Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 12

Joumal of Safety Research, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 61-72.

1996
Copyright &)1996 National Safety Council and Elsevier Science Ltd
printed in the USA. All rights nxexved
0022-4375/96 $15.00 + .OO

Pergamon

PII SOO22-4375(%)00007-2

Theoretical Models of Health Behavior and


Workplace Self-Protective Behavior
David M. DeJoy

This paper provides a critical review of the applicability of theoretical


models of health behavior to workplace self-protective
behavior. Valueexpectancy, environmental/contextual,
and behavior change models are
reviewed.
On this basis, an integrative
framework
is proposed
that
conceptualizes
self-protective
behavior as consisting of four stages or
phases: hazard appraisal, decision making, initiation, and adherence. In

addition, five general constructs are identified as being of either primary or


secondary importance at each stage: threat-related beliefs, response efficacy,
self-efficacy, facilitating
conditions,
and safety climate. The proposed
framework highlights the need to target interventions
to each of the four
stages. Particular emphasis is also assigned to environmental
or situational
factors in enabling and reinforcing self-protective behavior in the workplace.

INTRODUCTION
With very few exceptions, research on workplace self-protective behavior has been piecemeal
and atheoretical.
Studies have generally taken
one of three approaches. First, a number of studies have examined various employee characteristics and their relationships to safety performance
and injury experience.
Characteristics
studied
have included: hazard and safety-related attitudes
and beliefs (e.g., Cox & Cox, 1991; Dedobbeleer
& German,
1987; Leather, 1988; Walters &
Haines, 1988); personality dimensions and risktaking tendencies (e.g., Jones & Wuebker, 1985;
Landeweerd, Urlings, DeJong, Nijhuis, & Bouter,
1990); subjective risk assessments (e.g., Edwards
David M. DeJoy is Professor and Head of the Department
of Health Promotion
and Behavior at the University
of
Georgia. He received his PhD from Penn State University.
Summer

1996Nolume 27hVumber 2

& Hahn, 1980; Goldberg, Dar-el, & Rubin, 1991;


Howarth,
1987; Zimolong,
1985); and job
demands and other stressors (e.g., Cooper &
Sutherland,
1987; Levenson,
Hirschfeld,
&
Hirschfeld, 1980; Murphy, 1984; Smith, Colligan,
Fmckt, & Tastn, 1982).
A second group of studies has attempted to
modify the safety-related behaviors of workers
through the use of contingent reinforcement
or
operant-based approaches. Reinforcers have included information feedback, goal setting, social mcognition, and praise, as well as more conventional
rewards and incentives. Reinforcement protocols
have been used to improve the use of protective
eyewear (Smith, Anger, & Uslan, 1978) and hearing protectors (Zohar, Cohen, & Azar, 1980), and
to increase compliance with safety regulations
(Rhoton, 1980). Other studies within this group
have been somewhat broader in scope and have
tried to influence multiple safety-related behaviors
61

and overall safety performance (e.g., Komaki,


Barwick, & Scott, 1978; Sulzer-Azaroff
&
DeSantamaria. 1980). Supervisory behavior has
also been examined using this general approach
(Komaki, Zlotnick, 8 Jensen, 1986; Mattila,
Hyttinen, & Rantaneu 1994).
The third group of studies has focused on the
organizational and environmental correlates of
good safety performance. Most of these studies
have sought to identify the programmatic features of effective safety programs (e.g., Cohen,
Smith, & Cohen, 1975; Cohen & Cleveland,
1983; Fiedler, Bell, Chemers, & Patrick, 1984;
Planek & Feam, 1993; Simonds & Shafai-Sahmi,
1977; Smith, Cohen, Cohen, & Cleveland, 1978)
or the major dimensions of positive or supportive
organizational safety climates (e.g., Brown &
Holmes, 1986; Dedobbeleer 8z Beland, 1991;
Mattila, Rantanen, & Hyttinen, 1994; Niskanen,
1994; Zohar, 1980).
This research has been useful but it has not
provided a comprehensive understanding of
worker self-protection.
More is now known
about the importance of certain individual and
organizational characteristics,
but there has
been very little comparability from one study to
another, and few generalizable conclusions can
be drawn. For example, it is difficult to make
predictions about which factors are likely to be
important in a given work situation or how
these factors might interact with each other.
Almost nothing is known about the interplay of
individual and organizational factors in influencing the safety-related actions of workers on
the job.
A number of conceptual models of workplace
safety and health have been proposed to help
organize research findings and guide the development of occupational safety and health programs (e.g., Cohen, Smith, & Anger, 1979; DeJoy,
1990; DeJoy & Southem, 1993; Smith & Beringer,
1987). These models are useful in a heuristic
sense because they underscore the need to consider the characteristics of the worker, the tasks
and jobs being performed, the total work environment, and the organizational structure. But
for the most part, they fall far short of being
comprehensive or testable models. In view of
these limitations, it may be worthwhile to look
to related areas for more sophisticated and applicable models. The general area of health behavior offers a number of theoretical models that
have been tested and refined over the years.
62

Theoretical Models of Health Behavior


A variety of models have been developed to
explain why people do or do not engage in various health enhancing and medically beneficial
activities. These models have been applied to a
wide variety of preventive and lifestyle behaviors (e.g. vaccinations, safe sex practices, smoking, exercise, seat belt usage), screening or early
detection activities (e.g., breast self-examination, cholesterol and blood pressure testing,
genetic screening), sick role behaviors (e.g..
clinic utilization, physician visits), and adherence to medical and other therapeutic regimens
(e.g., hypertension, diabetes). Although there
would appear to be an obvious link between
these models and workplace self-protective
behavior, very little attention has been given to
examining how they might apply to actions that
workers are asked to take to protect themselves
from job-related hazards.
Three categories of models are considered in
this paper. The first category includes the decision making or cost-benefit models derived
from value-expectancy theory. These models
have occupied a prominent position in the health
behavior literature during the last 30 years
(Glauz, Lewis, & Rimer, 1990, Weinstein, 1993).
The second category is referred to here as environmental or contextual models. These models
attempt to go beyond person-focused variables
and take a more ecological or interactionist
approach to analyzing the determinants of health
behavior. The fmal category of models focuses
on the behavior change process itself. Models in
this category typically portray behavior change
as a series of qualitatively distinct stages.
Value-Expectaucy

