann & Shappell, 2003). Furthermore, the majority of accidents affected by human error are often perpetrated by a comparatively small subset of employees (Lawton & Parker, 1998; Visser, Pijl, Stolk, Neeleman, & Rosmalen, 2007). For example, in a large sample of commercial drivers, 20 percent of the drivers accounted for nearly 80 percent of all driving accidents (Knipling et al., 2004). Correspondingly, a commonly touted means of reducing safety incidents is to screen out so-called accident-prone employees in the hiring process (Ka-

This article was published Online First September 22, 2014. Jeremy M. Beus, Rucks Department of Management, Louisiana State University; Lindsay Y. Dhanani and Mallory A. McCord, Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida. We thank Stephanie Payne for her insightful comments on a draft of this paper and also Amanda Wolcott and Ariana Cukier for their assistance with coding primary studies. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jeremy M. Beus, Rucks Department of Management, E. J. Ourso College of Business, Louisiana State University, 2716 Business Education Complex, Baton Rouge, LA 70803. E-mail: [email protected] 481

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

482

BEUS, DHANANI, AND MCCORD

ness and locus of control with safe behavior, a more expansive set of safety-related personality traits—at both broad and facet levels—must be considered and compared to better understand the magnitude of personality’s associations with safety-related behavior. Further, there have been few theoretical attempts to clearly explain why personality traits are connected to safety-related behavior. As such, observed empirical associations between personality and safety-related behavior have unclear or inconsistent interpretations. Second, the frequent examination of personality traits as direct antecedents of workplace accidents fails to consider how personality leads to accident occurrence (Kaplan & Tetrick, 2011). Because personality is a psychological construct that is reflected in behavior, it is more theoretically plausible that personality affects employees’ safety-related behavior, which in turn affects accident occurrence (Christian et al., 2009; Neal & Griffin, 2004). Thus, the previously established relationships between personality traits and accidents should be mediated by safety-related behavior. However, to our knowledge, these mediated relationships have not been tested in the safety literature and are needed to affirm the more proximal importance of safety-related behavior as an outcome of personality. Finally, because the manifestations of personality traits in employee behavior can be constrained by the organizational context (Johns, 2006; Schneider, 1987), there is a need to consider whether personality contributes to the prediction of safety-related behavior beyond the perceived context of work (e.g., safety climate). An expanding research base on the social context of safety suggests that workers’ perceptions of the degree to which safety is prioritized by leaders and coworkers meaningfully influence safetyrelated behavior (Christian et al., 2009; Nahrgang, Morgeson, & Hofmann, 2011; Zohar, 2011). However, whether personality uniquely explains safety-related behavior beyond perceptions of such contextual factors remains an open question with important practical implications for both personality and climate. Our purpose in this study is thus to meta-analytically address these questions regarding personality and workplace safety. In doing so, we (a) clarify the magnitude and meaning of the relationships between personality traits—at both broad and facet levels—and safety-related behavior; (b) test safety-related behavior as a mediator of relationships between personality traits and accidents with meta-analytic path modeling techniques; and (c) examine the contributions of personality in predicting safety-related behavior in comparison to perceptions of the social context with a metaanalytic relative weights test (Johnson & LeBreton, 2004; Tonidandel & LeBreton, 2011). Taken together, this study confirms and clarifies the unique and meaningful connection between individual personality traits and workplace safety. We place primary focus on the outcome of safety-related behavior for this meta-analysis, because it is both more proximally related to personality and under greater volitional control relative to accidents. We define safety-related behavior as workplace behaviors that affect the extent to which individuals or the workplace in general are free from physical threat or harm. This includes behaviors that (a) mitigate physical threat or harm (i.e., safe behavior), whether rule prescribed or discretionary (Griffin & Neal, 2000), and also behaviors that (b) subject individuals or the workplace to greater physical threat or harm (i.e., unsafe behavior), whether intentional or unintentional. The consideration of

both safe and unsafe behaviors in our definition expands upon existing conceptualizations of safety-related behavior, which have tended to focus solely on safe behavior (e.g., Burke, Sarpy, Tesluk, & Smith-Crowe, 2002; Griffin & Neal, 2000; Hofmann, Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003). We believe that the added consideration of unsafe behavior provides broader representation of the content domain of safety-related behavior and more comprehensively captures the mechanisms through which personality traits influence accident occurrences relative to considering only safe behavior.

Relationships Between Personality and Safety-Related Behavior We draw from Barrick, Mount, and Li’s (2013) theory of purposeful work behavior to explain personality’s associations with safety-related behavior. This theory asserts that work behavior is driven by motivation to attain implicit higher order goals which differ in importance as a function of individual personality traits (Barrick et al., 2013). As with Barrick et al. (2013), we use the five-factor model (FFM; McCrae & Costa, 1999) to conceptualize personality because its dimensions parsimoniously cover the spectrum of human personality across contexts and cultures (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1987; Tupes & Christal, 1992) and over time (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). The five broad personality traits included in this taxonomy—which subsume a number of lower level personality facets—are extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism (or emotional stability), and openness to experience. According to the theory of purposeful work behavior, the FFM personality traits predispose individuals in varying degrees to strive for the higher order goals of communion, status, autonomy, and achievement (Barrick et al., 2013). Derived from an expansive body of existing motivational theories (e.g., Gagne & Deci, 2005; Maslow, 1943; McClelland, 1971; Steers & Braunstein, 1976), these implicit higher order goals are posited to have near-universal motivating effects on individual work behavior. Whereas the goal of communion is to get along with and have meaningful contact with others, status is the desire to exert power and influence over others (Barrick et al., 2013). Likewise, autonomy represents the desire to enact control over the work environment and experience personal growth, and the goal of achievement is to show competence and create a sense of personal accomplishment (Barrick et al., 2013). Although these goals have broad motivational power, the FFM traits should predispose individuals to more strongly pursue certain goals relative to others (Barrick et al., 2013). For example, because agreeable individuals place higher value on the goal of communion, they are more likely to engage in work behaviors that are specifically instrumental in achieving this higher order goal. To provide a context-specific application of Barrick et al.’s theory, we posit that safety-related behaviors—whether safe or unsafe— can be instrumental in attaining higher order goals and that motivation to attain these goals drives worker behavior. Thus, at a general level, we theorize that the associations between personality and safety-related behavior are explained by individuals’ motivations to achieve valued goals. Working from this theoretical perspective, we next present hypotheses regarding the relationships between the FFM personality traits and safety-related behavior. Although we posit that the FFM traits can affect both safe and unsafe behaviors as a means of

PERSONALITY AND SAFETY

accomplishing higher order goals, we present all subsequent directional hypotheses (i.e., Hypotheses 1–5) in terms of unsafe behavior for simplicity in communicating the direction of relationships.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Extraversion Individuals high in extraversion are described as outgoing, spontaneous, bold, and fun loving (McCrae & Costa, 1987). According to Barrick et al. (2013), extraverts place primary importance on the higher order goal of attaining status, or gaining social power and prestige. As a result, highly extraverted individuals are more likely to direct their safety-related behaviors in a way that helps to achieve this goal. Because of a greater propensity to compete with and get ahead of others to improve perceived status (Barrick et al., 2013), extraverted individuals may be more likely to work unsafely by cutting corners or ignoring safety rules to gain a competitive advantage over coworkers. Engaging in unsafe actions to get ahead can be necessary in many contexts because of the natural trade-off between safety and productivity (e.g., Wallace & Chen, 2006). In support of this theoretical expectation, research has revealed positive correlations between extraversion and unsafe behaviors (e.g., Burns & Wilde, 1995; DeJoy, Searcy, Murphy, & Gershon, 2000), which suggests that individuals higher in extraversion are more likely than individuals lower in extraversion to engage in unsafe behavior. Consequently, we hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 1: Extraversion is positively associated with unsafe behavior.

Agreeableness Agreeableness is characterized by cooperativeness, altruism, and tender-mindedness, and individuals high in agreeableness tend to be more prosocial and to have greater motivation to get along (Graziano & Eisenberg, 1997; McCrae & Costa, 1987). As such, agreeable individuals are predisposed to pursue the higher order goal of communion (Barrick et al., 2013). That is, agreeable individuals are driven to behave in a way that fosters and preserves positive and meaningful relationships with others. Because safety is a collaborative effort that can be compromised by the actions of a single person, unsafe behaviors are inherently socially dysfunctional. As a result, individuals high in agreeableness should be less likely to engage in unsafe behavior, because doing so could damage interpersonal relationships and jeopardize group well-being. This supposition is supported by studies that have found that agreeableness is positively related to safety compliance and safety participation (e.g., Buck, 2011) and negatively related to risky behavior (e.g., Machin & Sankey, 2008). We thus hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 2: Agreeableness is negatively associated with unsafe behavior.

Conscientiousness Conscientious people are thorough and responsible, and they tend to follow rules and avoid risk (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Evidenced by an inherent desire to successfully complete work

483

tasks and be timely, careful, and efficient in doing so, conscientious individuals are predisposed to pursue the higher order goal of achievement (Barrick et al., 2013). This goal should subsequently affect the extent to which individuals choose to work safely. For example, although safety can often be compromised to speed task completion (Wallace & Chen, 2006), it is neither responsible nor efficient to work unsafely due to the risk of causing harm to persons, property, or the environment and the possibility of delaying the completion of work tasks as a result. Thus, for individuals higher in conscientiousness, unsafe behaviors should generally be inconsistent with the higher order goal of achievement, given the risk of negative consequences for working unsafely. This theorized relationship has been supported by studies that have found that conscientious individuals engaged in fewer unsafe behaviors in a manufacturing setting (Wallace & Vodanovich, 2003) and committed fewer errors in professional driving (Seibokaite & Endriulaitiene, 2012). Hence, we posit the following: Hypothesis 3: Conscientiousness is negatively associated with unsafe behavior.

Neuroticism People who are high in neuroticism are more prone to anxiety, self-consciousness, and stress, whereas people who are low in neuroticism (i.e., high in emotional stability) tend to be more calm, secure, and confident (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Given these characteristics, individuals low in neuroticism are more capable of forming positive interpersonal relationships and successfully completing work tasks— even in the face of stressful situations— which reflects a predisposition to attain the higher order goals of communion and achievement, respectively (Barrick et al., 2013). As already noted, working safely should aid in the accomplishment of both of these goals. However, individuals high in neuroticism are less likely to be successful in doing so. For these individuals, a preoccupation with negative emotions and external stressors may strain work relationships and lead to distracted thinking, which can adversely affect safety-related behavior. Likewise, a greater tendency for negative emotions such as anger and impulsiveness can also lead to irrational decisions concerning safety-related behavior. In support of this expectation, Neal and Griffin (2006) found that higher levels of neuroticism were associated with lower levels of safety compliance and participation. Similarly, in a sample of professional drivers, Seibokaite and Endriulaitiene (2012) found that more neurotic individuals tended to engage in more frequent unsafe driving behaviors than did less neurotic individuals. We thus hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 4: Neuroticism is positively associated with unsafe behavior.

