- Email: [email protected]
Farm safety attitudes and accident involvement
Accid. Anal & Prey, Vol. 13, No 4. pp. 331-337, 1981 Printed in Great Britain
0001~1575/81/040331-07502.00/0 © 1981 Pergamon Press Lid.
FARM SAFETY ATTITUDES AND ACCIDENT INVOLVEMENT DENNIS J. MURPHY Agricultural Engineering,The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802,U.S.A. (Received 21 March 1980;in revised form 20 October 1980)
Abstract--Many safety educators firmlybelieve that good safety attitudes are a must if people are to avoid accidents in the workplace and elsewhere. This idea has evolved mainly from the industrial safety movement and has been adopted in most fields of safety. However,this fundamental adage has never been tested in agriculture. A random sample of Pennsylvania farmers were asked their attitudes toward nationally recognized farm safety concepts. The Semantic Differential Attitude Test was the instrument used to collect the data. Four hundred and ninety-three respondents indicated they have about the same attitudes toward farm safety concepts regardless of their accident involvement and regardless of other variables studied. The results of this study suggest that the apparent high priority given to safety attitude development as a primary means of accident prevention should be re-examined. Safety attitudes and safety behavior have often been linked by safety educators. Strasser et al.[1964] noted that attitudes helped control human activities and, therefore, determined whether a person would react to a particular set of circumstances in a safe way. Worick[1978] has written that everything we know about accidents leads to the conclusion that faulty habits and attitudes are the prime accident producers. And in his discussion of human factors and safety education, Wahl[1977] noted that attitudes are the most important factor among knowledge, skills, habits and attitudes. The safety problems of farmers have also been well documented. Routine chores injure thousands--many seriously--each year. Tractors turn over and crush the operators. Farm men, women and children become caught in the moving parts of machinery. Kepner et al.[1972] wrote "Technological advances have greatly reduced man's physical burden through use of machines, but man's mental work has been increased. The man who operates modern farm equipment must make many decisions and perform functions to use the machines properly. The demand for more decisions may result in mistakes that lead to serious accidents" (p. 2). Hazards brought on by nature are intimately intertwined with the physical hazards of farming. Delays in tillage, planting and harvesting due to rain, snow and droughts often pressure the farmer into hurriedly completing his work, multiplying the unsafe shortcuts he will attempt. But the pressures exerted by nature are not the only pressures which compound the farmer's dangerous work environment. There are pressures from our society at large. Jepsen[1976] has noted that society has come to expect a farmer to be a tough, self-made, independent and rugged individual. Using safety equipment and following safety practices goes against the grain of many of these individuals. As Smith [1977] has written,"If a farmer tried to improve the comfort and safety of his equipment, he was criticized by his neighbors of being unmanly or being a city slicker" (p. 1). Some researchers and writers question the usefulness of accident prevention specialists spending most of their time trying to encourage or promote safety via human behavior. In a report to the Department of Transportation Automobile Insurance and Compensation Study, Klein and Waller[1970] noted in their opening section that: "Subsequent sections will document the finding that many existing policies and practices are in large part, not conspicuous for their rationality or for their grounding in scientific evidence, that the 'state of the art' of highway safety is still in the primitive level in comparisonto what is being done in such areas as industrial safety, the regulation of food processing, the control of communicable disease, and the regulation of water supply and sanitation, all of which involve modifyingthe environment (rather than attempting to changethe behavior of the individual) in order to control processes that have a high potential for the production of mortalityand morbidity"(p. 2). The most important point is not their criticism of the traffic safety profession, but after a careful review of literature in several fields, Klein and Waller[1970] concluded that environment modification rather than human behavior modification seemed to be the best method of 331
332
D.J. MURPHY
