Risk Perception, Risk Propensity, and Unsafe Behavior: An Empirical Study of
Workers in Chinese Construction Industry
Y. P. Huang1, X. Q. Wang1, R. X. Ding1, N. N. Xia 2
1
College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China
2
Corresponding author at: College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China; email:
ninixia@tju.edu.cn
Abstract - As one of the most important participants in
construction industry, construction workers unsafe
behavior is very common on construction sites. From an
individual level, this research aims to investigate the
relationship among risk perception, risk propensity and
unsafe behavior decision-making. A survey is conducted
within first-line workers in Chinese construction projects.
The results show that: 1) risk propensity is positively and
significantly related to unsafe behavior, 2) risk perception is
negatively and significantly related to unsafe behavior, 3)
risk propensity is negatively and significantly related to risk
perception, and 4) risk perception partly mediates the
relationship between risk propensity and unsafe behavior.
Thus, project managers should pay more attention to
risk-seeking workers in order to reduce their unsafe
behavior.
Keywords - construction worker, unsafe behavior, risk
propensity, risk perception, China
I. INTRODUCTION
There are approximately two hundred million people
engaged in the construction industry all over the word,
which has made great contribution to the global
employment problem. In addition, the construction
industry has played an important role in supporting other
industries, such as cement, steel, wood and heavy
manufacturing, and so on. However, construction industry
is also one of the most dangerous industrial sectors [1],
[2]. Many investigations of construction accidents have
shown that workers unsafe behavior is one of the
common causes of accidents [3]. Construction workers
behavior can be easily influenced by personal
characteristics, project environment, and other factors.
Therefore, the exploration of factors, which can influence
the construction workers unsafe behavior, can help avoid
accidents.
Unsafe behavior is traditionally referred to as
violations, which involve the deliberate deviation from
rules that describe the safe or approved method of
performing a particular task or job; as opposed to errors,
which refer to unintended outcomes caused by slips,
lapses and mistakes made by individuals [4]. Uncertainty
is inevitable in workplace, coupled with the limit of
resources or time, and workers tend to violate regulations.
Risk-based decision-making behavior refers to the
decision which may cause serious consequence or may not
when there are some uncontrolled factors [5]. When
workers are performing a particular task, the decision
978-1-5090-3665-3/16/$31.00 2016 IEEE
whether to follow the safety regulation strictly falls into
the category of risk-based decision-making behavior.
Based on literatures review, Sitkin and Pablo [6]
advocated that the factors influencing risk-based
decision-making behavior can be divided into three levels:
1) personal characteristics mainly including risk
preferences, habits and outcome history; 2) organizational
features including the heterogeneity of executive team,
organizational culture, the tendency of leaders etc.; and 3)
the features of problems, e.g. the decision-makers
experience and familiarity with the situation or problem.
Fogarty and Shaw [7] emphasized that individual behavior
could make a significant impact on the organizations
performance in the research of construction workers
behavior. Moreover, individuals decision on behavior is
largely dependent on their intuition, previous experience,
educational background, attitudes to risk and other
subjective factors [8], [9]. Thus, it is necessary to explore
the construction workers unsafe behavior from the
aspects of personal qualities.
Previous researches have shown that many factors
would affect the decision-making behavior through risk
propensity and risk perception. The model proposed by
Sitkin and Pablo [5] is also in conformity with it. Through
empirical research in the field of software development,
Keil [10] has confirmed that the risk propensity and risk
perception have a significant impact on the risk-based
decision-making behavior. Thus, the decision-makers risk
propensity and risk perception cannot be ignored in the
study of decision-making behavior [11]. Reference [8] has
also emphasized the importance of improving the
workers risk perception level in construction safety
management. And another study used a paired comparison
technique to explore construction site dumper drivers and
subject matter experts (SMEs) risk perception and its
relationship to risk-taking behavior [18]. However, the
effects of risk propensity and risk perception on unsafe
behavior are still controversial [12]-[14]. Besides, such
relationship is rarely examined within construction
workers. Thus, this research aims to explore the
relationship among risk perception, risk propensity and
unsafe behavior.
II. RESEARCH MODELS AND HYPOTHESES
A. Risk Perception and Unsafe Behavior
There exists a big controversy about the relationship
between risk perception and decision-making behavior.
1121
 Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE IEEM
Some scholars believe that there is a negative correction
between the two concepts: the higher perceived risk level,
the less likely a person will engage in risk-taking
behavior. While the other side claims there is a positive
correlation between them. For example, Kahneman and
Tversky [15] found that under negative problem frame,
decision-makers perceiving high levels of risk responded
with risk-seeking behavior. Johnson et al. [16] also found
that the underage smokers were even more aware of the
dangers than those who were not.
