Risk-taking behaviors of Hong Kong construction workers – A thematic study

Safety Science 98 (2017) 25–36

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci

Risk-taking behaviors of Hong Kong construction workers – A thematic study S.S. Man ⇑, Alan H.S. Chan, H.M. Wong Department of Systems Engineering and Engineering Management, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 12 October 2016 Received in revised form 12 April 2017 Accepted 11 May 2017

Keywords: Construction Risk-taking behaviors Attitudes Barriers Facilitators Individual interviews

a b s t r a c t A qualitative approach was employed to explore the attitudes and experiences of construction workers toward risk-taking behaviors and to identify the underlying reasons that may explain why construction workers take or do not take risks at work. Forty face-to-face individual interviews with construction workers were conducted. NVivo software was utilized to analyze the qualitative data. The data were categorized using grounded theory techniques and a three-stage coding approach. The grounded theory model that was established shows that risk-taking behavior was affected by factors in three contexts, namely, personal, behavioral, and environmental contexts. The findings of this study provide useful recommendations to reduce the risk-taking behaviors of construction workers, which include meeting the expectations of construction workers and optimizing benefits, such as convenience, work effectiveness, physical comfort, safety training that emphasizes on the unfavorable consequences of risk-taking behaviors, close safety supervision, safety fines, safety incentives, and time-sufficient work schedule. Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction From 2006 to 2015, the concerted effort of various stakeholders to improve occupational safety has contributed to steadily reducing the number of industrial injuries and the injury rate in Hong Kong (Labour Department, 2016b). Despite these improvements, the construction industry has the highest number of fatalities and accidents among all industrial sectors over the past decade. In 2015, 32.38% of industrial accidents and 79.17% of industrial fatalities occurred in the construction industry. The fatality rate in the construction industry is five times higher than that in other industrial sectors, while the accident rate is two times higher. Darshi De Saram and Tang (2005) estimated that the compensation for non-material damages (e.g., pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life) was approximately 30% of the average of compensation for material damages (e.g., loss of earnings, medical, and traveling expenses). The Occupational Safety Health Council (2014) assessed that the material damages for the three major types of construction accidents in Hong Kong amounted to USD 20.99 million in 2013. These accidents included lifting or moving of objects, striking against or being struck by moving objects, and slipping, tripping, or falling on the same level. Thus, the estimated non-material damages in Hong Kong as a result of construction

⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.S. Man). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.05.004 0925-7535/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

accidents in 2013 amounted to about USD 6.30 million. The huge direct and indirect costs from construction accidents captured the attention of researchers toward examining the construction industry in Hong Kong. The construction industry in Hong Kong thrived significantly in recent years because many large-scale infrastructure projects were launched. The remarkable growth of the construction industry increased the demand for construction workers to satisfy the needs of the industry. The data of Construction Workers Registration Board (2016) revealed that the total number of valid registered construction workers increased from 225,625 in late 2007 to 393,558 at the end of June 2016. The scale and complexity of construction projects increased. Considering the increased costs and the pressing need in the industry for a large number of workers, innovative management strategies regarding construction safety and better approaches are urgently needed to prevent construction accidents. Industrial accidents can stem from a combination of various contributing factors, which are traditionally categorized into two domains: unsafe conditions (e.g., hazards, an unsafe mechanical or physical environment) and unsafe behaviors (e.g., the behavior or activity of a person that deviates from acceptable safety procedures) (Choudhry and Fang, 2008; Haslam et al., 2005; Shin et al., 2014). Eliminating unsafe behaviors (acts) or conditions was assumed to prevent accidents and injuries (Chi et al., 2005). Efforts made over the last two decades focused on eliminating unsafe

26

S.S. Man et al. / Safety Science 98 (2017) 25–36

conditions by providing protective clothing and tools and by developing managerial systems and policies, legislations, and trainings (Development Bureau, 2014; Labour Department, 2013). These strategies successfully decreased the accident rates and fatalities. However, along with the growth of the construction industry, the number of industrial accidents and fatalities also increased in the past five years. These outcomes strongly suggest that aside from the removal of unsafe conditions, effort needs to be made in other areas as well. Unsafe human behaviors were considered as the cause of 80% of accidents (Fleming and Lardner, 2002). Thus, the need for safety management to focus on understanding and reducing or eliminating the unsafe behaviors of construction workers seems to be urgent. Various studies examined factors that affect the unsafe behaviors of construction workers such as psychological strains (Siu et al., 2004), safety climate (Fang et al., 2006; Glendon and Litherland, 2001), and risk perception (Bohm and Harris, 2010). Current studies mainly used large-scale surveys to identify statistical relationships among variables. However, their results are not able to provide an in-depth understanding of the underlying causes and motivations that contribute to risk-taking behaviors, which deviate from safety rules or requirements. The answer to questions such as ‘‘What do you think of risk taking?”, ‘‘What are the facilitators that encourage construction workers to act unsafely?”, and ‘‘What are the reasons for taking or not taking a risk?” are still unknown. A few studies attempted to examine the reasons why construction workers engage in unsafe work behaviors. Choudhry and Fang (2008) identified a number of reasons for unsafe behaviors, which include the lack of safety awareness, the need to project a ‘‘tough guy” appearance, work pressure, co-worker attitudes, and other psychological, organizational, and economic factors. Other studies simply provided limited explanations and elaborations (Hinze and Harrison, 1981) or used statistical analysis (Sawacha et al., 1999) to study these behaviors instead of conducting empirical and longitudinal investigations to explore why and how these behaviors occur and how these behaviors vary under different conditions. A previous study on construction safety focused on risktaking behaviors (Garrett and Teizer, 2009). However, research on non-risk-taking behaviors has not been conducted. Considering the perilous nature of construction work and the high injury and fatality rates, understanding the risk-taking and non-risk-taking behaviors of construction workers is crucial to develop effective interventions to further reduce construction-related accidents in Hong Kong. In order to show how this study differs from and further advances previous similar work in this area, a comprehensive survey of published studies on construction safety was conducted and the results are summarized in Appendix A, using an adapted form of the presentation used by Laryea and Hughes (2008). 2. Purpose of the study The current research aims to examine the attitudes and experiences of construction workers with risk-taking behaviors at construction sites and to identify the underlying reasons behind these risk-taking and non-risk-taking behaviors. Three major areas of interests were explored, namely, the attitudes of construction workers toward risk-taking behaviors, the reasons for risk-taking and non-risk-taking behaviors, and the personal, environmental, and organizational facilitators that influence risk-taking behaviors. In this paper, ‘‘risk-taking behaviors” is interchangeable with the term ‘‘unsafe behaviors,” which refers to behaviors that deviate from safety rules and regulations and have the potential to cause injury to oneself and others as well as damage to property. In this study, the types of risk-taking behaviors were not defined, but various unsafe behaviors were considered. The findings of this study

