UNDERSTANDING SAFETY PERFORMANCE USING SAFETY
CLIMATE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL CLIMATE
Gemma Clissold
Working Paper 65/04
December 2004
DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT
WORKING PAPER SERIES
ISSN 1327–5216
Abstract
This paper aims to explore the relationship between psychological climate, safety climate and safety
performance. Safety research is increasingly expanding from a central focus on safety specific
explanations of safety performance, to encompass more general management principles (e.g.
leadership, role stress, and performance management). This research aims to contribute to this body
by exploring the way in which psychological climate can be used to explain safety performance. This
paper compares the fit of three competing models of safety performance using structural equation
modelling. In the first model safety performance is predict by safety climate only, in the second by
psychological climate only and the third is a saturated model using both safety and psychological
climate. Comparison of the models revealed that the saturated model provides a better and more
parsimonious explanation of safety performance than safety climate alone.
This paper is a work in progress. Material in the paper cannot be used without permission of the author.
UNDERSTANDING SAFETY PERFORMANCE USING SAFETY CLIMATE AND
PSYCHOLOGICAL CLIMATE
INTRODUCTION
Safety researchers and practitioners have used a range of strategies aimed at making
organisations safer. Over time, these strategies or approaches have evolved from being focused
on the physical, technical and mechanical elements of the organisation to being increasingly
focused on the individual’s perceptions of and attitude toward the various aspects of the
organisation. As such the safety climate construct has in the past decade been increasingly
applied to both describe the state of organisational safety (e.g. Cheyne, Oliver, Tomás, & Cox,
2002; Cox & Cox, 1991; Coyle, Sleeman, & Adams, 1995; Lee, 1998) and predict dependent
safety performance variables (e.g. Cheyne, Cox, Oliver, & Tomás, 1998; Cheyne et al., 2002; Neal
& Griffin, 2002; Zohar, 2000).
In addition to being explained using safety climate variables, safety performance is increasingly
being related to non-safety specific variables such as leadership (Barling, Loughlin, & Kelloway,
2002; Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999; Zohar, 2002), commitment and organisational support (Barling
& Hutchinson, 2000; Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999), job satisfaction and job design (Barling,
Kelloway, & Iverson, 2003; Hechanova-Alampay & Beehr, 2001; Parker, Axtell, & Turner, 2001)
and job security (Probst, 2002; Probst & Brubaker, 2001). The individuals’ perceptions of more
general management practices are increasingly becoming the focus of research. Specifically,
Neal, Griffin and Hart (2000) explored the relationship between organisational climate and the
endogenous variables safety climate and safety performance, while Barling and Hutchinson (2000)
argue that organisational management and HR practices have significant implications for safety.
The aim of this research is to further add to this expanding body of literature by exploring the affect
of psychological climate on safety performance.
SAFETY CLIMATE AND SAFETY PERFORMANCE
Safety climate is defined as being a set of perceptions held by individuals toward issues of
organisational safety (Guldenmund, 2000; Zohar, 1980). Organisational climates provide context
in which individuals determine both the appropriateness of their behaviour, and also the possible
consequences of such behaviour (L. R. James & Sells, 1981).
Safety climate is a concept that has been developed by safety researchers to describe
organisational environments and specifically the individual employees’ perceptions of
organisational safety. In a descriptive capacity safety climate data can be used to determine
whether an organisation has a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ safety climate, as well as areas that require attention
and improvement. Safety climate information provides managers with a proactive tool for
improving organisational safety and also enables them to map changes and improvements over
time (Coyle et al., 1995; Lee, 1998).
In addition to describing organisations, safety climate data can be used to predict organisational
safety outcomes. Safety climate has been used to predict accident data (e.g. Zohar, 1980; Zohar,
2002), self-rated proactiveness (Mohamed, 1999), safety activities (Cheyne et al., 2002), and
safety behaviour (Neal & Griffin, 2002). This paper contributes to the safety climate literature at a
foundation level by analysing the relationship between safety climate and safety performance.
H1: Safety climate will predict safety performance.
2
PSYCHOLOGICAL CLIMATE, SAFETY CLIMATE AND SAFETY PERFORMANCE
Barling and Hutchison (2000) argue that safety must be integrated into high performance work
systems such that they motivate people to produce the highest quality and quantity of goods and
services, to be creative, innovative and importantly safe. Barling and Hutchison (2000) state that
workforce commitment is a by-product of high performance work systems and that performance
outcomes are the final result. Barling and Zacharatos (as cited in Parker et al., 2001, p. 211)
contribute further to this argument by stating that self managed work teams, decentralised decision
making, high quality job, employment security, extensive training, compensation based on
performance (including safety performance), and selective hiring are a few of the key management
and HR practices that will assist in achieving high production and safety performance.
