Empirical Analysis of the Impacts of Safety Motivation and Safety Climate on Safety Behaviour

Abstract

Safety is a major concern for construction companies, as it is a source of substantial direct and indirect costs. In some countries, the rate of total workplace injuries from construction activities can be as high as at least 50%. This is undoubtedly a serious matter warranting urgent attention. In the past decade, interest in the nature of 'safety climate' and its role in predicting occupational accidents and injuries has increased. However, research findings regarding the relationships between safety climate and other key outcomes constructs such as safety behaviours and safety outcomes are to some extent inconsistent. Recent safety climate literature suggests that examining the role of safety motivation may help provide a better explanation on such relationships. In view of this, the authors of this paper have developed a conceptual model depicting the relationships between three main constructs: Safety Motivation, Safety Climate, and Safety Behaviour. In particular, the model hypothesises that Safety Climate has a mediating role on the relationship between Safety Motivation and Safety Behaviour. The aim of the research study presented in this paper was to empirically assess the proposed conceptual model within the context of Saudi Construction Industry. To achieve this, a questionnaire was developed through a critical review of literature and was pilot tested with a number of safety management experts. A survey was then administered in Saudi Arabia targeting project managers, site managers, site engineers and supervisors at construction workplaces. In total, 430 sets of questionnaire were distributed and 265 valid responses returned. Based on this dataset, a series of statistical analyses were performed including basic descriptive analysis, Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses as well as Structural Equation Modelling (SEM). The results from the analysis support that Safety Climate fully mediated the relationship between Safety Motivation and Safety Behaviour, within the context of Saudi Construction Industry.

Full text

Empirical Analysis of the Impacts of Safety
Motivation and Safety Climate on Safety Behaviour
Saeed Al-Haadir
1
, Kriengsak Panuwatwanich
2
and Rodney A. Stewart
3
Abstract
Safety is a major concern for construction companies, as it is a source of substantial
direct and indirect costs. In some countries, the rate of total workplace injuries from
construction activities can be as high as at least 50%. This is undoubtedly a serious
matter warranting urgent attention. In the past decade, interest in the nature of ‘safety
climate’ and its role in predicting occupational accidents and injuries has increased.
However, research findings regarding the relationships between safety climate and other
key outcomes constructs such as safety behaviours and safety outcomes are to some
extent inconsistent. Recent safety climate literature suggests that examining the role of
safety motivation may help provide a better explanation on such relationships. In view of
this, the authors of this paper have developed a conceptual model depicting the
relationships between three main constructs: Safety Motivation, Safety Climate, and
Safety Behaviour. In particular, the model hypothesises that Safety Climate has a
mediating role on the relationship between Safety Motivation and Safety Behaviour. The
aim of the research study presented in this paper was to empirically assess the proposed
conceptual model within the context of Saudi Construction Industry. To achieve this, a
questionnaire was developed through a critical review of literature and was pilot tested
with a number of safety management experts. A survey was then administered in Saudi
Arabia targeting project managers, site managers, site engineers and supervisors at
construction workplaces. In total, 430 sets of questionnaire were distributed and 265
valid responses returned. Based on this dataset, a series of statistical analyses were
performed including basic descriptive analysis, Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor
Analyses as well as Structural Equation Modelling (SEM). The results from the analysis
support that Safety Climate fully mediated the relationship between Safety Motivation
and Safety Behaviour, within the context of Saudi Construction Industry.
Keyword: Safety Climate, Safety Behaviour, Safety Motivation, Construction, Saudi
Arabia
1. Introduction
The National Safety Council
(
NSC) estimates
that the construction industry employs about
6% of the industry workforce; however, on average, it is responsible for approximately 21%
1
PhD Candidate; Griffith School of Engineering; Griffith University; s.alhaadir@griffith.edu.au
2
Lecturer; Griffith School of Engineering, Griffith University; k.panuwatwanich@griffith.edu.au
3
Associate Professor; Griffith School of Engineering; Griffith University; r.stewart@griffith.edu.au
Author's version: Originally published in the Proceedings of the 19th CIB World Building Congress,
Brisbane 2013: Construction and Society.