will be employed to develop a theory that explains the risktaking and non-risk-taking behaviors of construction workers at work. The results will be used to provide recommendations to reduce the risk-taking behaviors of construction workers. 3. Method and procedures 3.1. Research method The qualitative approach has been used to allow researchers to understand the range of perspectives held by construction workers about management safety practices (Gillen et al., 2004). Insights into the way people interpret a piece of the world can be developed and the opinions, attitudes, experiences, processes, behaviors, or predictions of people can be elicited by conducting qualitative studies (Bogdan and Biklen, 2007; Rowley, 2012). Face-to-face individual interview was a method to collect qualitative data; this approach was widely adopted in various research fields, such as gerontechnology (Chen and Chan, 2013), medicine (Avila et al., 2012), and construction safety (Biggs et al., 2013). Accordingly, qualitative methodology with face-to-face individual interview was employed in the current study to obtain various individual attitudes and ideas on risk-taking behaviors and to identify the reasons for risk-taking or non-risk-taking behaviors, as well as the facilitators and barriers that influence the risk-taking behaviors of construction workers. A combination of top–down/concept-driven approach and grounded theory approach (bottom–up/data-driven approach) was employed for data analysis to construct the coding scheme. Grounded theory approach was used to develop concepts (theories) from research that are grounded in qualitative data instead of deducting testable hypotheses from existing theories (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). A previous study adopted a top–down/ concept-driven approach to develop various concepts (Chen and Chan, 2013). Grounded theory has been successfully employed to gain insight into diverse phenomena of interest in different research areas, such as family life cycle (Berge et al., 2012) and construction safety (Choudhry and Fang, 2008). 3.2. Interview questions The interview questions were designed to develop a comprehensive framework that can provide better understanding of the phenomenon and the reasons for risk-taking behaviors of construction workers in Hong Kong. The questions were compiled based on a literature review on recent and related publications, including construction safety behaviors (Seo et al., 2015; Shin et al., 2014), safety climate (Meliá et al., 2008), risk perception (Hallowell, 2010), and construction injury incidents (Rowlinson and Jia, 2015). Aside from demographic data, responses were collected from the participants in four main categories: (a) general information on work and risk-taking behaviors, (b) causes of risk-taking behaviors at work: personal factors, (c) causes of risk-taking behaviors at work: job-related and organizational factors, and (d) consequences of risk-taking behaviors. A semi-structured interview guide was prepared by the interviewers to conduct face-toface individual interviews to ensure that all information that are relevant to risk taking are obtained. A pilot study with five participants was conducted to ensure that the interview questions were understandable to construction workers. The questions were modified to improve precision and conciseness. The detailed interview guide is shown in Appendix B. Some examples of questions are: (a) General information on work and risk-taking behaviors:  In your opinion, what is risk?

S.S. Man et al. / Safety Science 98 (2017) 25–36

 Based on your trade, what types of risk do you usually take on a construction site? Please give three examples.  Based on the examples that you gave in the previous question, how frequently did these risks happen, daily/ every other day/twice a week, or other? (b) Causes of risk-taking behaviors at work: personal factors:  What attitudes do you have about risk taking at work?  Why do you take risks at work? Please list three reasons.  If you do not take risks, why not? Please list three reasons (c) Causes of risk-taking behaviors at work: job-related and organizational factors:  Do you treat risk taking as a part of your work? Why?  Do you think that having more work experience will affect your decision on whether to take or not take risks? Why?  Will you be influenced by the risk-taking behaviors of your peers? How? (d) Consequences of risk-taking behaviors:  How would your family members be affected if you were to lose your life?  Suppose something happens to cause injury or death to others or yourself, how will your intention and attitudes toward risk taking or similar situations in the future be influenced?

3.3. Procedure The sampling frame included six large-scale construction companies in Hong Kong. All of the participants were given a brief introduction of the study. It was noted that face-to-face interviews may result in more socially desirable responses and lower accuracy than computer administered questionnaires or paper-and-pencil questionnaires (Richman et al., 1999). In an attempt to minimize potential response bias, prior to the commencement of interviews, the participants were informed that they had the right to drop out of the interview any time and that the information collected would be processed with absolute confidentiality and anonymity. Furthermore, participants were assured that interviewers were independent university researchers with no connections to their employers and superiors, that their responses will be pooled for analysis without showing the identities of the sources and used solely for academic purposes. Informed and written consents were obtained from all of the participants. The individual interviews were mainly carried out in Cantonese and were conducted in a comfortable and quiet room in the construction sites where the interviewees worked. Two interviewers were present. The duration of each interview was approximately one hour. The interviewee was asked to speak informally and casually. Prior to the interview, the interviewee was requested to provide demographic information, such as marital status, educational attainment, age, gender, number of dependents, trade category, and work experience in the construction industry. The interview guide was utilized by interviewers to ask principal questions. For each answer, additional probes and follow-up questions were posed whenever appropriate and necessary. Individual interviews were audio-recorded with the consent of the interviewees, and the audio records were later transcribed verbatim for data analysis.

3.4. Participants Forty participants voluntarily participated in the study. The sample size satisfied the requirement of a minimum of 15–30 samples, which was proposed by Flick et al. (2007) for qualitative studies. Additionally, Mason (2010) had reviewed 560 qualitative

27

studies and found that the mean sample size was 31. Therefore, the sample size (40) of the current study was acceptable.

3.5. Analysis The audio-recorded data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by utilizing NVivo 11 software package. The identity of the participants were not revealed during the analysis. The analysis involved a three-stage coding process that includes open, axial, and selective coding (Corbin and Strauss, 2014). The first step of open coding refers to the initial close, line-by-line, or verbatim examination of data (Draucker et al., 2007), in which qualitative data are separated into units of meanings (concepts) (e.g., the data ‘‘Taking risks can finish tasks more quickly and effectively” can be broken down into ‘‘time saving” and ‘‘effort saving”), labeled (often with words close to those of the participant), and interrogated (for alternative interpretations and conditions surrounding the meaning, and gaps left unfilled) (Fassinger, 2005). By constantly comparing the data, codes that are highly similar were grouped into analytic concepts. The concepts that are highly relevant were combined at a more theoretical and abstract level (e.g., utilitarian outcomes), whereby themes or categories (e.g., reasons for risk-taking behaviors) were finally identified, and the coding scheme was generated. The second step of axial coding refers to the process of putting the fractured data back together in new ways by making connections between categories (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). In other words, axial coding could help reassemble data into groupings based on their nature (Starks and Trinidad, 2007). Accordingly, it identifies categories for the phenomena, external influences, casual conditions, intervening conditions, and consequences in order to develop axes (relationships) for the grounded theory (Lelle, 2010). For example, in this study, social influence and situational influence were grouped as external influences, which were linked to the phenomenon of risk-taking behaviors. The final step of selective coding was to examine the qualitative data for the purpose of identifying the core category, i.e. the central phenomenon of the study (Strauss and Corbin, 1990), and achieving the integration of the theoretical framework (Draucker et al., 2007).

4. Results and discussions After data analysis, the results of the 40 sets of transcribed interview data were consolidated. The summary of the personal information and occupational backgrounds of the participants are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Table 1 indicates that most of the participants are aged above 30 years (70%) and that 97.5% of the participants received primary education and above. Fifty-five percent of the participants are married, and 77.5% reported to have at least one dependent. The participants are reasonably literate and mentally mature and have some family burden. Table 2 shows that 62.5% of the participants worked for more than nine hours daily and 77.5% had over three years of work experience in the construction industry. The majority of the participants earn a daily wage (90%) and are employed by subcontracting companies (90%). The participants have numerous skills, including 20 types of construction works. Table 3 shows the general responses to the main questions about the risk-taking behaviors of the participants. 46.6% participants reported that they improperly use safety equipment or at times, do not use safety equipment at all. 29.3% of the respondents admitted that they do not follow proper checking and operation procedures.

28

S.S. Man et al. / Safety Science 98 (2017) 25–36

Table 1 Summary of personal particulars of participants (n = 40).

Table 2 Summary of occupational background of participants (n = 40).