Further to the argument proposed by Barling and his colleagues Neal et al. (2000) explored the
relationships between an aggregated organisational climate construct, safety climate and safety
performance. This paper seeks to further contribute to this body of research by applying the
concept of psychological climate, as opposed to organisational climate used by Neal et al. to
explanations of safety performance.
Depending on the author or researcher the difference between organisational climate and
psychological climate ranges from being semantic to significant. However in this paper,
psychological climate and organisational climate have been conceptualised as being conceptually
distinct terms. Discussion surrounding the distinction has been primarily associated with the unit of
theory and the aggregation of these terms. This scope of this paper however does not encompass
a review of this debate, which is published elsewhere (Glick, 1985; L. R. James, 1982; L. R.
James, Joyce, & Slocum, 1988; L. R. James & Sells, 1981; Joyce & Slocum, 1984). The
conceptual difference applied within this research is that organisational climate focuses more on
describing the individual’s perceptions of organisational goal, principles and expectations (Strutton
& Pelton, 1994). Psychological climate is designed to tap into a more value laden perspective of
the organisation encompassing characteristics the individual considers to be psychological
meaningful. As such, the psychological climate variable will impact the extent to which the
individual engages or disengages with their workplace (Burke, Borucki, & Kaufman, 2002; Koys &
De Cotiis, 1991; Ward, 1998).
H2: Psychological climate will predict safety behaviour.
Neal and Griffin (2002) argued that there was a need to investigate safety climate within the
context of organisational behaviour. They further argue that there is a need to explore the
mechanisms through which safety climate impacts safety performance, and also the impact of
organisational variables on safety climate. Research conducted by Neal et al. (2000) found
support for their proposition that safety climate mediated the relationship between organisational
climate and safety behaviour. This type of relationship will again be explored but using
psychological climate as opposed to organisational climate.
H3: The relationship between psychological climate and safety performance will be mediated by
safety climate.
H4: The mediation model will be a better fit than either of the models depicted in H1 and H2.
METHOD
Sample and procedure
A total of 1800 questionnaires were administered to a population of employees within a large
service provider. This organisation employs approximately 3000 full time staff, and work groups
from within this population were randomly selected for participation in this project. From the 1800
questionnaires administered, 800 completed questionnaires were returned. The organisation can
3
be categorised as a large service provider, and within the group 74.8% of the population were
male, 25.2% female. 53.4% of the participants worked predominantly in an office environment,
while 46.6% worked in a workshop or out in the field. 75% of the group classified themselves at the
basic employee level, 14% at the supervisor/team leader level, 6.5% at the manager level, 1.3% at
the senior manager and 3.1% at the general manager level.
Data analysis and measures
The measures were developed according to previous research in the fields of psychological
climate, safety climate and safety performance. Each of the items was measured on a 6-point
Likert scale. All missing data was replaced using the mean substitution technique and all
negatively worded items were recoded. The first step in data analysis was to conduct exploratory
factor analysis (EFA). During EFA items that cross loaded were deleted from further analysis and
the factor loadings had to be above .4 for the item to be retained.
Following EFA, each of the individual items that relate to each factor were grouped into item
parcels. Problems in early analysis of the research models, particularly repeated Heywood cases
prompted the decision to group the individual items into parcels of 3 or 4 items. The item parcels
are a summation of the individual items and have been grouped together based on the requirement
of ensuring that each item parcel reflects each construct to an equal degree (Russell, Kahn, Spoth,
& Altmaier, 1998). There are a number of advantages to using parcels, but in this specific study
they have had the effect of reducing the idiosyncrasies or anomalies in individual items (Russell et
al., 1998).
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modelling was used to test the
hypotheses. CFA and the creation of a measurement model, provides an indication of whether the
items attached with each unobserved construct are significant predictors of that construct (Ho,
2000). The fit of the structural equation models will be assessed using incremental fit indices (e.g.
NFI, RFI, IFI, TLI and CFI) and parsimonious fit indices (e.g. PNFI and AIC).
MEASURES
Psychological climate
The psychological climate items were adapted from the measures developed by Jones and James
(1979), James and James (1989), Koys and DeCotiis (1991) and Brown and Leigh (1996). Six
factors resulted from the psychological climate items; supervision and management (α= .94), role
stress (α= .75), understanding of policies, standards and expectations (α= .83), performance
management and top down communication (α= .86) and relationships, harmony and trust (α= .72).