of all industrial deaths (Rechenthin 2004). In fact, it is documented that the construction
industry has the highest rate of accidents of all industries as well as the highest rate of
disabling injuries and fatalities (Hinze 1997). As reported by Bomel (2001), up to 40% of
accidents occur in the construction industry in Japan, 50% in Ireland and 25% in the United
Kingdom. In some developing countries such as Saudi Arabia, around 51% of total
workplace injuries occurred in the construction sector (General Organization for Social
Insurance 2010). Safety has thus become one of the primary concerns among construction
organisations as well as construction researchers.
Traditionally, safety research has focused on identifying individual attributes, such as
personality traits or attitudes which are associated with accident-proneness (Sutherland and
Cooper 1991). However, major disasters, such as Piper Alpha and Chernobyl, have
illustrated the importance of work climates and management practices as contributors to
system failure (Reason 1990). Consequently, increasing attention has been paid to the role
of the work environment and management practices as determinants of safety in the
workplace (Barling et al, 2003). Much of this research has focused on the concept of safety
climate (Neal and Griffin 2006). Although the safety climate literature has examined the link
between safety climate and safety behaviour, and with accidents; there remains a number of
conceptual and practical difficulties associated with the relationship between both constructs
(Neal and Griffin 2006). Some researchers have suggested that examining the role of safety
motivation may help provide a better explanation on the link between safety climate and
safety behaviour as well as other associated outcomes (Clarke, 2006).
The primary aim of this paper is to develop and empirically test a conceptual model that
integrates safety motivation, safety climate and individual safety behaviour to produce an
improved integrative model of construction workplace safety, as well as to provide an
appropriate measure for safety motivation in the workplace. In particular, the model
proposes that workers’ safety climate is a key mechanism through which safety motivation
leverages individual safety behaviour.
2. Conceptual model development
In safety literature, essential background knowledge is generally provided in relation to how
safety climate is associated with safety outcomes. One shortcoming apparent in the
literature is the lack of comprehensible and consistent construct definitions and
conceptualisations, in both the predictor and criterion sides (Clarke and Robertson 2005).
The existing inconsistencies between studies and empirical findings are not in line with
theoretical predictions. Even though there have been efforts to overcome this problem in
particular domains, no study to date has comprehensively addressed the deficiencies
(Christian et al. 2009). Moreover, the literature regarding safety climate and safety behaviour
reveals that safety motivation (SM) plays a part in these relationships (Clarke 2010). These
observations led to the development of a theoretical framework addressing three constructs:
safety motivation (SM), safety climate (SC), and safety behaviour (SB) (see Figure 1).
In particular, the framework hypothesises that SM has a primary influence on SC and SB.
Moreover SC impacts safety behaviour directly and it should be noted that the mediating

effect of safety climate between safety motivation and safety behaviour has never been
tested within the construction context. The following sections provide details of each of the
model’s constructs.
Figure 1: The conceptual model
2.1 Safety motivation (SM) construct
The study of motivation is the study of action (Eccles and Wigfield 2002). Motivation has
been defined as “the set of psychological processes that cause the initiation, direction,
intensity, and persistence of behaviour” (Fey 2005). Another definition refers to inner factors
that drive action and to outside factors that can act as inducements to action (Locke and
Latham 2004; Moynihan and Pandey 2007). Motivation, in general, is intention to do
something, and can be intrinsic or extrinsic (Locke and Latham 2004). A careful literature
review of safety motivation reveals a number of theories focusing on the differences between
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. When individuals are intrinsically motivated, they engage in
an activity since they are interested in and enjoy the activity. When extrinsically motivated,
individuals connect with activities for instrumental or other reasons, such as receiving a
reward. The theories presented in the following paragraphs focus on the question of why
(Eccles and Wigfield 2002).
Intrinsic motivation theory argues that extrinsic incentives and pressures can weaken
motivation to perform even inherently interesting activities. However, Deci et al. (1999)
expanded the extrinsic-intrinsic motivation dichotomy in their argument of internalisation the
process of transferring the regulation of behaviour from outside to inside the individual.
When individuals are self-determined, their motives for engaging in behaviour are completely
internalized. Deci and colleagues defined several levels in the process of moving from
external to internalised regulation. These are: “external”, “introjected”, “identified” and
“integrated”. External level refers to the regulation coming from outside the individual;
introjected level represents internal regulation, based on feelings that one has to do the
behaviour; identified level indicates internal regulation based on the utility of that behaviour,
and integrated level refers to regulation based on what the individual thinks is valuable and
significant to themselves (Deci et al., 1999).