reducing highway crashes. Additionally, recent findings by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety[1977] questioned the value of driver education for high school students. Researchers Robertson and Zador [1977] went so far as to state: "Programs that increase confidence that risk has been reduced, when in fact it has not, are far worse than no programs at all. Such is the case with driver eduction" (p. 13). Allison[1978] discussed the accident record improvement of World War II pilots, drivers of three-wheel scooters and dump truck operators. The accident records improved considerably after engineering or design type improvements were made. Allison[1978] went on to chide his fellow safety professionals: "The most serious result of the popular human error myths has been the misdirection of limited funds, time, and effort. Over the last two decades at least several billion dollars have been spent on attempting to motivate,promote and manipulatepeople into trying harder to be safer. Yet those in industry who limited motivationto only 10 to 20 percent of the funds and man-hoursand spent 80 to 90 percent on improvingthings have profitedby savingsin dollars of compensationcosts, medical/hospitalpayments, liability costs, material and equipment damage as well as lives, limbs and health of persons" (p. 56). Haddon and Baker[1978] discussed choosing injury countermeasures. They noted that the choice of countermeasures should not be determined by the relative importance of casual or contributing factors or by their earliness in the sequence of events. The failure to understand this point, the authors concluded, has led to undue emphasis on changing human behavior, rather than on more effective countermeasures. Lowrance[1976] has noted that most current regulatory safety programs concentrate on product quality and other determinants of safety rather than on user behavior. One example of this is the Consumer Product Safety Commission's Federal Poison Prevention Packaging Act. The Occupational Safety and Health Act's Rollover Protective Structure's (ROPS) and Machinery Guarding standards are additional examples. Programs such as these are trying to force or coerce safety rather than rely upon people's attitudes or behavior. The role that safety attitudes might play in farm safety behavior has not been specifically researched. METHOD The objective was to determine if there was a significant difference in attitude toward farm safety concepts between groups of Pennsylvania farmers who had no accidents and those who had one or more farm accident within the past five years.
Definition of terms Accident. An unintentional event that leads to injuries which require professional medical care, or result in one-half day or more time lost from usual activities. Farm safety concept. Nationally recognized safe operating or working procedures, rules, or practices (Validated by Farm Department, National Safety Council). Attitude. A predisposition to react in a certain patterned way when confronted with a particular stimulus. Accident group. Pennsylvania male farmers who have had one or more farm work related accident within the last five years. Accident-free group. Pennsylvania male farmers who have had no farm work related accidents within the past five years.
Selection of sample Three counties (or county groups) were randomly selected from each of four sections of the state. Names and addresses of all farmers in the selected counties were provided by the Agricultural Cooperative Extension Service. Each name was assigned a number. Fifteenhundred farmers were then randomly selected.
Instrumentation The Semantic Differential Attitude Test was used to measure farm safety attitudes. Bi-polar adjectives from Osgood's et al.[1957] original evaluative scale was used as the measuring device. In their original work, it was noted that the Semantic Differential not only allows the
Farm safety attitudes and accident involvement
333
respondent to indicate the direction of his attitude but also his intensity. The Semantic Differential was validated with agricultural populations by Larrabee [1974]. Figure 1 shows the bi-polar adjectives used in this study. Farm safety concepts to be measured were reviewed and approved by the Farm Department of the National Safety Council as being recommended practices. Figure 2 is a list of the concepts.
Pilot study A pilot study was conducted in one county. The responses to the attitude scales were submitted to item analysis and reviewed by the Test Scoring--Exam Services Laboratory of Penn State. Concepts which lacked discriminability were dropped. RESULTS
Four hundred and ninety-three questionnaij'es were used for analysis. Three hundred and fiftyeight farmers indicated no accidents, while 135 farmers indicated they had had at least one accident
Helpful
Obstructive
Desirable
Undesirable
Adaptable
Unadaptable
Practical
Impracticable
Profitable
Unprofitable
Effective
Ineffective
Beneficial
Harmful
Good
Bad
Economical
Extravagant
Fig. 1. Bipolar adjectives, evaluative scale i.
Keeping extra riders off tractors.
2.
The wearing and using of personal protective devices mask, goggles, steel-toed shoes, etc.
3.
Using rollover protective structures and seatbelts on tractors inside barns, orchards, or other low clearance areas).
4.
Keeping pesticides under lock and key.
5.
Properly guarding power-take-off
6.
Disengaging
7.
Practicing good housekeeping methods such as keeping walking aisles free from obstructions, an orderly farm shop, etc.
8.
Properly grounding portable power tools and extension
9.
Being calm around animals chutes, etc.
such as dust
(except
shafts.
the power before attempting
to unclog a machine.
cords.
in close quarters such as barns,
pens,
i0.
Providing a handrail
ii.
