Skip to main content
Download PDF

Examining the effect of safety climate on accident risk through job stress: a path analysis

BMC Psychology volume 11, Article number: 89 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Job stress is a probable mediator of the relationship between safety climate and accident occurrence. To demonstrate this, this study investigates the relationship between safety climate, job stress, and accident risk using a large number of surveys. The study will use structural equation modeling (SEM) to analyze the data collected from the surveys to examine the effect of safety climate on accident risk through job stress.

Methods

The study is a cross-sectional study that was conducted on 1,530 male workers of a petrochemical company. The subjects were asked to complete several questionnaires during rest periods, which included demographic information, the Nordic safety climate questionnaire (NOSACQ-50), and the generic job stress questionnaire (GJSQ). Additionally, data on the frequency and intensity of accidents among participants were gathered from the health unit of the company. Path analysis was conducted by structural equation modeling (SEM) in Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) software.

Results

The results revealed that the latent variable of safety climate with an effect coefficient of – 0.112 did not have a direct effect on accident risk (P = 0.343). However, safety climate with an effect coefficient of − 0.633 had an indirect effect on accident risk through job stress (P < 0.001). The total score of job stress had a significant direct effect (0.649) on accident risk (P < 0.001). Among the dimensions of safety climate, the variables of management’s safety priority, commitment, and competence (− 0.108) and workers’ safety commitment (− 0.107) had the highest indirect effect coefficients on accident risk. Among the dimensions of job stress, the highest indirect effects belonged to the variables of conflict at work (0.636), physical environment (0.631), and workload and responsibility (0.631), respectively.

Conclusion

The results of the study revealed that job stress mediates the relationship between safety climate and accident risk. This finding suggests that organizations can potentially decrease accidents in industries by addressing and managing job stress in the workplace.

Peer Review reports

Background

Occupational accidents pose a significant threat to human health, the economy, society, and the environment [1]. These accidents are often quantified using two metrics: frequency and intensity. Frequency refers to the number of accidents that occur within a specified period, while intensity is the level of consequences resulting from an accident [2]. According to the international labor organization (ILO), there are approximately 2.78 million annual cases of work-related accidents or diseases, which carry a considerable financial burden of over 1.25 trillion dollars [3]. Furthermore, occupational accidents are among the leading causes of mortality in many countries. For example, based on data ranging from 2007 to 2016, occupational accidents and injuries were ranked as the third cause of mortality in the world and the second in Iran [3].

Various factors can increase the risk of accidents and affect their occurrence. Two of the most important factors are workplace physical conditions and human behavior [4]. Research shows that human behavior plays a greater role than workplace physical conditions, 60 to 90% of accidents are directly caused by human behavior [5].

Safety climate is a crucial factor that can impact worker behavior in the workplace. Safety climate is defined as the shared perceptions among employees about the importance of safety in their work environment [6]. It is a multi-dimensional factor, including aspects such as commitment to safety at individual and management levels, safety communication, and safety system in place during operations [7]. The results of a study performed by Ajslev et al. show that there is a clear relationship between safety climate and accident occurrence [8]. Other studies have shown that a positive safety climate is associated with safer behaviors and reduced accidents [9, 10]. It also has a positive effect on safety outcomes such as compliance, participation behaviors, accidents, and injuries [11, 12]. Furthermore, a good safety climate can mediate the relationship between organizational climate and the safety function of workers, with several studies exploring the relationship between safety climate and accident occurrence [8,9,10,11,12].

Job stress is also associated with the behavior and performance of employees. This type of stress is typically caused by workplace conditions that negatively affect the well-being of workers [13]. A study by Leung et al. [14] showed that job stress is associated with unsafe behaviors and thus affects the occurrence of accidents. It can also lead to decreased concentration, distraction, memory impairment, work hesitation, and decision-making power in the workers [15]. Therefore, job stress is a major contributor to occupational accidents and injuries, accounting for 37% of such accidents [16]. Additionally, Kim et al. [17] showed a direct relationship between job stress and injury occurrences among firefighters.