Items

Description

Number of Participants

Percentage (%)

Items

Description

Number of Participants

Percentage (%)

Age group

Below 21 21–30 31–40 41–50 51–60 Above 60

2 10 11 9 5 3

5.0 25.0 27.5 22.5 12.5 7.5

Average daily working hours

5–<9 h 9–<12 h More than 12 h

15 24 1

37.5 60.0 2.5

Average work days per week

5 6 7

4 34 2

10.0 85.0 5.0

Gender

Female Male

1 39

2.5 97.5

Wage type

Daily Monthly

36 4

90.0 10.0

Education

No formal education Primary school Lower secondary Higher secondary Form 6 or above

1

2.5

18

45.0

7 10 3 4

17.5 25.0 7.5 10.0

6

15.0

3

7.5

Single Married Divorced/ separated

15 23 2

37.5 57.5 5.0

3 months – <1 year 1 year – <3 years 3 years – <6 years 6 years – <9 years 9 years – <12 years 12 years – <15 years 15 years – <18 years 18 years or above

5.0

12.5 25.0

Work experience in construction industry (Number of years)

2

5 10

1

2.5

0 1 2 3 4

9 5 18 5 3

22.5 12.5 45.0 12.5 7.5

0 1 2 3 4 More Than 4

18 5 14 1 1 1

45.0 12.5 35.0 2.5 2.5 2.5

None Buddhism Chinese folk religion Christianity Polytheist Islam Unspecified

23 2 11

57.5 5.0 27.5

1 1 1 1

2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

Marital status

Number of dependent persons

Number of children

Religious belief

10

25.0

Air-conditioning Banksman Bar bender and fixer Bricklayer Carpenter Concreter Confined space worker Electric arc welder Electrician (Type A) Gas welder General installer Insulation installer Land surveyor Metal worker Metal scaffolder Plant and equipment operator (Excavator) Rigger Site cleaner Slope worker

1 3 3

1.7 5.2 5.2

1 8 2 3

1.7 13.8 3.4 5.2

2

3.4

4

6.9

4 2 1

6.9 3.4 1.7

2 1 4 1

3.4 1.7 6.9 1.7

7 5 4

12.1 8.6 6.9

Type of current construction project

Building sites Civil engineering sites

24 16

60.0 40.0

Injury experience

Yes No Unspecified*

22 17 1

55.0 42.5 2.5

Subcontracting tier of participant’s company in project structure

Main contractor 2nd Tier 3rd Tier 4th Tier

4 31 4 1

10.0 77.5 10.0 2.5

Trades/types of construction worksa

4.1. Overview of coding Section 3.5 indicated that the coding scheme was developed using grounded theory and concept-driven approach. The coding scheme with the proportions for each category or subcategory is shown in Table 4. The proportions were used to indicate how frequently the concepts were mentioned by participants. A total of 676 quotes were collected where 41 (6.07%) were coded as attitudes, 326 (48.22%) as reasons for risk-taking behaviors, 202 (29.88%) as reasons for non-risk-taking behaviors, and 107 (15.83%) as facilitators. Detailed discussions of the results for the categories and subcategories are presented in the succeeding paragraphs. *

4.2. Definition of risk by participants One of the major concerns of this study was how construction workers define risk. Thus, the question ‘‘In your opinion, what is risk?” was asked. 22.5%, 17.5%, and 15% of the respondents reported that ‘‘Risk is the probability of being injured or dying”, ‘‘Risk is working at high places”, and ‘‘Risk is something unsafe or dangerous”, respectively. These responses indicated that risk was considered by respondents to be harmful, dangerous, hazardous, and has uncertainties. The response ‘‘Risk is working at high locations” was consistent with the findings that height acci-

a

Unspecified refers to no clear or explicit responses given by participants. Some participants reported more than one trade or type of construction works.

dents caused the largest number of fatalities in 2015 (Labour Department, 2016a). 10% of the respondents stated that ‘‘Risk is working in a construction site”. This result indicated that construction workers generally consider construction work to be risky in nature. It is of interest to note that these responses were largely homogeneous, perhaps, because all construction workers in Hong Kong were required to attend a 7.5-h mandatory basic safety training course approved by the Hong Kong Labour Department. In these courses, workers are exposed to similar training materials

29

S.S. Man et al. / Safety Science 98 (2017) 25–36 Table 3 General responses for main items of questions concerning risk taking behaviors of participants (n = 58). Unsafe behaviors

Number of responses

Percentage (%)

Improper use of or no safety equipment Not follow proper checking and operation procedures Improper site or workplace arrangement – storage and working clearance Improper use of construction equipment and device Work without required qualifications

27 17

46.6 29.3

6

10.3

5

8.6

3

5.2

on the general concepts and knowledge of work safety, hazards, risks, their prevention and the like. 4.3. Attitude toward risk-taking behaviors The question ‘‘What attitudes do you have about risk taking at work?” was asked to explore the attitudes of construction workers toward risk-taking behaviors. The attitudes toward risk-taking

behaviors in the current study refer to the favorable, unfavorable, and neither favorable nor unfavorable evaluation of risk-taking behaviors of individuals. Thus, positive, negative, and neutral subcategories were employed to classify the responses pertaining to attitudes. A total of 41 attitude quotes were coded where 4 (9.76%) were positive, 15 (36.59%) were neutral, and 22 (53.66%) were negative. Negative attitudes were expressed more by construction workers than positive and neutral attitudes toward risk-taking behaviors. Danger was the main cause of the negative attitudes of construction workers toward risk-taking behaviors, which explains 59.09% of the negative attitudes. Responses such as ‘‘I think risk-taking behaviors are dangerous because of the potential of getting injured” and ‘‘Risk-taking behaviors may lead to death so it is very dangerous” were obtained. These responses were consistent with risk definitions held by participants. Respondents disliked risk-taking behaviors because these actions can harm their health and can cause injury, disability, and even death. The respondents also believed that their family would experience financial problems as a result of the unfavorable consequences. This result revealed that family responsibility may be one of the concerns of construction workers when deciding whether to take or not take risks. Fang et al. (2006) also

Table 4 The coding scheme and proportion of the code (n = 676). Categories (%)

Subcategories (%)

Definition

Codes (%)

Attitudes toward risk-taking behaviors (6.07%)

Negative attitudes (53.66%)

A person’s unfavorable evaluation of risk-taking behaviors

Neutral attitudes (36.58%)

A person’s neither favorable nor unfavorable evaluation of risk-taking behaviors

Positive attitudes (9.76%)

A person’s favorable evaluation of risk-taking behaviors

Danger (59.09%) Silliness (27.27%) Unspecified (13.64%) Work Nature (66.67%) Carefulness (20.00%) Unspecified (13.33%) Convenience (50.00%) Image building (25.00%) Challenge (25.00%)

Utilitarian outcomes (60.11%)

The extent to which risk-taking behaviors are perceived to be instrumental in achieving valued outcomes

Situational Influence (13.50%)

The extent to which work situation or environment influences the risk-taking behaviors

Risk perception (11.66%) Social influence (10.74%)

People’s evaluations and judgments of the hazards they are or might be exposed to The extent to which social values and members of a social network influence the risk-taking behaviors

Perceived behavioral control (3.07%)

An individual’s perceived ease or difficulty of performing the particular behaviors

Social outcome (0.92%)

The degree to which risk-taking behaviors are perceived to enhance one’s image or status in one’s social system

Safety management system (45.04%)

Safety management system aiming at effectively monitoring the safety policies, procedures, and practices within companies

Risk perception (41.09%) Social influence (7.43%)

People’s evaluations and judgments of the hazards they are or might be exposed to The extent to which social values and members of a social network influence the risk-taking behaviors

Perceived behavioral control (6.44%)

An individual’s perceived ease or difficulty of performing the particular behaviors

External (53.27%)

External factors that influence risk-taking behaviors

Internal (46.73%)

Internal factors that influence risk-taking behaviors

Reasons for risk-taking behaviors (48.22%)

Reasons for non-risk-taking behaviors (29.88%)

Facilitators (15.83%)

Time saving (38.77%) Effort saving (26.53%) Convenience (20.92%) Comfort (12.76%) Cost saving (0.51%) Sense of satisfaction (0.51%) Lack of proper safety measures (54.55%) Workplace constraints (45.45%) Perceiving no accidents or no dangers Pressure from seniors (71.43%) Peer influence (28.57%) Able to do risky tasks (80.00%) Easy tasks (20.00%) Image Safety training (41.76%) Safety supervision (37.36%) Safety penalties (18.68%) Safety incentives (2.20%) Perceiving accidents or dangers Family responsibility (86.67%) Peer influence (13.33%) Unable to take risk Work schedule (57.89%) Safety measure design (42.11%) Habituation (52.00%) Working experience (48.00%)

