2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2019.105372
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Revisiting vulnerability: Comparing young and adult workers’ safety voice intentions under different supervisory conditions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We used publicly available injury data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to enter nonfatal injury rates (Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2018) associated with each industry 4 . Consistent with safety research among young workers populations (e.g., Turner et al, 2020), we coded samples drawn from employees aged from 15 to 24 years as “young workers”; all other samples were coded as “older workers.” We used the operationalization of leadership behaviors to code for contextualized leadership. We coded scales that measured leadership behaviors without referring to safety context as “generalized leadership”; we coded scales that contained references to safety as “safety-specific leadership.”…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We used publicly available injury data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to enter nonfatal injury rates (Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2018) associated with each industry 4 . Consistent with safety research among young workers populations (e.g., Turner et al, 2020), we coded samples drawn from employees aged from 15 to 24 years as “young workers”; all other samples were coded as “older workers.” We used the operationalization of leadership behaviors to code for contextualized leadership. We coded scales that measured leadership behaviors without referring to safety context as “generalized leadership”; we coded scales that contained references to safety as “safety-specific leadership.”…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, older individuals in comparison to younger individuals have a relatively richer database of experiences to draw from to help guide their actions (Hess, 2006;Hess et al, 2005). As a result, younger individuals are more likely than older individuals to seek information from their environment to help guide their actions, and their lack of experience may require stronger cues to activate appropriate action-taking (Hess, 2006;Turner et al, 2020). As such, leadership behaviors with a growth orientation (i.e., change-oriented) may be more likely to facilitate appropriate actions among young workers.…”
Section: Contextual Moderatorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous studies found that individual factors such as gender [ 77 ] and age [ 2 ] can affect the intention of safety voice. Therefore, this study introduces five demographic variables: gender, age, education level, working years, and position as control variables to avoid interference with the result analysis.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A large number of human-oriented safety management studies have begun to emerge. Among them, employee safety voice behavior has caused more and more attention [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]. If individuals conceal safety-related issues of the organization and do not report hidden dangers they find, it may increase the difficulty of risk prediction and prevention, which will make the risk impossible to control and lead to safety accidents [ 6 , 7 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Employee safety voice is one of these [19,20] and has been defined as communication motivated by the desire to achieve a safe working environment [20]. The role of employee safety voice in facilitating the exchange of information has received considerable research attention e.g., [13,20,21]. Research has shown that safety communication between workers and their managers e.g., [22][23][24] and peers/co-workers e.g., [20,25] has a strong influence on safety behaviours.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%