Literature suggests that job stress is a probable mediator between safety climate and accident occurrence. Safety climate regulates/controls work demand based on resource interaction and expected job stress [18]. An unbalanced workload per personal capability and work productivity increase job stress [19]. We can also view job stress as being associated with other aspects, such as job control, conflict at work, job satisfaction, mental demand, physical environment, social support, workload, and responsibility [20] in an indirect relationship. When there is a great imbalance between personal capabilities and job demands, work-related stress is created in humans [19]. Job stress is also associated with other agents, such as job control, conflict at work, job satisfaction, mental demand, physical environment, social support, workload, and responsibility [20], which may be indirectly related to safety climate, injuries, and accidents.

Despite the association among many factors, there still is lacking understanding of the effect of safety climate on the risk of accidents. In this regard, the present study aims to investigate the effect of safety climate on accident risk through job stress. The study plans to use path analysis to further investigate this relationship based on all factors discussed in this literature.

Methods

Participants

This cross-sectional study, conducted in 2019, recruited participants from a large-scale petrochemical company in Iran. A total of 4,621 workers from various departments including technical, electrical, machinery, maintenance, mechanical, welding, turning, and supervision were considered for the study. Then, a random sample of 2,100 individuals was selected, with the number of individuals chosen from each department being proportional to the number of workers in that department. Following this, the medical records of these individuals were reviewed, and those who met the inclusion criteria of having work experience higher than one year and having literacy were entered into the study. The included individuals were 1,912. Exclusion criteria included the lack of cooperation and the inability to complete the questionnaires. Out of the 1,912 workers who met the inclusion criteria, 1,742 accepted to participate in the study and completed the questionnaires, resulting in a sample of 1,530 subjects.

Data collection

The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the medical ethics committee of Tehran University of Medical Sciences, and all study procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical code IR.TUMS.VCR.REC.1398.558. Data collection took place at the participants’ workplaces, where researchers provided a general overview of the study and trained them on how to complete the questionnaires. All participants voluntarily gave informed consent and were assured anonymity during the survey. All participants were asked to complete paper questionnaires in the presence of the researchers during their free time. The questionnaires included demographical information, the Nordic safety climate questionnaire (NOSACQ-50), the NIOSH generic job stress questionnaire (GJSQ), and an accident history form.

Tools

Demographical information questionnaire

The demographic information questionnaire included several questions about age, education, marital status, job type, work department, work experience, and habits of the workers.

Nordic safety climate questionnaire (NOSACQ-50)

The Nordic safety climate questionnaire is a valid instrument that evaluates individuals’ perceptions of safety climate. The questionnaire was developed by a team of specialists from various Nordic countries, such as Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Finland, and Sweden, in 2011 [21]. This instrument has been used in several studies. For instance, Fargnoli and Lombardi [21, 22] studied safety climate in agricultural activities using the NOSACQ-50, and Marin et al. [23] used this questionnaire to evaluate the perception of safety climate among construction personnel.

The NOSACQ-50 consists of 50 questions that assess seven dimensions of safety climate, including management’s safety priority, commitment, and competence (9 items), management’s safety empowerment (7 items), management’s safety justice (6 items), workers’ safety commitment (6 items), workers’ safety priority and risk non-acceptance (7 items), safety communication, learning, and trust in co-workers’ safety competence (8 items), and workers’ trust in the efficacy of safety systems (7 items) [21]. The participants answered the questions on a one-to-four Likert scale, including ‘strongly disagree,’ ‘disagree,’ ‘agree,’ and ‘strongly agree.’ The study then further evaluated the data in relation to the employees of the participating company. The total safety climate score was computed as the mean value of the scores for the seven dimensions.

A Persian version of the questionnaire was developed by Yousefi et al. [24]. This has been verified for its validity, completeness, and reliability for Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of this version was reported by 0.94 [24].

NIOSH generic job stress questionnaire (GJSQ)

The NIOSH GJSQ, developed by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), has been adopted/used by several studies. Researchers have used it to study the occupational stress of nurses [25] and the job stress dimensions of Japanese employees working in hospitals, transportation, manufacturing, information technology, pharmaceutical, and service industries [26].

Our study applied the NIOSH GJSQ to assess various job stress dimensions, including background information (7 items), conflict at work (16 items), job control (16 items), employment opportunities (4 items), somatic complaints (17 items), general job information (12 items), health condition (24 items), self-esteem (10 items), job requirements (10 items), job satisfaction (4 items), mental demands (5 items), non-work activities (7 items), depression (20 items), physical environment (10 items), problems at work (6 items), social support (12 items), work hazards (5 items), work limitations (5 items), workload and responsibility (11 items), role conflict and ambiguity (14 items), and job future ambiguity (5 items).

