The delay of consequences and perceived risk: an analysis from the workers’ view point
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.redin.19758Keywords:
perceived risk, occupational hygiene, ergonomics, prevention.Abstract
This paper addresses the question of how construction workers perceive occupational risks. It is a question that has not been addressed in scientific research. Specifically, we answer the following research questions: what is the perception of risk of construction workers?; what aspects of risk significantly influence the formation of the overall perception of risk?; are there sociodemographic variables that help to understand the perception of risk of construction workers? and if this were the case, then what are these variables and how do they influence them? Ultimately, it examines the profile of perceived risk, its relation to the delay of consequences and the influence of socio-demographic variables.
Respondents filled out a questionnaire in the presence of the survey-taker. The questionnaire was based on the psychometric paradigm, and was comprised of: (a) nine questions, each exploring a perceived risk attribute or dimension rated on a Likert 7-point scale, (b) a question on global risk perception, and (c) categorical questions about socio-demographic issues. The survey was conducted in the city of Granada (Spain).
A profile of the construction workers’ perceived risk was obtained. Answers to each attribute were above the neutral line (scores above four). The profile shows the risk dimension with the highest score was the delayed consequences of exposure to risk conditions, a dimension that can be related to ergonomics and occupational hygiene. This is a new outcome since traditionally this dimension was given a lower score in the worker’s perception. A simple linear regression showed global risk may be explained in terms of the delayed consequences dimension (R2=0.29). Finally, a variance analysis (ANOVA) and several t-tests explored the relationship between this dimension and the sample’s socio-demographic variables.
To conclude, the delay of consequences is the risk dimension workers perceived as the most critical in their daily chores. In addition, this risk dimension is decisive in creating a high global risk perception. Parenthood, a higher worker category and training are the only socio-demographic variables having an impact on this dimension of perceived risk. Hence, there is a direct relationship between these two variables.
Downloads
References
S. Ghosh, J. Jintanapakanont. “Identifying and assessing the critical risk factors in an underground rail project in Thailand: a factor analysis approach”. Int. J. Project Manage. Vol. 22. 2004. pp. 633-643. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.05.004
J. Choi, J. Chung, D. Lee. “Risk perception analysis: Participation in China’s water PPP market”. Int. J. Project Manage. Vol. 28. 2010. pp. 580-592. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.10.010
I. Fung, T. Lo, K. Tung. “Towards a better reliability of risk assessment: Development of a qualitative & quantitative risk evaluation model (Q(2)REM) for different trades of construction works in Hong Kong”. Accid. Anal. Prev. Vol. 48. 2012. pp. 167-184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.05.011
B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein. “Lay foibles and expert fables in judgments about risk”. Am Stat. Vol. 36. 1982. pp. 240-255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1982.10482845
W. Freudenburg. “Risky thinking: Irrational fears about risk and society”. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. Vol. 545. 1996. pp. 44-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716296545001005
W. Fine. Mathematical evaluations for controlling hazards. Naval Ordenance Laboratory N.° NOLTR-71-31. Maryland, USA. 1971. pp. 1-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21236/AD0722011
P. Slovic. “Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm”. S. Krimsky, D. Golding (editors). Social Theories of Risk. 1st ed. Ed. Praeger. Santa Barbara, USA. 1992. pp. 117-152.
A. Akintoye, M. MacLeod. “Risk analysis and management in construction”. Int. J. Project Manage. Vol. 15. 1997. pp. 31-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(96)00035-X
International Organization for Standardization. Risk management—vocabulary—guidelines for use in standards. ISO/IEC Guide No. 73. Geneva, Switzerland. 2002.
H. Hermansson. “Defending the Conception of ‘Objective Risk’”. Risk Anal. Vol. 32. 2012. pp. 16-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01682.x
T. Aven, V. Kristensen. “Perspectives on risk: review and discussion of the basis for establishing a unified and holistic approach”. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. Vol. 90. 2005. pp. 1-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2004.10.008
C. Vlek, O. Keren. Behavioral Decision Theory and Environmental Risk management: What Have We Learned and what Has Been Neglected? Proceedings of the l3th Research Conference on Subjetive Probability, Utility and Decision Making. Fribourg, Switzerland. 1991.