30

S.S. Man et al. / Safety Science 98 (2017) 25–36

found that construction workers who were older, married, or with more dependent family members held a more positive perception of the safety climate than those who were younger, single, or with fewer family members to support. The implication is that workers with increased social responsibilities tend to perform more safely. Furthermore, risk-taking behaviors were considered by respondents as silly actions (27.27%) because risk-taking behaviors were treated as life-threatening actions. Response like ‘‘Working unsafely is a silly act because it threatens my safety. If I do so, I am stupid” were expressed by participants. Any injury or loss that was brought about by risk-taking behaviors were deemed unnecessary. Life was regarded as precious. Thus, respondents expressed negative attitudes toward risk-taking behaviors. Positive attitudes toward risk-taking behaviors were also observed. The main reason for favorable attitudes (9.76%) was convenience, which accounts for 50% of the positive attitudes. Other reasons include image building (25%) and challenge (25%). Responses such as the following were elicited: ‘‘The assigned tasks can be finished conveniently without using safety measures such as safety goggles” and ‘‘When working quickly with risk-taking behaviors, coworkers will think you are skillful and experienced. So, a reliable image can be established”. The respondents indicated that they like risk-taking behaviors because these behaviors can save their time and effort and reduce physical discomfort. This implied that construction workers sacrificed their safety in order to obtain valued outcomes. A brave and heroic image can be established by taking risks in front of coworkers or subordinates. Construction workers are generally male and they tend to show their ‘‘tough guy” image to their coworkers and even to supervisors. Construction workers’ perception of occupational health and safety has been shown to be influenced by a particular variety of hegemonic masculinity appearing in construction industry (Iacuone, 2005). In addition, risk-taking behaviors were considered as challenging tasks. When participants successfully demonstrate a risktaking behavior, they obtain a sense of satisfaction. The participants also expressed neutral attitudes toward risktaking behaviors. Responses like ‘‘Working at construction sites is accompanied with risk-taking behaviors” and ‘‘If I have the ability to take the risk without harm, I think it is not problematic to take the risk” were collected. Work nature accounts for 66.67% of the neutral attitudes toward risk-taking behaviors. Risk-taking behaviors were regarded as a necessity in construction work. 17.5% of the respondents thought that if they can complete a risky task, they are willing to do it. The construction workers conceptualized the relationship between risk and return. Thus, the participants took risks at work in exchange for a high wage. Being careful accounts for 20% of the neutral attitudes toward risk-taking behaviors. 7.5% of respondents stated that being cautious and paying significant attention to the work situation are crucial to avoid accidents when taking risks at work. 4.4. Reasons for risk-taking behaviors The current study primarily aims to explore the reasons why construction workers take or do not take risks at work. Responses were given as follows: ‘‘We take risks mostly due to time saving and effort reduction”; ‘‘Taking risks can increase the effectiveness at work. For example, if we do the work safely, we need to wear uncomfortable personal protective equipment such as safety goggles. This would make me feel uncomfortable”; ‘‘I take risks at work because it is quicker and convenient to finish a task by working unsafely. For example, working at height without safety belts is very convenient because of the need of frequent movement on the working platform”; ‘‘I take risks at work because I am used to doing so and it becomes my habit” and ‘‘I was forced to take risks because there was no proper safety equipment”. The results showed that

the major reasons for the risk-taking behaviors of participants are associated with the perceived outcomes of risk-taking behaviors (61.04% of the reasons for risk-taking behaviors), which could be categorized into utilitarian outcomes and social outcomes. The most frequently mentioned reason for risk-taking behaviors was related to utilitarian outcomes (60.12% of the reasons for risktaking behaviors). Time saving (38.78% of the utilitarian outcomes) was the most appealing motivation for respondents to take risks at work, which was expressed as ‘‘Taking risks ensures that tasks are finished more quickly and effectively”. 67.5% of the participants reported that they want to complete tasks at the shortest time possible; thus, they did not put up safety measures because doing so takes considerable time. The respondents stated that when they are asked to do a quick task, they prefer to do the task directly and without the use of any safety measure because the time needed to put up safety measures was sufficient to finish the task itself. With saved time, participants can complete the task quickly or earn more by taking on additional tasks. Multi-tier subcontracting systems are prevalent in the construction industry in Hong Kong. In this type of system, a subcontractor sublets the entire or a part of its work to another subcontractor with a fixed profit margin (Lai, 1987). Participants reported that they can earn additional income by completing additional work within a fixed time under this multi-tier subcontracting system. This result was consistent with the findings of Sawacha et al. (1999), which suggest that economic benefit is the most significant factor that influences risk-taking behaviors in construction sites. Other reasons related to utilitarian outcomes are effort saving, convenience, and comfort, which account for 26.53%, 20.92%, and 12.76% of the utilitarian outcomes, respectively. The respondents believe that putting up safety measures require significant effort. Thus, they are reluctant to adopt these health and safety measures. For instance, 10% of the participants prefer to use ladders that do not match safety standards instead of establishing a working platform when working in high areas because they feel that establishing a platform required too much effort. Also, the respondents stated that some safety measures cause physical discomfort, particularly during the summer season, and accidents. For example, safety goggles make the workers feel the sweltering heat and are easily fogged by sweat, which reduces visibility. Therefore, participants feel that wearing safety goggles is more dangerous than not doing so. The problem of uncomfortable personal protective equipment has been recognized in previous studies. It is possible to motivate construction workers to wear uncomfortable personal protective equipment by providing them feedback on potential negative outcomes of not wearing the equipment (Cameron and Duff, 2007). Situational influence is one of the reasons why construction workers engage in risk-taking behaviors, which explains 13.50% of the reasons for undertaking risk-taking behaviors. The lack of proper safety measures (54.55%) and the existence of workplace constraints (45.45%) were regarded as reasons for risk-taking behaviors. 37.5% of the respondents stated that if safety equipment, such as safety harnesses, safety goggles, and safety gloves, are not readily available and are far from the workplace, they tend to work without these devices. These outcomes are consistent with the findings that construction workers aim to save time and effort to earn more income. These findings indicate the importance of the availability of safety equipment in construction safety management, which is consistent with the results of a previous study (Zou et al., 2007). 35% of the respondents stated that they do not use safety measures, such as safety harnesses, safety helmets, and proper working platforms, because anchor points for safety harnesses are unavailable in the workplace and opportunities to use safety measures are limited. Under the condition of limited resources, there have been work-to-rule labour disputes and