The responses are in the form of ‘yes or no,‘ ‘false or true,‘ or a one-to-five Likert scale [27]. The dimensions with qualitative and non-Likert answers including background information, general job information, health conditions, non-work activities, and work limitations were excluded from further consideration. The total score of each dimension was also computed as the mean value of the scores of its questions.

The study used a Persian-translated version of the questionnaire, validated by Kazronian et al. (2013), and found high reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and intra-cluster correlation of greater than 0.70 [20].

Accident history form

Data about the intensity and frequency of accidents collected from the participants were processed through the health unit of the petrochemical company. The score of accident risk was computed as a multiplication of the severity and frequency of the accident.

Data analysis

Data were analyzed using the statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) software version 26. The normality of variables was confirmed through the examination of skewness and kurtosis curves. Given that the statistical distribution of all parameters was normal, correlation coefficients were calculated by the Pearson test. A theoretical model was then described in AMOS software for path analysis. Path Analysis is a causal modeling approach to exploring the correlations within a defined network. This study further used Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), which is a strong multivariate analysis technique, widely used in various sciences [28]. It fulfills a flexible framework to develop and analyze the complex relationships among multiple variables [29]. Absolute, comparative, and normed fit indices were used to evaluate the fitness of this model, and the direct and indirect effect coefficients of the safety climate and job stress dimensions were computed. The significance level used was 0.05, meaning the test result was acceptable.

Results

The average age of the participants was 36.77 years with a standard deviation of 7.53, and their average work experience was 10.15 years with a standard deviation of 5.01. Tables 1 and 2 provide more information on demographic variables and study variables, which are discussed in detail in the discussion section. Additionally, the accident score ranged from 1 to 30.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics related to demographic variables
Full size table
Table 2 The descriptive information of the studied variables/dimensions
Full size table

Table 3 presents the correlation between two variables (i.e., job stress and safety climate) and accident risk. The correlations were found to be significant (P < 0.01) across all dimensions of safety climate and job stress with accident risk. The two highest correlations with accident risk in the safety climate dimensions were management’s safety justice (-0.505) and workers’ safety priority and risk non-acceptance (-0.501) Among the job stress dimensions, the most significant correlations were related to the variables of the physical environment (0.541), Conflict at work (0.528), and workload and responsibility (0.528), respectively. The correlation coefficients between the total scores of safety climate and job stress and the score of accident risk also were – 0.518 and 0.523, respectively.

Table 3 Correlation coefficients of two dimensions (i.e., job stress and safety climate) with accident risk
Full size table

The study examines the relationships among the studied variables using the model presented in Fig. 1. Table 4 represents the goodness-of-fit indices of the model, which demonstrated that the model fits the data well. The arrows in Fig. 1 indicate the direction of the relationship between variables, and the values on the arrows show their direct effect coefficients. The results show that the latent variable of safety climate with the effect coefficients of − 0.112 does not have a direct effect on accident risk (P = 0.343). However, this variable with the effect coefficients of − 0.633 has an indirect effect through job stress (P < 0.001). Additionally, the total score of job stress has a significant direct effect (0.649) on accident risk (P < 0.001).

Table 4 The fit indices of the model
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Model designed for examination of the relations between the studied variables

Full size image

Table 5 reports the effect coefficients of the job stress and safety climate dimensions on accident risk. Of the safety climate dimensions, the variables of management’s safety priority, commitment, and competence (− 0.108) and workers’ safety commitment (− 0.107) are ranked as the top two indirect effect coefficients on accident risk. Among the job stress dimensions, the highest indirect effects were the variables of conflict at work (0.636), physical environment (0.631), workload and responsibility (0.631), and job control (− 0.630), respectively, while most were high.

Table 5 The effect coefficients of the job stress and safety climate dimensions on accident risk
Full size table

Discussion

This study examined the relationships between safety climate, job stress, and accident risk. The results found that all dimensions of safety climate and job stress had significant correlations with accident risk, and a path analysis supported these findings. One of the interesting results from the path analysis was that safety climate did not directly affect accident risk but indirectly impacted accident risk through job stress.

