2018
DOI: 10.1080/10803548.2018.1444565
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The structure and emerging trends of construction safety management research: a bibliometric review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
41
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 57 publications
(43 citation statements)
references
References 108 publications
1
41
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, in high-quality exchanges, individuals could receive more resources or emotional supports for working safely from their supervisors, which could weaken the cost side of the conflict (e.g., the supporting environment making safety compliance earlier), and enhance the benefits (e.g., potential monetary or social incentive), thereby reduce their attitudinal ambivalence. This is consistent with the previous research by Liang et al (2018aLiang et al ( , 2018b, which reported that perceived production pressure could increase the extent of individuals' attitudinal ambivalence, while perceived social support decreases attitudinal ambivalence. Furthermore, Individuals with higher attitudinal ambivalence are more likely to break safety rules because they suffer from more hesitations which hinder their decisions to work safely (Xu et al, 2018).…”
Section: The Mediating Effect Of Aascsupporting
confidence: 92%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Therefore, in high-quality exchanges, individuals could receive more resources or emotional supports for working safely from their supervisors, which could weaken the cost side of the conflict (e.g., the supporting environment making safety compliance earlier), and enhance the benefits (e.g., potential monetary or social incentive), thereby reduce their attitudinal ambivalence. This is consistent with the previous research by Liang et al (2018aLiang et al ( , 2018b, which reported that perceived production pressure could increase the extent of individuals' attitudinal ambivalence, while perceived social support decreases attitudinal ambivalence. Furthermore, Individuals with higher attitudinal ambivalence are more likely to break safety rules because they suffer from more hesitations which hinder their decisions to work safely (Xu et al, 2018).…”
Section: The Mediating Effect Of Aascsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…According to social cognition theory, individual workers always try to belong to a social group and adjust their own behaviours to what they believe is the socially acceptable within the crew (Roettger et al, 2017). When perceiving a positive group norm for safety behaviours (e.g., coworkers helps others' to achieve safety equipment when it is not available onsite), individuals will follow safety rules similarly to fit themselves with their groups (Liang, et al, 2018a(Liang, et al, , 2018b, and vice versa. Previous studies have confirmed that supervisors are critical for the formation of safety-related group norm within the construction crew.…”
Section: Group Safety Normmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…From this standpoint, coworkers’ intentional but non-malevolent violations can be practical and socially contagious because such deviants from formal systems or processes seem to be well-intentioned and aimed at getting the work done. Previous literature on workers’ safety behaviors or violations has focused on hierarchical supervisor-employee relationships, while the horizontal coworker-employee dynamics such as the contagion effect of coworkers’ safety violations have not received as much attention [ 16 ]. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the underlying mechanism of social contagion which is caused by coworkers in order to provide necessary insights into the processes by which unsafe behavior norms are established within a construction crew.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The algorithms for automatic ranking extracted terms in CiteSpace are tf*idf [62], log-likelihood ratio (LLR) tests [63], and mutual information [64]. LLR tests were used in the paper because they reflected the best cluster labels with high uniqueness and convergence [58,65]. LLR tests depend on the asymptotic distribution [63].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%