Openness to Experience Openness to experience is associated with being broad-minded, artistic, and intellectual; individuals who are high in openness are described as inquisitive, adventurous, daring, and curious (McCrae & Costa, 1987). These individuals tend to be dissatisfied with routine or traditional environments and are more inclined to question authority (Judge & LePine, 2007). Correspondingly, individuals high in openness are motivated by the higher order goal of

484

BEUS, DHANANI, AND MCCORD

autonomy, such that they desire to have greater control over what they do and how they do it (Barrick et al., 2013). Given the inherently regimented and controlled nature of following safety regulations, individuals higher in openness may be more likely to disregard safety rules as a means of establishing higher autonomy. As indirect support for this proposition, a meta-analysis by Salgado (2002) reported that individuals higher in openness were more likely to engage in deviant work behaviors. Consequently, we posit the following hypothesis:

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Hypothesis 5: Openness to experience is positively associated with unsafe behavior.

Facet-Level Personality and Safety-Related Behavior Although a conceptual benefit of the FFM is its ability to parsimoniously capture a broad range of personality characteristics in a small set of representative traits (Costa & McCrae, 1992), there is also an explanatory trade-off when describing personality in such broad terms (Oswald & Hough, 2011). Research has consistently demonstrated that the broad FFM traits tend to be less strongly associated with narrow or domain-specific outcomes than are relevant lower level facets (e.g., Ashton, 1998; Hough, 1992; Moon, Hollenbeck, Marinova, & Humphrey, 2008; Paunonen, Haddock, Forsterling, & Keinonen, 2003). Thus, the use of broader, more explanatory personality traits can at times result in diminished behavioral prediction. This trade-off is termed the bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personality research (e.g., Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996) but is more broadly referred to as the compatibility principle (e.g., Ajzen, 1988; Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006). The principle states that the theoretical and empirical connection between two constructs will be strongest when both are matched in specificity or generality. For the present context, this implies that relevant facet-level personality traits may reveal superior connections with domain-specific safety-related behaviors relative to the broader FFM traits. For example, extraversion’s sensation-seeking facet (also called excitement seeking) may be more strongly associated with unsafe behavior than is the broader trait of extraversion. Sensation seeking reflects a need to pursue excitement and stimulation and a willingness to take risks (Zuckerman, 1979) and may promote a tendency to engage in unsafe or risky behaviors to achieve status as a dominant higher order goal. Because the broader trait of extraversion likewise encompasses facets such as cheerfulness and gregariousness (Oswald & Hough, 2011), which are arguably less likely to elicit unsafe behaviors to increase status, sensation seeking should be more strongly associated with safety-related behavior than the broader trait of extraversion because they are matched in specificity. Similarly, whereas altruism, a facet of agreeableness, should directly increase the tendency to engage in groupserving safe behaviors to contribute to the higher order goal of communion, the facets of modesty and sympathy are more likely to impact communion via ways other than engaging in safetyrelated behavior. Thus, altruism should have a stronger association with safety-related behavior than should the more expansive trait of agreeableness. We expect similar patterns of associations for the other FFM traits based on the compatibility principle. Consequently, we posit the following general hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6: Relevant facet-level personality traits are more strongly associated with safety-related behavior than are broad-level personality traits.

The Mediating Role of Safety-Related Behavior Though past meta-analyses have reported meaningful relationships between personality traits (e.g., conscientiousness, agreeableness) and accidents (Clarke & Robertson, 2005, 2008), we propose that these relationships are mediated by safety-related behavior. The consideration of safety-related behavior as a proximal outcome of personality for the theoretical reasons outlined previously is important, because safety-related behaviors are both more directly affected by personality and under greater volitional control relative to accidents. Although accidents are often at least partly a function of factors beyond worker control (e.g., equipment defects, weather; Reason, 1990), they are still widely influenced by safety-related behavior (Christian et al., 2009; Nahrgang et al., 2011). This should be true whether the behaviors are safe or unsafe, rule-prescribed or discretionary, intentional or unintentional. Thus, personality’s effects on workplace accidents should be transmitted primarily through safety-related behaviors (Christian et al., 2009; Hogan & Foster, 2013; Neal & Griffin, 2004; Turner, McClure, & Pirozzo, 2004). For example, although conscientiousness has revealed direct empirical associations with accidents, it is arguably not the psychological trait of conscientiousness—reflecting a tendency toward dutifulness or orderliness— that directly prevents (or leads to) accidents but rather actual conscientious behaviors such as following (or failing to follow) safety rules and regulations that mitigate (or increase) accident occurrence. Likewise, for agreeableness, it is not having a prosocial orientation reflecting a desire for communion but engaging in prosocial behaviors such as removing trip hazards or reporting near miss accidents that influences the occurrence of accidents. Thus, we posit that the distal effects of personality traits on accidents are mediated by safety-related behaviors. Hypothesis 7: The relationships between personality traits and accidents are mediated by safety-related behavior.

The Relative Importance of Personality Lewin’s (1951) seminal theoretical contention that behavior is a function of the person and the environment suggests that individual difference characteristics and perceptions of the work context each impact individual behavior. In the domain of safety, safety climate— or perceptions of workplace safety expectations and norms (Zohar, 2011)—represents a pervasive indicator of the social context of safety that can either constrain or facilitate safety-related behaviors (at both individual and group levels; Christian et al., 2009). This is because safety climate informs employees of safety’s workplace priority and thus whether safe behaviors are likely to be reinforced by leaders and fellow coworkers (Zohar, 2011). In support of Lewin’s (1951) proposition in the domain of safety, Christian et al. (2009) reported nonzero meta-analytic correlations between both personality traits (e.g., conscientiousness) and safety climate perceptions with safety-related behavior. However, because these reported relationships do not differentiate

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

PERSONALITY AND SAFETY

between the unique variance in safety-related behavior explained by either personality or safety climate perceptions (Tonidandel & LeBreton, 2011), the relative importance of these factors in predicting workplace safety is still unknown. For example, although we have outlined theoretical reasons to expect personality to influence safety-related behavior and subsequent accidents, it is possible that the expression of personality traits in safety-related behavior is superseded by individual safety climate perceptions that communicate the extent to which safety-related behaviors are supported and reinforced in the work environment (Johns, 2006). That is, individuals’ safety climate perceptions may have the dominant effect on safety-related behavior relative to personality because of the influence that perceived social norms for safety can have on individual behavior (Hofmann et al., 2003; Zohar, 2011). Conversely, personality may still be uniquely associated with individuals’ safety-related behavior independent of the demonstrated relationship between safety climate perceptions and behavior (Christian et al., 2009; Nahrgang et al., 2011). This is possible given that it is perhaps unlikely for perceptions of the work environment— even under highly controlled, safety-salient conditions—to fully restrict the expression of personality in individuals’ safety-related behavior. Because of the tendency for research on safety-related individual differences (e.g., personality) and contextual factors (e.g., safety climate) to fall under parallel yet separate research streams, we underscore the necessity of integrating these perspectives to gain a more complete understanding of the importance of personality relative to known contextual factors in explaining safetyrelated behavior. Failure to do so could lead to the fundamental attribution error, or the tendency to overweight the influence of personal factors on behavior relative to contextual factors (Hofmann & Stetzer, 1998; Jones, 1979; Miller, Jones, & Hinkle, 1981). Thus, in the absence of research that has considered this issue, we posit the following research question: Does personality explain unique variance in safety-related behavior independent of the variance explained by individual safety climate perceptions?

Method Literature Search To locate relevant empirical studies, we conducted an online literature search using PsycINFO, MEDLINE, ABI-Inform, and Google Scholar databases. The following keywords were searched: personality, five factor model, Big Five, extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness, neuroticism, emotional stability, agreeableness, safety, safety performance, safety behavior, accident, injury, and safety climate. Searches were conducted with all combinations of personality and safety-related keywords. Additional studies were located by searching the reference sections of obtained articles.

485

tained within a single study were included provided that they involved independent samples or examined multiple distinct personality variables. Studies assessing personality traits not explicitly labeled as the FFM were included if the examined personality traits had sufficient overlap with one of the FFM traits (e.g., socially bold for extraversion). However, studies measuring traits that were irrelevant to the FFM (e.g., Type A personality, locus of control) or that overlapped with more than one FFM trait were excluded (e.g., normlessness, which encompasses aspects of both conscientiousness and agreeableness). These inclusion criteria ultimately yielded 69 eligible studies (N ⫽ 23,740). All studies included in our meta-analyses are marked with an asterisk in the reference list.

Data Coding Procedures Studies were coded for all relevant sample information as well as information regarding the predictor and criterion measures (e.g., reliability, safe vs. unsafe behavior measures). Although we included studies that assessed both safe and unsafe behaviors, all effect sizes were transposed to reflect the relationship between personality and unsafe behaviors; this decision was made to be consistent with the direction of hypotheses and because more studies assessed unsafe as opposed to safe behaviors. Typical safety-related behaviors assessed across the examined primary studies included using (failing to use) safety equipment, following (disregarding) safety procedures, and promoting (circumventing) workplace safety programs (e.g., Buck, 2011; DeJoy et al., 2000; Geller, Roberts, & Gilmore, 1996; Wallace & Chen, 2006). Because we defined accidents as safety incidents resulting in either worker injury or property damage, we included studies that assessed either or both injurious and noninjurious accidents (e.g., Christian et al., 2009)—though the overwhelming majority of studies did not differentiate between injurious and noninjurious accidents. We used this inclusive accident conceptualization to be consistent with the primary studies and because, theoretically, the root causes of both injurious and noninjurious accidents should be the same. Four individuals coded the articles included in this metaanalysis. The coders were three industrial-organizational psychology doctoral students and an undergraduate honors in psychology student who were trained in meta-analytic procedures by the first author. Each article was coded by at least two people independently. However, before the full set of articles was coded, five articles were coded by all four coders as a training exercise to establish a common frame of reference across all coders. Once sufficient agreement was obtained with these five articles, the remaining articles were split between the two pairs of coders; the first pair had an initial agreement of 97% across all articles, and the second pair had an initial agreement of 87%. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and by review of the relevant articles until complete consensus was reached within each pair.