Previous studies show the effect of safety climate on accidents. Kalteh et al. performed a systematic review to investigate the relationship between safety culture and safety climate and safety performance. They concluded that improving the safety climate can be effective in reducing accidents and increasing safe performance [30]. The results of a study performed by Probst et al. also showed that a poorer organizational safety climate was associated with the under-reporting of accidents and inappropriate safety enforcement [31]. The results of a study conducted by Neal and Griffin indicated that safety climate can affect safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the work [10]. Nielsen et al. also concluded that changes in the safety climate can lead to changes in the accident rate in work environments [32]. The effect of safety climate on accident rate can be regulated by various factors. However, what is important in the present study compared to previous studies is the effect of safety climate on the rate of accidents through job stress. The results of previous studies show job stress has a significant impact on accidents. Barkhordari et al. concluded that occupational stress can lead to personal failure and carelessness and increase unsafe acts and accidents [33]. The results of a study performed by Mohammadfam et al. showed that there are significant direct relationships between job stress and unsafe acts and accidents [34]. On the other hand, the results of a previous study indicate safety climate can affect workers’ job stress. The study by Akbolat et al. revealed the effect of workplace safety climate on job stress through the moderating effect of psychological well-being [35]. Idris et al. also concluded that safety climate had a significant effect on job demands and psychological health in workers [36]. The results of a study conducted by Chen et al. showed that the safety climate can affect psychological stress and safety performance in workers [37]. The results of these studies confirm the findings of the present study and these findings have importance, particularly in petrochemical companies. Petrochemical companies have a large number of workers and health, safety, and environment (HSE) management systems so identification of the paths affecting the accident can be very helpful. The severity of accidents occurring in these companies is relatively high, which is associated with serious consequences. Also, most of the processes in these companies are controlled by humans, and the psychological conditions and perceptions of these people can be effective in preventing accidents [38]. Therefore, the results of the present study can be useful for these industries.

Of the safety climate dimensions, the variables of management’s safety priority, commitment, and competence and workers’ safety commitment possessed the highest direct and indirect effect coefficients on accident risk, respectively. Management’s safety priority represents the worker’s perception of management behavior on actions related to safety prioritization, even when production pressure is high. If managers are committed to performing the principles of safety with higher priority compared to other goals of the organization, the safe behaviors of employees can be improved. In a poor safety climate, managers and workers consider that safety responsibility is on each other rather than on themselves. However, a strong safety climate tends to be in an environment where managers and workers share the responsibility of safety with a converging perception of safety [21, 39]. Our findings suggest that high management’s safety priority, commitment, and competence are critical in creating a strong safety climate. Workers’ safety commitment is one of the other most substantial factors in improving the safety conditions in the workplace. If the worker is not committed to safety, unsafe behaviors, and human errors increase. So that the management cannot actualize the obligations [40, 41].

Among the job stress dimensions, the highest indirect effects were related to the variables of conflict at work, physical environment, workload and responsibility, and job control, respectively. The results of other studies also indicate the importance of conflict at work. The results of a study in Italy on female workers revealed that there is a relationship between conflict at work and occupational accidents, which is consistent with the results of this study [42]. The results of another study also showed that conflict at work compared to other organizational parameters had a stronger relationship to accidents and persons with more conflict experienced the accident with higher severity [43]. Based on the results of other studies, this factor has an important effect on people’s health in addition to job stress [44, 45]. The results of a study demonstrated that conflict at work can affect workers’ behavior and lead to accident occurrence [46]. In addition to this factor, there is an interaction between the employees and their surroundings workplaces. Therefore, the physical environment plays an important role in occupations because this factor influences several other factors of job stress. Appropriate design of the work environment can create feelings of comfort, safety, motivation, job satisfaction, and productivity in the workers. A job with a weak design for the physical environment is associated with increasing dissatisfaction, fatigue, and accidents [47, 48]. Moreover, the parameter of responsibility and workload is another important factor. If there is no balance between the tasks and employees’ abilities, people commit errors and accidents. The results of other studies confirm these findings [49, 50].