Models

Value-expectancy models are based on the


premise that people estimate the seriousness of
risks, evaluate the costs and benefits of various
actions, and then choose a course of action that
will maximize the expected outcome (Cleat-y,
1987). Value-expectancy models have taken a
variety of forms, and three prominent examples
are discussed here: the Health Belief Model
(Becker, 1974); the Theory of Reasoned Action
(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980); and Protection
Motivation Theory (Rogers, 1983). The three
models are each different to some extent, but
they all emphasize the individuals threat-related
Journal of Safety Research

beliefs or perceptions. Weinstein, (1993) argues


that value-expectancy models have four characteristics in common: (a) that motivation for selfprotective behavior arises from the anticipation
of negative consequences and the desire to minimize these outcomes, (b) that the impact of an
anticipated negative outcome on motivation
depends on beliefs about the likelihood that this
outcome will occur, (c) that motivation to act
arises from the expectation that the action will
reduce the likelihood or severity of harm, and
(d) that the expected benefits of a particular
action must be weighed against the expected
costs of taking the action.
Health Belief Model (HBM). Of the models pre-

sented in this section, the HBM has produced


the largest body of health-related research. It is
also the only one that was specifically developed to explain health behavior. The HBM
model has four basic components: (a) perceived
susceptibility to the health problem or condition
in question, (b) the perceived seriousness of the
problem or condition, (c) the perceived benefits
associated with taking a particular action, and
(d) the perceived barriers associated with taking
the action.
Published reviews of the HBM literature
(Becker, 1974; Harrison, Mullen, & Green, 1992;
Janz & Becker, 1984) show considerable support
for the model and offer some general conclusions about the relative importance of its major
components. Perceived barriers have been shown
to be the most powerful single predictor across
all studies and behaviors. Perceived susceptibility and perceived benefits are also important,
with susceptibility being more important for preventive than sick role behaviors. As might be
expected, benefits are more important than susceptibility for sick role behaviors. In terms of
the total literature, perceived severity appears to
be the weakest of the four dimensions.
One of the major criticisms of the I-IBM is
that is does not specify relationships among the
major variables. Indeed, it has sometimes been
referred to as being more a list of variables than
a theoretical model (Wallston & Wallston, 1984;
Weinstein, 1993). Most applications of the
HBM combine the variables in a linear or additive fashion to test the model: susceptibility +
severity + (benefits - barriers). However, some
of the earlier writing on the model (e.g.,
Maiman & Becker, 1974) would appear to sugSummer 1996/Mohme 27LWmber 2

gest a multiplicative model: susceptibility


severity x (benefits - barriers).

Theory of reasoned action (TRA). The TRA


posits that behavioral intention is the immediate
determinant of behavior and that all factors that
influence a particular behavior are mediated
through intention. Intention is determined by
two components: (a) attitude toward the behavior, which consists of beliefs about the consequences of performing the behavior and the
evaluation of those consequences; and (b) subjective norms, which consist of normrutive
beliefs about what salient others think and the
individuals motivation to comply with those
wishes. According to the model, intention can be
predicted by the linear combination of attitude
and normative beliefs multiplied by motivation
to comply with the beliefs. The model is
expressed as a multiple regression equation, with
the weights assigned to the major components
determined by multiple regression procedures.
The TRA has been applied with considerable
success to a number of health behaviors, inaluding exercise, weight loss, child safety seats,
smoking, condom usage, and alcohol and drug
use (see Cleary, 1987; Kirscht, 1983; Sutton,
1987 for reviews). Besides its focus on behavioral intention, the most obvious difference
between the TRA and HBM is that the TRA
includes subjective norms as a major determinant
of health-related behavior. The TRA also goes
further in specifying how its constructs should be
measured and how they combine to form behavioral intention. On the negative side, much of the
research on the TRA has been confimed to predicting behavior intention rather than aatual
behavior (Baranowski, 1992-1993).
More recent versions of both the HBM
(Rosenstock, Strecher, & Becker, 1988) and the
TRA (Ajzen, 1985) have added self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1986) as an important component. The
principal argument for including self-efficacy is
that people must feel confident that they are
capable of performing the behaviors required to
produce the desired outcomes. Self-efficacy
appears to be especially important for lifestyle
modifications and other behaviors involving
long-term change and maintenance (Streaher,
DeVelLis,Becker, & Rosenstock, 1986).
Protection motivation theory (PMT). This model

features two cognitive processes, threat appraisal


63

and coping appraisal, which combine to form


protection motivation. Protection motivation
(typically measured as behavioral intention) is
conceptualized as an intervening variable that
activates coping behavior. Threat appraisal evaluates the intrinsic (e.g., pleasure) and extrinsic
(e.g., social approval) rewards that increase the
probability of making a maladaptive response
against perceptions of vulnerability and outcome
severity that decrease the probability. Threat
appraisal is the algebraic sum of these variables.
Coping appraisal consists of judgments about
the efficacy of a preventive response (response
efficacy) plus the assessment of ones ability to
successfully perform the necessary responses or
behaviors (self-efficacy) minus the costs associated with the response.
Protection motivation is assumed to be greatest when: (a) the perceived threat is severe, (b)
the individual feels vulnerable, (c) the adaptive
response is believed to be effective, (d) the person is confident of his or her abilities to complete
the adaptive response, (e) the rewards of the maladaptive behavior are small, and (f) the costs of
the adaptive behavior are low. Although this is an
additive model within each of the two appraisal
processes, interactive effects can occur between
threat and coping appraisal processes (e.g., selfefficacy x severity). Presumably, this allows the
model to predict outcomes that are contrary to
totally rational decision making (Prentice-Dunn
& Rogers, 1986). Although less extensively
researched than the two previous models, the
major components of PMT have been supported
(Prentice-Dunn & Rogers; Rogers, 1983). Much
of this work has involved fear-arousing communications and attitude change.
Applicability
Behavior

to Workplace Setf-Protective

Aside from some consideration of HBM constructs with respect to personal protective equipment (e.g., Cleveland, 1984; DeJoy, 1986;
Terrell, 1984), very little effort has been made to
apply the value-expectancy models to worker
safety and health. However, viewed as a group,
these models do highlight several constructs that
should be relevant to workplace self-protective
behavior. These constructs include: (a) threatrelated beliefs, (b) self-efficacy, (c) response
efficacy, (d) barriers, and (e) normative expectations (see Table 1).
64