Inclusion Criteria Both published and unpublished studies were deemed eligible for inclusion if they reported a correlation coefficient— or sufficient information to compute one— between at least one FFM personality trait or lower level personality facet and safety-related behavior, accidents, or safety climate. Multiple effect sizes con-

Meta-Analytic Procedures Meta-analyses for this study were conducted with Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) meta-analytic approach. We corrected for sampling error as well as unreliability in both personality and safetyrelated behavior measures; accident measures were not corrected

BEUS, DHANANI, AND MCCORD

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

486

for unreliability, as there was insufficient information to estimate reliability for these measures. Because not all studies reported internal consistency estimates for personality and safety-related behavior measures, we used artifact distributions to metaanalytically correct for unreliability. The mean reliability estimates for these artifact distributions are reported in Table 1. Confidence intervals (95%) were computed around each corrected meta-analytic estimate to communicate the extent to which sampling error affects the accuracy of our mean effect size estimates (Whitener, 1990). Credibility intervals (80%) were also calculated around each meta-analytic estimate to determine whether our effect size estimates represent a single population or multiple subpopulations (Whitener, 1990). Whereas narrow credibility intervals suggest a single population and thus no moderators, wide credibility intervals suggest the presence of subpopulations or the possibility of moderators (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004; Whitener, 1990). We tested for potential moderators with Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) subgroup meta-analysis procedure. For this approach, separate meta-analyses were conducted for each moderator condition, and significant differences were determined by comparing confidence intervals for each condition. Moderation was supported when moderator conditions revealed nonoverlapping confidence intervals. To test safety-related behavior as a mediator of the relationships between the FFM traits and accidents, we conducted a meta-analytic path analysis in LISREL 8.8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006). In order to test the proposed model, we first constructed a meta-analytic correlation matrix including intercorrelations among the broad FFM traits, safety-related behavior (coded in the direction of unsafe behavior), and accidents. We excluded facet-level personality traits from the matrix, given the unavailability of studies to meta-analyze all the necessary intercorrelations. All of the estimated relationships included in this correlation matrix are original meta-analyses with the exception of the intercorrelations among the broad FFM traits. These estimates were taken from a comprehensive metaanalysis conducted by Ones (1993). One issue that arises when testing a meta-analytic path model is that structural equation modeling assumes a single sample size for all correlations included in the matrix (Landis, 2013; Table 1 Mean Sample-Based Reliability Estimates Used for Artifact Distributions Construct

Mean reliability estimate

Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness to experience Sensation seeking Altruism Order Anger Impulsiveness Anxiety Safety climate Unsafe behavior

.73 .77 .81 .79 .76 .75 .75 .84 .79 .77 .78 .90 .84

Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995). However, the sample sizes associated with each meta-analytic correlation often vary substantially. For our path analyses, we used the conservative approach of selecting the smallest sample size of any of the correlations between the FFM personality traits and either unsafe behavior or accidents (N ⫽ 1,633). We did this to prevent particularly large sample sizes from having an undue effect on model estimates (Landis, 2013). We evaluated model fit with the chi-squared index (␹2), comparative fit index (CFI), root-meansquare error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized rootmean-square residual (SRMR).

Results Preliminary Moderator Analyses Before testing our hypotheses, we conducted three preliminary moderator tests. First, we examined whether our conceptualization of safety-related behavior as a combination of safe and unsafe behaviors was appropriate from an empirical perspective. Second, we tested study context as a potential moderator of personality’s associations with safety-related behavior to verify the appropriateness of combining studies from divergent settings. Finally, we tested age as a potential moderator in light of research suggesting that age impacts safety-related behavior (e.g., Loughlin & Frone, 2004).1 Safe versus unsafe behavior measures. To evaluate the appropriateness of including both safe and unsafe behaviors in our conceptualization of safety-related behavior, we tested the type of safety-related behavior measure used as a potential moderator of relationships between personality and safetyrelated behavior. Thus, we conducted separate meta-analyses of each FFM trait correlated with safe versus unsafe behaviors. In order to accurately compare personality’s effect size estimates with safe relative to unsafe behaviors, we kept all correlations in the same direction (i.e., the direction of unsafe behavior). This was necessary to allow for a more accurate comparison of confidence intervals between moderator conditions. For example, whereas neuroticism was positively correlated with unsafe behavior (␳ ⫽ .15) and negatively correlated with safe behavior (␳ ⫽ ⫺.11), the direction of the safe behavior effect size was reversed to .11 to facilitate a more accurate comparison of effect size magnitudes. This was done for each test of this moderator. Ultimately, however, results reported in Table 2 show that there were no significant differences in FFM trait correlations with safe or unsafe behavior for extraversion, conscientiousness, or neuroticism based on overlapping confidence intervals. There were insufficient studies to make this comparison for either agreeableness or openness to experience. Taken 1 We also tested sample sex composition and type of personality measure as potential moderators of personality’s associations with safetyrelated behavior. That is, we compared associations from mixed-sex samples with all-male samples for extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. We also compared associations based on the use of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, and the International Personality Item Pool for extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism. However, none of these moderator tests revealed statistically significant results. Details for these moderator tests are available from the first author upon request.

PERSONALITY AND SAFETY

487

Table 2 Results for Preliminary Moderator Analyses of Personality and Safety-Related Behavior Relationships Moderator

r



3,851 2,488

.06 .10

.08 .13

10 8

2,898 1,636

⫺.18 ⫺.27

⫺.23 ⫺.32

17 5

3,498 864

.12 .09

16 4

5,515 863

8 8

k

N

95% CI

SD␳

80% CV

14 4

[⫺.03, .19] [⫺.12, .38]

.10 .13

[⫺.06, .21] [⫺.03, .29]

[⫺.30, ⫺.16] [⫺.39, ⫺.24]

.06 .06

[⫺.30, ⫺.15] [⫺.39, ⫺.24]

.15 .11

[.05, .25] [⫺.03, .25]

.12 .09

[⫺.01, .31] [⫺.00, .22]

.06 .16

.09 .21

[⫺.02, .20] [.01, .41]

.09 .15

[⫺.03, .21] [.03, .40]

2,565 1,430

⫺.20 ⫺.23

⫺.25 ⫺.26

[⫺.31, ⫺.18] [⫺.36, ⫺.17]

.06 .09

[⫺.32, ⫺.17] [⫺.38, ⫺.15]

15 4

3,367 562

.13 .07

.16 .08

[.10, .23] [⫺.11, .28]

.07 .11

[.07, .26] [⫺.05, .22]

11 5

3,416 2,130

.05 .08

.07 .10

[⫺.07, .20] [.05, .14]

.11 0b

[⫺.08, .21]

6 4

1,401 1,392

⫺.25 ⫺.21

⫺.31 ⫺.26

[⫺.39, ⫺.23] [⫺.32, ⫺.20]

.06 .04

[⫺.39, ⫺.23] [⫺.32, ⫺.21]

11 4

2,401 1,392

⫺.26 ⫺.14

⫺.31 ⫺.17

[⫺.36, ⫺.26] [⫺.21, ⫺.12]

.03 0b

[⫺.35, ⫺.27]

11 5

1,923 1,505

.13 .12

.17 .15

[.09, .24] [.04, .25]

.11 .07

[.02, .31] [.06, .24]

4 4

1,304 1,392

⫺.02 ⫺.02

⫺.02 ⫺.02

[⫺.10, .06] [⫺.07, .02]

0b 0b

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

a

Safe vs. unsafe behavior Extraversion Unsafe behavior Safe behavior Conscientiousness Unsafe behavior Safe behavior Neuroticism Unsafe behavior Safe behavior Study context Extraversion Driving Nondriving Conscientiousness Driving Nondriving Neuroticism Driving Nondriving Age Extraversion Adults Young adults Agreeableness Adults Young adults Conscientiousness Adults Young adults Neuroticism Adults Young adults Openness Adults Young adults

Note. k ⫽ the number of independent effect sizes included in each analysis; N ⫽ sample size; r⫽ sample-weighted mean uncorrected correlation; ␳ ⫽ sample-weighted mean corrected correlation; 95% CI ⫽ 95% confidence interval around ␳; SD␳ ⫽ standard deviation of the mean corrected correlation; 80% CV ⫽ 80% credibility interval around ␳. a Safe and unsafe behavior correlations were both kept in the direction of unsafe behaviors to appropriately compare confidence intervals across moderator conditions. b For these analyses, the variance of ␳ was less than the average sampling error estimate that was subtracted from it, which results in negative estimates of SD␳; Hunter and Schmidt (2004) asserted that such cases should be interpreted as zero variance.

together, these results support our decision to consider safetyrelated behavior as a combination of safe and unsafe work behaviors. Thus, although our directional hypothesis tests are reported in the direction of unsafe behavior, safe and unsafe behavior were combined to estimate these meta-analytic associations in light of these supportive findings. Study context. In the course of gathering primary studies, we discovered that a large number of studies that tested associations between personality traits and safety-related behavior did so in a driving context. In such cases, safety-related behaviors represented driving-specific behaviors (e.g., number of moving violations, seat-belt usage, and speeding frequency). However, because driving represents a key job task across a broad range of occupations and roadway incidents accounted for one out of four fatal occupational incidents in 2011 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012), we deemed driving studies to be relevant for inclusion in the present meta-analysis (cf. Newnam, Griffin, & Mason, 2008). Nevertheless, we tested driving

versus nondriving context as a potential moderator of personality and safety-related behavior relationships to determine if there were any meaningful differences in effect sizes across contexts. Reported in Table 2, these analyses revealed that context was not a significant moderator for conscientiousness, extraversion, or neuroticism as judged by overlapping confidence intervals. There were insufficient studies in a nondriving context to test this moderator for agreeableness or openness to experience. However, given that there were no observed differences based on study context for the three examined FFM traits, we did not distinguish between driving and nondriving studies for subsequent analyses. Age. Because age has been identified as a factor that affects safety-related behavior (with younger individuals considered more likely to engage in unsafe behavior; Loughlin & Frone, 2004) and some of our included samples were composed solely of young adults, we tested age as a potential moderator of personality’s associations with safety-related behavior. That is,

BEUS, DHANANI, AND MCCORD

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

488

we compared relationships between adult samples (samples with a mean or median age above 21 years) and young adult samples (samples with a mean or median age of 21 years or younger). As indicated in Table 2, this analysis revealed no significant differences in personality’s associations with safetyrelated behavior for extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness based on overlapping confidence intervals. However, for conscientiousness, adult samples revealed a significantly stronger association with safety-related behavior than did young adult samples. Nevertheless, because this moderator analysis indicated no relationship differences based on age for four of the five FFM traits, we elected not to differentiate effect sizes on the basis of mean sample age for subsequent analyses. We note that this decision causes the association between conscientiousness and safety-related behavior to be somewhat more conservative than it would be if young adult samples were excluded or were considered separately.