Using restraining and handling facilities and equipment hand gates, swing gates, etc., for animals.
for all stairs with four or more steps.
12.
Replacing
13.
Wearing a dust mask over your mouth and nose to trap harmful particles during very dusty operations.
14.
Refueling
15.
Keeping fire extinguishers
such as
faded SMV emblems.
tractors only after the engine has cooled. on tractors and self-propelled
Fig. 2. Farm safety concepts
equipment.
334
D.J. MUm~HY
The mean number of accidents for the accident group was 1.4. The data were analyzed via different methods to see if significant differences in attitudes would be revealed. The chi-square test of independence was utilized to determine if there was a difference in the total safety attitude of farmers with an accident record and those who had not had an accident. As Table 1 indicates, no significant differences (p>0.1) between the groups was observed. A chi-square test was also used to determine if there was a significant difference in the accident records of farmers when the 50 highest total attitude scores were compared to the 50 lowest total attitude scores. Table 2 reveals identical records of accident involvement. In a third analysis of the data, farmers were put into three groups; those with zero accidents, those with one accident; and those with 2 or more accidents. These groups mean attitude scores were then analyzed by quartile scores. There were no significant differences. Table 3 contains this data. Some state surveys (e.g. see Hoff[1970] and Murphy[1977] and Patterson et a1.[1972]) of farm accidents have shown different accident rates for farmers and farm workers in numerous types of categories. Some of these categories were included in this study. Specifically, one-way analysis of variance was used to determine if there were significant differences in attitudes toward the farm safety concepts among farmers when grouped by the variables: size (acres) of farm, type of help (labor), type of farm, level of education, and hours worked on the farm, Tables 4-8 reveal no significant differences (p > 0.5) among the groups. DISCUSSION The eight treatments of the data did not reveal any significant differences. The accident record between the 50 farmers with the poorest attitude scores was not significantly different from the 50 farmers with the highest attitude scores. Attitude scores between the groups of farmers with an accident record were not significantly different from those farmers who were accident free. When attitude scores were divided into quartiles and examined for differences among farmers with no accidents, one accident, and two or more accidents, no significant differences were found. And there was no significant differences found when farmers were grouped by size of farm, type of help, type of farm, level of education, or hours worked on the farm. Table 1. Chi-square analysis of farm safety attitudes and farm accident involvement
Accident
Group
Accident
Free
Accident
Involved
Chi-Square
= 2.00
Total Attitudes
Total
Negative
Positive
134
224
358
60
75
135
(1 df),
not significant
Table 2. Chi-square analysis of accident involvementof high and low attitude scores Accident
Involved
Non-Accident
Involved
Total
50 highest total attitude scores
12
38
50
50 lowest total a t t i t u d e scores
12
38
50
Total
24
76
I00
Chi-square
= 0.00
(i dr), not significant
335
Farm safety attitudes and accident involvement Table 3. Chi-square analysis of groups by mean attitude scores
Quartiles Groups
ist
2nd
3rd
4th
Total
No Accidents
85
88
96
89
358
One Accident
27
26
18
26
97
Two + Accidents
ii
i0
8
9
38
Chi-square
= 3.43
(6 df), not significant
Table 4. Analysis of variance summary: farmers with different sizes of operation Size of Operation
1. 2. 3.
No. of Observations
0-149 acres 150-299 acres 300+ acres
No significant
159 197 137
Mean Attitude Score
625.21 649.80 619.43
differences
Table 5. Analysis of variance summary: farmers with different types of help
Observations
Mean Attitude Score
38 369 67
616.87 629.18 641.79
No.
Type of Help
None Family Hired (non-family)
No significant
of
differences
Table 6. Analysis of variance summary: farmers with different types of farms
Type of Farm
No. of Observations
Livestock Non-livestock
No significant
406 89
Mean Attitude Score
630.14 629.83
difference
Table 7. Analysis of variance summary: farmers with different levels of education Level of Education
i. 2. 3.
No. of Observations
0-8 years 9-12 years 13+ years
No significant
83 310 98
differences
Mean Attitude Score
640.66 625.17 635.04
336
D. J. MURPHY
Table 8. Analysisof variance summary:farmers with varyinghours worked on the farm
No. of Hours
i. 2. 3.