S.S. Man et al. / Safety Science 98 (2017) 25–36

strikes indicating how it is not possible to complete the job and to comply with the rules at the same time (Vicente, 1999). Dekker (2003) suggested that organizations should establish a better understanding of the gap between practice and procedures, and help develop construction workers’ skill at adapting. Social influence accounts for 10.74% of the reasons for risktaking behaviors. Pressure from seniors (71.43%) and peer influence (28.57%) cause respondents to take risks at work. Some of the respondents are being asked to take risks at work by seniors who aim to finish the tasks as soon as possible considering tight project schedules. The participants follow the orders of their seniors to secure their jobs even if the orders are risky. In addition, peer influence is prevalent among construction workers. Workers who simply stay aside and watch others take risks to complete tasks on time are considered irresponsible. The participants also believe that risks can be reduced by working quickly and collaborating rather than merely looking on. Risk perception (11.66% of the reasons for risk-taking behaviors) significantly influence the risk-taking behaviors of the construction workers. The responses obtained include ‘‘If tasks are not dangerous, I would do them”, ‘‘If the danger of tasks was acceptable, I have no problem doing it”, and ‘‘I would perform a task if I think that it is safe”. These results indicate that participants tend to take risks if they perceive that the behaviors are safe. These results support the finding that risk perception influences the behaviors of workers (Arezes and Miguel, 2008). The responses obtained include ‘‘If you have more work experience, you are familiar with the work and you know which behaviors are not dangerous, then you can do such risk-taking behaviors” and ‘‘Because I have not experienced any negative consequence of risk-taking behaviors, I consider such risk-taking behaviors as safe”. The respondents stated that their evaluation on these behaviors depend primarily on their past work experiences. The participants regard risk-taking behaviors as safe if they have not experienced unfavorable consequences as a result of performing such behaviors. Aside from risk perception, perceived behavioral control (3.07% of the reasons for risk-taking behaviors) is one of the considerations of the workers when deciding whether to take or not take risks. The participants reported that if they believe that they can carry out risky tasks and control the consequences of the behaviors or they think that the task is easy to accomplish, they tend to perform the risky tasks. These findings are consistent with the theory of planned behavior where perceived behavioral control affects intention and behavior (Ajzen, 1985). 4.5. Reasons for non-risk-taking behaviors This study also explored the reasons of construction workers for not taking risks. Responses such as ‘‘I will not take risks if I think it will cause danger”, ‘‘I do not take risks because my family members need my financial support”, ‘‘I do not take risks if my coworkers encourage me to work safely” and ‘‘If I was found to violate safety rules, I would get a monetary penalty” were collected. The results suggest the reasons why workers refrain from engaging in risktaking behaviors. Based on the qualitative responses, four categories of reasons for non-risk-taking behaviors were identified, namely, safety management system (45.05%), risk perception (41.09%), social influence (7.43%), and perceived behavioral control (6.44%). Safety management system refers to a system that ensures the effective monitoring of safety policies, procedures, and practices within a company (Gürcanli and Müngen, 2009). Safety training prevents construction workers from taking risks at work, which explains 41.76% of the data on safety management system. The responses obtained include ‘‘I work safely mainly because I learned how to work safely from safety training” and ‘‘I do not take risks at work because when I attended the safety training, I learned that it

31

is dangerous to do so”. The participants said that safety training is useful to them. Sawacha et al. (1999) stated that the lack of safety training is one of the causes of accidents. Thus, safety training is crucial to improve construction safety. Safety supervision accounts for 37.36% of the data on safety management system. 27.5% of the respondents stated that they do not take risks at work because safety inspections are conducted frequently. Some responses include ‘‘Safety inspection is carried out frequently so we seldom take risks at work” and ‘‘The safety supervision of this company is very tight so we have little opportunity to take risks”. Safety supervision is an effective way to reduce the risk-taking behaviors of construction workers. A previous study revealed that the lack of safety supervision is one of the causes of accidents at work (Sawacha et al., 1999). Thus, strict safety supervision may enhance safety performance. Safety penalties and incentives explain 18.68% and 2.20% of the data on safety management system, respectively. The respondents are afraid to receive safety penalties, especially monetary safety penalties. The amount of safety fines ranges from HKD 500 to 1000, which is equivalent to their half- or whole-day wage. To avoid such safety punishments, participants avoid taking risks at work. Safety incentives motivate the construction workers to work safely. However, the likelihood of gaining safety incentives is low because only one worker in the construction site can receive such rewards in a span of two weeks. Thus, motivation is not strong enough. Risk perception affects the risk-taking behaviors of construction workers. Some of the responses include ‘‘I do not take risks when I think that it is dangerous to do so”, ‘‘If I think that the risk-taking behaviors may cause accidents, I would not do them”, and ‘‘If there was a chance to get injured as a result of risk-taking behaviors, I would not do them even if my boss asks me to”. These results indicate that participants avoid taking risks if they perceive that the behaviors are unsafe or dangerous. These results are consistent with the finding that risk perception influences the behaviors of workers (Arezes and Miguel, 2008). Social influence plays an important role in determining the risktaking behaviors of construction workers. Family responsibility and peer influence accounts for 86.67% and 13.33% of the data on social influence, respectively. Respondents reported that they must work safely because they need to look after their family. Responses such as ‘‘When I think of my family, I refrain from taking risks”, ‘‘I am afraid to die because I have my wife and my children”, and ‘‘I must work safely because I am responsible for my family” indicate that family influence is one of the important considerations in deciding whether to take or not take risks at work. Peer influence also influences the non-risk-taking behaviors of construction workers. The participants stated that their coworkers remind them to take safety measures. One participant stated that not wearing a safety harness feels strange when all of the other workers wear safety harnesses. Construction workers considered perceived behavioral control in deciding whether to take or not take risks. The respondents expressed that they do not take risks if they believe that they cannot accomplish risky tasks. This result is consistent with the theory of planned behavior in which perceived behavioral control affects intention and behavior (Ajzen, 1985). 4.6. Facilitators of risk-taking behaviors Various types of facilitators were identified and categorized into external facilitators (53.27%) and internal facilitators (46.73%). Work schedule is the main facilitator (57.89%) of risk-taking behaviors. Responses such as ‘‘Sometimes, even though I perceive the tasks as dangerous, I still need to do them because the schedule is tight and the work must be accomplished before the deadline”, ‘‘Sometimes, the work needs to be done urgently. If you do not take risks, it is impossible to finish the task quickly”, and ‘‘We need to use special procedures that are effective but not compliant with

32

S.S. Man et al. / Safety Science 98 (2017) 25–36

safety rules if our boss asks us to complete the work quickly because of the tight work schedule” indicated that prioritizing production over safety and time pressure from seniors influence individuals to adapt and consider risk-taking behaviors as normal. This phenomenon was also observed by Mullen (2004). The respondents also reported that if they have sufficient time to work, they would not take risks. Thus, work schedule is a significant factor in the decisions of construction workers on whether to engage in risk-taking behaviors or not. Similarities were observed between the findings of the current study and that of a previous study by Garrett and Teizer (2009) about the significant influence of time pressure on human behaviors. Safety measure design accounts for 42.11% of the external facilitators of risk-taking behaviors. The respondents stated that they are reluctant to use safety harnesses because the design of this device reduces work efficiency and causes physical discomfort. Responses such as ‘‘When using a safety harness, I am sometimes pulled back by the hook of the safety harness. I think using a safety harness is more dangerous than not using it” and ‘‘During the summer season, safety goggles become fogged so I do not use it” indicated that the design of safety devices is crucial to the safety performance of construction workers. Habituation and working experience accounts for 52.00% and 48.00% of the internal facilitators of risk-taking behaviors, respectively. The participants stated that their risk-taking behaviors, such as smoking at work and not using a safety harness, have become habits. Although the construction workers know that those behaviors are dangerous, they still perform such behaviors out of repetition and habit rather than by conscious deliberation of costs and benefits (Verplanken, 2011). Ajzen (2002) stated that frequently performed behaviors can become habits or routines and be enacted without substantial deliberate attention. One of the responses was ‘‘Some workers who are new in the construction industry are more likely to attempt some risky procedures because they expect such procedures to work”. Two respondents (aged 39 and 46 years) stated that younger workers tend to engage in risk-taking behaviors because they are unaware of the consequences of risky behaviors. A similar finding was also reported by Sawacha et al. (1999) and Choudhry and Fang (2008), which revealed that workers with more experience are more aware of safety requirements than those with less work experience. 4.7. Development of a grounded theory In the next stage of analysis, axial coding was employed to establish the relationships among these categories. The process included the construction of a loose conceptual framework with five components, namely, causal conditions, external influences, phenomena, intervening conditions, and consequences (Flick et al., 2007; Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Fig. 1 shows the results of axial coding. The main concern of this study shows that the central action of ‘‘taking or not taking risks” was related to other categories and subcategories that are embedded into causal conditions, external influences, phenomena, intervening conditions, and consequences. In the final stage (selective coding), all of the categories and themes were reexamined and combined to establish a four-layer structure model that is grounded on the qualitative data (Fig. 2). The grounded theory model suggests that taking or not taking risks could be influenced by factors in the three contexts, namely, personal, behavioral, and environmental contexts. The core or the innermost layer of the grounded model is ‘‘taking or not taking risks.” The core layer is directly or indirectly influenced by the three outer layers of the model. Personal context is the second layer. It includes the traits and characteristics of construction workers, attitudes toward risk-taking behaviors, risk perception, perceived behavioral control, work experience, and habituation, which were