The limitations of this study include the lack of investigation of female workers and the lack of data analysis in different industries and job positions. Moreover, safety climate is a collective perception that should be measured at the group level [51] while the present study uses individual-level data. Another limitation of this study was the cross-sectional design for examining the causal relationships [52] although this study was performed based on past accident records. Therefore, it proposes that these limitations be considered in future studies. The effect of non-occupational stress due to family and community environments was not investigated, and the effect of demographic variables on the presented model was not studied. Therefore, it is recommended that these limitations be resolved in future studies. Finally, the effect of the proposed model on the number and severity of unsafe behaviors and the number and severity of work accidents were not considered, which authors will investigate in subsequent studies. Lastly, this study applies the self-report instruments as the data source, which may cause some bias in the results.

ConclusionThe study found significant relationships between safety climate, job stress, and accident risk. Our results conclude that safety climate does not directly impact accident risk, but indirectly does so through job stress as a mediator. Job stress management/control offers the potential to mediate the relationships between safety climate and accident risk. In addition, other findings of this study could help industries, especially with safety challenges, exploit various tactics based on the identified/confirmed relationships among the various dimensions of safety climate, job stress, and accident risk.

Data Availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

SEM:

Structural Equation Modeling

NOSACQ-50:

Nordic safety climate questionnaire

GJSQ:

generic job stress questionnaire.

References

  1. Comberti L, Demichela M, Baldissone G. A combined approach for the analysis of large occupational accident databases to support accident-prevention decision making. Saf Sci. 2018;106:191–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Salzano E, Basco A, Busini V, Cozzani V, Marzo E, Rota R, et al. Public awareness promoting new or emerging risks: industrial accidents triggered by natural hazards (NaTech). J Risk Res. 2013;16:469–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Izadi N, Aminian O, Esmaeili B. Occupational accidents in Iran: risk factors and Long Term Trend (2007–2016). J Res health Sci. 2019;19:e00448.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Kploanyi EE, Dwomoh D, Dzodzomenyo M. The effect of occupational stress on depression and insomnia: a cross-sectional study among employees in a ghanaian telecommunication company. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kletz T. An engineer’s view of human error. Routledge; 2018.

  6. Schwatka NV, Hecker S, Goldenhar LM. Defining and measuring safety climate: a review of the construction industry literature. Ann Occup Hyg. 2016;60:537–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Casey T, Griffin MA, Flatau Harrison H, Neal A. Safety climate and culture: integrating psychological and systems perspectives. J Occup Health Psychol. 2017;22:341.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ajslev J, Dastjerdi EL, Dyreborg J, Kines P, Jeschke KC, Sundstrup E, et al. Safety climate and accidents at work: cross-sectional study among 15,000 workers of the general working population. Saf Sci. 2017;91:320–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Vinodkumar M, Bhasi M. Safety climate factors and its relationship with accidents and personal attributes in the chemical industry. Saf Sci. 2009;47:659–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Neal A, Griffin MA. A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels. J Appl Psychol. 2006;91:946.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Beus JM, Payne SC, Bergman ME, Arthur W Jr. Safety climate and injuries: an examination of theoretical and empirical relationships. J Appl Psychol. 2010;95:713.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nahrgang JD, Morgeson FP, Hofmann DA. Safety at work: a meta-analytic investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety outcomes. J Appl Psychol. 2011;96:71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Olusegun AJ, Oluwasayo AJ, Olawoyim O. An overview of the effects of job stress on employees performance in nigeria tertiary hospitals. Ekonomika, Journal for Economic Theory and Practice and Social Issues. 2014;60:139 – 53.

  14. Leung M-Y, Liang Q, Olomolaiye P. Impact of job stressors and stress on the safety behavior and accidents of construction workers. J Manag Eng. 2016;32:04015019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Day AJ, Brasher K, Bridger RS. Accident proneness revisited: the role of psychological stress and cognitive failure. Accid Anal Prev. 2012;49:532–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Goldenhar* M, Williams L, Swanson LJG. Modelling relationships between job stressors and injury and near-miss outcomes for construction labourers. Work Stress. 2003;17:218–40.