No. of Observation
0-39 hours 40-79 hours 80+ hours
No significant
96 233 141
Mean A t t i t u d e Score
625.02 634.71 628.48
differences
Since no significant differences were revealed among any of the test groups, it might be concluded that the safety attitudes a farmer has are inconsequential or not important and should be of no concern to safety educators. However, such an interpretation might be considered extreme. An alternative interpretation is that there are other factors present more directly related to the occurrences of farm accidents than a farmer's safety attitudes. The literature suggests that the hazards brought on by the farmer's working environment, and the subtle pressures exerted by a society, who admire the farmer for his ruggedness and resiliency, are two such factors. Another factor might be the seemingly low value attached to many of the farmer's safety decisions. Certainly, this study provides no support for the apparent high priority given to good safety attitude development as a primary means of accident prevention. As an alternative to promoting good safety attitude development per se, farm safety educators might want more specifically to identify the problems the farmer must deal with as he goes about his daily work. For instance, educators could discuss the stress involved when the farmer is ridiculed for practicing safety and measures for handling that stress. The principles of decision-making and how the principles affect safety decision-making is another educational alternative that educators might use in safety programs for farmers. The literature on decisionmaking (e.g. see Janis and Man[1977] and Horan[1979]) offers many strategies for improving the quality of decision-making. Some of these strategies might be useful in farm accident prevention. One other area that farm safety educators should become involved in is with machinery and systems design. There is ample evidence from many other areas that machinery, systems and environmental design are more effective in reducing accidents than are attempts to modify safety attitudes or safety behavior.
REFERENCES Allison William, National Safety News, Vol. 117, No. 1. National Safety Council, Chicago, 1978. Anderson James W., The Effectiveness of Traffic Sa[ety Material In Influencing the Driving Performance of the Generol Driving Population. Final Report 57, California Department of Motor Vehicles, 1977. Haddon William J. and Baker Susan P., Injury Control. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Washington,D.C., April 1978. Hoff Paul R., Accidents in Agriculture. A Survey o[ Their Causes and Prevention. Information Bulletin 1. Cornell University, New York, 1970. Horan John J., Counseling for Effective Decision Making. Duxbury Press, North Scituate. Mass.. 1979. Janis Irving L. and Mann Leon, Decision Making. The Free Press, New York, 1977. Jepsen Richard L., Using the Social Action Process in a Farm Sa[ety Program. Paper presented at the Winter meeting of American Societyof Agricultural Engineers, Chicago, 1976. Kepner R. A., Banier R. and Barger E. L., Principles o[ Farm Machinery. The AVI Publishing Co., Connecticut, 1972. Klein David and Waller Julian A., Causation, Culpability and Deterrence In Highway Crashes. Department of Transportation, Washington,D.C., 1970. Larabee David L., Developmentof Semantic Differential Scales for Measurement of Concepts in Agriculture.Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, PennsylvaniaState University, 1969. Lowrance William W., Of Acceptable Risk. William Kaufman, Los Altos, California, 1976. Murphy Dennis J., Agricultural Accidents and Illnesses in Pennsylvania. Cooperative Extension Service, Pennsylvania State University, 1977. Osgood Charles E., Suci George J. and Tannenbaum Percy H., The Measurement of Meaning. Universityof Illinois Press, Urbana, 1957(reprinted 1%7). Patterson Karen W., NovackJoseph A. and Betrand Alvin L., The Distribution and Characteristics o.f Farm Accidents in Louisiana. Bulletin No. 655. Department of Rural Sociology,Louisiana State University, September 1972.
Farm safety attitudes and accident involvement
337
Robertson Leon S. and Zador Paul, Driver Education and Fatal Crash Involvement. Insurance Institude for Highway Safety, Washington, D.C., October 1977. Smith Gary L., Is Safety Shifting the Tide or Rolling With It? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, North Atlantic Region, American Society of Safety Engineers, 1977. Strasser Marland K., Aaron James E., Bohn Ralph C. and Eales John R., Fundamentals o[ Sa[ety Education. Macmillan Company, New York, 1964. Wahl Ray, A Sa[ety and Health Guide [or Vocational Educators. Vol. 15, No. 1, Pennsylvania Department of Education, Project No. 24-6074, February 1977. Worick Wayne, Safety Education: Man, His Machines, and His Environment. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1975.