Based on the Operant Conditioning Theory, Weiss (1990) developed four tools that
managers can apply to motivate high performance and prevent workers from engaging in
other behaviours detracting from organisational effectiveness. These tools are: positive
reinforcement, negative reinforcement, extinction, and punishment. These tools were tested
by Teo et al. (2005) and the findings showed that only three tools can help workers who “do
not care” about working safely to be more safety-aware. The first tool is positive
reinforcement, which gives workers outcomes (positive reinforcers) they desire when they
perform organisationally functional behaviours. Secondly, negative reinforcement eliminates
or removes undesired outcomes (negative reinforcers) once the functional behaviour is
performed. Hence, to motivate workers to perform their jobs in a safe manner, managers
may criticise or threaten workers. Once the workers work in a safe manner, they stop
receiving the undesired outcomes. Whenever possible, positive reinforcements should be
used, as negative reinforcements make the workplace unpleasant and may cause
subordinates to resent managers and try to get back at them (Jones and George 2003). The
third tool is punishment, which involves administering an undesired or negative consequence
when dysfunctional behaviour occurs. In regards to job safety, punishments can include pay
cuts, temporary suspensions, demotions, and firings. Punishments and negative
reinforcements are different. Negative reinforcement is used to encourage workers to work in
a safe manner, while punishment is used to stop unsafe work behaviour. When the workers
work in a safe manner, the negative reinforcement is removed. In the case of punishment, it
is administered when unsafe work behaviour is performed. The above theories can be
summarised in relation to the two major sources of motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic
motivation refers to behaviours that happen in the absence of external control, whereas
extrinsic motivators are external motivation sources, when individuals believe that the
behaviours they engage in will lead to certain outcomes such as pay and praise (Nirmala
2005). Intrinsic motivation does not mean, however, that a person will not seek rewards.
Thus, safety motivation scales should measure both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The
aim for understanding the nature of motivation is to measure safety motivation appropriately,
and to discover the impact of motivation on the relationship on safety climate and worker
safety behaviour, in order to predict and control human behaviour in workplace. Table 1
describes the dimensions of safety motivation along with description and associated
references.
In the current study, it is
proposed that workers’ safety motivation is a key variable having a
direct impact on both workplace safety climate and individual behaviour
.
A desired safe
behaviour in workplace is usually uncomfortable and inconvenient (Geller 2010). Without
safety climate and individual motivation, shortcuts may unavoidably be taken.
The
motivation has to be linked to required actions for the outcome to be achieved (Gershwin
1994) which is safety climate in the current study. The motivation alone does not
produce the positive change unless there is an appropriate safety climate to maintain
safe manner and no reversion to unsafe behaviour especially in the developing
countries. This goes along with person-organization fit concept which is one of the most
popular areas of research in the general management and organizational field. This
domain captures the congruence between the characteristics of individuals and the
characteristics of organizations (Bright 2007). Thus as the congruence between
individuals who have the value and motivation toward safety and the construction safety