Example items include “I feel that the demands of my job are sometimes too much for me to
handle” and “My work team is focused on achieving the highest standards in performance.”
Safety climate
The safety climate items have been adapted from the work of a number of researchers, particularly
Mearns, Flin, Gordon and Fleming (1998), Neal, Griffin and Hart (2000) and Cheyne, Oliver,
Tomás and Cox (2002) as well as the literature review conducted by Guldenmund (2000).
Following EFA three safety climate factors remained; safety management (α = .88), safety
standards (α = .75) and safety communication (α= .67). Aside from safety communication, each of
the reliability coefficients was sufficient (i.e. >.07). Improvements to the safety communication
scale were sought through the deletion of items, however none could be made. The use of
confirmatory factor analysis to further test the adequacy of this scale, and the theoretical
importance of the concept resulted in the decision to retain the safety communication factor.
4
Example items include “I feel that all levels of management at X always make sure that my
workmates and I continually focus on improving safety” and “I feel that all staff at X are involved in
discussion regarding safety issues.”
Safety performance
The safety performance items were adapted from the work of Neal, Griffin and Hart (2000) and
Cheyne, Oliver, Tomás and Cox (2002). One safety performance factor emerged from the EFA,
safety reporting and behaviour (α= .76). Example items include “I always consider the safety of
workmates” and “I look the other way if I see workmates behaving unsafely, their behaviour is their
business.”
RESULTS
CFA results
Results for the measurement model or confirmatory factor analysis were conducted using the
AMOS program (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999). The measurement model provided a good fit to the
data. The chi-square was insignificant, however this is a reflection of sample size (N= 800, df=
239) = 724.54, p<.05 not the adequacy of the model. The goodness of fit indices, presented in
Table Two, is each above .9 which indicates that the model is a good fit to the data.
Table One: Measurement model: Incremental fit indices
NFI RFI IFI TLI
Model CFI
Delta1 rho1 Delta2 rho2
Default model .937 .921 .957 .946 .957
Saturated model 1.000 1.000 1.000
Independence model .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
5
The hypothesised structural equation model is presented in Figure One
Figure One: Saturated model: Psychological climate (PC) → safety climate (SC) → safety
performance (SP)
Perform Safety
manage comm
Super &
manage
Policies, Safety
Safety reporting &
standards & standard
expect behaviour
Role
stress
Relation, Safety
harmony &
trust manage
Three models, each of which are nested in the saturated model (Figure one), have been competed
against each to determine which is a better fit. In the H1 (SC→SP) model the unconstrained paths
are those between the safety climate measures and the safety performance measure. The H2
(PC→SP) represents the relationship between the psychological climate factors and the safety
performance factors, and as such all other paths have been constrained. In the saturated model,
H3 (PC→SP; PC→SC; SC→SP) model no paths have been constrained.
6
Table Two: Chi-square, Goodness of fit values: Incremental fit indices (NFI, RFI, IFI, TLI,
CFI), Parsimonious Normed Fit Index (PNFI), Akaike Information Criterion
(AIC), and Model Comparisons
df CMIN P NFI RFI IFI TLI CFI PNFI AIC
Constrained: 63 1966.537 <.001 .830 .805 .849 .826 .848 .725 2092.537
SC→SP
Partially 68 1951.811 <.001 .831 .803 .850 .824 .849 .712 2087.811
constrained:
PC→SP
Hypothesised 83 799.098 <.001 .931 .914 .951 .939 .95 .751 965.098
PC→SC→SP
Model
comparisons
Hypothesised 20 1167.439 <.001 .101 .103 .109 .112 .102 .026 -
vs. 1127.439
constrained
PC→SC→SP
vs. SC→SP
Hypothesised 15 1152.713 <.001 .100 .102 .112 .114 .101 .039 -
vs. partially 1122.713
constrained
PC→SC→SP
vs. PC→SP
Partially 5 14.726 .012 .001 .001 -.002 -.002 .001 -.013 -4.726
constrained <.05
vs.
constrained
7
Hypothesis one, presented in Figure Two, represents the relationship between the safety climate
factors and the dependent safety performance factor (N=800, df= 63)=1966.54, p<.001. Each of
the paths presented in hypothesis one is positive and significant according to the critical ratio test
(i.e. >±1.96). This model also indicates that 81% of the variance in the dependent variable has
been explained by the safety climate variables. This model supports hypothesis one.