0001~1575/81/040331-07502.00/0 © 1981 Pergamon Press Lid.
FARM SAFETY ATTITUDES AND ACCIDENT INVOLVEMENT DENNIS J. MURPHY Agricultural Engineering,The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802,U.S.A. (Received 21 March 1980;in revised form 20 October 1980)
Abstract--Many safety educators firmlybelieve that good safety attitudes are a must if people are to avoid accidents in the workplace and elsewhere. This idea has evolved mainly from the industrial safety movement and has been adopted in most fields of safety. However,this fundamental adage has never been tested in agriculture. A random sample of Pennsylvania farmers were asked their attitudes toward nationally recognized farm safety concepts. The Semantic Differential Attitude Test was the instrument used to collect the data. Four hundred and ninety-three respondents indicated they have about the same attitudes toward farm safety concepts regardless of their accident involvement and regardless of other variables studied. The results of this study suggest that the apparent high priority given to safety attitude development as a primary means of accident prevention should be re-examined. Safety attitudes and safety behavior have often been linked by safety educators. Strasser et al.[1964] noted that attitudes helped control human activities and, therefore, determined whether a person would react to a particular set of circumstances in a safe way. Worick[1978] has written that everything we know about accidents leads to the conclusion that faulty habits and attitudes are the prime accident producers. And in his discussion of human factors and safety education, Wahl[1977] noted that attitudes are the most important factor among knowledge, skills, habits and attitudes. The safety problems of farmers have also been well documented. Routine chores injure thousands--many seriously--each year. Tractors turn over and crush the operators. Farm men, women and children become caught in the moving parts of machinery. Kepner et al.[1972] wrote "Technological advances have greatly reduced man's physical burden through use of machines, but man's mental work has been increased. The man who operates modern farm equipment must make many decisions and perform functions to use the machines properly. The demand for more decisions may result in mistakes that lead to serious accidents" (p. 2). Hazards brought on by nature are intimately intertwined with the physical hazards of farming. Delays in tillage, planting and harvesting due to rain, snow and droughts often pressure the farmer into hurriedly completing his work, multiplying the unsafe shortcuts he will attempt. But the pressures exerted by nature are not the only pressures which compound the farmer's dangerous work environment. There are pressures from our society at large. Jepsen[1976] has noted that society has come to expect a farmer to be a tough, self-made, independent and rugged individual. Using safety equipment and following safety practices goes against the grain of many of these individuals. As Smith [1977] has written,"If a farmer tried to improve the comfort and safety of his equipment, he was criticized by his neighbors of being unmanly or being a city slicker" (p. 1). Some researchers and writers question the usefulness of accident prevention specialists spending most of their time trying to encourage or promote safety via human behavior. In a report to the Department of Transportation Automobile Insurance and Compensation Study, Klein and Waller[1970] noted in their opening section that: "Subsequent sections will document the finding that many existing policies and practices are in large part, not conspicuous for their rationality or for their grounding in scientific evidence, that the 'state of the art' of highway safety is still in the primitive level in comparisonto what is being done in such areas as industrial safety, the regulation of food processing, the control of communicable disease, and the regulation of water supply and sanitation, all of which involve modifyingthe environment (rather than attempting to changethe behavior of the individual) in order to control processes that have a high potential for the production of mortalityand morbidity"(p. 2). The most important point is not their criticism of the traffic safety profession, but after a careful review of literature in several fields, Klein and Waller[1970] concluded that environment modification rather than human behavior modification seemed to be the best method of 331
332
D.J. MURPHY