climate, will drive workers behaviour to become more safe and committed.
Individuals are
only expected to allocate discretionary effort when they believe that their individual interests
are aligned with those of the company will make a reciprocal investment in their well-being
Therefore, workers safety motivation will work when there is a constructive safety climate
(Vroom 1964).
Table 1: Operational details of the ‘Safety Motivation’ construct
Dimensions
Description
References
Intrinsic Motivation
(SM1) Intrinsic motivation refers to
desired behaviors that happen
in the absence of external
control.
Moynihan and Pandey, 2007;
Neal and Griffin, 2006;
Vinodkumar and Bhasi, 2010.
Extrinsic
Motivation
(SM2)
Extrinsic motivators are
external motivation sources;
individuals believe that the
behaviors they engage in will
lead to certain desired
outcomes.
Teo et al., 2005; Vinodkumar
and Bhasi, 2010.
2.2 Safety climate (SC) construct
During the last two decades, safety climate has been researched in three principal ways: (1)
designing psychometric measurement tools and determining their underlying factor
structures; (2) developing and examining theoretical models of safety climate to find out
determinants of safety behaviour; and (3) examining the relationship between safety climate
perceptions and actual safety outcomes (Cooper and Phillips 2004). One of the objectives of
this study is to measure safety climate perceptions and develop and test theoretical models
of safety climate to ascertain determinants of safety behaviour and accidents.
Many researchers have studied the factors which contribute to project safety success within
various industries. The majority of these researches were conducted in high hazard
industrial sectors, including transport, power generation, offshore oil and gas production,
manufacturing, and construction. The results are presented thematically, under the headings
managerial factors, supervisory factors, workforce factors, and other system factors (e.g.
Yule 2003). These research studies concentrated on identifying factors associated with
successful safety performance in organisations. In fact, the inconsistencies in identified
safety climate factors could be due to the diversity of questionnaires, samples and
methodologies used by different researchers. On the other hand, even when the same
questionnaire was used, different factors were still found (Glendon and Litherland 2001).
Therefore, it can be concluded that dimensions of safety climate differ from industry to
industry, and from county to county (Fang et al. 2006), hence no universal set of safety
climate factors. However, a number of similarities can be found between different safety
climate research studies. Based on the literature synthesis particularly from the three recent
investigations by Fang et al. (2006) and Choudhry et al. (2009), the present paper
conceptualises safety climate as consisting of the following dimensions: worker perceptions
of management’s commitment and communication; worker appreciation of risk; worker

competence; work pressure; and worker perception of safety rules and procedures (see
Table 2).
Neal et al. (2000) pointed out that several research studies emphasising the relationship
between safety climate and safety behaviour reported a positive effect. One of the key
assumptions of the present study is that the link between safety climate and safety
behaviour is a direct relationship. Mohamed’s (2002) research findings make certain that
safe work behaviours are influenced by existing safety climates on construction sites. These
results suggest that safety climate and safety behaviour are directly and positively
associated.
Table 2: Operational details of the ‘Safety Climate’ construct
Dimension
Description
References
Management
Commitment and
Communication
(SC1)
The frequency and quality of
communication and how keen the
management is to improve safety
performance.
Mohamed, 2002; Fang et al.,
2006; Neal and Griffin, 2006;
Vinodkumar and Bhasi, 2010
Competence
(SC2) The effectiveness of safety
training, skills and qualifications of
relevance to safety issues.
Mohamed, 2002; Fang et al.,
2006; Vinodkumar and Bhasi,
2010.
Personal
Appreciation of
Risk (SC3)
An individual’s subjective
assessment of acceptable risk in
the workplace.
Mohamed, 2002; Fang et al.,
2006.
Work Pressure
(SC4) The level to which workers feel
under pressure to complete work,
and the amount of time to plan
and perform work safely.
Glendon et al., 1994; Flin et
al., 2000; Mohamed, 2002;
Fang et al., 2006.
Safety Rules and
Procedures (SC5) The availability of safety
equipment and facilities to carry
out the job safely and the
effectiveness of safety
inspections and emergency
procedures.
Flin et al., 2000; Mohamed,
2002; Fang et al., 2006.
2.3 Safety Behaviour (SB) construct
Safety Behaviour (SB) has two components describing the actual performance of individuals
at work. Borman and Motowidlo (1993) proposed two main components of performance: task
performance and contextual performance. These two parts of performance can be used to
differentiate SB in the workplace. First, based on definitions of task performance, this current
study uses the term safety compliance to describe the core safety activities which need to be
carried out by individuals to maintain workplace safety, such as wearing personal protective
equipment. Second, based on definitions of contextual performance, safety participation is
used to describe behaviours such as participating in voluntary safety activities or attending
safety meetings. Safety participation behaviours may not directly contribute to workplace
safety, but they do help to develop an environment that supports safety (Griffin and Neal