Threat-related beliefs. Beliefs about susceptibility (probability) and severity are featured in each
of the models. The interrelationship of susceptibility and severity tends to be treated differently
in the various models, but a multiplicative relationship would appear to be most in line with the
value-expectancy tradition. For example, a high
level of perceived susceptibility may not necessarily lead to self-piotective behavior if the
severity of the threat is minimal. On the other
hand, for a highly lethal outcome, perceived susceptibility may be the major dimension.
Self-efficacy. In one form or another, self-efftcacy has been incorporated into each of the valueexpectancy models. Because most instances of
worker self-protection involve the performance
of a set of prescribed actions on a long-term
basis, self-efficacy should be an important factor. Workers need to feel confident about their
ability to perform required behaviors on a regular and long-term basis.
efficacy. Beliefs about the consequences or effectiveness of preventive action
also play a role in each of the models. They are
treated as benefits in the HBM, as part of attitudes in the TRA, and as response efficacy in
PMT. In most workplace applications, response
efficacy involves perceptions about the effectiveness of prescribed work practices or protective
equipment in preventing hazardous exposures.

Response

Barriers are considered explicitly in


the HBM and the PMT, and indirectly in the
TRA. Indeed, the HBM literature (Janz &
Becker, 1984) suggests that barriers or costs are
the single best predictor of health behavior.
Relevant to the workplace, research on the use
of personal protective equipment shows that job
related barriers are often a major factor in noncompliance (Acton, 1977; Cleveland, 1984;
Terrell, 1984).
Barriers.

expectations. The TRA is the model


that considers the effects of the social environment most directly. Social influences are also
considered, somewhat tangentially, in the intrinsic-extrinsic rewards portion of PMT. Research
on safety program effectiveness (e.g., Cohen &
Cleveland, 1983; Fiedler et al., 1984; Planek &
Feat-n, 1993; Simonds & Shafai-Sahrai, 1977)
and safety climate (e.g., Dedobbeleer & Beland,

Normative

Journal of Safety Research

VALUE-EXPECTANCY

COll~tnrCt

TABLE 1
APPLIED TO WORKPLACE

CONSTRUCTS

Definition

SELF-PROTECTIVE

Workplace

Example

Construction
Threat-related

beliefs

Beliefs about

hazard susceptibility

Beliefs about ones ability


Self-efficacy

safety

measures

and severity

to follow

indicated

successfully

likelihood

Response

efficacy

Emergency

medical

safety

expectations

that interfere

worker

Contextual or Environmental

with

the use of available

Physical
hearing

factors

that influence

self-protection

Models

The models discussed thus far have been primarily concerned with how the individuals attitudes, beliefs, and expectations influence his or
her reaction to various health threats. Only limited attention is given to social or environmental
factors, or to the context in which the individual
operates. The need for a person x situation or
interactionist approach to workplace safety and
health has been discussed in general terms by
several authors (e.g., DeJoy & Southern, 1993;
DeJoy, Wilson, & Huddy, 1995; Sheehy &
Chapman, 1987; Smith & Beringer, 1987). The
interactionist perspective holds that individual
and situational (environmental) factors combine
multiplicatively in influencing worker behavior.
PRECEDE model. The PRECEDE model developed by Green and colleagues (Green & Kreuter,
199 1; Green, Kreuter, Deeds, & Partridge, 1980)
would appear to qualify as a contextual model.
PRECEDE is an acronym for predisposing,
reinforcing, and enabling causes in educational
diagnosis and evaluation, and this model was
developed as a framework to be used in plan2 7LVumber 2

automated

technicians

his/her

beliefs

of used needles

coal miners
carbon

about

confidence

monoxide

about
safely

in

detection

system

1991; Mattila et al., 1994; Niskanen, 1994;


Zohar, 1980) highlight the important role of
social-organizational factors in supporting good
safety performance. The safety literature also
contains a number of studies indicating that performance and other types of feedback from
supervisors and coworkers can be an important
factor in shaping work-related safety behavior
(see review by McAfee & Winn, 1989).

Summ~ I996Nolume

safety

measures

Social/organizational
Normative

of available

beliefs

off scaffolding

being able to dispose

measures
Factors

Barriers

effectiveness

workers

of falling

Underground
Perceived

BEHAVIOR

discomfort
protectors

Supervisors
oractices

associated
in textile

indifference

in warehousino

with

wearing

plant

to safe lifting
ooeration

ning health education programs. This basic


framework has been adapted to workplace selfprotective behavior (Dedobbeleer & German,
1987; DeJoy, 1986; Peters, 1991).
In the PRECEDE model, three sets of diagnostic or behavioral factors drive the development of prevention strategies. Predisposing
factors are the characteristics of the individual
(beliefs, attitudes, values, etc.) that facilitate or
hinder self-protective behavior. Predisposing
factors are conceptualized as providing the
motivation for behavior. The threat-related
beliefs and efficacy expectancies that are prominent features of the value-expectancy models
would be included here. Enabling factors refer
to objective aspects of the environment or system that block or promote self-protective action.
Green and colleagues (Green et al., 1980) define
enabling factors as factors antecedent to behavior that allow motivation or aspiration to be
realized (p. 68). The skill and knowledge
necessary to follow prescribed actions would be
included here, as would the availability and
accessibility of protective equipment and other
resources. Most barriers or costs would be classified as enabling factors. Reinforcing factors
involve any reward or punishment that follows
or is anticipated as a consequence of the behavior. Performance
feedback and the social
approval/disapproval received from coworkers,
supervisors, and managers would qualify as
reinforcing factors in workplace settings.
The PRECEDE model was developed as a
program-planning framework rather than as a
causal model of health behavior (Green et al.,
1980). The three diagnostic categories were
65