reducing highway crashes. Additionally, recent findings by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety[1977] questioned the value of driver education for high school students. Researchers Robertson and Zador [1977] went so far as to state: "Programs that increase confidence that risk has been reduced, when in fact it has not, are far worse than no programs at all. Such is the case with driver eduction" (p. 13). Allison[1978] discussed the accident record improvement of World War II pilots, drivers of three-wheel scooters and dump truck operators. The accident records improved considerably after engineering or design type improvements were made. Allison[1978] went on to chide his fellow safety professionals: "The most serious result of the popular human error myths has been the misdirection of limited funds, time, and effort. Over the last two decades at least several billion dollars have been spent on attempting to motivate,promote and manipulatepeople into trying harder to be safer. Yet those in industry who limited motivationto only 10 to 20 percent of the funds and man-hoursand spent 80 to 90 percent on improvingthings have profitedby savingsin dollars of compensationcosts, medical/hospitalpayments, liability costs, material and equipment damage as well as lives, limbs and health of persons" (p. 56). Haddon and Baker[1978] discussed choosing injury countermeasures. They noted that the choice of countermeasures should not be determined by the relative importance of casual or contributing factors or by their earliness in the sequence of events. The failure to understand this point, the authors concluded, has led to undue emphasis on changing human behavior, rather than on more effective countermeasures. Lowrance[1976] has noted that most current regulatory safety programs concentrate on product quality and other determinants of safety rather than on user behavior. One example of this is the Consumer Product Safety Commission's Federal Poison Prevention Packaging Act. The Occupational Safety and Health Act's Rollover Protective Structure's (ROPS) and Machinery Guarding standards are additional examples. Programs such as these are trying to force or coerce safety rather than rely upon people's attitudes or behavior. The role that safety attitudes might play in farm safety behavior has not been specifically researched. METHOD The objective was to determine if there was a significant difference in attitude toward farm safety concepts between groups of Pennsylvania farmers who had no accidents and those who had one or more farm accident within the past five years.
Definition of terms Accident. An unintentional event that leads to injuries which require professional medical care, or result in one-half day or more time lost from usual activities. Farm safety concept. Nationally recognized safe operating or working procedures, rules, or practices (Validated by Farm Department, National Safety Council). Attitude. A predisposition to react in a certain patterned way when confronted with a particular stimulus. Accident group. Pennsylvania male farmers who have had one or more farm work related accident within the last five years. Accident-free group. Pennsylvania male farmers who have had no farm work related accidents within the past five years.
Selection of sample Three counties (or county groups) were randomly selected from each of four sections of the state. Names and addresses of all farmers in the selected counties were provided by the Agricultural Cooperative Extension Service. Each name was assigned a number. Fifteenhundred farmers were then randomly selected.
Instrumentation The Semantic Differential Attitude Test was used to measure farm safety attitudes. Bi-polar adjectives from Osgood's et al.[1957] original evaluative scale was used as the measuring device. In their original work, it was noted that the Semantic Differential not only allows the
Farm safety attitudes and accident involvement
333
respondent to indicate the direction of his attitude but also his intensity. The Semantic Differential was validated with agricultural populations by Larrabee [1974]. Figure 1 shows the bi-polar adjectives used in this study. Farm safety concepts to be measured were reviewed and approved by the Farm Department of the National Safety Council as being recommended practices. Figure 2 is a list of the concepts.
Pilot study A pilot study was conducted in one county. The responses to the attitude scales were submitted to item analysis and reviewed by the Test Scoring--Exam Services Laboratory of Penn State. Concepts which lacked discriminability were dropped. RESULTS
Four hundred and ninety-three questionnaij'es were used for analysis. Three hundred and fiftyeight farmers indicated no accidents, while 135 farmers indicated they had had at least one accident
Helpful
Obstructive
Desirable
Undesirable
Adaptable
Unadaptable
Practical
Impracticable
Profitable
Unprofitable
Effective
Ineffective
Beneficial
Harmful
Good
Bad
Economical
Extravagant
Fig. 1. Bipolar adjectives, evaluative scale i.
Keeping extra riders off tractors.
2.
The wearing and using of personal protective devices mask, goggles, steel-toed shoes, etc.
3.
Using rollover protective structures and seatbelts on tractors inside barns, orchards, or other low clearance areas).
4.
Keeping pesticides under lock and key.
5.
Properly guarding power-take-off
6.
Disengaging
7.
Practicing good housekeeping methods such as keeping walking aisles free from obstructions, an orderly farm shop, etc.
8.
Properly grounding portable power tools and extension
9.
Being calm around animals chutes, etc.
such as dust
(except
shafts.
the power before attempting
to unclog a machine.
cords.
in close quarters such as barns,
pens,
i0.
Providing a handrail
ii.
Using restraining and handling facilities and equipment hand gates, swing gates, etc., for animals.
for all stairs with four or more steps.