2000). The Borman and Motowidlo’s (1993) concept was used by Griffin and Neal (2000) to
examine the relationship between safety climate and safety behaviour. Table 3 summarises
the two dimensions of the safety behaviour construct, along with their descriptions, and
associated references.
Table 3: Operational details of the ‘Safety Behaviour’ construct
Dimensions
Description
References
Safety compliance
(SB1) Self-measure of
performance of safety
related behaviors.
Neal and Griffin, 2006;
Vinodkumar and Bhasi,
2010.
Safety participation
(SB2) Self-measure of
involvement in safety
support activities.
Neal and Griffin, 2006;
Vinodkumar and Bhasi,
2010.
3. Research design
A quantitative research method was selected to examine the proposed conceptual model. A
questionnaire survey was used in order to assist the collection of data from individuals at
construction sites. All model constructs were measured using a five-point Likert-type
response format. Items, relating to each of the constructs, were used in the form of
statements to measure individual constructs under investigation. The different statements
used in developing the questionnaire were drawn upon scales that had been previously used
by researchers (Choudhry et al. 2009; Mohamed 2002; Vinodkumar and Bhasi 2010).
Participants were asked to rate the statements using a five point Likert-type scale (from 1=
“strongly disagree’’ to 5=‘‘strongly agree’’).
The scales were further developed by including complimentary additions of new items and
some items were reworded and rephrased to suit local working practices and culture. The
contents of this draft questionnaire were discussed with senior safety professionals from
Saudi construction industries and senior professors in engineering management studies to
ensure face validity. After considering each item in detail, required changes were made by
simplifying, rewording, removing and replacing some of them.
Descriptive statistics and reliability of the studied variables were firstly analysed.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was then employed to verify the validity of the five safety
management practices (management commitment and communication, competence,
personal appreciation of risk, work pressure, safety rules and procedures), two components
of safety behaviour (safety compliance and safety participation) and two components of
safety motivation (intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation). The Structural Equation
Modelling (SEM) technique was used to conduct the path analyses to test the relationship
between the model constructs and the goodness of fit of the model. SPSS 20 with AMOS 19
software was used for all the basic descriptive analyses, CFA and path analysis. The study
employed the following model fit indices: normed chi-square (x²/df); goodness-of-fit index
(GFI); comparative fit index (CFI); incremental fit index (IFI); and root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA). To be considered as having an adequate fit with the data, all the

indices of the model should meet the following criteria: x²/df < 3.0; GFI, CFI, and IFI > 0.90;
and RMSEA < 0.08 (Hair et al., 2006).
4. Analysis results and discussion
The survey was conducted with Saudi Construction Industry (SCI) during Feb and May
2012. The study sample targeted only individuals in the construction workplaces
(supervisors, engineers from main contractors as well as subcontractors). In total, 430
survey packages containing a questionnaire, an introductory letter, and an incentive were
sent out via email. Of the 430 surveys sent, 295 usable questionnaires were returned thus
achieving a response rate of 68.6%. The majority of the respondents were site engineers
(44.4%) and project managers (29.8%) aged between 31- 40 (35.9%) and 31-40 (30.2%)
with a bachelor’s degree (76.3%) and Master’s degree (22%). Most of them were employed
in engineering firms, 29% were in civil and infrastructure projects, 20.5% in residential
building and 18.7% in urban development with a size ranging from small-to-medium (100-
2000 employees, 49.8%) to large (>2000 employees, 50.2%). Overall, the respondents were
considered a good representation of the survey population.
The measurement model (a CFA model) depicts a series of relationships that suggest how
measured variables represent a construct that is not measured directly (Hair et al., 2006). In
this study, the measurement model was developed by integrating the individual CFA models
of all the constructs into a single model. The CFA results of constructs are adequate, the
factor loadings, ranging from 0.48 to 0.86, and were all significant at p < 0.001 level,
suggesting convergent validity. All the correlation coefficients among constructs, ranging
from 0.67 to 0.83, were less than 0.850, thus supporting the discriminant validity of the
constructs. Finally, since the model fit indices proved to be good, unidimensionality was
established.
Following the CFA, SEM was performed to preliminary evaluate the fit of the conceptual
model as well as the hypothesised relationships between the constructs. The fit indices of
the conceptual model were considered to ensure the model explains the data well. Figure 2
shows the results for the model with standardised path coefficients. Overall, the fit indices of
the model proved to be satisfactory: x² = 63.42; df = 21; x²/df = 2.48; GFI = 0.96; CFI = 0.96;
IFI = 0.96; and RMSEA = 0.08.