identified in the coding analysis. These findings are consistent with the results of other research in other fields (Oswald et al., 2013; Ulleberg and Rundmo, 2003). Ulleberg and Rundmo (2003) identified the considerable effect of risk-taking attitudes on risk-taking behaviors in traffic research. Risk perception significantly influences unsafe behaviors in the construction industry (Oswald et al., 2013). According to the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985), the intention to perform a behavior is strong if the perceived behavioral control that people have over a positively evaluated behavior is high. The findings of the current study are consistent with the work of Sawacha et al. (1999) and Choudhry and Fang (2008), which revealed that work experience is associated with the awareness of the safety requirements of workers. The current study verifies that habituation is crucial to the safety performance of construction workers, which is consistent with previous studies (Shin et al., 2014). Schmidt (2004) stated that people have a high level of awareness of new and unknown risks; however, as these individuals understand the new risk, they will gradually habituate and the new risk becomes acceptable. The behavioral context is the third layer. The decisions of workers on whether to take or not take risks at work is dependent on the consequences of risk-taking behaviors. This finding supports expectancy theory, which proposes that people choose a specific behavior because of the expected favorable result of such behavior (Oliver, 1974). Favorable outcomes of risk-taking behaviors that were expressed by the respondents are associated with time saving (utilitarian outcome), effort saving (utilitarian outcome), physical comfort (utilitarian outcome), and image enhancement (social outcome). This finding supports social cognitive theory, which suggests that people must know the potential favorable outcome of a particular behavior before repeating the behavior (Bandura, 1986). The extrinsic motivators of risk-taking behaviors include social outcomes and utilitarian outcomes. Environmental context is the fourth and outermost layer of the grounded theory model. This layer includes social influences, safety management system, situation influences, and work schedule. The construction workers experience peer pressure to take risks at work. Similar findings about the influence of peer pressure on risk-taking behaviors of drivers were reported by TaubmanBen-Ari and Katz-Ben-Ami (2012). The effect of family responsibility on the safety performance of construction workers was reported by Fang et al. (2006). However, studies on the effects of this factor on risk-taking behaviors are limited. Social influence is a relatively strong predictor of risk-taking orientation for young workers across a wide spectrum of jobs (Westaby and Lowe, 2005). In a safety management system, the establishment of safety training and close supervision to workers are the most important factors that influence construction safety (Jannadi, 1996). Safety training can provide important safety information, particularly regarding the dangers of risk-taking behaviors, to enhance the risk perception and awareness of the negative consequences of risktaking behaviors of construction workers. Hinze and Harrison (1981) stated that safety incentives and safety training are the most effective tools to educate site workers and reduce the number of site accidents. Alternatively, severe monetary fines for construction workers who violate safety standards can impose a financial strain on them; thus, violators think twice before committing the same safety offense (Teo et al., 2005). Situational factors also significantly influence the safety performance of construction workers. The decision of construction workers on whether to take or not take risks depends on the availability of proper safety measures and the work environment. In this study, construction workers expressed a tendency to take risks when the necessary safety measures are not readily available. Physical workplace constraints, such as the lack of workspace for mobile platforms, were regarded as a reason why workers do not take safety measures. Sawacha

S.S. Man et al. / Safety Science 98 (2017) 25–36

33

Fig. 1. The result of the axial coding—relationships between categories.

Fig. 2. The grounded model based on qualitative data.

et al. (1999) identified the provision of safety equipment and the establishment of a safety environment as important determinants of site safety. Regarding the work schedule of a construction project, 42.5% of the respondents stated that they are pressured to work quickly even when safety is compromised. Mitropoulos and Cupido (2009) also reported that schedule pressure adversely affects safety performance.

5. Conclusions This study adopted a qualitative approach to determine clearly the attitudes of construction workers in Kong Hong toward risktaking behaviors. The results are expected to contribute to the lit-

erature by providing theoretical insight and giving a clearer understanding of the reasons why construction workers take or do not take risks. In addition, the causal conditions, external influences, intervening conditions and consequences of risk-taking behaviors among construction workers were identified. Lastly, the grounded model based on qualitative data was developed to explain risktaking behaviors among construction workers. The model indicates that taking risks is influenced by factors in three contexts, namely, personal, behavioral, and environmental. With regard to the personal context, attitudes toward risk-taking behaviors, risk perception, perceived behavioral control, work experience, and habituation influence the risk-taking behaviors of construction workers. In terms of the behavioral context, outcome expectations influence the risk-taking behaviors of construction

34

S.S. Man et al. / Safety Science 98 (2017) 25–36

workers. For environmental context, social influence, safety management system, situation influence, and work schedule significantly influence the risk-taking behaviors of construction workers. The findings of this study can be used to provide recommendations. This study suggests that the main motivator of the risktaking behaviors of construction workers is the perceived benefits, whereas safety management system prevents construction workers from taking risks at work. Thus, policy developers must adopt useful strategies that focus on satisfying the expectations of construction workers and optimizing benefits, such as convenience, work effectiveness, and physical comfort. Unfavorable features of using safety measures, including concerns about physical discomfort, inconvenience, and health risks, must be reduced in which at least the benefits of using safety measures outweigh the costs. For example, anti-fog safety goggles that can reduce inconvenience caused by fog in hot and humid environments, and user-friendly mobile working platforms that can enhance the flexibility of movement of construction workers (Occupational Safety Health Council, 2016) should be introduced and promoted for use in the construction industry. Additionally, well-organized safety equipment planning is required to reduce or even eliminate the situations in which construction workers do not use proper personal protective equipment because such equipment is far from where it is required. Given the prevalence of the multi-tier subcontracting system in Hong Kong construction industry, policy developers should pay attention to the negative impact of the system on safety performance, even though it can be advantageous in, for example, making use of the greater efficiency contributed by the unique skills of subcontractors (Tam et al., 2011) . In order to reduce construction worker risk-taking behaviors encouraged by the desire to make more money under the multi-tier subcontracting system, safety fines and safety incentives should be considered to establish a level of performance where construction workers cannot make money by taking risks, while they can gain monetary incentives by working safely. The results of the axial coding here indicated that safety training is one of the intervening conditions that inhibits risktaking behaviors. Adopting safety training programs was found to increase the awareness of workers for them to work safely (Hinze and Gambatese, 2003; Teizer et al., 2010). In addition, it is

suggested that safety training should emphasize the unfavorable consequences of risk-taking behaviors to increase the risk perception of construction workers about risk-taking behaviors, because the risk perception of construction workers was found to be one of the causal conditions for risk-taking behaviors in construction work. With regard to the work schedule and workplace environment, time-sufficient work schedules and a safe work environment are crucial to reducing the risk-taking behaviors of construction workers. The significance of working safely for the sake of one’s family should be highlighted. Despite of the usefulness of this study of construction worker attitudes and experience regarding risk-taking behaviors, it is important to recognize the limitations of the study. First, it is still unclear how and the extent to which the identified categories interrelate with and influence each other. Second, the frequency, prevalence, or theoretical or practical importance of the identified factors in the proposed model and the weightings of the influence of identified factors on risk-taking behaviors are not clear and leave gaps in the research. Quantitative studies should be conducted to understand these limitations and to fill the research gaps. Third, there may be another model compatible with the data obtained in this study. The model in this study was proposed using, to some extent, the ideas of the authors, which formed an integral part of the grounded theory inductive process (Cutcliffe, 2000). With the grounded theory approach, model development commences with an inductive logic but moves into abductive reasoning (Charmaz, 2011) and it is possible that different researchers would develop slightly different models.

Acknowledgments This work was sponsored by Development Bureau of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government [WQ/020/15].

Appendix A. Summary of past studies on construction safety

Authors

Year

Journal

Vol.

Issue

Pages

Topic

Similarity

Difference

Mohamed

2002

JCEM

128

5

375–384

Meliá et al.