12.
Replacing
13.
Wearing a dust mask over your mouth and nose to trap harmful particles during very dusty operations.
14.
Refueling
15.
Keeping fire extinguishers
such as
faded SMV emblems.
tractors only after the engine has cooled. on tractors and self-propelled
Fig. 2. Farm safety concepts
equipment.
334
D.J. MUm~HY
The mean number of accidents for the accident group was 1.4. The data were analyzed via different methods to see if significant differences in attitudes would be revealed. The chi-square test of independence was utilized to determine if there was a difference in the total safety attitude of farmers with an accident record and those who had not had an accident. As Table 1 indicates, no significant differences (p>0.1) between the groups was observed. A chi-square test was also used to determine if there was a significant difference in the accident records of farmers when the 50 highest total attitude scores were compared to the 50 lowest total attitude scores. Table 2 reveals identical records of accident involvement. In a third analysis of the data, farmers were put into three groups; those with zero accidents, those with one accident; and those with 2 or more accidents. These groups mean attitude scores were then analyzed by quartile scores. There were no significant differences. Table 3 contains this data. Some state surveys (e.g. see Hoff[1970] and Murphy[1977] and Patterson et a1.[1972]) of farm accidents have shown different accident rates for farmers and farm workers in numerous types of categories. Some of these categories were included in this study. Specifically, one-way analysis of variance was used to determine if there were significant differences in attitudes toward the farm safety concepts among farmers when grouped by the variables: size (acres) of farm, type of help (labor), type of farm, level of education, and hours worked on the farm, Tables 4-8 reveal no significant differences (p > 0.5) among the groups. DISCUSSION The eight treatments of the data did not reveal any significant differences. The accident record between the 50 farmers with the poorest attitude scores was not significantly different from the 50 farmers with the highest attitude scores. Attitude scores between the groups of farmers with an accident record were not significantly different from those farmers who were accident free. When attitude scores were divided into quartiles and examined for differences among farmers with no accidents, one accident, and two or more accidents, no significant differences were found. And there was no significant differences found when farmers were grouped by size of farm, type of help, type of farm, level of education, or hours worked on the farm. Table 1. Chi-square analysis of farm safety attitudes and farm accident involvement
Accident
Group
Accident
Free
Accident
Involved
Chi-Square
= 2.00
Total Attitudes
Total
Negative
Positive
134
224
358
60
75
135
(1 df),
not significant
Table 2. Chi-square analysis of accident involvementof high and low attitude scores Accident
Involved
Non-Accident
Involved
Total
50 highest total attitude scores
12
38
50
50 lowest total a t t i t u d e scores
12
38
50
Total
24
76
I00
Chi-square
= 0.00
(i dr), not significant
335
Farm safety attitudes and accident involvement Table 3. Chi-square analysis of groups by mean attitude scores
Quartiles Groups
ist
2nd
3rd
4th
Total
No Accidents
85
88
96
89
358
One Accident
27
26
18
26
97
Two + Accidents
ii
i0
8
9
38
Chi-square
= 3.43
(6 df), not significant
Table 4. Analysis of variance summary: farmers with different sizes of operation Size of Operation
1. 2. 3.
No. of Observations
0-149 acres 150-299 acres 300+ acres
No significant
159 197 137
Mean Attitude Score
625.21 649.80 619.43
differences
Table 5. Analysis of variance summary: farmers with different types of help
Observations
Mean Attitude Score
38 369 67
616.87 629.18 641.79
No.
Type of Help
None Family Hired (non-family)
No significant
of
differences
Table 6. Analysis of variance summary: farmers with different types of farms
Type of Farm
No. of Observations
Livestock Non-livestock
No significant
406 89
Mean Attitude Score
630.14 629.83
difference
Table 7. Analysis of variance summary: farmers with different levels of education Level of Education
i. 2. 3.
No. of Observations
0-8 years 9-12 years 13+ years
No significant
83 310 98
differences
Mean Attitude Score
640.66 625.17 635.04
336
D. J. MURPHY
Table 8. Analysisof variance summary:farmers with varyinghours worked on the farm
No. of Hours
i. 2. 3.