Figure 2: Final model with standardised path coefficients
According to the path coefficients, safety motivation appears to have a good and positive
influence on safety climate in Saudi construction workplace (0.62, p < 0.001). Safety climate
for construction workplace at Saudi context (0.85, p < 0.001) is shown to have a strong
positive influence on safety behaviour. However, the safety motivation construct does not
appear to have a direct influence on the safety behaviour with the presence of safety
climate. According to Baron and Kenny (1986) and Bennett (2000), a mediator is a variable
that indicates how the association occurs between independent and dependent variables. A
mediator effect is only tested when there is a significant direct effect between the
independent variable and the dependent variable, but there is an opportunity that a mediator
variable theoretically occurs ``between'' the two variables. A mediator effect exists if the
following conditions are met: (1) variations in the independent variable (in this case, SM)
predict variations in the mediator variable (SC), (2) variations in the mediator variable (SC)
predict variations in the dependent variable (SB), and (3) When the relations between IV and
both MV and DV are controlled for in the model, the direct relationship between the IV and
the DV becomes non-significant. Having met these conditions, it can be established that SC
fully mediates the relationship between SM and SB within the context of this study.
The above analysis results indicate that the developed conceptual model is fully supported
by the data, which confirmed the direct link between the safety climate at Saudi construction
workplace and individual safety behaviours. Moreover, the results supported that safety
climate mediates the influence of individual safety motivation on safety behaviour in
construction workplace. Bright (2007) suggested that individuals are attracted to workplace
settings that are most compatible with their characteristics. Using this line of reasoning, it
can be argued that individuals at construction workplace with safety motivation interest
would not work appropriately in a safe manner unless these workplaces contain safe working
conditions that support their safety motives. This is consistent with Neal et al.’s (2000)
findings that safety motivation had a weak effect on safety behaviour, and safety climate
exerted a direct effect on behaviour which was unexpected in their study. Furthermore, Neal
and Griffin (2006), contrary to their hypotheses, found that safety motivation was not
associated with subsequent changes in safety compliance, which is a part of safety

behaviour in their study. The results suggest that interventions specifically aimed at
improving safety behaviour using a range of safety motivation techniques (both intrinsic and
extrinsic) will be more effective when they are carried out within the context of a positive
safety climate.
5. Conclusion
This paper presents a study attempting to examine a conceptual model proposing that the
Safety Climate (SC) will mediate the relationship between Safety Motivation (SM) and the
Safety Behaviour (SB) of individuals in Saudi construction workplace.
The study was carried
out using a quantitative method design integrating questionnaire survey. The model derived
from the SEM analysis of the survey data indicates that safety climate appears to play a key
role to safety behaviour by mediating the relationships between both safety motivation and
behaviour. The study demonstrates that general safety motivation can influence perceptions
of safety climate, and that these perceptions of safety climate in turn influence safety
behaviour.
The motivation alone does not produce the change unless there is an
appropriate safety climate to maintain safe manner and no reversion to unsafe
behaviour.
These findings provide valuable guidance for researchers and practitioners trying
to identify the mechanisms by which they can improve safety in the workplace. In particular,
a construction workplace in the Saudi context should place an emphasis on creating safety
climate as it is the main player that leverages the use of safety motivation to achieve desired
safety behaviour.
References
Barling J, Kelloway E K and Iverson R D (2003) “High-quality work, job satisfaction, and
occupational injuries”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 276-83.
Baron R M and Kenny D A (1986) “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173-82.
Bennett J A (2000) “Focus on research methods-mediator and moderator variables in
nursing research: Conceptual and statistical differences”, Research in Nursing and Health,
23: 415.
Bomel (2001) Improving Health and Safety in Construction Phase 1: Data Collection, Review
and Structuring, Sudbury: HSE Books.
Borman W C and Motowidlo S J (1993) “Expanding the criterion domain to include elements
of contextual performance”, Personnel Selection in Organizations, 71: 98.
Bright L (2007) “Does person-organization fit mediate the relationship between public service
motivation and the job performance of public employees?”, Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 27: 361-79.