2008

SS

46

6

949–958

Hallowell and Gambatese Molenaar et al.

2009

JCE

135

10

990–998

2009

JCEM

135

6

488–496

Related to construction safety Related to construction safety Related to construction safety Related to construction safety

Quantitative (Constructs model) Quantitative (Regression analysis) Quantitative (Delphi method) Quantitative (Structural equation model)

Cheng et al.

2012

SS

50

2

363–369

Related to construction safety

Quantitative (Exploratory Factor analysis)

Gillen et al.

2002

JSR

33

1

33–51

Gillen et al.

2004

W

23

3

233–243

Qualitative (Telephone interview) Qualitative (Focus group)

Related to perceived safety climate, job demands, and coworker support Related to construction managers’ perceptions

Haslam et al.

2005

AE

36

4

401–415

Safety climate in construction site environments Safety climate responses and the perceived risk of accidents in the construction industry Activity-based safety risk quantification for concrete formwork construction Framework for measuring corporate safety culture and its impact on construction safety performance Exploring the perceived influence of safety management practices on project performance in the construction industry Perceived safety climate, job demands, and coworker support among union and nonunion injured construction workers Construction managers’ perceptions of construction safety practices in small and large firms: a qualitative investigation Contributing factors in construction accidents

Choudhry and Fang

2008

SS

46

4

566–584

Qualitative (Focus group) Qualitative (Indepth semistructured interview)

Related to construction accidents Small sample size and exclude the reason for why not work safely

Why operatives engage in unsafe work behavior: investigating factors on construction sites

Notes: JCEM denotes Journal of Construction Engineering and Management; JCE denotes Journal of Construction Engineering; SS denotes Safety Science; W denotes Work, JSR denotes Journal of Safety Research; and AE denotes Applied Ergonomics.

S.S. Man et al. / Safety Science 98 (2017) 25–36

Appendix B. Interview guide B.1. General information on work and risk-taking behaviors (1) In your opinion, what is risk? (2) Based on your trade, what types of risk do you usually take on a construction site? Please give three examples. (3) Based on the examples that you gave in the previous question, how frequently did these risks happen, daily/every other day/twice a week, or other? (4) In what situations do you usually take the above stated risks or other risks on a construction site? (5) What do you feel during taking risks? After taking risks? (6) Have you ever experienced a situation that you did something even though it was dangerous? Please give details (7) Could you tell the most dangerous experience you have at work? Does it have any influence on your attitudes towards risk taking? (8) In the past five years, have you been involved in any way in any accidents? Please describe briefly. What do you think the causes were? Do you think your awareness on the safety at work has changed? B.2. Causes of risk taking behaviors at work: Personal factors (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

What attitudes do you have about risk taking at work? Why do you take risks at work? Please list three reasons. If you do not take risks, why not? Please list three reasons Was your decision on whether to take risks affected by any moods? Do you think that your risk taking behaviors have or can become habitual? Why? Do you think accidents are unavoidable even if you are well prepared or equipped? Why? What do you think your workmates think about your risk taking behaviors? How does this influence your decision to take risks? What do you think the views your employer have on your risk taking behaviors? How does this influence your decision to take risks? What do you think the views of your family members, relatives and friends have on your risk taking behaviors? How does this influence your decision to take risks? What do you think the views your loved ones have on your risk taking behaviors? How does this influence your decision to take risks?

B.3. Causes of risk-taking behaviors at work: job-related and organizational factors (1) Do you treat risk taking as a part of your work? Why? (2) Do you think that having more work experience will affect your decision on whether to take or not take risks? Why? (3) Do you admire those people who take risks? Why? (4) Will you be influenced by the risk-taking behaviors of your peers? How? (5) Will you be influenced by the safe behaviors of your peers? How? (6) Do you think that time pressure affects whether you take risks? If yes, how? (7) Besides the time factors, do you think that other stresses at work affect your decision to take risks? If yes, what are they and how do they affect you?

35

(8) In some situations, if your preventive personal equipment or facilities are inappropriate, mildly damaged or placed inconveniently, will you continue your work or wait until the appropriate and good quality ones are available? (9) In what situations or working environment you think that one is prone to accidents? (10) If you consider some situations are hazardous or dangerous, could you decide not to perform some tasks? (11) What is your attitude towards safety training and safety orientation training? Can they encourage you not to take risks? Why? 12. (a) Do you know what ‘‘Safety Climate” is? b) What is the safety climate in your team/company? c) How does your company think about the relationship between production and safety, and what about you? d) How does this affect whether you take risks? 13. (a) Do you know what ‘‘Safety Culture” is? b) What is the safety culture in your team/company? c) How does this affect whether you take risks? B.4. Consequences of risk-taking behaviors (1) Have you thought about your family members when you take risks? (2) Who would be affected if you were to suffer from industrial accident/injury? Please list three people in order from the most affected to least affected. (3) How would your family members be affected if you were to lose your life? (4) Do you give any thought to the consequences of you getting injured or suffering from accidents? How would you be (a) Physically affected? (b) Psychologically and mentally affected? (c) And financially affected? (5) On construction sites or in your workplace, do you know about any conditions or situations that may possibly cause discomfort, injury or danger? Please list three examples. (6) Suppose something happens to cause injury or death to others or yourself, how will your intention and attitudes toward risk taking or similar situations in the future be influenced? (7) If you know about non-fatal or fatal accidents that have happened in your workplace, what influence do you think that would have on your intention and attitudes towards risk taking or similar situations in future?

References Ajzen, I., 1985. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl, J., Beckman, J. (Eds.), Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 11–39. Ajzen, I., 2002. Residual effects of past on later behavior: Habituation and reasoned action perspectives. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 6 (2), 107–122. Arezes, P.M., Miguel, A.S., 2008. Risk perception and safety behaviour: A study in an occupational environment. Saf. Sci. 46 (6), 900–907. Avila, C.C., Cieza, A., Anaya, C., Ayuso-Mateos, J.L., 2012. The patients’ perspective on relevant areas and problems in the bipolar spectrum disorder: Individual interviews using the international classification of functioning, disability and health as a reference tool. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabilit./Assoc. Acad. Physiatrists 91 (13), S188. Bandura, A., 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc.. Berge, J.M., Loth, K., Hanson, C., Croll-Lampert, J., Neumark-Sztainer, D., 2012. Family life cycle transitions and the onset of eating disorders: A retrospective grounded theory approach. J. Clin. Nurs. 21 (9–10), 1355–1363.