  17. Kim Y-K, Ahn Y-S, Kim K, Yoon J-H, Roh J. Association between job stress and occupational injuries among korean firefighters: a nationwide cross-sectional study. BMJ open. 2016;6:e012002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Dollard MF, Tuckey MR, Dormann C. Psychosocial safety climate moderates the job demand–resource interaction in predicting workgroup distress. Accid Anal Prev. 2012;45:694–704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. De Jonge J, Dormann C. Why is my job so stressful? Characteristics, processes, and models of stress at work. An Introduction to work and organizational psychology: An international perspective. 2017:80–101.

  20. Kazronian S, Zakerian S, Saraji J, Hosseini M. Reliability and validity study of the NIOSH generic job stress questionnaire (GJSQ) among firefighters in Tehran city. Health and Safety at Work. 2013;3:25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kines P, Lappalainen J, Mikkelsen KL, Olsen E, Pousette A, Tharaldsen J, et al. Nordic Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ-50): a new tool for diagnosing occupational safety climate. Int J Ind Ergon. 2011;41:634–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fargnoli M, Lombardi M. NOSACQ-50 for safety climate assessment in agricultural activities: a case study in central Italy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:9177.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Marín LS, Lipscomb H, Cifuentes M, Punnett L. Perceptions of safety climate across construction personnel: Associations with injury rates. Saf Sci. 2019;118:487–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Yousefi Y, Jahangiri M, Choobineh A, Tabatabaei H, Keshavarzi S, Shams A, et al. Validity assessment of the Persian version of the Nordic Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ-50): a case study in a steel company. Saf health work. 2016;7:326–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Sugawara N, Danjo K, Furukori H, Sato Y, Tomita T, Fujii A, et al. Work–family conflict as a mediator between occupational stress and psychological health among mental health nurses in Japan. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2017;13:779.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Inoue A, Kawakami N, Tsutsumi A, Shimazu A, Miyaki K, Takahashi M, et al. Association of job demands with work engagement of japanese employees: comparison of challenges with hindrances (J-HOPE). PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e91583.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. ÇETİNKAYA G, Dicle A, Work, Stress. Perception of Job Safety, and job satisfaction of Rope Access Technicians and the relationship among them iple Erişim Teknisyenlerinin İş Stresi, İş Güvenliği Algıları, İş Tatminleri ve Aralarındaki İlişki Üzerine bir Çalışma. Work Stress. 2017;7:125–32.

    Google Scholar 

  28. González J, De Boeck P, Tuerlinckx F. A double-structure structural equation model for three-mode data. Psychol Methods. 2008;13:337.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Beran TN, Violato C. Structural equation modeling in medical research: a primer. BMC Res Notes. 2010;3:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kalteh HO, Mortazavi SB, Mohammadi E, Salesi M. The relationship between safety culture and safety climate and safety performance: a systematic review. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2021;27:206–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Probst TM, Estrada AX. Accident under-reporting among employees: testing the moderating influence of psychological safety climate and supervisor enforcement of safety practices. Accid Anal Prev. 2010;42:1438–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Nielsen KJ, Rasmussen K, Glasscock D, Spangenberg S. Changes in safety climate and accidents at two identical manufacturing plants. Saf Sci. 2008;46:440–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Barkhordari A, Malmir B, Malakoutikhah M. An analysis of individual and social factors affecting occupational accidents. Saf health work. 2019;10:205–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Mohammadfam I, Bahrami A, Fatemi F, Golmohammadi R, Mahjub H. Evaluation of the relationship between job stress and unsafe acts with occupational accidents in a vehicle manufacturing plant. Avicenna J Clin Med. 2008;15:60–6.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Akbolat M, Amarat M, Yildirim Y, Yildirim K, Taş Y. Moderating effect of psychological well-being on the effect of workplace safety climate on job stress.International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics. 2022:1–6.