Choudhry R, Fang D and Lingard H (2009) “Measuring Safety Climate of a Construction
Company”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135: 890.
Christian M S, Bradley J C, Wallace J C and Burke M J (2009), “Workplace safety: A meta-
analysis of the roles of person and situation factors”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 94:
1103.
Clarke S (2006) “The relationship between safety climate and safety performance: A meta-
analytic review”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11: 315-27.
Clarke S (2010) “An integrative model of safety climate: Linking psychological climate and
work attitudes to individual safety outcomes using meta-analysis”, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 83: 553-78.
Clarke S and Robertson I (2005) “A meta analytic review of the Big Five personality factors
and accident involvement in occupational and non occupational settings”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78: 355-76.
Cooper M and Phillips R (2004) “Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and safety
behavior relationship”, Journal of Safety Research, 35: 497-512.
Deci E L, Koestner R and Ryan R M (1999), “A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation”, Psychological Bulletin,
125: 627-68.
Eccles J S and Wigfield A (2002) “Motivational beliefs, values, and goals”, Annual Review of
Psychology, 109-33.
Fang D, Chen Y and Wong L (2006) “Safety climate in construction industry: a case study in
Hong Kong”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132: 573.
Fey C F (2005) “Opening the black box of motivation: A cross-cultural comparison of
Sweden and Russia”, International Business Review, 14: 345-67.
General Organization for Social Insurance (2010) Employment Injuries Annual statistical
report 1431 H General Organization for Insurance, (available online
http://www.gosi.gov.sa/portal/web/guest/85)
Geller E S (2010) “Cultivating a Self-Motivated Work Force: The Choice, Community and
Competence of an Injury-Free Culture', Occupational Hazards, 3: 31.
Gershwin M C (1994) What Workplace Education Programs Need to Know about Behaviour
Change: Tapping the Work of Kurt Lewin, (available online http://cmapspublic.ihmc.us)
Glendon A and Litherland D (2001) “Safety climate factors, group differences and safety
behaviour in road construction”, Safety Science, 39: 157-88.

Griffin M and 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: 347-58.
Hair J F, Anderson R E, Tatham R L and Black W C (2006) Multivariate Data Analysis: With
Readings, Prentice-Hall.
Hinze J (1997) Construction Safety, Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.
Jones G R and George J M (2003) Contemporary Management, 3rd ed. edn, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Locke E and Latham G (2004) 'What should we do about motivation theory? Six
recommendations for the twenty-first century”, The Academy of Management Review, 29:
388-403.
Mohamed S (2002) “Safety climate in construction site environments”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 128: 375.
Moynihan D P and Pandey S K (2007) “Finding Workable Levers Over Work Motivation”,
Administration & Society, 39: 803.
Neal A and Griffin M (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: 946-53.
Nirmala R (2005) Individual Work Motivation and Leader Behaviour in Multicultural
Workplace, Delhi: Abhijeeandt Publications.
Reason J T (1990) Human error, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rechenthin D (2004) “Project safety as a sustainable competitive advantage”, Journal of
Safety Research, 35: 297-308.
Sutherland V J and Cooper C L (1991) “Personality, stress and accident involvement in the
offshore oil and gas industry”, Personality and Individual Differences, 12: 195-204.
Teo E, Ling F, and Ong D. (2005) “Fostering safe work behaviour in workers at construction
sites”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 12: 410-422.
Vinodkumar M and Bhasi M (2010) “Safety management practices and safety behaviour:
Assessing the mediating role of safety knowledge and motivation”, Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 42: 2082-93.
Vroom V H (1964) Work and Motivation, Oxford: Wiley.

Weiss, H.W. (1990), “Learning theory and industrial and organizational psychology”, in
Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 2nd ed., California: Consulting Psychologists Press, 171-221.
Yule S (2003) “Safety culture and safety climate: A review of the literature”, Industrial
Psychology Research Centre, 1-26.