M. Hallowell. “Safety risk perception in construction companies in the Pacific Northwest of the USA”. Constr. Manage. Econ. Vol. 28. 2010. pp. 403-413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01446191003587752
S. Kaplan, B. Garrick. “On the quantitative definition of risk”. Risk Anal. Vol. 1. 1981. pp. 11-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01350.x
L. Sjöberg. “Factors in risk perception”. Risk Anal. Vol. 20. 2000. pp. 1-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00001
B. Rohrmann, O. Renn. “Risk perception research: An introduction”. B. Rohrmann, O. Renn (editors). Crosscultural risk perception. 1st ed. Ed. Kluwer. Dordrecht, Netherlands. 2000. pp. 11-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-4891-8_1
R. Lion, R. Meertens, I. Bot. “Priorities in information desire about unknown risks”. Psych Sci. Vol. 22. 2002. pp. 765-776. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00067
A. Stewart, J. Cherrie. “Does risk perception affect behaviour and exposure? A pilot study amongst asbestos workers”. Ann. Occup. Hyg. Vol. 42. 1998. pp. 565-569. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4878(98)00062-3
N. Weinstein. “Unrealistic optimism about future life events”. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Vol. 39. 1980. pp. 806. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.806
E. Vaughan. “Chronic exposure to an environmental hazard: risk perceptions and self-protective behavior”. Health Psychol. Vol. 12. 1993. pp. 74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.12.1.74
N. Brewer, N. Weinstein, C. Cuite, J. Herrington. “Risk perceptions and their relation to risk behavior”. Ann Behav Med. Vol. 27. 2004. pp. 125-130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324796abm2702_7
S. Mohamed, T. Ali, W. Tam. “National culture and safe work behaviour of construction workers in Pakistan”. Saf. Sci. Vol. 47. 2009. pp. 29-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2008.01.003
W. Harrell. “Perceived risk of occupational injury: Control over pace of work and blue-collar versus white-collar work”. Percept. Mot. Skills. Vol. 70. 1990. pp. 1351-1359. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1990.70.3c.1351
S. Cox, T. Cox. “The structure of employee attitudes to safety: a European example”. Work & Stress. Vol. 5. 1991. pp. 93-106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02678379108257007
T. Rundmo. “Associations between risk perception and safety”. Saf. Sci. Vol. 24. 1996. pp. 197-209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(97)00038-6
A. Oliver, A. Cheyne, J. Tomás, S. Cox. “The effects of organizational and individual factors on occupational accidents”. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. Vol. 75. 2002. pp. 473-488. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1348/096317902321119691
J. Mullen. “Investigating factors that influence individual safety behavior at work”. J. Saf. Res. Vol. 35. 2004. pp. 275-285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2004.03.011
D. Seo. “An explicative model of unsafe work behavior”. Saf. Sci. Vol. 43. 2005. pp. 187-211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2005.05.001
P. Arezes, M. Bizarro. “Alcohol Consumption and Risk Perception in the Portuguese Construction Industry”. The Open Occupational Health & Safety Journal. Vol. 3. 2011. pp. 10-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/1876216601103010010
R. Choudhry, D. Fang. “Why operatives engage in unsafe work behavior: Investigating factors on construction sites”. Saf. Sci. Vol. 46. 2008. pp. 566- 584. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.027
A. Starren, J. Hornikx, K. Luijters. “Occupational safety in multicultural teams and organizations: A research agenda”. Saf. Sci. Vol. 52. 2013. pp. 43-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.03.013
K. Mearns, R. Flin, R. Gordon, M. Fleming. “Measuring safety climate on offshore installations”. Work Stress. Vol. 12. 1998. pp. 238-254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02678379808256864
R. Fortner, J. Lee, J. Corney, S. Romanello, J. Bonnell, B. Luthy, C. Figuerido, N. Ntsiko. “Public understanding of climate change: certainty and willingness to act”. Environmental Education Research. Vol. 6. 2000. pp. 127-141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/713664673
A. Kirschenbaum, L. Oigenblick, A. Goldberg. “Well being, work environment and work accidents”. Soc. Sci. Med. Vol. 50. 2000. pp. 631-639. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00309-3
P. Gucer, M. Oliver, M. McDiarmid. “Workplace threats to health and job turnover among women workers”. J Occup Env Med. Vol. 45. 2003. pp. 683- 690. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.jom.0000071508.96740.94
S. J. Linton, K. Halldén. “Can we screen for problematic back pain? A screening questionnaire for predicting outcome in acute and subacute back pain”. Clin. J. Pain. Vol. 14. 1998. pp. 209-215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00002508-199809000-00007