36

S.S. Man et al. / Safety Science 98 (2017) 25–36

Biggs, S.E., Banks, T.D., Davey, J.D., Freeman, J.E., 2013. Safety leaders’ perceptions of safety culture in a large australasian construction organisation. Saf. Sci. 52, 3– 12. Bogdan, R., Biklen, S., 2007. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. Bohm, J., Harris, D., 2010. Risk perception and risk-taking behavior of construction site dumper drivers. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 16 (1), 55–67. Cameron, I., Duff, R., 2007. A critical review of safety initiatives using goal setting and feedback. Constr. Manage. Econ. 25 (5), 495–508. Charmaz, K., 2011. Grounded theory methods in social justice research. Sage Handbook Qualit. Res. 4, 359–380. Chen, K., Chan, A.H., 2013. Use or non-use of gerontechnology—A qualitative study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 10 (10), 4645–4666. Chi, C., Chang, T., Ting, H., 2005. Accident patterns and prevention measures for fatal occupational falls in the construction industry. Appl. Ergonom. 36 (4), 391–400. Choudhry, R.M., Fang, D., 2008. Why operatives engage in unsafe work behavior: Investigating factors on construction sites. Saf. Sci. 46 (4), 566–584. Construction Workers Registration Board, 2016. Total number of valid registered workers in designated trades. Hong Kong: Retrieved from . Corbin, J., Strauss, A., 2014. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA. Cutcliffe, J.R., 2000. Methodological issues in grounded theory. J. Adv. Nurs. 31 (6), 1476–1484. Darshi De Saram, D., Tang, S.L., 2005. Pain and suffering costs of persons in construction accidents: Hong kong experience. Constr. Manage. Econ. 23 (6), 645–658. Dekker, S., 2003. Failure to adapt or adaptations that fail: Contrasting models on procedures and safety. Appl. Ergonom. 34 (3), 233–238. Development Bureau, 2014. Annual report on accident statistics and analysis for public works contracts for 2013. Hong Kong: Retrieved from . Draucker, C.B., Martsolf, D.S., Ross, R., Rusk, T.B., 2007. Theoretical sampling and category development in grounded theory. Qual. Health Res. 17 (8), 1137–1148. Fang, D., Chen, Y., Wong, L., 2006. Safety climate in construction industry: A case study in hong kong. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 132 (6), 573–584. Fassinger, R.E., 2005. Paradigms, praxis, problems, and promise: Grounded theory in counseling psychology research. J. Counseling Psychol. 52 (2), 156. Fleming, M., Lardner, R., 2002. Strategies to Promote Safe Behaviour as Part of a Health and Safety Management System HSE Books. Flick, U., Kvale, S., Angrosino, M.V., 2007. The Sage Qualitative Research Kit. Sage, London. Garrett, J.W., Teizer, J., 2009. Human factors analysis classification system relating to human error awareness taxonomy in construction safety. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 135 (8), 754–763. Gillen, M., Kools, S., Sum, J., McCall, C., Moulden, K., 2004. Construction workers’ perceptions of management safety practices: A qualitative investigation. Work 23 (3), 245–256. Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Research: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Transaction, New Brunswick (USA) and London (UK). Glendon, A.I., Litherland, D.K., 2001. Safety climate factors, group differences and safety behaviour in road construction. Saf. Sci. 39 (3), 157–188. Gürcanli, G.E., Müngen, U., 2009. An occupational safety risk analysis method at construction sites using fuzzy sets. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 39 (2), 371–387. Hallowell, M., 2010. Safety risk perception in construction companies in the pacific northwest of the USA. Constr. Manage. Econ. 28 (4), 403–413. Haslam, R.A., Hide, S.A., Gibb, A.G., Gyi, D.E., Pavitt, T., Atkinson, S., Duff, A.R., 2005. Contributing factors in construction accidents. Appl. Ergonom. 36 (4), 401–415. Hinze, J., Gambatese, J., 2003. Factors that influence safety performance of specialty contractors. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 129 (2), 159–164. Hinze, J., Harrison, C., 1981. Safety programs in large construction firms. J. Constr. Div. 107 (3), 455–467. Iacuone, D., 2005. ‘‘Real men are tough guys”: Hegemonic masculinity and safety in the construction industry. J. Men’s Stud. 13 (2), 247–266. Jannadi, M.O., 1996. Factors affecting the safety of the construction industry: A questionnaire including 19 factors that affect construction safety was mailed to the top 200 construction contractors in the UK. Safety officers and workers were asked to indicate how effective each factor was in improving construction safety. Build. Res. Inform. 24 (2), 108–112. Labour Department, 2013. Labour department annual report. Hong Kong: Retrieved from . Labour Department, 2016a. Occupational safety and health statistics 2015. Retrieved from .

Labour Department, 2016b. Occupational safety and health statistics bulletin. Hong Kong: Retrieved from . Lai, M., 1987. A review of the subcontracting systems in the hong kong construction industry (MSc). Laryea, S., Hughes, W., 2008. How contractors price risk in bids: Theory and practice. Constr. Manage. Econ. 26 (9), 911–924. Lelle, U., 2010. The development of categories: Different approaches in grounded theory. The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory, 191–213. Mason, M., 2010. Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum: Qualit. Soc. Res. 11 (3), 8. Art. 8. Meliá, J.L., Mearns, K., Silva, S.A., Lima, M.L., 2008. Safety climate responses and the perceived risk of accidents in the construction industry. Saf. Sci. 46 (6), 949– 958. Mitropoulos, P., Cupido, G., 2009. Safety as an emergent property: Investigation into the work practices of high-reliability framing crews. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 135 (5), 407–415. Mullen, J., 2004. Investigating factors that influence individual safety behavior at work. J. Saf. Res. 35 (3), 275–285. Occupational Safety Health Council, 2014. OSH survey of injured workers in the construction industry in hong kong. Hong Kong: Retrieved from . Occupational Safety Health Council, 2016. Safety guide on use of light-duty working platform and mobile working platform Retrieved from http://www.oshc.org.hk/ oshc_data/files/books/2016/CB1488C.pdf. Oliver, R.L., 1974. Expectancy theory predictions of salesmen’s performance. J. Mark. Res. 11 (August), 243–253. Oswald, D., Sherratt, F., Smith, S., 2013. Exploring factors affecting unsafe behaviours in construction. Arcom Conference, pp. 335–344. Richman, W.L., Kiesler, S., Weisband, S., Drasgow, F., 1999. A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews. J. Appl. Psychol. 84 (5), 754. Rowley, J., 2012. Conducting research interviews. Manage. Res. Rev. 35 (3/4), 260– 271. Rowlinson, S., Jia, Y.A., 2015. Construction accident causality: An institutional analysis of heat illness incidents on site. Saf. Sci. 78, 179–189. Sawacha, E., Naoum, S., Fong, D., 1999. Factors affecting safety performance on construction sites. Int. J. Project Manage. 17 (5), 309–315. Schmidt, M., 2004. Investigating risk perception: A short introduction (PhD). Seo, H., Lee, Y., Kim, J., Jee, N., 2015. Analyzing safety behaviors of temporary construction workers using structural equation modeling. Saf. Sci. 77, 160–168. Shin, M., Lee, H., Park, M., Moon, M., Han, S., 2014. A system dynamics approach for modeling construction workers’ safety attitudes and behaviors. Accid. Anal. Prev. 68, 95–105. Siu, O., Phillips, D.R., Leung, T., 2004. Safety climate and safety performance among construction workers in hong kong: The role of psychological strains as mediators. Accid. Anal. Prev. 36 (3), 359–366. Starks, H., Trinidad, S.B., 2007. Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qual. Health Res. 17 (10), 1372–1380. doi: 17/10/1372 [pii]. Strauss, A., Corbin, J., 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research. Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Tam, V.W., Shen, L.Y., Kong, J.S., 2011. Impacts of multi-layer chain subcontracting on project management performance. Int. J. Project Manage. 29 (1), 108–116. Taubman-Ben-Ari, O., Katz-Ben-Ami, L., 2012. The contribution of family climate for road safety and social environment to the reported driving behavior of young drivers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 47, 1–10. Teizer, J., Allread, B.S., Fullerton, C.E., Hinze, J., 2010. Autonomous pro-active realtime construction worker and equipment operator proximity safety alert system. Automat. Constr. 19 (5), 630–640. Teo, E.A.L., Ling, F.Y.Y., Chong, A.F.W., 2005. Framework for project managers to manage construction safety. Int. J. Project Manage. 23 (4), 329–341. Ulleberg, P., Rundmo, T., 2003. Personality, attitudes and risk perception as predictors of risky driving behaviour among young drivers. Saf. Sci. 41 (5), 427–443. Verplanken, B., 2011. Old habits and new routes to sustainable behaviour. In Whitmarsh, L., O’Neill, S., Lorenzoni, I. (Eds.), Engaging the Public with Climate Change: Behaviour Change and Communication, pp. 17–30. Vicente, K.J., 1999. Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work. CRC Press. Westaby, J.D., Lowe, J.K., 2005. Risk-taking orientation and injury among youth workers: Examining the social influence of supervisors, coworkers, and parents. J. Appl. Psychol. 90 (5), 1027–1035. Zou, P.X., Zhang, G., Wang, J., 2007. Understanding the key risks in construction projects in china. Int. J. Project Manage. 25 (6), 601–614.