Workplace safety violation is a significant challenge for global enterprises. However, prior studies have generated inconsistent findings, which calls for a holistic framework to reveal the complex causality between antecedent conditions and workplace safety violations in high-risk industries.
OBJECTIVE:
By embracing deterrence theory and social learning theory, this study aimed to examine how punishment (i.e., perceived punishment certainty and perceived punishment severity), shame (i.e., perceived shame certainty and perceived shame severity) and coworker safety violations (CSV) combine into configurational causes of employee safety violations (ESV).
METHODS:
A two-wave sampling approach was used to obtain 370 usable samples from various high-risk industries in China. The confirmatory factor analysis was performed to test construct validity, and an emerging fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) was conducted to explore the complex causality between ESV and its multiple antecedents.
RESULTS:
The fsQCA results indicate that no single antecedent condition is necessary for predicting high ESV, but three distinct configurations of multiple antecedents equivalently lead to high ESV. Among all configurations, a lack of perceived punishment severity, a lack of perceived shame certainty and severity, and high CSV play important roles in explaining ESV.
CONCLUSIONS:
This study represents a pioneering endeavor utilizing fsQCA to explore how different combinations of punishment, shame and social learning antecedents contribute to high ESV, which goes beyond previous research focusing on antecedents independently and offers new insights into interconnected antecedents of ESV and their complex causality.
GuoBHWYiuTWGonzálezVA. Predicting safety behavior in the construction industry: Development and test of an integrative model. Safety Science. 2016;84:1-11.
2.
LiangHLinKYZhangSSuY. The impact of coworkers’ safety violations on an individual worker: A social contagion effect within the construction crew. International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health. 2018;15(4):773-93.
3.
LiangHZhangS. Impact of supervisors’ safety violations on an individual worker within a construction crew. Safety Science. 2019;120:679-91.
4.
AlperSJKarshB-T. A systematic review of safety violations in industry. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2009;41(4):739-54.
5.
O’NeillCGopaldasaniVComanR. Factors that influence the effective use of safe work method statements for high-risk construction work in Australia – A literature review. Safety Science. 2022;147:105628.
6.
XiaNXieQGriffinMAYeGYuanJ. Antecedents of safety behavior in construction: A literature review and an integrated conceptual framework. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2020;148:Article 105834.
7.
BeusJMMccordMAZoharD. Workplace safety: A review and research synthesis. Organizational Psychology Review. 2016;6(4):352-81.
8.
CornelissenPAVan HoofJJDe JongMDT. Determinants of safety outcomes and performance: A systematic literature review of research in four high-risk industries. Journal of Safety Research. 2017;62:127-41.
9.
VedadiAWarkentinM. Can secure behaviors be contagious? A two-stage investigation of the influence of herd behavior on security decisions. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 2020;21(2):428-59.
10.
LiHLuoRChenY. Understanding information security policy violation from a situational action perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 2020;22(3):739-72.
11.
D’ArcyJDevarajS. Employee misuse of information technology resources: Testing a contemporary deterrence model. Decision Sciences: The Journal for the American Institute for Decision Sciences. 2012;43(6):1091-124.
12.
ChengLLiYLiWHolmEZhaiQ. Understanding the violation of IS security policy in organizations: An integrated model based on social control and deterrence theory. Computers & Security. 2013;39:447-59.
13.
FreemanJWatsonB. An application of Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualisation of deterrence to a group of recidivist drink drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2006;38(3):462-71.
14.
PogarskyGKimKPaternosterR. Perceptual change in the national youth survey: Lessons for deterrence theory and offender decision-making. Justice Quarterly. 2005;22(1):1-29.
15.
JohnstonACWarkentinMMcbrideMCarterL. Dispositional and situational factors: Influences on information security policy violations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2016;25(3):231-51.
16.
VanceAFellowSSiponenMTStraubDW. Effects of sanctions, moral beliefs, and neutralization on information security policy violations across cultures. Information & Management. 2020;57(4):Article 103212.
17.
SiponenMVanceAO. Neutralization: New insights into the problem of employee information systems security policy violations. MIS Quarterly. 2010;34(3):487-502.
18.
HuQXuZDinevTLingH. Does deterrence work in reducing information security policy abuse by employees?Communications of the Acm. 2011;54(6):54-60.
19.
RussoIConfenteIGligorDMAutryCW. To be or not to be (loyal): Is there a recipe for customer loyalty in the B2B context?Journal of Business Research. 2016;69(2):888-96.
20.
WoodsideAG. The complexity turn: Cultural, management, and marketing applications. Berlin: Springer; 2017.
21.
UrryJ. The complexity turn. Theory, Culture & Society. 2005;22(5):1-14.