intended primarily as reference points for analyzing the determinants of behavior that would
be most responsive to health education efforts.
As such, little attention was given to delimiting
the categories or to specifying combinational
rules. The PRECEDE model has been used
extensively to plan and evaluate health education and related programs in a variety of settings, including the workplace (Green &
Kreuter, 1991). However, there have been relatively few formal tests of this model.
Applicability
Behavior

to Workplace Self-Protective

The PRECEDE model increases the saliency of environmental or contextual variables in


two important ways: (a) by directing attention
to the skills and resources that are prerequisite
to the achievement of behavioral goals, and
(b) by viewing the environment as an important source of support and reinforcement for
behavior change and maintenance. The recently revised version of the PRECEDE model, the
PRECEDE/PROCEED model (Green & Kreuter,
1991) is even more distinctly environmental.
The revised version proposes that an environmental diagnosis should occur along with the
behavioral diagnosis, and that special attention should be given to the interaction of
behavioral and environmental factors. This
encourages the selection of both behavioral
and environmental targets for change within
the intervention program.
However, it is the interactive nature of the
three diagnostic factors that is probably of
greatest potential importance to understanding
worker behavior. In particular, efforts to influence the beliefs and attitudes of workers and,
thus, motivate them to follow safe practices
may fail if the environment is nonsupportive.
This calls attention to the importance of jobrelated barriers, the ready availability of safety
equipment and devices, and the importance of
skill-based training in facilitating self-protective behavior. A second point is that even wellmotivated and well-trained workers may not
respond appropriately
if doing so is not
acknowledged or reinforced by peers, supervisors, and management. Performance feedback
and the safety-related attitudes and actions of
management would appear to be especially
important in this regard.
66

Behavior Change Models


The final category of models includes those
that focus on the process of behavior change.
The Transtheoretical
Model (Prochaska &
DiClemente, 1982) and the Precaution-Adoption
Process (Weinstein, 1988) are perhaps the best
exemplars of this general category. Both of these
models portray the change process as a series of
stages. A fundamental tenet of the stage change
perspective is that people at different points in
the change process require different types of
information and assistance to move to the next
stage. The variables or factors important at one
stage may be quite unimportant at another stage.
For example, beliefs about susceptibility or
severity may be important early in the change
process, such as during initial awareness and
decision making, but become less important
once actual behavior change is underway.
Transtheoretical
Model. Prochaska and colleagues (Prochaska, DiClemente, & Norcross,
1992) describe the process of behavior change as
consisting of five principal stages: (a) precontemplation, (b) contemplation, (c) preparation, (d)
action, and (e) maintenance. Precontemplation is
the stage in which the person is not seriously
thinking about changing his or her behavior.
Contemplation begins when the person starts to
think seriously about changing in the near future
(i.e., about 6 months). Preparation denotes that
the person intends to make a change in the very
near future, and that he or she has a plan for
action and has already made small or preliminary
behavior changes (thus, preparation has both
intentional and behavioral dimensions). Action is
the period following initial behavior change (usually about 6 months). Maintenance extends from
this point until termination.
A growing body of evidence exists for the
basic stages of change construct, mostly involving addictive behaviors and psychotherapy
(Prochaska & DiClemente, 1992). Work with
this model has also sought to uncover the processes of change, or the activities that individuals
engage in when they attempt to modify problem
behaviors. Of considerable importance is the
observation that the processes of change appear
to be quite similar across a variety of different
behaviors (Prochaska et al., 1992). That is, for
many behaviors, information-seeking and consciousness-raising activities are relevant for people entering contemplation, and stimulus control
Journal of Safety Research

and social support are important processes for


those in the action and maintenance stages. The
ultimate goal is to integrate the stages and pro
cesses of change, and to identify the most effective strategies for moving people from one stage
to the next (DiClemente et al., 1991).
Precaution-adoption process. The precautionadoption process (Weinstein, 1988) also has five
stages: (a) has heard of hazard, (b) believes in
susceptibility for others, (c) acknowledges personal susceptibility, (d) decides to take precaution, and (e) takes precaution. A central feature
of this model is that personal susceptibility is
treated as a series of three stages rather than as a
single dimension or continuum. This conceptualization derives from the idea that people are
likely to have little interest in taking precautions
unless they feel personally vulnerable. A further
complication is that people tend to be optimistically biased in judging their personal levels of
risk. That is, for many different hazards, people
consider their own risk to be considerably less
than that of most other people (Weinstein, 1980,
1982, 1987). The decision making stage in this
model involves many of the same hazard-related
beliefs and cost-benefit considerations that are
featured in the value-expectancy
literature.
However, since the stages are cumulative, decision making does not begin until the requirements of stage three have been met. Barriers are
particularly important in translating a decision
into action (stage 5). Weinstein and colleagues
have tested this model in several studies of home
radon testing (Weinstein & Sandman, 1992).
Applicability
Behavior

to Workplace Self-Protective

Inherent in both stage models is the view that


different kinds of information and interventions
will have different saliencies depending on
where the individual is in the change process.
For example, minimizing the costs or barriers
associated with following a particular self-protective action will have very little impact on people who are not yet aware of the threat or who
do not think that they are personally susceptible
to it. Value-expectancy models, in contrast,
assume that the probability of action is essentially an algebraic function of the individuals
beliefs and that this same predictive equation
applies across the entire behavior change proSummer 1996Nohne