S. Yeung, A. Genaidy, J. Deddens, A. Alhemood, P. Leung. “Prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms in single and multiple body regions and effects of perceived risk of injury among manual handling workers”. Spine. Vol. 27. 2002. pp. 2166-2172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200210010-00017
D. Hermand, E. Mullet, L. Rompteaux. “Societal risk perception among children, adolescents, adults, and elderly people”. J Adult Dev. Vol. 6. 1999. pp. 137- 143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021676909857
C. Palmer. “Risk perception: Another look at the’white male’effect”. Health Risk Soc. Vol. 5. 2003. pp. 71-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369857031000066014
T. O’Connor, D. Loomis, C. Runyan, J. Santo, M. Schulman. “Adequacy of health and safety training among young Latino construction workers”. J Occup Env Med. Vol. 47. 2005. pp. 272-277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.jom.0000150204.12937.f5
M. Camino, D. Ritzel, I. Fontaneda, O. Gonzalez. “Construction industry accidents in Spain”. J. Saf. Res. Vol. 39. 2008. pp. 497-507. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2008.07.006
E. Vaughan, B. Nordenstam. “The perception of environmental risks among ethnically diverse groups”. J Cross-Cult Psychol. Vol. 22. 1991. pp. 29-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022191221005
T. Blocker, D. Eckberg. “Gender and environmentalism: Results from the 1993 general social survey”. Soc Sci Quart. Vol. 78. 1997. pp. 841-858.
B. Williams, Y. Florez. “Do Mexican Americans perceive environmental issues differently than Caucasians: a study of cross-ethnic variation in perceptions related to water in Tucson”. Environ. Health Perspect. Vol. 110. 2002. pp. 303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.02110s2303
J. Lerner, R. Gonzalez, D. Small, B. Fischhoff. “Effects of Fear and Anger on Perceived Risks of Terrorism A National Field Experiment”. Psych Sci. Vol. 14. 2003. pp. 144-150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.01433
A. Tversky, D. Kahneman. “Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases”. Science. Vol. 185. 1974. pp. 1124-1131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read, B. Combs. “How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits”. Policy Sci. Vol. 9. 1978. pp. 127-152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739
M. Douglas, A. Wildavsky. Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. 1st ed. Ed. University of California Press. Berkeley, USA. 1982. pp. 1-284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520907393
P. Slovic. “Perception of risk”. Science. Vol. 236. 1987. pp. 280-285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507
M. Viklund. “Trust and risk perception in western Europe: A cross‐national study”. Risk Anal. Vol. 23. 2003. pp. 727-738. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00351
M. Portell, M. Solé. Riesgo percibido: un procedimiento de evaluación. NTP 578. Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (INSHT). Madrid, Spain. 2001.
M. Hallowell. A Formal Model for Construction Safety and Health Risk Management. Doctoral Thesis. Oregon State University. Corvallis, USA. 2008. pp. 1-318.
J. Bohm, D. Harris. “Risk perception and risk-taking behavior of construction site dumper drivers”. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergonomics. Vol. 16. 2010. pp. 55-67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2010.11076829
D. Knowles. Risk perception leading to risk taking behaviour amongst farmers in England and Wales. 1st ed. Ed. HSE Books. Wolverhampton, UK. 2002. pp. 1-149.
N. Holmes, H. Lingard, Z. Yesilyurt, F. Munk. “An exploratory study of meanings of risk control for long term and acute effect occupational health and safety risks in small business construction firms”. J. Saf. Res. Vol. 30. 1999. pp. 251-261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(99)00020-1
D. Litai, D. Lanning, N. Rasmussen. “The public perception of risk”. V. Covello, W. Flamm, J. Rodricks, R. Tardiff (editors). The analysis of actual versus perceived risks. 1st ed. Ed. Springer. New York, USA. 1983. pp. 213-224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3760-7_14
M. Björkman. “Decision making, risk taking and psychological time: Review of empirical findings and psychological theory”. Scand. J. Psychol. Vol. 25. 1984. pp. 31-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1984.tb00999.x
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Revista Facultad de Ingeniería
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Revista Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Antioquia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution BY-NC-SA 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.en
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
The material published in the journal can be distributed, copied and exhibited by third parties if the respective credits are given to the journal. No commercial benefit can be obtained and derivative works must be under the same license terms as the original work.
Twitter