Results for Personality and Safety-Related Behavior Relationships Broad-level FFM results. Meta-analytic intercorrelations among the variables included in this study are reported in Table 3. As predicted by Hypothesis 1, extraversion was positively, albeit weakly, related to unsafe behavior (␳ ⫽ .10), indicating that higher levels of extraversion are associated with more unsafe behaviors. Results showed that both agreeableness (␳ ⫽ ⫺.26) and conscientiousness (␳ ⫽ ⫺.25) were negatively related to unsafe behavior, supporting Hypotheses 2 and 3, respectively. These results suggest that higher levels of both agreeableness and conscientiousness are associated with engaging in fewer unsafe behaviors. Likewise, consistent with Hypothesis 4, neuroticism was positively associated with unsafe behavior (␳ ⫽ .13), suggesting that higher levels of neuroticism are associated (though weakly) with more unsafe behaviors. However, contrary to Hypothesis 5, no relationship was

Table 3 Meta-Analytic Correlation Matrix for the FFM Personality Traits, Safety Climate, Unsafe Behavior, and Accidents Variable Agreeableness r; ␳ 95% CI 80% CV k; N Conscientiousness r; ␳ 95% CI 80% CV k; N Neuroticism r; ␳ 95% CI 80% CV k; N Openness r; ␳ 95% CI 80% CV k; N Safety climate r; ␳ 95% CI 80% CV k; N Unsafe behavior r; ␳ 95% CI 80% CV k; N Accidents r; ␳ 95% CI 80% CV k; N

Extraversion

Agreeableness

Conscientiousness

Neuroticism

Openness

Safety climate

Unsafe behavior

—, .17a — — 243; 135,529 —, .00a — — 632; 683,001

—, .27a — — 344; 162,975

—, ⫺.19a — — 710; 440,440

—, ⫺.25a — — 561; 415,679

—, ⫺.26a — — 587; 490,296

—, .17a — — 418; 252,004

—, .11a — — 236; 144,205

—, ⫺.06a — — 338; 356,680

—, ⫺.16a — — 423; 254,937

.14, .18 [⫺.01, .37] [.06, .30] 3; 556

.10, .11b [.06, .16] — 5; 971

⫺.14, ⫺.18 [⫺.30, ⫺.06] [⫺.21, ⫺.15] 5; 1,238

.07, .10 [.01, .19] [⫺.04, .24] 20; 6,378

⫺.20, ⫺.26 [⫺.30, ⫺.21] [⫺.32, ⫺.19] 12; 4,791

⫺.21, ⫺.25 [⫺.30, ⫺.20] [⫺.35, ⫺.15] 16; 3,995

.11, .13 [.06, .21] [⫺.03, .28] 19; 3,929

⫺.01, ⫺.02 [⫺.06, .03] — 10; 2,898

⫺.39, ⫺.49b [⫺.58, ⫺.40] [⫺.80, ⫺.24] 31; 15,327

.10, .11 [⫺.04, .27] [⫺.08, .26] 16; 3,018

⫺.07, ⫺.07 [⫺.12, ⫺.03] — 9; 4,239

⫺.11, ⫺.12 [⫺.13, ⫺.10] [⫺.17, ⫺.07] 9; 2,163

.06, .06 [⫺.01, .14] [⫺.02, .15] 15; 2,346

.05, .05 [.02, .09] — 6; 1,633

⫺.11, ⫺.14b [⫺.17, ⫺.11] [⫺.23, ⫺.04] 27; 27,639

— — — —

— — — —

.14, .15 [.07, .22] [⫺.09, .38] 20; 7,706

Note. Bolded values indicate mean corrected correlations. FFM ⫽ five-factor model; k ⫽ the number of independent effect sizes included in each analysis; N ⫽ sample size; r ⫽ sample-weighted mean uncorrected correlation; ␳ ⫽ sample-weighted mean corrected correlation; 95% CI ⫽ 95% confidence interval around ␳; 80% CV ⫽ 80% credibility interval around ␳. Dashes reflect unreported estimates. a Meta-analytic intercorrelations among the FFM personality traits were obtained from a comprehensive meta-analysis conducted by Ones (1993); these estimates were corrected for measure unreliability. Although mean estimates and confidence and credibility intervals were unavailable for the reported personality intercorrelations, the k and N for these estimates are extensive enough to support the accuracy of these intercorrelations. b Meta-analytic correlations obtained from Christian et al. (2009); these estimates were corrected for measure unreliability.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

PERSONALITY AND SAFETY

found between openness to experience and unsafe behavior (␳ ⫽ ⫺.02). To articulate the degree to which each FFM trait contributed to the prediction of safety-related behavior, we conducted a relative weights test (Johnson & LeBreton, 2004; Tonidandel & LeBreton, 2011) using a meta-analytic correlation matrix including the FFM traits and safety-related behavior. This analysis revealed that the FFM traits collectively accounted for 13% of the variance in safety-related behavior. Of the explained variance, agreeableness was the largest single contributor, accounting for 43.7% of the explained variance (R2 ⫽ .06). The next strongest contributor was conscientiousness, which accounted for 35.3% of the explained variance (R2 ⫽ .04), followed by extraversion at 13.1% (R2 ⫽ .02), neuroticism at 7.2% (R2 ⫽ .01), and openness to experience at 0.6% (R2 ⫽ .00). Facet-level FFM results. Results for facet-level personality and safety-related behavior correlations are reported in Table 4. There were a sufficient number of studies to meta-analyze the associations between facet-level personality and safety-related behavior for the following personality facets: sensation seeking (extraversion), altruism (agreeableness), order (conscientiousness), anger (neuroticism), impulsiveness (neuroticism), and anxiety (neuroticism). Hypothesis 6 posited, based on the compatibility principle, that the relationships between personality and safetyrelated behavior are stronger when personality is conceptualized in terms of relevant facet-level traits rather than broad-level traits. Consistent with this expectation, results showed that sensation seeking (␳ ⫽ .27) had a significantly stronger relationship with unsafe behaviors than did extraversion (␳ ⫽ .10), as evidenced by nonoverlapping confidence intervals. In addition, altruism revealed a stronger correlation with unsafe behavior (␳ ⫽ ⫺.35) than the broader did trait of agreeableness (␳ ⫽ ⫺.26); however, overlapping confidence intervals suggest that these relationships are not meaningfully different. Similarly, no statistically significant differences in correlations with unsafe behavior were found for conscientiousness (␳ ⫽ ⫺.25) and the facet of order (␳ ⫽ ⫺.20), nor for neuroticism (␳ ⫽ .13) and the facets of anger (␳ ⫽ .20) and impulsiveness (␳ ⫽ .29). However, whereas neu-

489

roticism and the facet of anxiety revealed associations with unsafe behavior of approximately equal magnitude (␳ ⫽ .13, neuroticism; ␳ ⫽ ⫺.14, anxiety), the associations were in opposing directions and revealed nonoverlapping confidence intervals. We expand upon this finding in the Discussion section. Taken together, Hypothesis 6 was partially supported.

Mediation Results Although the preceding meta-analytic findings demonstrate that several broad and facet-level FFM personality traits are meaningfully associated with safety-related behavior, these results do not answer the question of whether safety-related behavior mediates the relationships between personality traits and accidents. Consequently, we tested and compared both fully and partially mediated path models to evaluate whether safety-related behavior mediates personality–accident associations. We used the broad FFM traits to test these models, given the greater number of studies that have tested the necessary intercorrelations with broad as opposed to facet-specific FFM traits. We first tested a fully mediated model with paths estimated between each FFM trait and safety-related behavior and between safety-related behavior and accidents. This 2 model demonstrated good fit to the data (␹[5] ⫽ 28.63, p ⬍ .05; CFI ⫽ .97; RMSEA ⫽ .05, SRMR ⫽ .03), satisfying Hu and Bentler’s (1999) heuristic guidelines for model fit. Path estimates for the model are depicted in Figure 1. They confirmed, consistent with Hypothesis 7, that the FFM personality traits were significantly associated with unsafe behavior (R2 ⫽ .13), which, in turn, was significantly associated with accidents (R2 ⫽ .02). To determine whether a fully mediated model was the best representation of these data, we compared it to a partially mediated model by adding direct paths from each of the FFM traits to accidents in addition to the indirect paths through safety-related behavior that were already included in the model. However, because doing so would cause the partially mediated model to be saturated and thus preclude a comparison of fit statistics between the models, we constrained the path between openness to experience and safety-related behavior to be equal to zero to establish

Table 4 Facet-Specific Personality and Unsafe Behavior Meta-Analyses FFM trait Extraversion Broad Sensation seeking Agreeableness Broad Altruism Conscientiousness Broad Order Neuroticism Broad Anger Impulsiveness Anxiety

r



6,378 12,864

.08 .21

.10 .27

12 6

4,791 3,580

⫺.21 ⫺.28

16 2

3,995 365

19 4 5 8

3,929 3,058 2,668 5,203

k

N

20 30

95% CI

SD␳

80% CV

[.01, .19] [.21, .33]

.11 .11

[⫺.04, .24] [.13, .41]

⫺.26 ⫺.35

[⫺.30, ⫺.21] [⫺.45, ⫺.26]

.05 .05

[⫺.32, ⫺.19] [⫺.41, ⫺.30]

⫺.21 ⫺.17

⫺.25 ⫺.20

[⫺.30, ⫺.20] [⫺.55, .14]

.08 .15

[⫺.35, ⫺.15] [⫺.39, ⫺.01]

.10 .16 .22 ⫺.11

.13 .20 .29 ⫺.14

[.06, .20] [.09, .31] [.18, .41] [⫺.30, .03]

.12 .05 .05 .18

[⫺.03, .28] [.14, .26] [.23, .36] [⫺.37, .10]

Note. FFM ⫽ five-factor model; k ⫽ the number of independent effect sizes included in each analysis; N ⫽ sample size; r⫽ sample-weighted mean uncorrected correlation; ␳ ⫽ sample-weighted mean corrected correlation; 95% CI ⫽ 95% confidence interval around ␳; SD␳ ⫽ standard deviation of the mean corrected correlation; 80% CV ⫽ 80% credibility interval around ␳.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

490

BEUS, DHANANI, AND MCCORD

Figure 1. Fully mediated path model estimating safety-related behavior as a mediator of personality–accident associations. All path estimates are 2 standardized. ␹[5] ⫽ 28.63, p ⬍ .05; comparative fit index ⫽ .97; rootmean-square error of approximation ⫽ .05; standardized root-mean-square residual ⫽ .03. ⴱ p ⬍ .05.

additional degrees of freedom and allow comparison of the competing models. We constrained this path because it was the only FFM trait in which the meta-analytic correlation with unsafe behavior was not different from zero. Of importance, reestimation of the fully mediated model with this path constrained to zero still 2 revealed good fit to the data (␹[6] ⫽ 29.72, p ⬍ .05; CFI ⫽ .97; RMSEA ⫽ .05, SRMR ⫽ .03), and the direction and statistical significance of the remaining path coefficients were unchanged. We next estimated a partially mediated model for comparison purposes that added direct paths between each of the FFM traits 2 and accidents, with the exception of openness to experience (␹[2] ⫽ 4.02, ns; CFI ⫽ 1.00; RMSEA ⫽ .03, SRMR ⫽ .01). Path estimates for this model are depicted in Figure 2. Whereas safetyrelated behavior alone accounted for 2% of the variance in accidents, the specification of the four FFM traits as antecedents of accidents explained an additional 2% of the variance in accident involvement (R2 ⫽ .04). We then conducted a chi-square difference test to determine if the partially mediated model was a better representation of the data than was the fully mediated model. This test revealed a statistically significant difference between the 2 nested models (⌬␹[4] ⫽ 25.70, p ⬍ .05), suggesting that the partially mediated model was a better representation of the data than the fully mediated model. These findings support Hypothesis 7 but also suggest that personality has both mediated and direct associations with workplace accidents.