27/Number 2

cess. The stage change perspective argues that


different equations are needed for each stage.
Providing workers with information about
particular job-related hazards is likely to be
most useful for increasing awareness and a
sense of personal susceptibility. But beyond this
point, such information is likely to be of limited
effectiveness in changing and maintaining relevant work practices. Once awareness and personal susceptibility are established, attention
might better be focused on related skill development and self-efficacy enhancement, and with
actions that reduce barriers and create more
favorable cost-benefit ratios for safe behavior.
Long-term adherence ultimately requires constructing task and work environments that support safe behavior, even under the most adverse
workload conditions. Borrowing from relapse
prevention research (e.g., Marlatt & Gordon,
1985), conscious efforts are needed to assess the
situations and circumstances under which adherence is likely to fail. Alternative strategies or
coping responses should be available to workers
for use in such situations. The identification and
analysis of special requirements and high risk
situations should be an important feature of a
comprehensive safety program.
The importance of environmental supports
during the action and maintenance stages blends
nicely with the preceding discussion of enabling
and reinforcing factors within the PRECEDE
framework. In the final analysis, high levels of
both individual and collective control may be
critical to successful long-term adherence.
Presumably, efforts to enhance self-efficacy have
the direct effect of increasing the individuals
sense of personal control. However, groups of
people may also possess a sense of control.
Peterson and Stunkard (1989) describe collective
control as: a norm - or shared belief - about
the way that the group works, what it is that the
group can and cannot accomplish by what
actions (p. 822). As described by these authors,
collective control bears considerable resemblance to Zohars (1980) concept of safety climate. For Zohar, safety climate is: a summary
of molar perceptions that employees share about
their work environments (p. 96). It is generally
thought that safety climate serves as a frame of
reference for guiding relevant behavior in the
workplace and that employees develop reasonably coherent expectations regarding behavioroutcome contingencies in their environment (cf.
67

Schneider, 1975). It follows that collective control or safety climate should be an important consideration in fostering long-term and broad-based
adherence to safe work practices.
Au Integrative Framework for Workplace
Self-Protective Behavior
Each of the categories of models reviewed
thus far has something to contribute to understanding workplace self-protective behavior. The
value-expectancy models provide a fairly circumscribed set of person-focused variables that
are likely to be important to any type of self-ptotective behavior. The PRECEDE model, as an
environmental or contextual model, directs
attention to the interaction of person and situational factors, and to how the work environment,
broadly defined, can enable and reinforce selfprotective actions. The stage models emphasize
that precautionary behavior is inherently dynamic and comprised of qualitatively different phases or stages.
Figure 1 portrays self-protective behavior as
consisting of four stages: hazard appraisal, decision making, initiation, and adherence. These
stages may be viewed as representing different
levels of motivational readiness to engage in
self-protective behavior. However, the factors
that influence this readiness are not limited to
person-focused variables. Table 2 features five
general constructs that are likely to be important
to self-protective actions in the workplace. The
constructs build on those portrayed earlier (see
Table l), with two modifications. The termfacili&.&g conditions expands the concept of barriers relative to its usage in the value-expectancy
models and emphasizes the importance of environmental supports in self-protective behavior.

Also, safety climate is used to represent the manifold of social and organizational factors that
may impinge on workplace behavior. Each of the
five constructs can be further described in terms
of specific variables.
Because current knowledge is not sufficient
to exclude any of the constructs at a particular
stage, the five constructs in Table 2 are labeled
as being of either primary or secondary importance for each stage. As with other stage models,
the stages should be treated as cumulative; for
example, the individual must believe that a particular hazard represents a serious threat before
he or she will enter the decision making stage.
Efficacy considerations and facilitating conditions will be of little importance for those who
are unaware of the hazard or for those who have
appraised the hazard as insignificant. A discussion of the four stages follows.
Hazard appraisal. The individuals threat-related beliefs are of primary importance during this
stage. As discussed earlier, perceived susceptibility (likelihood) and severity can be expected
to interact to form perceived threat. Response
efficacy, or the availability of effective preventive strategies, may also be important at this
stage. Defensive or self-protective motives (e.g.,
Miller & Ross, 1975) may cause the individual
to dismiss or discount a hazard for which preventive strategies are unavailable or of limited
effectiveness. Unwarranted optimism or overconfidence may also play a role in hazard appraisal
(Weinstein, 1987). At this stage, workers should
benefit from information about the hazard itself,
including risk estimates, exposure modes, available control measures, and so forth. The importance of having workers personalize the risks
should not be ignored.

FIGLJRE 1

STAGE OR SEQUENTIAL MODEL OF WORKPLACE SELF-PROTECTIVE BEHAVIOR


T

Yes
Appraisal I_C

DecisionMaking-

No
+

No

Yes I.tiation

ererice

No

No

Exposure
to injury/illness
68

Journal of Safety Research

TABLE 2
SELF-PROTECTIVE BEHAVIOR CONSTRUCTS AND THE STAGES OF SELF-PROTECTIVE BEHAVIOR

Construct
Threat-related
Response

Safety
Note:

................
..................

efficacy

Self-efficacy
Facilitating

Hazard
beliefs

......................
conditions

................

climate
P= primary

unponance:

S =secondary

Appraisal

Adherenoe

importance

Initiation. Facilitating
conditions
and safety
climate are the principal constructs during the
initiation stage. At this stage, attention shifts to
the environmental
and organizational
factors
that support and reinforce
self-protective
action. These factors become very important as
behavioral intention is translated into action,
and as workers
try out new behaviors.
Although safety climate remains a rather elu27/iVumber 2

Initiation

Decision
making. Efficacy
considerations
and the costs and benefits
associated
with
alternative
courses of action become important during the decision making stage. Efficacy
considerations
include those related to the
effectiveness of available precautionary actions
(response efficacy), as well as the individuals perceptions of his or her ability to successfully accomplish these actions (self-efficacy).
Self-efficacy can be developed through education/ training and skill-building
exercises, as
well as actual experience
in performing
the
relevant
behaviors.
The modeling
of these
behaviors
by coworkers
may also enhance
self-efficacy expectancies.
The cost-benefit
portion focuses on weighing the benefits of the self-protective
action
against the costs incurred. Costs may include
time constraints, actual or imagined reductions
in productivity or skilled performance, physical
discomfort,
and any other encumbrances
that
reduce quality of life on the job. Facilitating
conditions serve to counteract costs, and might
include the ready availability
of needed safety
equipment, training in the correct usage of this
equipment, and redesigned jobs and equipment
that make self-protection easier and more effective. The cost-benefit
analysis
might also
include safety climate considerations.

