Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is the influence of coworkers upon the individual's internalization of safety?Despite it being recognized as one of the most pervasive determinants of individual behaviour, social influence upon individual safety motivation has largely been overlooked by safety studies.This study operationalized group level safety climate to focus on coworker influence -an alternative to the predominant group level leadership perspective.This exploratory, qualitative study interviewed 55 workers across three safety critical industries: firefighting, whitewater raft guiding, and paramedicine.The interviews were combined with workplace visits and six group interviews, using a theoretical proposition guided research model.The semi-structured qualitative approach allowed for the nature of the unstudied relationship between coworker influence and individual safety values to emerge.The focus of the study was at the individual level.This study found that there is significant complexity at the coworker level regarding safety; more so than the predominant hierarchical safety climate paradigm.The major theoretical contribution of this research is a finding that coworker influence and social identity were an active influence upon internalizing safety motivation.Shared experience, social bonding and trust allowed for the individual to socially identify with their group and internalize group safety priorities and incorporate these into self-concept.Coworker social support and trust validated the individuals' sense of competency.This sense of competency was the first defense in dealing with work ambiguity, but more existentially, coworker endorsement of competency also anchored basic work identity.Safety at its most concrete level was about not getting hurt.Safety at its more meaningful level was about the potential harm from finding one's self on the outside of the work group and the internal or psychological implications of such exposure.This research adds complexity to the field of safety studies by including peer interaction and internal safety values.This research also introduces to safety studies as-yet underutilized social theories as a means of examining coworker influence and internalizing safety.In particular, self-determination theory and social identification theory are applied to group and individual level safety behaviour.task of producing safety.Examining three separate sectors allowed for variation in perspective and triangulation of findings. RESEARCH PROBLEMResearch in the safety field regarding coworker influence on individual safety is only just emerging.Intuitively, there seems to be face validity to the idea that if all of one's peers disregard organizational safety directives, then the individual would understand the 'local' group norm to override the organizational mandate.Likewise, if a group is highly safety oriented, it seems reasonable that an individual group member would understand the performance standard as such.With an emerging awareness of social influence upon safety, a number of authors hypothesize that peers (coworkers) may have a greater influence upon individual safety than does the organization or supervisor.Work by Chiaburu and Harrison (2008) on coworkers in general and by Brondino, Silva and Pasini (2012) and Fugas, Melia and Silva (2011) on safety in particular has concluded as much.However, beyond a discussion of norms, a mechanism for this influence is yet to be proposed.This research was exploratory in nature, and looked for mechanisms of influence in an asyet unstudied relationship between coworkers' safety orientation and how the individual internalizes safety beliefs.This research utilized the internalization of safety beliefs at the individual level to examine the social constructs of norms and social influence at the individual level of analysis.Based upon a review of the literature several propositions guided this research.These
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".