Safety
communication
0.12
.19
0.11 Safety
Safety reporting &
management behaviour
0.89
Safety
standards
Figure Two: Hypothesis one with path coefficients
Note: All coefficients are standardised and only those statistically significant (<.05) are displayed
Hypothesis two, depicted in Figure Three, examines the relationship between the psychological
climate factors and the safety performance factor (N=800, df= 68)=1951.81, p<.001. Only two of
the paths between the psychological climate factors and the dependent safety reporting and
behaviour factor were significant. The paths between the independent variables policies standards
and expectations and role stress and the dependent variable safety reporting and behaviour are
both positive in nature. Therefore, the support for hypothesis two is limited.
8
Performance
management
Supervision &
management
Policies, 0.24 Safety
standards & reporting
expectations & behaviour
0.17
Role
stress
Relation,
harmony &
trust
Figure Three: Hypothesis two with path coefficients
Note: All coefficients are standardised and only those statistically significant (<.05) are displayed
The final model tested was the saturated model, hypothesis three (see Figure Four), in which
psychological climate predicts safety climate and safety performance, and where safety climate
also predicts safety performance (N=800, df= 83) = 799.098, p<.001. This model was a highly
significantly better fit than the hypothesis one and hypothesis two models, supporting hypothesis
four.
A negative significant relationship exists between the performance management and top down
communication factor (Beta= -0.3) and a significant positive relationship between supervision and
management (Beta = 0.13) and the dependent variable. The only significant relationship between
9
the safety climate factors and the dependent variable is between safety standards and is positive
(Beta=0.92).
Considerable amounts of variance in the endogenous variables have been explained by the
exogenous variables. 86% of the variance in safety reporting and behaviour has been explained
by the psychological climate and safety climate variables. Additionally, the psychological climate
factors explain 69% of the variance in the safety communication factor, 34% in the safety
standards factor and 68% in the safety management factor.
Figure Four: Hypothesis three with coefficients
Safety
0.78 communication .31
Performance
management
0.21 0.43 -0.30 .14
Supervision &
management
-0.27 0.13
-0.25
Policies, Safety 0.92 Safety
0.2 reporting &
standards & standard
expect behaviour
0.01
0.14
Role .66
stress 0.29
-0.13
Relation,
harmony & Safety
trust manage
.32
Note: All coefficients are standardised and only those statistically significant (<.05) are displayed
DISCUSSION
Competing the hypothesised models indicates that the mediated model (H3) is a significantly better
fit than the H1 and H2 models. Therefore, H4 is also supported with the data indicating that not
only is the mediated model a better fit but also a more parsimonious fit. Neal et al. (2000). Argue
that not enough is known about the factors that influence safety climate. The results of this
research are aimed at contributing to this body of knowledge.
The impact of incorporating the psychological climate factors in the relationship between safety
climate and safety performance has been significant. The psychological climate factors have had
such a profound impact on the nature of the relationships that significant relationships between
safety climate and safety performance have become insignificant. The implications of this are that
we are able to get a better understanding of the way in which the individuals’ perceptions of their
work environment impact individual behaviour. Additionally, these results provide a tentative
indication of the way in which the individuals’ perceptions impact the assessment of acceptable
10
and appropriate behaviours. The outcome of this hypothesis supports the proposition suggested
by a number of authors (e.g. Barling & Hutchinson, 2000; Beckmerhagen, Berg, Karapetrovic, &
Willborn, 2003; Berger, 1999; Hechanova-Alampay & Beehr, 2001; Hemingway & Smith, 1999;
Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999; Reason, Parker, & Lawton, 1998) that individuals do not base their
safety specific behaviours on safety climate alone, but rather the perceived organisational
environment more generally.
Figure Four indicates that the relationship between psychological climate or the organisational
environment and safety performance will not be effective without the articulation of clear and
explicit safety standards. Through establishing such performance standards and expectations,
general management practices such as performance management and top down communication,
policies standards and expectations and a low role stress environment will positively influence
safety behaviour. It was unexpected that the impact of psychological climate would be focused so
much through safety standards. This relationship however has been supported by previous
research suggesting that talking about safety and managing safety as an issue, will not equate to
changes in safety performance (Berger, 1999; Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996; Reason et al., 1998), but
that employees must be lead by example and be motivated to achieve excellence (Barling et al.,
2003). Excellence can only be achieved if the employees understand the standards of excellence.