22.
JinXZhouZTianY. A configurational analysis of the causes of consumer indirect misbehaviors in access-based consumption. Journal of Business Ethics. 2022;175:135-66.
23.
HerathTRaoHR. Protection motivation and deterrence: A framework for security policy compliance in organisations. European Journal of Information Systems. 2009;18(2):106-25.
24.
ZimringFEHawkinsG. Deterrence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1973.
25.
PiqueroATibbettsS. Specifying the direct and indirect effects of low self-control and situational factors in offenders’ decision making: Toward a more complete model of rational offending. Justice Quarterly. 1996;13(3):481-510.
26.
JohnsonMS. Regulation by shaming: Deterrence effects of publicizing violations of workplace safety and health laws. American Economic Association. 2020;110(6):1866-904.
27.
D’ArcyJHerathT. A review and analysis of deterrence theory in the IS security literature: Making sense of the disparate findings. European Journal of Information Systems. 2011;20(6):643-58.
28.
RaginCC. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press; 2008.
29.
WenzelM. The social side of sanctions: Personal and social norms as moderators of deterrence. Law & Human Behavior. 2004;28(5):547-67.
30.
JohnstonACWarkentinMSiponenM. An enhanced fear appeal rhetorical framework: Leveraging threats to the human asset through sanctioning rhetoric. MIS Quarterly. 2015;39(1):113-34.
31.
PaternosterRSimpsonS. Sanction threats and appeals to morality: Testing a rational choice model of corporate crime. Law & Society Review. 1996;30(3):549-84.
32.
AllenSMurphyKBatesL. What drives compliance? The effect of deterrence and shame emotions on young drivers’ compliance with road laws. Policing & Society. 2015;27(8):884-98.
33.
LowryPBZhangJWangCSiponenM. Why do adults engage in cyberbullying on social media? An integration of online disinhibition and deindividuation effects with the social structure and social learning model. Information Systems Research. 2016;27(4):962-86.
34.
BanduraA. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology. 2001;52(1):1-26.
35.
BanduraA. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1977.
36.
AkersRL. Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviance. New York: Routledge; 2017.
37.
SchwatkaNVRosecranceJC. Safety climate and safety behaviors in the construction industry: The importance of co-workers commitment to safety. Work. 2016;54(2):401-13.
38.
AkersRLJenningsWG. The Social Learning Theory of Crime and Deviance. In: KrohnMDLizotteAJHallGP, editors. Handbook on crime and deviance. New York: Springer; 2009.
39.
ShiYDuJAhnCRRaganE. Impact assessment of reinforced learning methods on construction workers’ fall risk behavior using virtual reality. Automation in Construction. 2019;104:197-214.
40.
ChoudhryRMFangD. Why operatives engage in unsafe work behavior: Investigating factors on construction sites. Safety Science. 2008;46(4):566-84.
41.
RihouxDBRaginCC. Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2009.
42.
LeischnigAWoodsideAG. Who approves fraudulence? Configurational causes of consumers’ unethical judgments. Journal of Business Ethics. 2019;158(3):713-26.
43.
LeischnigAWoodsideAG. Who approves fraudulence? Configurational causes of consumers’ unethical judgments. Journal of Business Ethics. 2019;158:713-26.
44.
WoodsideAG. Embrace perform model: Complexity theory, contrarian case analysis, and multiple realities. Journal of Business Research. 2014;67(12):2495-503.
45.
Booth-KewleySEdwardsJERosenfeldP. Impression management, social desirability, and computer administration of attitude questionnaires: Does the computer make a difference?Journal of Applied Psychology. 1992;77(4):562.
46.
BrennerPSDeLamaterJ. Lies, damned lies, and survey self-reports? Identity as a cause of measurement bias. Social Psychology Quarterly. 2016;79(4):333-54.
47.
FernandesMFRandallDM. The nature of social desirability response effects in ethics research. Business Ethics Quarterly. 1992;183-205.
48.
PodsakoffPMMackenzieSBLeeJYPodsakoffNP. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003;88(5):879-903.
49.
DanielsKGuppyA. Occupational stress, social support, job control, and psychological well-being. Human Relations. 1994;47:1523-44.
50.
ElliottMAThomsonJARobertsonKStephensonCWicksJ. Evidence that changes in social cognitions predict changes in self-reported driver behavior: Causal analyses of two-wave panel data. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2013;50(JAN.):905-16.
51.
GuanYDaiXGongQDengYHouYDongZ, et al.Understanding the trait basis of career adaptability: A two-wave mediation analysis among Chinese university students. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2017;101:32-42.
52.
MaJPengYWuB. Challenging or hindering? The roles of goal orientation and cognitive appraisal in stressor-performance relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2021;42:388-406.