Results of the relative weights test revealed that the combination of personality (i.e., conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism) and safety climate perceptions explained nearly half (R2 ⫽ .43) of the total variance in safety-related behavior. With regard to their relative contributions, safety climate perceptions accounted for 66.8% of the explained variance (R2 ⫽ .28), whereas the three personality traits together accounted for 33.2% of the explained variance (R2 ⫽ .14). Agreeableness accounted for 16.8% of the explained variance (R2 ⫽ .07), followed by conscientiousness at 12.4% (R2 ⫽ .05) and neuroticism at 4.0% (R2 ⫽ .02). Taken together, although safety climate was clearly most influential in explaining variance in safety-related behavior, the examined personality traits still accounted for a unique and substantive proportion of variance. This finding highlights the value of personality in explaining safety-related behavior even when considered in combination with an influential contextual factor such as individual safety climate perceptions.

Discussion The purpose of this study was to meta-analytically address three unanswered questions regarding the relationships between personality traits and workplace safety. We sought to (a) clarify the magnitude and meaning of personality’s associations with safetyrelated behavior, (b) test whether safety-related behavior mediates personality–accident associations, and (c) determine the relative importance of personality in comparison to perceptions of the social context of safety in predicting safety-related behavior. With regard to the first question, we explained personality’s associations with safety-related behavior using the theory of purposeful work behavior (Barrick et al., 2013) and revealed that whereas higher levels of conscientiousness and agreeableness were associated with fewer unsafe behaviors, higher levels of extraversion and neuroticism were associated with increased unsafe behaviors. Contrary to expectations, openness to experience was not meaningfully associated with unsafe behaviors. At the facet level, sensation seeking, altruism, anger, and impulsiveness were all meaningfully associated with safety-related behavior. However, only sensation seeking revealed a stronger association with safetyrelated behavior than did its parent FFM trait (i.e., extraversion).

Relative Importance of Personality Results To calculate the extent to which personality traits explain unique variance in safety-related behavior independent of safety climate perceptions, we conducted a relative weights test using a metaanalytic correlation matrix including the FFM traits, safety climate, and safety-related behavior (coded in the direction of unsafe behavior). To create this correlation matrix, we obtained metaanalytic estimates of the associations between safety climate and both conscientiousness (k ⫽ 5) and safety-related behavior (k ⫽ 31) from Christian et al. (2009) and conducted original metaanalyses of the associations between safety climate and the remaining FFM traits; there were sufficient studies to meta-analyze the individual-level relationships between agreeableness and neuroticism with safety climate (in addition to conscientiousness).

Figure 2. Partially mediated path model estimating safety-related behavior as a mediator of personality–accident associations. Openness to experience was still included in the model as an exogenous variable, but its paths to unsafe behavior and accidents were constrained to zero. All path 2 estimates are standardized. ␹[2] ⫽ 4.02, p ⬍ .05; comparative fit index ⫽ 1.00; root-mean-square error of approximation ⫽ .02; standardized rootmean-square residual ⫽ .01. ⴱ p ⬍ .05.

PERSONALITY AND SAFETY

Our results also confirmed that the associations between the FFM traits and accidents are mediated by safety-related behavior—though partial mediation was more strongly supported than full mediation. In addition, a relative weights test indicated that though the contextual factor of individuals’ safety climate perceptions was the dominant predictor of safety-related behavior, the examined personality traits of agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism still cumulatively explained a nontrivial proportion of unique variance. We next discuss the implications of these findings for occupational safety research and practice.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Research Implications Although this research supported the theoretical expectation that personality’s influence on workplace accidents is transmitted through safety-related behavior—with the fully mediated model revealing a good fit to the data—it is noteworthy that the partially mediated model was a better fit than the fully mediated model. This was unexpected, given that the fully mediated model is arguably more theoretically appropriate. Instead, the better fitting, partially mediated model suggests that personality traits can still have direct, unmediated associations with workplace accidents in addition to their indirect associations through safety-related behavior. However, it is unclear how personality traits can affect workplace accidents if not through their more immediate effects on behavior. One potential explanation for this counterintuitive finding may lie in the means through which personality is frequently assessed. Because the most straightforward means of describing personality is often in terms of its behavioral manifestations (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; McCrae & Costa, 1987), it is perhaps not surprising that many items used to assess the FFM traits have a behavioral component. With conscientiousness, for example— one of two traits that revealed a nonzero meta-analytic association with accidents—typical behaviorally laden FFM items include “I follow a schedule” or “I am exacting in my work” (International Personality Item Pool, 2013). Although we believe that responses to items such as these can be accurate reflections of underlying personality traits, they may also somewhat confound the psychological construct with its behavioral manifestation. Consequently, personality measures that assess the behavioral manifestation of personality in order to infer its psychological presence should be more likely to reveal direct associations with accidents, given that the expected mediating mechanism (i.e., behavior) is already somewhat represented by the personality measure itself. Thus, the possible presence of behaviorally laden items may explain the nonzero metaanalytic path coefficients revealed between accidents and both extraversion and conscientiousness. Given this possibility, we assert that the fully mediated model remains a viable representation of personality’s influence on workplace safety based on both the excellent fit of the model and its alignment with theoretical expectations. Nevertheless, future research is needed to empirically confirm whether the presence of behaviorally laden personality items leads to stronger associations with both behavior and behavioral outcome measures. We also contributed to the workplace safety literature by testing the relative importance of each FFM trait in the collective prediction of safety-related behavior. A relative weights analysis revealed that, of the FFM traits, agreeableness, followed by consci-

491

entiousness and extraversion, explained the largest proportion of variance in safety-related behavior. The finding that agreeableness explained a larger proportion of the variance in safety-related behavior relative to the next strongest contributors was unexpected—though the difference between agreeableness and conscientiousness is admittedly small. However, the fact that agreeableness accounted for even a comparable proportion of the explained variance in safety-related behavior is surprising, given that organizational research consistently identifies conscientiousness as the most relevant and important FFM trait in predicting individual performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001). A plausible explanation for the apparently greater importance of agreeableness in a safety context may lie in the nature of safetyrelated behavior itself. A key difference for safety-related behavior relative to other forms of individual performance (e.g., task performance) is that safety is inherently a group effort: It takes a group of individuals working cooperatively to establish a safe workplace (Zohar, 2011). As such, there are generally fewer individual rewards associated with working safely. In fact, it can often be more immediately reinforcing for individuals to disregard some safety rules or procedures to achieve personal productivity gains and the more individual-focused rewards that stem from these gains (Wallace & Chen, 2006). Such self-serving behavior is further reinforced by the generally small likelihood that one individual’s unsafe behavior will result in an accident (Reason, 1990; Wallace, Paul, Landis, & Vodanovich, 2012). Hence, it follows that the FFM trait that is most strongly connected to the grouporiented goal of communion is likewise more strongly associated with safety-related behavior than the other FFM traits. That is, whereas the trait of agreeableness may uniquely predispose individuals to work safely to achieve the other-focused goal of communion (i.e., getting along), extraversion and conscientiousness, for example, may be associated with safety-related behavior to a somewhat lesser degree because they are more strongly connected to the more self-focused higher order goals of status and achievement (e.g., getting ahead; Hogan & Holland, 2003). We note that although safety is arguably an interdependent workplace accomplishment, this does not presuppose that the work itself must be interdependent for agreeableness to be meaningfully associated with individuals’ safety-related behavior. In fact, the studies included in this meta-analysis that assessed the relationship between agreeableness and safety-related behavior did so predominantly in driving contexts with minimal work interdependence. Though driving is largely an independent work task, driving unsafely still affects the safety of other people. Thus, it requires the combined efforts of the individuals on the roadway to maximize the safety of all drivers. The cooperative nature of safety even in such an individualized context may explain why agreeableness was the strongest correlate of safety-related behavior. Though we believe this is likely true of other work settings, additional research is needed to confirm the extent to which this is the case in other contexts and at varying levels of work interdependence. In addition to examining the associations between the broad FFM traits and safety-related behavior, we meta-analyzed the relationships between several lower level personality facets and safety-related behavior. However, the only facet that revealed a significantly stronger association with safety-related behavior relative to its parent trait was sensation seeking. The nontrivial

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

492

BEUS, DHANANI, AND MCCORD

difference in effect size magnitudes for sensation seeking (.27) and extraversion (.10) with unsafe behavior suggests that extraversion may be too broad to represent a particularly meaningful predictor of safety-related behavior. Rather, our results highlight the value of considering sensation seeking when assessing personality as an antecedent of workplace safety, given its stronger behavioral association. Our results likewise suggest the need to independently consider neuroticism’s facet of anxiety. Whereas anxiety was negatively associated with unsafe behavior, neuroticism and its other examined facets were positively associated. The divergent direction of anxiety’s association with unsafe behavior is consistent with a control theory perspective on workplace safety (Carver & Scheier, 1982). That is, control theory suggests that workers who feel anxious with regard to their safety are expected to work more safely as a targeted means of reducing anxiety and promoting the desired end state of feeling safe (Beus, 2012). That is, feeling anxious—whether as the result of a dangerous situation or a trait-based predisposition— communicates a discrepancy between one’s current state and the near-universal need to feel safe (Maslow, 1943; Pittman & Zeigler, 2007; Pyszczynski, Greenberg, & Solomon, 1997). A perceived discrepancy between current and desired states relating to safety should in turn motivate individuals to work more safely to alleviate anxiety. Thus, anxiety may actually be adaptive when it comes to workplace safety. However, we note that the magnitude of this association was small and achieved only marginal statistical significance. Our findings concerning the relative importance of personality for safety-related behavior likewise have research implications. We confirmed the interactionist expectation (Lewin, 1951) that both individual differences and perceived contextual factors are meaningfully associated with safety-related behavior and showed that safety climate was the stronger correlate by a fairly wide margin. This substantiates the value of considering safety climate as a workplace safety antecedent (e.g., Beus, Payne, Bergman, & Arthur, 2010; Christian et al., 2009; Nahrgang et al., 2011). We note, however, that the associations between the examined personality traits and safety-related behavior were still substantive when considered simultaneously with safety climate. Thus, they underscore the importance of considering personality in combination with perceived contextual factors in predicting individual safety.