  36. Idris MA, Dollard MF, Coward J, Dormann C. Psychosocial safety climate: conceptual distinctiveness and effect on job demands and worker psychological health. Saf Sci. 2012;50:19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Chen Y, McCabe B, Hyatt D. Impact of individual resilience and safety climate on safety performance and psychological stress of construction workers: a case study of the Ontario construction industry. J Saf Res. 2017;61:167–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jafari MJ, Eskandari D, Valipour F, Mehrabi Y, Charkhand H, Mirghotbi M. Development and validation of a new safety climate scale for petrochemical industries. Work. 2017;58:309–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Prussia GE, Brown KA, Willis PG. Mental models of safety: do managers and employees see eye to eye? J Saf Res. 2003;34:143–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Zwetsloot GI, Kines P, Ruotsala R, Drupsteen L, Merivirta M-L, Bezemer RA. The importance of commitment, communication, culture and learning for the implementation of the Zero Accident Vision in 27 companies in Europe. Saf Sci. 2017;96:22–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Cavazza N, Serpe A. Effects of safety climate on safety norm violations: exploring the mediating role of attitudinal ambivalence toward personal protective equipment. J Saf Res. 2009;40:277–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Martin-Fernandez S, de Los Rios I, Cazorla A, Martinez-Falero E. Pilot study on the influence of stress caused by the need to combine work and family on occupational accidents in working women. Saf Sci. 2009;47:192–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Smith TD, DeJoy DM. Occupational injury in America: an analysis of risk factors using data from the General Social Survey (GSS). J Saf Res. 2012;43:67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Hammer TH, Saksvik P, Nytrø K, Torvatn H, Bayazit M. Expanding the psychosocial work environment: workplace norms and work-family conflict as correlates of stress and health. J Occup Health Psychol. 2004;9:83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Allen TD, Herst DE, Bruck CS, Sutton M. Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: a review and agenda for future research. J Occup Health Psychol. 2000;5:278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Allen TD, Armstrong J. Further examination of the link between work-family conflict and physical health: the role of health-related behaviors. Am Behav Sci. 2006;49:1204–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Leung M-y, Chan Y-S, Yuen K-W. Impacts of stressors and stress on the injury incidents of construction workers in Hong Kong. J Constr Eng Manag. 2010;136:1093–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Leung M-y, Chan IYS, Yu J. Preventing construction worker injury incidents through the management of personal stress and organizational stressors. Accid Anal Prev. 2012;48:156–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Halvani G, Ehrampoush MH, Ghaneian MT, Dehghani A, Arani MH. Applying job hazard analysis and William Fine methods on risks identification and assessment of jobs in hot rolling steel, Iran. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci. 2017;26:293–303.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Oah S, Na R, Moon K. The influence of safety climate, safety leadership, workload, and accident experiences on risk perception: a study of korean manufacturing workers. Saf health work. 2018;9:427–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Zohar D, Luria G. Climate as a social-cognitive construction of supervisory safety practices: scripts as proxy of behavior patterns. J Appl Psychol. 2004;89:322.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Holahan CJ, Moos RH, Holahan CK, Brennan PL, Schutte KK. Stress generation, avoidance coping, and depressive symptoms: a 10-year model. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005;73:658.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors appreciate the participants in this study.

Funding

This study was supported by the Tehran University of Medical Sciences.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Occupational Health Engineering, Faculty of Health, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran

    Amir Hossein Khoshakhlagh

  2. Students’ Scientific Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Amir Hossein Khoshakhlagh

  3. Department of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering in Al-Qunfudah, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, 21955, Saudi Arabia

    Saleh Al Sulaie

  4. Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran

    Saeid Yazdanirad

  5. School of Health, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran

    Saeid Yazdanirad

  6. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Construction, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA

    JeeWoong Park

Authors
  1. Amir Hossein Khoshakhlagh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Saleh Al Sulaie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Saeid Yazdanirad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. JeeWoong Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AHK: study concept and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of manuscript, and critical reversion of manuscript for important intellectual content. SAS: drafting of manuscript, and critical reversion of manuscript for important intellectual content. SY: study concept and design, administrative, technical and support, study supervision, drafting of manuscript, and critical reversion of manuscript for important intellectual content. JP: interpretation of data, drafting of manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saeid Yazdanirad.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the institutional research ethics committee of Tehran University of Medical Sciences (IR.TUMS.VCR.REC.1398.558). All steps of the study were accordance with the ethical standards. All participants were asked to fill out the consent form developed by the ethics committee, and written informed consent was obtained from all of them.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khoshakhlagh, A.H., Sulaie, S., Yazdanirad, S. et al. Examining the effect of safety climate on accident risk through job stress: a path analysis. BMC Psychol 11, 89 (2023). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s40359-023-01133-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s40359-023-01133-2

Keywords

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

Contact us