53.
DawsonKMO’BrienKEBeehrTA. The role of hindrance stressors in the job demand–control–support model of occupational stress: A proposed theory revision. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2016;37(3):397-415.
54.
BrislinRW. The wording and translation of research instruments. In: LonnerWJBerryJW, editors. Field methods in cross-cultural research: Sage; 1986, pp. 137-64.
55.
LiuLMeiQJiangLWuJLiuSWangM. Safety-specific passive-avoidant leadership and safety compliance among chinese steel workers: The moderating role of safety moral belief and organizational size. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18:2700.
56.
FissPC. Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal. 2011;54(2):393-420.
57.
PappasIOWoodsideAG. Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for research practice in Information Systems and marketing. International Journal of Information Management. 2021;58(3):Article 102310.
58.
ParkYKFissPCSawyO. Theorizing the multiplicity of digital phenomena: The ecology of configurations, causal recipes, and guidelines for applying QCA. MIS Quarterly. 2020;44(4):1493-520.
59.
MattkeJMaierCReisLWeitzelT. Herd behavior in social media: The role of Facebook likes, strength of ties, and expertise - ScienceDirect. Information & Management. 2020;57(8):Article 103370.
60.
OngWJJohnsonMD. Toward a configural theory of job demands and resources. Academy of Management Journal. 2023;66(1):195-221.
61.
WittMAFainshmidtSAguileraRV. Our board, our rules: Nonconformity to global corporate governance norms. Administrative Science Quarterly. 2022;67(1):131-66.
62.
GreckhamerTMisangyiVFFissPC. The two QCAs: From a small-N to a large-N set theoretic approach. In: FissPCCambr'eBMarxA, editors. Configurational theory and methods in organizational research: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2013. pp. 49-75.
63.
MisangyiVFGreckhamerTFurnariSFissPCCrillyDAguileraR. Embracing causal complexity: The emergence of a neo-configurational perspective. Journal of Management. 2017;43(1):255-82.
64.
WingeSAlbrechtsenEArnesenJ. A comparative analysis of safety management and safety performance in twelve construction projects. Journal of Safety Research. 2019;71:139-52.
65.
CrescenzoVDRibeiro-SorianoDECovinJG. Exploring the viability of equity crowdfunding as a fundraising instrument: A configurational analysis of contingency factors that lead to crowdfunding success and failure. Journal of Business Research. 2020;115:348-56.
66.
JiangFZhengXDiFZhangPLiS. The sharing economy and business model design: A configurational approach. Journal of Management Studies. 2021;58(4):949-76.
67.
SchneiderCQWagemannC. Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences. A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2012.
68.
De CrescenzoVRibeiro-SorianoDECovinJG. Exploring the viability of equity crowdfunding as a fundraising instrument: A configurational analysis of contingency factors that lead to crowdfunding success and failure. Journal of Business Research. 2020;115:348-56.
69.
GreckhamerTFurnariSFissPCAguileraRV. Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: Best practices in strategy and organization research. Strategic Organization. 2018;16(4):482-95.
70.
FissPCCambréBMarxA. Configuration theory and Methods in Organizational Research in Research in the sociology of organizations. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2013.
71.
RihouxBLobeB. The case for qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): Adding leverage for thick cross-case comparison. In: ByrneDRaginCC, editors. The Sage Handbook of Case-based Methods: Sage Publications; 2009, pp. 222-42.
72.
HovavAD’ArcyJ. Applying an extended model of deterrence across cultures: An investigation of information systems misuse in the U.S. and South Korea. Inf Manage. 2012;49(2):99-110.
73.
VierendeelsGReniersGvan NunenKPonnetK. An integrative conceptual framework for safety culture: The Egg Aggregated Model (TEAM) of safety culture. Safety Science. 2018;103:323-39.
74.
HwangIKimDKimTKimS. Why not comply with information security? An empirical approach for the causes of non-compliance. Online Information Review. 2017;41(1):2-18.
75.
WangDWangXXiaN. How safety-related stress affects workers’ safety behavior: The moderating role of psychological capital. Safety Science. 2018;103:247-59.
76.
PodsakoffPMMackenzieSBLeeJYPodsakoffNP. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal Applied Psychology. 2003;88(5):879-903.
77.
WillisonRLowryPBPaternosterR. A tale of two deterrents: Considering the role of absolute and restrictive deterrence to inspire new directions in behavioral and organizational security research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 2018;19(12):1187-216.
78.
PappasIOKourouthanassisPEGiannakosMNChrissikopoulosV. Explaining online shopping behavior with fsQCA: The role of cognitive and affective perceptions. Journal of Business Research. 2016;69(2):794-803.