There are four negative relationships which must be noted but which can not necessarily be
explained. Initially, the negative relationship between the management and supervision factor and
safety standards could be considered to be a result of managers and supervisors ‘managing’ other
organisational issues, such as production, with such intensity that safety is pushed aside.
Alternatively, the management style may be excessively prescriptive and as such may be
impacting the extent to which employees feel empowered which has been shown in past research
to impact safety performance (Hechanova-Alampay & Beehr, 2001).
A second negative relationship is between performance management and top down
communication and safety reporting and behaviour. This relationship may indicate that
performance management and the majority of top down communication is centrally focused on
productivity related performance issues. This focus on production based performance negatively
impacts safety because it is not focused on safety, and safety is not prioritised. The final two
negative relationships are between role stress and the two safety climate factors safety
communication and safety management. This negative relationship could indicate that role conflict
and role overload reflects the clash that occurs between production and safety. This relationship
could be argued to be such that without the experience of such role conflict and overload the
individual perceives safety communication and safety management to be inadequate.
The impact of psychological climate on the relationship between safety climate and safety
performance was not expected. Interestingly however is the fact that the psychological climate
factors have explained approximately 68% of the variance in the safety climate factors, safety
communication and safety management. This relationship provides support for the hierarchical
ordering between general and more specific organisational climates, and specifically that specific
climates (i.e. safety, service, innovation) fit under the broader umbrella of organisational climates
as has been proposed by a number of authors (Neal et al., 2000; Schneider, Salvaggio, & Subirats,
2002; Schneider, White, & Paul, 1998; Zohar, 1980).
IMPLICATIONS
There are a number of implications of these results in both research and practice. From a
perspective of research and academe it is hoped that the placement of safety performance in a
general management context will broaden our perspectives in terms of performance management
and stakeholder management. The impact of psychological climate on safety climate and safety
performance is quite powerful and this should have implications for the way in which we
conceptualise the relationship between organisational safety issues and organisational safety
performance.
11
The implications for industry and practice emphasise the inability of paper based safety
management, and the latest technology to take the risk out of the organisation. Risk is attached to
the individual, because it is based on individual perception. Until the individual believes in
organisational safety standards and is committed to the organisational environment, accidents
rates will not be decreased below the existing plateau.
12
REFERENCE LIST
Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user's guide. Chicago: SmallWaters Corporation.
Barling, J., & Hutchinson, I. (2000). Commitment vs. control-based safety practices, safety
reputation, and perceived safety climate. Canadian journal of administrative sciences,
17(1), 76-84.
Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & Iverson, R. D. (2003). High-quality work, job satisfaction, and
occupational injuries. Journal of applied psychology, 88(2), 276-283.
Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Development and test of a model linking safety-
specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. Journal of applied psychology,
87(3), 488-496.
Beckmerhagen, I. A., Berg, H. P., Karapetrovic, S. V., & Willborn, W. O. (2003). Integration of
management systems: Focus on safety in the nuclear industry. International journal of
quality and reliability management, 20(2), 210-228.
Berger, Y. (1999). Why hasn't it changed on the shopfloor? In C. Mayhew & C. L. Peterson (Eds.),
Occupational health and safety in Australia (pp. 52-64). St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.
Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job
involvement, effort and performance. Journal of applied psychology, 81(4), 358-368.
Burke, M. J., Borucki, C. C., & Kaufman, J. D. (2002). Contemporary perspectives on the study of
psychological climate: A commentary. European journal of work and organizational
psychology, 11(3), 325-340.
Cheyne, A., Cox, S., Oliver, A., & Tomás, J. M. (1998). Modelling safety climate in the prediction of
levels of safety activity. Work and stress, 12(3), 255-271.
Cheyne, A., Oliver, A., Tomás, J. M., & Cox, S. (2002). The architecture of employee attitudes to
safety in the manufacturing sector. Personnel review, 31(6), 649-670.
Cox, S., & Cox, T. (1991). The structure of employee attitudes to safety: A European example.
Work and stress, 5(2), 93-106.
Coyle, I. R., Sleeman, S. D., & Adams, N. (1995). Safety climate. Journal of safety research, 26(4),
247-254.
Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate:
Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of management review, 10(3), 601-616.
Guldenmund, F. W. (2000). The nature of safety culture: a review of theory and research. Safety
science, 34, 215-257.
Hechanova-Alampay, R., & Beehr, T. A. (2001). Empowerment, span of control and safety
performance in work teams after workforce reduction. Journal of occupational health
psychology, 6(4), 275-282.