Practical Implications Our meta-analytic results have a number of practical implications as well. For one, this study confirms that several personality traits are meaningfully associated with both safety-related behavior and subsequent workplace accidents. The FFM traits that revealed the strongest associations with safety-related behavior (in the direction of unsafe behavior) were agreeableness (⫺.26) and conscientiousness (⫺.25), whereas the facets with the strongest associations were altruism (⫺.35), impulsiveness (.29), and sensation seeking (.27). These findings suggest that using these traits to inform selection and staffing decisions is one way that organizational decision makers can improve workplace safety. Of note, the magnitude of associations for agreeableness and its facet of altruism with safety-related behavior suggest for managers that there may be particular value in considering prosocial personality traits when making selection and/or staffing decisions. This is

because these traits are theorized to predispose individuals to achieve the higher order goal of communion, which, relative to other higher order goals, should be particularly instrumental in motivating safe work behavior. Correspondingly, our finding concerning the incremental importance of the social context of safety relative to personality highlights that there may be ways beyond trait-focused approaches (e.g., selection and staffing) to socially impact the pursuit of communion and subsequent safe behavior. For example, safe behaviors could be reframed by managers as prosocial behaviors that benefit fellow coworkers as opposed to managers simply emphasizing that safe behaviors are a way of preserving one’s own wellbeing. Doing so could prime the pursuit of communion and thereby increase safe behavior. As evidence of the potential benefits of this approach, a field study by Grant and Hofmann (2011) found that, relative to more individualized message framing, prosocial message framing caused meaningful changes in health care professionals’ safety-related behaviors (i.e., hand sanitizing). Thus, in addition to hiring employees with higher levels of prosocial traits (e.g., agreeableness, altruism) to facilitate safety, managers may find it possible to use organizational interventions that activate employees’ desires for communion to improve safetyrelated behavior. Given the relative contribution of safety climate perceptions in explaining safety-related behavior, we likewise recommend the use of organizational interventions specifically intended to improve safety climate. Although few safety climate interventions have been published, field experiments reported by Zohar (2002) and Zohar and Polachek (2014) have shown that providing safetyspecific feedback to supervisors increased the emphasis supervisors placed on safety and improved both subordinate safety climate perceptions and subsequent safe behavior. Other organizational efforts that change prevailing perceptions regarding the priority of safety (e.g., altering reward structures to reinforce safety) should likewise be efficacious in altering safety climates and resultant safety-related behavior.

Limitations and Future Directions Although this study contributes meaningfully to the workplace safety literature, there are limitations worth noting. One is that the nature of the relationships summarized in this meta-analysis does not allow us to infer causation (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002; Stone-Romero, 2011). In particular, although we tested and found support for the theoretical expectation that safety-related behavior mediates the associations between personality traits and workplace accidents, the correlations that served as input to our meta-analytic correlation matrix were primarily based on cross-sectional data. However, we contend that the hypothesized order of relationships (personality¡safety-related behavior¡accidents) is theoretically justifiable. As a set of stable individual differences that are relatively entrenched by early adulthood (Costa & McCrae, 1988; Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000; Terracciano, McCrae, & Costa, 2010), personality should precede safety-related behavior as opposed to safety-related behavior preceding personality. Further, although our fully mediated meta-analytic path model was not better fitting than the partially mediated model from a strictly empirical perspective, it is difficult to conceive how personality could affect the occurrence of workplace accidents independent of

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

PERSONALITY AND SAFETY

its impact through safety-related behavior. We maintain that the good fit and theoretical parsimony of the fully mediated model still generally support the sequence of relationships posited here. An additional limitation is that the number of studies available for meta-analyzing some of the relationships between personality traits (particularly at the facet level) and safety-related behavior was small. Thus, we acknowledge that our findings are prone to second-order sampling error and can only be considered to be estimates of true population relationships (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Although we assert that our meta-analytic estimates are still more informative than those provided by single primary studies, which are more subject to sampling error individually (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004), additional studies would increase the reliability of meta-analytic estimates and allow for more comprehensive detection of potentially meaningful moderators. For example, we were limited in our ability to test industry setting as a moderator for each of the FFM traits’ associations with safety-related behavior due to the lack of available studies. Thus, future research is needed to consider the extent to which personality– behavior associations may differ based on industry setting. We recommend a number of future research directions in light of this study’s findings. First, although we were able to test the relative importance of both personality and safety climate in their associations with safety-related behavior, we were unable to test for interaction effects. Researchers should thus consider the extent to which safety climate— or other such contextual factors—moderates personality’s associations with safety-related work behavior to identify additional boundary conditions. For example, it may be possible to mitigate the tendency for disagreeable, unconscientious, or sensation-seeking individuals to work unsafely by fostering a positive safety climate that establishes strong norms for safe work behavior that reduce the influence of personality. Considering the extent to which contextual factors such as safety climate or safety leadership are able to diminish the negative impact of some personality characteristics on safety-related behavior has important implications for workplace safety. In addition, given the individual-level relationships between personality and safety-related behavior demonstrated here, we recommend that future research consider the extent to which these relationships generalize to higher levels of analysis. Research and theory suggest that the collection of personality traits within groups can influence subsequent group-level patterns of behavior (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Hofmann & Jones, 2005; Stewart, 2003). Thus, it is reasonable to expect that the combination of safety-related personality traits within a work group could affect group-level manifestations of safety-related behavior. For example, future research could test whether the presence of individuals who exhibit particularly high or low levels of certain traits in a work group has a meaningful impact on the convergence of safety-related behaviors within the group. This implies that personality assessment could be used to inform workgroup staffing decisions and subsequently influence workplace safety. Similarly, assessing the extent to which the personalities of organizational leaders affect work-group safety practices may be particularly informative, given leaders’ unique abilities to influence workplace safety (Barling, Loughlin, & Kelloway, 2002; Zohar & Polachek, 2014).

493

Conclusion In addressing questions concerning personality’s association with workplace safety, we contributed to the workplace safety literature in four key ways. First, we identified agreeableness and conscientiousness as having the most influential associations with safety-related behavior relative to the other broad FFM traits (with extraversion and neuroticism also revealing nonzero associations) and explained these relationships as a function of the pursuit of higher order goals (Barrick et al., 2013). Second, we demonstrated that both sensation seeking and anxiety have differential relationships with safety-related behavior relative to their parent FFM traits, suggesting the need to consider these facets separately to maximize behavioral prediction. Third, we supported the theoretical expectation that safety-related behavior mediates the observed associations between the FFM traits and workplace accidents. This underscores the value of focusing on safety-related behavior as a more proximal and controllable workplace safety indicator relative to accidents. Finally, we confirmed that personality traits (i.e., agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism) remain influential in explaining variance in safety-related behavior relative to the simultaneous contextual influence of safety climate perceptions. We encourage future research to build upon these findings to gain an even greater understanding of the individual and contextual factors that affect workplace safety.

References References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. ⴱ Andersson, A. L., Nilsson, A., & Henriksson, N. G. (1970). Personality differences between accident-loaded and accident-free young car drivers. British Journal of Psychology, 61, 409 – 421. doi:10.1111/j.20448295.1970.tb01260.x ⴱ Arnett, J. J., Offer, D., & Fine, M. A. (1997). Reckless driving in adolescence: “State” and “trait” factors. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29, 57– 63. doi:10.1016/S0001-4575(97)87007-8 ⴱ Arthur, W., Jr., Bell, S. T., Edwards, B. D., Day, E. A., Tubre, T. C., & Tubre, A. H. (2005). Covergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: A two-year longitudinal follow-up. Human Factors, 47, 303–313. doi:10.1518/0018720054679416 ⴱ Arthur, W., Jr., & Doverspike, D. (2001). Predicting motor vehicle crash involvement from a personality measure and a driving knowledge test. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 22, 35– 42. doi:10.1080/10852350109511209 ⴱ Arthur, W., Jr., & Graziano, W. G. (1996). The five-factor model, conscientiousness, and driving accident involvement. Journal of Personality, 64, 593– 618. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00523.x ⴱ Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 289 –303. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199805)19:3⬍289::AID-JOB841⬎3.0 .CO;2-C Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Development and test of a model linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 488 – 496. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.488 Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