No. of Observation
0-39 hours 40-79 hours 80+ hours
No significant
96 233 141
Mean A t t i t u d e Score
625.02 634.71 628.48
differences
Since no significant differences were revealed among any of the test groups, it might be concluded that the safety attitudes a farmer has are inconsequential or not important and should be of no concern to safety educators. However, such an interpretation might be considered extreme. An alternative interpretation is that there are other factors present more directly related to the occurrences of farm accidents than a farmer's safety attitudes. The literature suggests that the hazards brought on by the farmer's working environment, and the subtle pressures exerted by a society, who admire the farmer for his ruggedness and resiliency, are two such factors. Another factor might be the seemingly low value attached to many of the farmer's safety decisions. Certainly, this study provides no support for the apparent high priority given to good safety attitude development as a primary means of accident prevention. As an alternative to promoting good safety attitude development per se, farm safety educators might want more specifically to identify the problems the farmer must deal with as he goes about his daily work. For instance, educators could discuss the stress involved when the farmer is ridiculed for practicing safety and measures for handling that stress. The principles of decision-making and how the principles affect safety decision-making is another educational alternative that educators might use in safety programs for farmers. The literature on decisionmaking (e.g. see Janis and Man[1977] and Horan[1979]) offers many strategies for improving the quality of decision-making. Some of these strategies might be useful in farm accident prevention. One other area that farm safety educators should become involved in is with machinery and systems design. There is ample evidence from many other areas that machinery, systems and environmental design are more effective in reducing accidents than are attempts to modify safety attitudes or safety behavior.
REFERENCES Allison William, National Safety News, Vol. 117, No. 1. National Safety Council, Chicago, 1978. Anderson James W., The Effectiveness of Traffic Sa[ety Material In Influencing the Driving Performance of the Generol Driving Population. Final Report 57, California Department of Motor Vehicles, 1977. Haddon William J. and Baker Susan P., Injury Control. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Washington,D.C., April 1978. Hoff Paul R., Accidents in Agriculture. A Survey o[ Their Causes and Prevention. Information Bulletin 1. Cornell University, New York, 1970. Horan John J., Counseling for Effective Decision Making. Duxbury Press, North Scituate. Mass.. 1979. Janis Irving L. and Mann Leon, Decision Making. The Free Press, New York, 1977. Jepsen Richard L., Using the Social Action Process in a Farm Sa[ety Program. Paper presented at the Winter meeting of American Societyof Agricultural Engineers, Chicago, 1976. Kepner R. A., Banier R. and Barger E. L., Principles o[ Farm Machinery. The AVI Publishing Co., Connecticut, 1972. Klein David and Waller Julian A., Causation, Culpability and Deterrence In Highway Crashes. Department of Transportation, Washington,D.C., 1970. Larabee David L., Developmentof Semantic Differential Scales for Measurement of Concepts in Agriculture.Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, PennsylvaniaState University, 1969. Lowrance William W., Of Acceptable Risk. William Kaufman, Los Altos, California, 1976. Murphy Dennis J., Agricultural Accidents and Illnesses in Pennsylvania. Cooperative Extension Service, Pennsylvania State University, 1977. Osgood Charles E., Suci George J. and Tannenbaum Percy H., The Measurement of Meaning. Universityof Illinois Press, Urbana, 1957(reprinted 1%7). Patterson Karen W., NovackJoseph A. and Betrand Alvin L., The Distribution and Characteristics o.f Farm Accidents in Louisiana. Bulletin No. 655. Department of Rural Sociology,Louisiana State University, September 1972.
Farm safety attitudes and accident involvement
337
Robertson Leon S. and Zador Paul, Driver Education and Fatal Crash Involvement. Insurance Institude for Highway Safety, Washington, D.C., October 1977. Smith Gary L., Is Safety Shifting the Tide or Rolling With It? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, North Atlantic Region, American Society of Safety Engineers, 1977. Strasser Marland K., Aaron James E., Bohn Ralph C. and Eales John R., Fundamentals o[ Sa[ety Education. Macmillan Company, New York, 1964. Wahl Ray, A Sa[ety and Health Guide [or Vocational Educators. Vol. 15, No. 1, Pennsylvania Department of Education, Project No. 24-6074, February 1977. Worick Wayne, Safety Education: Man, His Machines, and His Environment. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1975.