Hemingway, M. A., & Smith, C. S. (1999). Organizational climate and occupational stressors as
predictors of withdrawal behaviours and injuries in nurses. Journal of occupational and
organizational psychology, 71, 285-299.
Ho, R. (2000). Handbook of Univarite and Multivariate Data Analysis and Interpretation: SPSS
Approach. Rockhampton: Central Queensland University Publishing Unit.
Hofmann, D. A., & Morgeson, P. (1999). Safety-related behaviour as a social exchange: The role
of perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of applied
psychology, 84(2), 286-296.
Hofmann, D. A., & Stetzer, A. (1996). A cross-level investigation of factors influencing unsafe
behaviours and accidents. Personnel psychology, 49, 307-339.
James, L. A., & James, L. R. (1989). Integrating work environment perceptions: Explorations into
the measurement of meaning. Journal of applied psychology, 74(5), 739-751.
13
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of applied
psychology, 67(2), 219-229.
James, L. R., Joyce, L. R., & Slocum, J. W. (1988). Comment: Organizations do not cognize.
Academy of management review, 13(1), 129-132.
James, L. R., & Sells, S. B. (1981). Psychological climate: Theoretical perspectives and empirical
research. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional
perspective (pp. 275-295). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jones, A. P., & James, L. R. (1979). Psychological climate: Dimensions and relationships of
individual and aggregated work environment perceptions. Organizational behaviour and
human performance, 23, 201-250.
Joyce, W. F., & Slocum, J. (1984). Collective climate: agreement as the basis for defining
aggregate climates in organizations. Academy of management journal, 27(4), 721-724.
Koys, D. J., & De Cotiis, T. A. (1991). Inductive measures of psychological climate. Human
relations, 44(3), 265-285.
Lee, T. (1998). Assessment of safety culture at a nuclear reprocessing plant. Work and stress,
12(3), 217-237.
Mearns, K. J., Flin, R., Gordon, R., & Fleming, M. (1998). Measuring safety climate on offshore
installations. Work and stress, 12(3), 238-254.
Mohamed, S. (1999). Empirical investigation of construction safety management activites and
performance in Australia. Safety science, 33, 129-142.
Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2002). Safety climate and safety behaviour. Australian journal of
management, 27(Special issue), 67-75.
Neal, A., Griffin, M. A., & Hart, P. M. (2000). The impact of organizational climate on safety climate
and individual behaviour. Safety science, 34, 99-109.
Parker, S. K., Axtell, C. M., & Turner, N. (2001). Designing a safer workplace: importance of job
autonomy, communication quality, and supportive supervisors. Journal of occupational
health psychology, 6(3), 211-228.
Probst, T. M. (2002). Layoffs and tradeoffs: Production, quality, and safety demands under the
threat of job loss. Journal of occupational health psychology, 7(3), 211-220.
Probst, T. M., & Brubaker, T. L. (2001). The effects of job insecurity on employee safety outcomes:
cross-sectional and longitudinal explorations. Journal of occupational health psychology,
6(2), 139-159.
Reason, J., Parker, D., & Lawton, R. (1998). Organizational controls and safety: The varieties of
rule-related behaviour. Journal of occupational and organisational psychology, 71(4), 289-
299.
Russell, D. W., Kahn, J. H., Spoth, R., & Altmaier, E. M. (1998). Analyzing data from experimental
studies: A latent variable structural equation modeling approach. Journal of counseling
psychology, 45(1), 18-29.
Schneider, B., Salvaggio, A. M., & Subirats, M. (2002). Climate strength: A new direction for
climate research. Journal of applied psychology, 87(2), 220-229.
Schneider, B., White, S. S., & Paul, M. C. (1998). Linking service climate and customer
perceptions of serevice quality: Test of a causal model. Journal of applied psychology,
83(2), 150-163.
Strutton, D., & Pelton, L. E. (1994). The relationship between psychological climate in sales
organizations and sales manager0salesperson solidarity. The Mid-Atlantic journal of
business, 30(2), 153-174.
Ward, E. A. (1998). Managerial power bases and subordinates' manifest needs as influences on
psychological climate. Journal of business and psychology, 12(3), 361-378.
14
Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organisation: theoretical and applied implications.
Journal of applied psychology, 65(1), 96-102.
Zohar, D. (2000). A group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of group climate on
microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of applied psychology, 85(4), 587-596.
Zohar, D. (2002). The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and assigned priorities on
minor injuries in work groups. Journal of organizational behaviour, 23, 75-92.
15