Summer I99tWohme

Decision-making

sive concept, it appears reasonable to conclude


that the attitudes and actions of management
play a prominent role in the safety climate of
the organization
(Brown & Holmes,
1986;
Dedobbeleer
& Beland, 1991; Zohar, 1980).
Safety performance
information
and other
types of feedback received from coworkers and
supervisors
is also likely to be an important
aspect of safety climate.
Adherence. Environmental
and organizational
factors can be expected to play major roles in
sustaining
long-term
adherence.
As workers
successfully
follow prescribed
actions, their
self-efficacy should increase, and with that, their
resistance to nonadherence.
Many self-protective actions become relatively automatic over
time, and this should also help to sustain longterm adherence. Response efficacy should also
increase with time as workers become more
confident of the effectiveness of the actions in
question. Still, efficacy considerations
remain
secondary to barriers and safety climate at this
stage. Long-term
maintenance
ultimately
depends on creating task and work environments that support safe behavior, even under the
most stressful or demanding conditions.
Although this proposed framework certainly
needs to be tested and validated, there are several lines of inquiry that support the general
organization
of the framework and the assignment of various self-protective
behavior constructs to particular stages. First, it is generally
acknowledged
that awareness and knowledge
are necessary but often insufficient to produce
and sustain behavior change, including
selfprotective actions in the workplace. This supports the focus on threat-related
beliefs and
response efficacy in the first stage, and the
69

view that hazard appraisal is only one stage in


the process. Second, there is considerable
agreement that behavior change and maintenance are different processes. As such, a construct or factor that is important in bringing
about initial behavior change may not play the
same role in sustaining the.change over time.
Third, there is broad agreement that the individuals subjective beliefs related to costs and benefits play a central role in most health- and
safety-related decision making. And fourth,
organizational and environmental factors appear
to be particularly important in facilitating and
sustaining desired behaviors. Indeed, the occupational safety and health literature suggests
that these factors may be critically important in
workplace settings.
CONCLUSIONS

This paper reviewed three categories of theoretical models that have been used to analyze
and predict health-related behavior. On this
basis, an integrative framework was proposed
that conceptualizes workplace self-protective
behavior as consisting of four sequential stages:
hazard appraisal, decision making, initiation,
and adherence. The proposed framework is integrative in that its basic structure comes from the
behavior change models, while the constructs or
factors considered relevant at each stage are
derived from the value-expectancy and environmental/contextual models.
The principal implication of this framework
is that different constructs or factors can be
expected to be important at different stages.
Threat-related beliefs and response efficacy are
likely to be most important during hazard
appraisal. During this stage, workers determine
both what is dangerous and whether they can
protect themselves by taking specific actions
and/or by using specific protective equipment.
Efficacy considerations (response and selfefficacy) and cost-benefit
factors assume
increased importance during the decision making stage. Workers determine that available safety protocols are both effective and practical. The
personal weighing of costs and benefits is at the
very heart of this stage. This calculus takes into
consideration beliefs about the threat itself,
expectancies surrounding the required actions,
barriers and environmental supports, and infer70

ences about the attitudes and actions of peers,


supervisors, and management.
During the initiation and adherence stages,
facilitating conditions and safety climate are the
primary factors. Attention is focused on the
environmental and organizational factors that
support and reinforce self-protective actions.
Performance feedback may be a particularly
valuable tool for encouraging workers to accept
that the self-protective actions in question are
effective and practical. Adherence, as the final
stage, requires the creation of task and work
environments that support safe behavior under
all conditions. High levels of both individual
and collective control may be critical to longterm adherence, and creating a positive safety
climate may be the best way to foster perceived
control at both levels.
In practical terms, there is a need to match
interventions and stages; the utility of any intervention depends on where the individual worker
is in the change process. For example, interventions to improve worker self-protection typically revolve around hazard communication and
information-based training in safe work practices. Such efforts are likely to be most beneticial during the hazard appraisal and decision
making stages. These particular interventions
are much less relevant to the factors hypothesized to be most important during initiation and
adherence. It follows that programs to maximize self-protective behavior in the workplace
need to be multifaceted and should feature
interventions targeted to workers at each of the
four stages.
As a fmal point, the proposed framework also
highlights the importance of situational or environmental factors in workplace self-protective
behavior. As Table 2 shows, the individuals personal beliefs about the hazard and the effectiveness of precautionary action are most important
during the first stage (hazard appraisal). But,
beyond this point, environmental factors become
increasingly more important, and become critical
as intention is converted into action (initiation),
and as self-protective
behavior is sustained
(adherence). Given the interactive aspect of individual and situational factors, even well-designed
efforts to influence the hazard-related beliefs and
attitudes of workers may fail if the environment
is nonsupportive. The importance of the environment in enabling and reinforcing safe workplace
behavior cannot be overemphasized.
Journal of Safety Research