494

BEUS, DHANANI, AND MCCORD

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9 –30. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00160 Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Li, N. (2013). The theory of purposeful work behavior: The role of personality, higher-order goals, and job characteristics. Academy of Management Review, 38, 132–153. doi: 10.5465/amr.2010.0479 Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377–391. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.377 Beus, J. M. (2012). The psychological need for safety at work: A cybernetic perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University. ⴱ Beus, J. M., Munoz, G. J., & Arthur, W., Jr. (2014). Personality as a multilevel predictor of climate: Safety-related personality traits and safety climate as an exemplar. Unpublished manuscript. Beus, J. M., Payne, S. C., Bergman, M. E., & Arthur, W., Jr. (2010). Safety climate and injuries: An examination of theoretical and empirical relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 713–727. doi:10.1037/ a0019164 ⴱ Buck, M. A. (2011). Proactive personality and Big Five traits in supervisors and workgroup members: Effects on safety climate and safety motivation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Portland State University. Burke, M. J., Sarpy, S., Tesluk, P. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2002). General safety performance: A test of a grounded theoretical model. Personnel Psychology, 55, 429 – 457. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00116.x ⴱ Burns, P. C., & Wilde, G. J. S. (1995). Risk taking in male taxi drivers: Relationships among personality, observational data, and driver records. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 267–278. doi:10.1016/01918869(94)00150-Q Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality–social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 111–135. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.111 ⴱ Cellar, D. F., Nelson, Z. C., & Yorke, C. M. (2000). The five-factor model and driving behavior: Personality and involvement in vehicular accidents. Psychological Reports, 86, 454 – 456. doi:10.2466/pr0.2000.86.2 .454 ⴱ Cellar, D. F., Nelson, Z. C., Yorke, C. M., & Bauer, C. (2001). The five-factor model and safety in the workplace: Investigating the relationships between personality and accident involvement. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 22, 43–52. doi:10.1080/ 10852350109511210 ⴱ Chen, C. F. (2009). Personality, safety attitudes and risky driving behaviors: Evidence from young Taiwanese motorcyclists. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 41, 963–968. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.05.013 Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J. (2009). Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1103–1127. doi:10.1037/ a0016172 ⴱ Chung, Y. S., & Wong, J. T. (2012). Beyond general behavioral theories: Structural discrepancy in young motorcyclist’s risky driving behavior and its policy implications. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 49, 165– 176. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.04.021 ⴱ Clark, A. W. (1976). A social role approach to driver behaviour. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 42, 325–326. doi:10.2466/pms.1976.42.1.325 Clarke, S., & Robertson, I. (2005). A meta-analytic review of the Big Five personality factors and accident involvement in occupational and nonoccupational settings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 355–376. doi:10.1348/096317905X26183 Clarke, S., & Robertson, I. (2008). An examination of the role of personality in work accidents using meta-analysis. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 57, 94 –108. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007 .00267.x ⴱ Clément, R., & Jonah, B. A. (1984). Field dependence, sensation seeking and driving behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 87–93. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(84)90141-7 ⴱ Constantinou, E., Panayiotou, G., Konstantinou, N., Loutsiou-Ladd, A., & Kapardis, A. (2011). Risky and aggressive driving in young adults: Personality matters. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43, 1323–1331. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.02.002 Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853– 863. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.853 Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI–R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. ⴱ Dahlen, E. R., Edwards, B. D., Tubré, T., Zyphur, M. J., & Warren, C. R. (2012). Taking a look behind the wheel: An investigation into the personality predictors of aggressive driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 45, 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.11.012 ⴱ Dahlen, E. R., Martin, R. C., Ragan, K., & Kuhlman, M. M. (2005). Driving anger, sensation seeking, impulsiveness, and boredom proneness in the prediction of unsafe driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37, 341–348. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2004.10.006 ⴱ Dahlen, E. R., & White, R. P. (2006). The Big Five factors, sensation seeking, and driving anger in the prediction of unsafe driving. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 903–915. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006 .03.016 ⴱ Davids, A., & Mahoney, J. T. (1957). Personality dynamics and accident proneness in an industrial setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 41, 303–306. doi:10.1037/h0047608 ⴱ DeJoy, D. M., Searcy, C. A., Murphy, L. R., & Gershon, R. R. (2000). Behavioral– diagnostic analysis of compliance with universal precautions among nurses. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 127–141. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.127 ⴱ Delhomme, P., Chaurand, N., & Paran, F. (2012). Personality predictors of speeding in young drivers: Anger vs. sensation seeking. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 15, 654 – 666. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2012.06.006 ⴱ Ehsani, J. P., Simons-Morton, B., Xie, Y., Klauer, S. G., & Albert, P. S. (2014). The association between kinematic risky driving among parents and their teenage children: Moderation by shared personality characteristics. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 69, 56 – 61. doi:10.1016/j.aap .2014.01.010 ⴱ Fine, B. J. (1963). Introversion-extraversion and motor vehicle driver behavior. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 16, 95–100. doi:10.2466/pms .1963.16.1.95 ⴱ Frone, M. R. (1998). Predictors of work injuries among employed adolescents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 565–576. doi:10.1037/ 0021-9010.83.4.565 ⴱ Furnham, A., & Saipe, J. (1993). Personality correlates of convicted drivers. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 329 –336. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(93)90131-L Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362. doi: 10.1002/job.322 ⴱ Garrity, M. J. (2004). Personality, demographics, and job-relevant risk as predictors of accident outcomes in the nuclear industry (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Clemson University. ⴱ Geller, E. S., Roberts, D. S., & Gilmore, M. R. (1996). Predicting propensity to actively care for occupational safety. Journal of Safety Research, 27, 1– 8. doi:10.1016/0022-4375(95)00024-0 ⴱ Goldenhar, L. M., Williams, L. J., & Swanson, N. G. (2003). Modelling relationships between job stressors and injury and near-miss outcomes

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

PERSONALITY AND SAFETY for construction labourers. Work & Stress, 17, 218 –240. doi:10.1080/ 02678370310001616144 Grant, A. M., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). It’s not all about me: Motivating hand hygiene among health care professionals by focusing on patients. Psychological Science, 22, 1494 –1499. doi:10.1177/ 0956797611419172 Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795– 824). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. ⴱ Greaves, S. P., & Ellison, A. B. (2011). Personality, risk aversion and speeding: An empirical investigation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43, 1828 –1836. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.04.018 Griffin, M. A., & Neal, A. (2000). Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 347– 358. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.5.3.347 ⴱ Hansen, C. P. (1989). A causal model of the relationship among accidents, biodata, personality, and cognitive factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 81–90. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.81 Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 305– 325. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786077 ⴱ Hemenway, D., & Solnick, S. J. (1993). Fuzzy dice, dream cars, and indecent gestures: Correlates of driver behavior? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 25, 161–170. doi:10.1016/0001-4575(93)90056-3 ⴱ Henderson, J. F. (2005). Personality and behavioral correlates of accident proneness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northcentral University. Hofmann, D. A., & Jones, L. M. (2005). Leadership, collective personality, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 509 –522. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.509 Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Gerras, S. J. (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, 170 –178. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.170 Hofmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A. (1998). The role of safety climate and communication in accident interpretation: Implications for learning from negative events. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 644 – 657. doi: 10.2307/256962 Hogan, J., & Foster, J. (2013). Multifaceted personality predictors of workplace safety performance: More than conscientiousness. Human Performance, 26, 20 – 43. doi:10.1080/08959285.2012.736899 Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100 –112. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.100 Hogan, R. T. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M. Dunnette & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 873–919). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hollnagel, E. (1993). Human reliability analysis: Context and control. London, England: Academic Press. Hough, L. M. (1992). The “Big Five” personality variables—Construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139 – 155. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup0501&2_8 Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ⴱ Inness, M. (2006). The person and the situation: Predicting well-being outcomes at work (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.



495

Inness, M., Turner, N., Barling, J., & Stride, C. B. (2010). Transformational leadership and employee safety performance: A within-person, between-jobs design. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 279 –290. doi:10.1037/a0019380 International Personality Item Pool. (2013). The items in each of the preliminary IPIP scales measuring constructs similar to those in the NEO-PI–R. Retrieved from http://ipip.ori.org/newNEOKey.htm#Conscientiousness ⴱ Iverson, R. D., & Erwin, P. J. (1997). Predicting occupational injury: The role of affectivity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 113–128. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997.tb00637.x ⴱ Jin, H. Q., Araki, S., Wu, X. K., Zhang, Y. W., Duan, L. L., & Sakai, R. (1991). Neurobehavioral study on accident-prone motor-vehicle drivers in China. Industrial Health, 29, 23–26. doi:10.2486/indhealth.29.23 Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386 – 408. doi:10.5465/AMR .2006.20208687 Johnson, J. W., & LeBreton, J. M. (2004). History and use of relative importance indices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 238 –257. doi:10.1177/1094428104266510 ⴱ Jonah, B. A., Thiessen, R., & Au-Yeung, E. (2001). Sensation seeking, risky driving and behavioral adaptation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 679 – 684. doi:10.1016/S0001-4575(00)00085-3 Jones, E. E. (1979). The rocky road from acts to dispositions. American Psychologist, 34, 107–117. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.2.107 Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.8 for Windows [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. ⴱ Jovanovic´ , D., Lipovac, K., Stanojevi´c, P., & Stanojevi´c, D. (2011). The effects of personality traits on driving-related anger and aggressive behaviour in traffic among Serbian drivers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 14, 43–53. doi:10.1016/j.trf .2010.09.005 Judge, T. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). The bright and dark sides of personality: Implications for personnel selection in individual and team contexts. In R. J. Langan-Foz, J. Cooper, & C. L. Klimoski (Eds.), Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms (pp. 332–355). Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Elgar. Kaplan, S., & Tetrick, L. E. (2011). Workplace safety and accidents: An industrial and organizational psychology perspective. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 455– 472). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Knipling, R. R., Boyle, L. N., Hickman, J. S., York, J. S., Daecher, C., Olsen, E. C. B., & Prailey, T. D. (2004). Commercial Truck and Bus Synthesis Program Synthesis Report 4: Individual differences and the “high-risk” commercial driver. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. ⴱ Koz, J. (1985). An analysis of accident proneness in the fighter pilot (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). American University. ⴱ Kundu, S. R. (1957). A psychological study of accidents in a factory. Education and Psychology, 4, 17–23. ⴱ Lajunen, T., & Summala, H. (1995). Driving experience, personality, and skill and safety-motive dimensions in drivers’ self-assessments. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 307–318. doi:10.1016/01918869(95)00068-H ⴱ Lajunen, T., & Summala, H. (1996). Effects of driving experience, personality, driver’s skill and safety orientation on speed regulation and accidents. Paper presented at the International Conference on Traffic and Transport Psychology, Valencia, Spain. Landis, R. S. (2013). Successfully combining meta-analysis and structural equation modeling: Recommendations and strategies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28, 251–261. doi:10.1007/s10869-013-9285-x ⴱ Lardent, C. L. (1991). Pilots who crash: Personality constructs underlying accident prone behaviour of fighter pilots. Multivariate Experimental Clinical Research, 10, 1–25.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

496

BEUS, DHANANI, AND MCCORD

Lawton, R., & Parker, D. (1998). Individual differences in accident liability: A review and integrative approach. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 40, 655– 671. doi:10.1518/ 001872098779649292 ⴱ Lev, D., Hershkovitz, E., & Yechiam, E. (2008). Decision making and personality in traffic offenders: A study of Israeli drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40, 223–230. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2007.05.009 Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York, NY: Harper & Row. ⴱ Liao, H., Arvey, R. D., Butler, R. J., & Nutting, S. M. (2001). Correlates of work injury frequency and duration among firefighters. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 229 –242. doi:10.1037/1076-8998 .6.3.229 Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety. (2012). 2012 Liberty Mutual workplace safety index. Retrieved from http://www.libertymutualgroup .com/research ⴱ Lonczak, H. S., Neighbors, C., & Donovan, D. M. (2007). Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 536 –545. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2006.09.010 ⴱ Loo, R. (1978). Individual differences and the perception of traffic signs. Human Factors, 20, 65–74. doi:10.1177/001872087802000109 Loughlin, C., & Frone, M. R. (2004). Young workers’ occupational safety. In J. Barling & M. R. Frone (Eds.), The psychology of workplace safety (pp. 107–125). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. ⴱ Lubner, M. E. (1992). Aviation accidents, incidents, and violations: Psychological predictors among United States pilots (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University. ⴱ Lucidi, F., Giannini, A. M., Sgalla, R., Mallia, L., Devoto, A., & Reichmann, S. (2010). Young novice driver subtypes: Relationship to driving violations, errors and lapses. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42, 1689 –1696. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2010.04.008 ⴱ Machin, M. A., & Sankey, K. S. (2008). Relationships between young drivers’ personality characteristics, risk perceptions, and driving behaviour. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40, 541–547. doi:10.1016/j.aap .2007.08.010 Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370 –396. doi:10.1037/h0054346 ⴱ Mayze, B. R., & Bradley, L. M. (2008). Safety culture: A multilevel assessment tool for the construction industry. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Cooperative Research Center for Construction Innovation, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. McClelland, D. C. (1971). Assessing human motivation. New York, NY: General Learning Press. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52 .1.81 McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A. Lawrence & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139 –153). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Miller, A. G., Jones, E. E., & Hinkle, S. (1981). A robust attribution error in the personality domain. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 587– 600. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(81)90041-X Moon, H., Hollenbeck, J. R., Marinova, S., & Humphrey, S. E. (2008). Beneath the surface: Uncovering the relationship between extraversion and organizational citizenship behavior through a facet approach. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 143–154. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00419.x Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Safety at work: A meta-analytic investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 71–94. doi:10.1037/a0021484

Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Safety climate and safety at work. In J. Barling & M. R. Frone (Eds.), The psychology of workplace safety (pp. 15–34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. ⴱ Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 946 –953. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.946 Newnam, S., Griffin, M. A., & Mason, C. (2008). Safety in work vehicles: A multilevel study linking safety values and individual predictors to work-related driving crashes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 632– 644. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.632 ⴱ Nielsen, M. B., & Eid, J. (2013). Authentic leadership and its relationship with risk perception and safety climate. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34, 308 –325. doi:10.1108/LODJ-07-2011-0065 ⴱ Nordfjaern, T., Simsekoglu, O., Zavareh, M. F., Hezaveh, A. M., Mamhoodi, A. R., & Rundmo, T. (2014). Road traffic culture and personality traits related to traffic safety in Turkish and Iranian samples. Safety Science, 66, 36 – 46. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2014.02.004 ⴱ Norris, F. H., Matthews, B. A., & Riad, J. K. (2000). Characterological, situational, and behavioural risk factors for motor vehicle accidents: A prospective examination. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 505– 515. doi:10.1016/S0001-4575(99)00068-8 ⴱ Oltedal, S., & Rundmo, T. (2006). The effects of personality and gender on risky driving behaviour and accident involvement. Safety Science, 44, 621– 628. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2005.12.003 Ones, D. S. (1993). The construct validity of integrity tests (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa. Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personality measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 609 – 626. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199611)17:6⬍609:: AID-JOB1828⬎3.0.CO;2-K ⴱ Osborn, Z. H., Blanton, P. D., & Schwebel, D. C. (2009). Personality and injury risk among professional hockey players. Journal of Injury and Violence Research, 1, 15–19. doi:10.5249/jivr.v1i1.8 Oswald, F. L., & Hough, L. M. (2011). Personality and its assessment in organizations: Theoretical and empirical developments. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 153–184). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. ⴱ Panek, P. E., Wagner, E. E., Barrett, G. V., & Alexander, R. A. (1978). Selected hand test personality variables related to accidents in female drivers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42, 355–357. doi:10.1207/ s15327752jpa4204_4 ⴱ Parker, J. W. (1953). Psychological and personal history data related to accident records of commercial truck drivers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 317–320. doi:10.1037/h0053612 ⴱ Paul, P. S., & Maiti, J. (2007). The role of behavioral factors on safety management in underground mines. Safety Science, 45, 449 – 471. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2006.07.006 Paunonen, S. V., Haddock, G., Forsterling, F., & Keinonen, M. (2003). Broad versus narrow personality measures and the prediction of behavior across cultures. European Journal of Personality, 17, 413– 433. ⴱ Pestonjee, D. M., & Singh, U. B. (1980). Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident occurrence. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 12, 201–204. doi:10.1016/0001-4575(80)90019-6 Pittman, T. S., & Zeigler, K. R. (2007). Basic human needs. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed, pp. 473– 489). New York, NY: Guilford Press. ⴱ Postlethwaite, B., Robbins, S., Rickerson, J., & McKinniss, T. (2009). The moderation of conscientiousness by cognitive ability when predicting workplace safety behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 711–716. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.008 Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S. (1997). Why do we need what we need? A terror management perspective on the roots of human

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

PERSONALITY AND SAFETY social motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 1–20. doi:10.1207/ s15327965pli0801_1 Reason, J. (1990). Human error. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. ⴱ Renner, W., & Anderle, F. G. (2000). Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlates of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 673– 678. doi:10.1016/S0001-4575(99)00103-7 Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 3–25. doi:10.1037/ 0033-2909.126.1.3 ⴱ Roy, G. S., & Choudhary, R. K. (1985). Driver control as a factor in road safety. Asian Journal of Psychology and Education, 16, 33–37. Salgado, J. F. (2002). The Big Five personality dimensions and counterproductive work behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 117–125. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00198 ⴱ Salminen, S., Klen, T., & Ojanen, K. (1999). Risk taking and accident frequency among Finnish forestry workers. Safety Science, 33, 143–153. doi:10.1016/S0925-7535(99)00029-6 ⴱ Sanders, M. G., & Hoffman, M. A. (1975). Personality aspects of involvement in pilot-error accidents. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 46, 186 –190. ⴱ Sarma, K. M., Carey, R. N., Kervick, A. A., & Bimpeh, Y. (2013). Psychological factors associated with indices of risky, reckless and cautious driving in a national sample of drivers in the Republic of Ireland. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 50, 1226 –1235. doi:10.1016/ j.aap.2012.09.020 Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437– 453. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.x ⴱ Seibokaite, L., & Endriulaitiene, A. (2012). The role of personality traits, work motivation and organizational safety climate in risky occupational performance of professional drivers. Baltic Journal of Management, 7, 103–118. doi:10.1108/17465261211195892 Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. ⴱ Shahar, A. (2009). Self-reported driving behaviors as a function of trait anxiety. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 41, 241–245. doi:10.1016/j .aap.2008.11.004 ⴱ Shaw, I., & Sichel, H. (1971). Accident proneness. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press. ⴱ Siu, O. L., Phillips, D. R., & Leung, T. W. (2004). Safety climate and safety performance among construction workers in Hong Kong: The role of psychological strains as mediators. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 359 –366. doi:10.1016/S0001-4575(03)00016-2 ⴱ Smith, D. I., & Kirkham, R. W. (1981). Relationship between some personality characteristics and driving record. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 229 –231. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1981.tb00491.x ⴱ Smith, D. L., & Heckert, T. M. (1998). Personality characteristics and traffic accidents of college students. Journal of Safety Research, 29, 163–169. doi:10.1016/S0022-4375(98)00012-7 Steers, R. M., & Braunstein, D. N. (1976). Behaviorally-based measure of manifest needs in work settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9, 251–266. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(76)90083-X Stewart, G. L. (2003). Toward an understanding of the multilevel role of personality in teams. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 183–204). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Stone-Romero, E. F. (2011). Research strategies in industrial and organizational psychology: Nonexperimental, quasi-experimental, and randomized experimental research in special purpose and nonspecial purpose settings. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 37–72). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.



497

Suhr, V. W. (1961). Personality and driving efficiency. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 12, 34. doi:10.2466/pms.1961.12.1.34 ⴱ Sümer, N. (2003). Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: Testing a contextual mediated model. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, 949 –964. doi:10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00103-3 ⴱ Sutherland, V., & Cooper, C. L. (1991). Personality, stress and accident involvement in the offshore oil and gas industry. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 195–204. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90103-I ⴱ Sweeney, M. M. (1995). An investigation of the accident process: An individual difference perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). George Mason University. ⴱ Taubman-Ben-Ari, O., & Yehiel, D. (2012). Driving styles and their associations with personality and motivation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 45, 416 – 422. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.08.007 Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2010). Intra-individual change in personality stability and age. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 31–37. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.006 ⴱ Tillmann, W. A., & Hobbs, G. E. (1949). The accident-prone automobile driver. American Journal of Psychiatry, 106, 321–331. Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Relative importance analysis: A useful supplement to regression analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 1–9. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9204-3 ⴱ Trimpop, R., & Kirkcaldy, B. (1997). Personality predictors of driving accidents. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 147–152. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00017-2 Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Journal of Personality, 60, 225–251. (Original work published in 1961) doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00973.x Turner, C., McClure, R., & Pirozzo, S. (2004). Injury and risk-taking behavior—A systematic review. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 93–101. doi:10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00131-8 ⴱ Ulleberg, P., & Rundmo, T. (2003). Personality, attitudes and risk perception as predictors of risky driving behaviour among young drivers. Safety Science, 41, 427– 443. doi:10.1016/S0925-7535(01)00077-7 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/iif/ ⴱ Vavrik, J. (1997). Personality and risk-taking: A brief report on adolescent male drivers. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 461– 465. doi:10.1006/jado .1997.0100 Visser, E., Pijl, Y. J., Stolk, R. P., Neeleman, J., & Rosmalen, J. G. M. (2007). Accident proneness, does it exist? A review and meta-analysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 556 –564. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2006 .09.012 Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48, 865– 885. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01784.x ⴱ Wagner, M. K. (2001). Behavioral characteristics related to substance abuse and risk-taking, sensation-seeking, anxiety sensitivity, and selfreinforcement. Addictive Behaviors, 26, 115–120. doi:10.1016/S03064603(00)00071-X ⴱ Wallace, C., & Chen, G. (2006). A multilevel integration of personality, climate, self-regulation, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 59, 529 –557. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00046.x Wallace, J. C., Paul, J. B., Landis, R. S., & Vodanovich, S. J. (2012). Occupational safety. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of personnel assessment and selection (pp. 614 – 628). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ⴱ Wallace, J. C., & Vodanovich, S. J. (2003). Workplace safety performance: Conscientiousness, cognitive failure, and their interaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 316 –327. doi:10.1037/10768998.8.4.316 ⴱ West, R. (1993). Mild social deviance, Type-A behaviour pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

498

BEUS, DHANANI, AND MCCORD

traffic accident risk. British Journal of Psychology, 84, 207–219. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1993.tb02474.x Whitener, E. M. (1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility intervals in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 315–321. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.315 Wiegmann, D., & Shappell, S. (2003). A human error approach to aviation accident analysis: The human factors analysis and classification system. Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Ashgate. Zohar, D. (2002). Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: A leadership-based intervention model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 156 –163. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.156 Zohar, D. (2011). Safety climate: Conceptual and measurement issues. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (2nd ed., pp. 141–164). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Zohar, D., & Polachek, T. (2014). Discourse-based intervention for modifying supervisory communication as leverage for safety climate and performance improvement: A randomized field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 113–124. doi:10.1037/a0034096 Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Received December 23, 2013 Revision received August 11, 2014 Accepted August 14, 2014 䡲

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Correction to Beus, Dhanani, and McCord (2014) In the article “A Meta-Analysis of Personality and Workplace Safety: Addressing Unanswered Questions,” by Jeremy M. Beus, Lindsay Y. Dhanani, and Mallory A. McCord (Journal of Applied Psychology, Advance online publication. September 22, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037916), Table 3 contained formatting errors. Minus signs used to indicate negative statistical estimates within the table were inadvertently changed to m-dashes. All versions of this article have been corrected. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038298

A meta-analysis of personality and workplace safety: addressing unanswered questions.

[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 100(2) of Journal of Applied Psychology (see record 2015-08139-001). Table 3 conta...
330KB Sizes 1 Downloads 6 Views