REFERENCES
Acton, W. I. (1977). Problems associated with the use of
bearing protection. Annals of Occu@mral
Hygiene, 29,
387-395.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of
planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann
(Eds.),
Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 1I-40).
Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes
and predicting behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and
action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Baranowski, T. (1992-93). Beliefs as motivational influences
at stages in behavior change. bttemational Quarterly of
Community Health Education, Z3( 1). 3-29.
Becker, M. H. (1974). The health belief model and personal
health behavior. Thorofam, NJ: Slack Press.
Brown, R. L., & Holmes, H. (1986). The use of a factoranalytic procedure for assessing the validity of an employee
safety climate model. Accident Analysis and Prevention,
18(6), 455-470.
Cleaty, P. D. (1987). Why people take precautions against
health risks. In N. D. Weinstein (Ed.), Taking care:
Understanding and encouraging self-protective behavior
(pp. 119-149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cleveland, R. J. (1984). Factors that influence safety shoe
usage. Professional Safety, 29.26-29.
Cohen, A., Smith, M. J., & Anger, W. K. (1979). Selfprotective measures against workplace hazards. Journal
ofsafetyResearch, 11(3). 121-131.
Cohen, A., Smith, M. J., & Cohen, H. H. (1975). Safety
program practices
in high versus low accident rate
companies - An interim report (questionnaire
phase;
DHEW Publication No. 75-185). Ciiinnati,
OH National
Institute for ocCupational Safety and Health.
Cohen, H. H., & Cleveland, R. J. (1983). Safety program
practices in recording-holding
plants. Professional Safety,
28.26-33.
Cooper, C., & Sutherland,
V. (1987). Job stress, mental
health, and accidents among offshore workers in the oil
and gas extraction industries. Journal of Occupational
Medicine, 29(2), 119125.
Cox, S.. 81 Cox. T. (1991). The structure
of employee
attitudes to safety: A European example. Work and Stress,
S(2), 93-106.
Dedobbeleer,
N., & Beland, F. (1991). A safety climate
measure for construction sites. loumai of Safety Research,
22(2), 97-103.
Dedobbeleer, N., & German, P. (1987). Safety practices in
construction industry. Journal of Occupational Medicine,
29(1 I), 863-868.
DeJoy, D. M. (1986). A behavioral-diagnostic
model for
self-protective
behavior in the workplace. Professional
Safety, 3 I, 26-30.
DeJoy, D. M. (1990). Toward a comprehensive human factors
model of workplace
accident causation.
Professional
Safety, 35, 1l-!6.
DeJoy, D. M., & Southern, D. S. (1993). An integrative
perspective
on worksite health promotion.
Journal of
Occupational Medicine, 35,122 1-l 230.
DeJoy, D. M., Wilson, M. G., & Huddy, D. C. (1995).
Health behavior change in the workplace. In D. M. DeJoy
Summer

19%Nolume

27LNumber

& M. G. Wilson @is.), Critical issues in worksite health


promotion (pp. 97-122). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
DiClemente. C. C., Prochaska, J. O., Fairhurst, S. K., Velicer,
W. E, Velasquez, M. M.. & Rossi. J. S. (1991). The process
of smoking cessation: An analysis of precontemplation,
contemplation, and preparation stages of change. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59,295-304.
Edwards, D. S., & Hahn, C. P (1980). A chance to happen.
Journal of Safety Research, 12,59-67.
Fiedler, F. E., Bell, C. H., Chemers, M. M., & Patrick, D.
(1984). Increasing mine productivity and safety through
management
training and organization
development.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5. I-1 8.
Glanz, K., Lewis, F. M., & Rimer. B. K. (1990). Health
behavior and health education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goldberg, A. I., Dar-cl, E. M., & R&ii, A. E. (1991). Threat
perception
and the readiness
to participate
in safety
programs. Joumalof OtganizationalRehavior, f2,IO!&122.
Green, L. W., & Kreuter. M. W. (I 991). Health promotion
planning: An educational and environmental approach
(2nd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Green, L. W., Kreuter. M. W.. Deeds, S. G.. & Partridge,
K. B. (1980). Health education planning: A diagnostic
upproach. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
Harrison, J. A., Mullen. P. D., & Green, L. W. (1992). A
meta-analysis
of studies of the health belief model with
adults. Health Education Research, 7( I ), 107-l 16.
Howarth,
C. I. (1987). Perceived
risk and behavioural
feedback: Strategies for reducing accidents and increasing
efficiency. WonGand Stress, I, 6 l-65.
Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The health belief
model: A decade later. Health Education Quarterly, /I( I),
147.
Jones, J., & Wuebker, L. (1985). Development and validation
of the safety locus of control scale. Perceptual and Motor
S&ilk. 61,151-161.
Kirscht, J. P. (1983). Preventive health behavior: A review
of research and issues. Health Psychology, 2.277-301.
Komaki, J., Barwick,
K. D., & Scott, L. R. (1978). A
behavioral approach to occupational
safety: Pinpointing
and reinforcing safe performance in a food manufacturing
plant. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63.434445.
Komaki. J. L., Zlotnick, S., &Jensen. M. (1986). Developpment
of an operant-based taxonomy and observational index of
supervisoty behavior. Joumal ofApplied Psychology, 71(2),
260-269.
Landeweerd, J. A., Urhngs, I. J. M., Dc.Jong, A. H. J.. Mijhuis,
F. J. N.. & Bouter, L. M. (1990). Risk taking tendency
among construction
workers. Journal of Occupational
Accidents, II, 183-196.
Leather, P. J. (1988). Attitudes toward safety performance
on construction
work: An investigation
of public and
private sector differences. Work nnd Stress, 2. 155-l 67.
Levenson.
H., Hirschfeld,
M., & Hirschfeld,
A. (1980).
Industrial accidents and recent life events. Journal of
Occupational Medicine, 22( I ), 53-57.
Maiman, L. A., & Becker, M. H. (1974). The health belief
model: Origins and correlates in psychological
theory.
Health Education Monographs, 2.336-353.
Marlatt, G. A., & Gordon, J. R. (1985).Relapse prevention:
A self-control strategy for the maintenance of behavior
change. New York: Guilford Press.
Mat&
M., Hyttinen, M., & Rantanen, E. (1994). Effective
supervisory
behaviour and safety at the building site.
International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,
13,
85-93.
71

Mattila, M., Rantanen. E.. & Hyttinen, M. (1994). The


quality of work environment, supervision, and safety in
building construction. Safery Science, 17.251-268.
McAfee. R. B., & Wmn, A. R. (1989). The use of incentivesl
feedback to enhance workplace safety: A critique of the
Iiterature. Journal of Snferv Research, 20(l), 7-19.
Miller, D. T.. & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the
attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological
Bulletin, 82.213-225.

Murphy, L. R. (1984). Stress management in highway


maintenance workers. Journal of Occupational Medicine,
26,436-442.

Niskanen, T. (1994). Safety climate in the road


administration. Safety Science, 17.237-255.
Peters, R. H. (1991). Strategies for encouraging self-protective
employee behavior. Journal of Safety Research, 22.53-70.
Peterson, C., & Stunkard, A. J. (1989). Personal control and
health promotion. Social Science and Medicine, 28(8),
819-828.
Planek, T. W., & Fearn, K. T. (1993). Reevaluating
occupational safety priorities: 1%7 to 1992. Professional
Safery. 38, 16-2 1.

Theory,

Research,

and Practice,

20,

Prochaska, J. 0.. & DiClemente. C. C. (1992). Stages of


change in the modification of problem behaviors. In M.
Hersen, R. M. Eisler, & P M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in
behavior modification
(pp. 184-214). Sycamore, IL:
Sycamore Press.
Prochaska, J. 0.. DiClemente, C. C.. & Norcross, J. C.
(1992). In search of how people change. American
Psychologisr, 47(9), 1102-l 114.
Rhoton. W. W. (1980). A procedure to improve compliance
with coal mine safety regulations. Jownnl qf0~@&011&
Behavior Management, 2.243249.

Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and psychological


processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised
theory of protection motivation. In J. T. Cacioppo & R. E.
Petty (Eds.). Social psychophysiology (pp. 153-176). New
York: Guilford Press.
Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J.. & Becker, M. H. (1988).
Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health
Education Quarterly, 1.5, 175-183.

Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates: An essay.


Personnel Psychology, 28.447-479.

Sheehy, N. I!, Sr Chapman, A. J. (1987). Industrial accidents.


In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International
review of industnal and organizational

psychology.

New

York: John Wiley & Sons.


Simonds. R. H., & Shafai-Sahrai,
Y. (1977). Factors
apparently affecting the injury frequency in eleven
matched pairs of companies. Journal of Safety Research,
9.120-127.

Smith, M. J., Anger, W. K., & Uslan, S. S. (1978). Behavior


modification applied to occupational safety. Jouml
of

72

Journal of Sr$ety Research, IO, 5-15,


Smith, M. J., Colligan, M. J.. Fro&t, I. J., & Tasto, D. L.

(1982). Occupational injury rates among nurses as a


function of shift. Journal of Safety Research, 4,181-l 87.
Strecher, V. J.. DeVellis, B. M., Becker, M. H., &
Rosenstock, I. M. (1986). The role of self-efficacy in
achieving health behavior change. Health Education
Quarterly, 13.7392.

Sulzer-Azaroff. B., & DeSantamaria, M. (1980). Industrial


safety hazard reduction through performance feedback.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 13,281-295.

Sutton, S. (1987). Social-psychological


approaches to
understanding addictive behaviors: Attitude-behaviour
and decision making models. British Journal of Addicton,
82.355-370.

Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (1986). Protection


motivation theory and preventive health: Beyond the
health belief model. Health Education Research. I(3).
.,.
153-161.
Pro&&a, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1982). Tramtheoretical
therapy: Toward a more integrative model of change.
Psychotherapy:
161-173.

Safer>,Research, IO, 87-88.

Smith, M. J.. & Beringer. D. B. (1987). Human factors in


occupational injury evaluation and control. In G. Salvendy
(Ed.), Handbook of human factors (pp. 767-789). New
York: Wiley-Interscience.
Smith, M. J., Cohen, H. H., Cohen, A., & Cleveland, R J.
(1978). Characteristics of successful safety programs.

Terrell, P G. (1984). How to increase worker acceptance of


respirators. Professional Safety, 29. 15-20.
Wallston. B. S.. & Wallston, K. A. (1984). Social
psychological models of health behavior: An examination
and integration. In A. Baum, S. E. Taylor, & J. E. Singer
(Eds.). Handbook of psychology andhealth (Vol. 4, pp.
23-54). H&dale. NJ: Erlbaum.
Walters, V., & Haines, T. (1988). Workers perceptions,
knowledge, and responses regarding occupational health
and safety: A report on a Canadian study. Social Science
ondMedicine, II, 1189911%.
Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future
life events. Journal of Persona&y and Social Psycho&y.
39.806-820.

Weinstein, N. D. (1982). Unrealistic optimism about


susceptibility to he&b problems. Journal of Behavioral
k4edicine, 5.441-460.

Weinstein, N. D. (1987). Unrealistic optimism about illness


susceptibility: Conclusions from a community-wide
sample. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10.481-500.
Weinstein, N. D. (1988). The precaution adoption process.
Health Psychology,

7,355-386.

Weinstein, N. D. (1993). Testing four competing~theories of


health-protective behavior. Heabh Psychology, 12(4),
324-333.

Weinstein, N. D., & Sandman, P. M. (1992). A model of the


precaution adoption process: Evidence from home radon
testing. Healrh Psychology, 1113). 170-l 80.
Zimolong, B. (1985). Hazard perception
and risk
estimation in accident causation. In R. E. Eberts & C. G.
Eberts @ids.), Trends in ergonomics/human factors II
$q~9~3-470).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: NorthZohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations:
Iheotetical and applied implications. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 65(l), 96-102.

Zohar, D., Cohen, A., & Azar, N. (1980). Promoting increased


use of ear protectors in noise through information feedback.
Human Factors, 22(l), 6979.

Journal

of Safety Research

Вам также может понравиться