In construction workplaces, some workers may think
it is very dangerous to take a certain action, while others
disagree even if they are in the same situation. The former
who realizes the serious consequences of unsafe behavior
are more likely to follow safety regulations. In contrast,
those who are unaware of the potential risks will be more
likely to take violations, such as not wearing a helmet.
Meanwhile, many previous research has confirmed that
there is a negative correlation relationship between risk
perception and construction workers unsafe behavior [17,
18]. Hence, hypothesis 1 is put forward:
H1. Construction workers risk perception will be
negatively related to unsafe behavior.
B. Risk Propensity and Unsafe Behavior
There are also inconsistencies concerning the
relationship between the risk propensity and
decision-making behavior. Forlani [19] advocated that the
propensity can work on the decision-making behavior
directly. But there is evidence indicating that this is not
always the case. Sitkin and Pablo [6], for instance, argue
that the risk propensity may have an impact on risk
perception, namely the risk perception plays a mediating
role. Lopes [20] believed that although risk propensity and
risk perception both appear to influence decision-making,
they can interact with each other.
The definitions and measurements inconsistency of
risk propensity may account for the conflicting results.
This paper follows the definition that the risk propensity is
an individuals current tendency to take or avoid risks. It
is conceptualized as an individual trait that can change
over time and thus is an emergent property of the decision
maker [6]. According to personal characteristics, risk
propensity can be divided into risk-seeking, risk-averse,
and risk-neutral. Based on this, hypothesis 2 is put
forward:
H2. Risk propensity will be positively related to
unsafe behavior.
Subjective judgment of risk can be influenced by
various factors, like psychology, social, environmental,
institutional and cultural ones. From the perspective of
individual differences, risk propensity is an important
antecedent of risk perception. Risk propensity can affect
the relative significance of opportunities and threat under
specific condition, leading to differences in risk
perception. The risk-seeking decision-makers are more
inclined to pay attention to positive results and
underestimate the possibility of losses, resulting in a lower
level of risk perception. The risk-averse decision-makers
are more inclined to focus on the potential losses,
1122
resulting in a higher level of risk perception.
Fig. 1. Research model
Stikin and Pablo [6] thought that risk perception and
risk propensity are two key variables that influence risk
decisions, and risk propensity can influence risk
perception. Based on this, Stikin and Weingart [5] have
verified that risk perception mediated the relationship
between risk propensity and risk decisions. Hence, the
following hypotheses are formulated:
H3. Risk propensity has a negative effect on risk
perception. Risk-seeking workers are more intend to have
lower risk perception level.
H4. Risk perception will mediate the relationship
between risk propensity and unsafe behavior.
Fig. 1 shows the conceptual model of the
relationships specified in the hypotheses.
III. METHODOLOGY
A. Samples
The participants are Chinese housing construction
workers from Hebei province, Tianjin, Shanghai, Anhui
province and Ningbo province.
373 questionnaires are collected, of which 325
questionnaires are valid. The samples cover a lot types of
work, including carpenters, masons, painters, etc. Their
backgrounds are shown in Table I.
B. Measure
Unsafe Behavior: Because unsafe behavior is
sensitive, we measured intention instead (2 items, e.g.,
Ill wear the helmet correctly in the later operation.).
The theory of planned behavior has confirmed that
behavioral intention can directly affect decision-making
behavior [21]. Behavioral intention can directly determine
the behavior when personal abilities, access to
information, opportunities, and resources are under
control.
Risk Perception: In this research, the scale developed
by Simon is used. It is revised according to the
characteristics of Chinese construction situation (8 items,
e.g., I believe that not wearing a helmet may bring a lot
damage to myself.). The response format is a seven-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree).
Risk Propensity: In previous studies, there are mainly
two methods to measure the risk propensity. One is
CDQ(Choice dilemma questionnaire). The other is the
extension of scale designed by Stikin and Weingart [5],
which contains five items. Weber et al. [22] developed a
 Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE IEEM

DOSPERT (Domain-specific risk taking scale) scale by significant links between risk propensity and unsafe
considering both losses and benefits. Nicholson et al. [23] behavior (r = 0.335, sig < 0.01), which indicated that the
designed a series of questions from six dimensions and risk-seeking workers are easier to relax, resulting in more
unsafe behavior. There is also a significant negative
TABLE I correction between risk perception and unsafe behavior(r
SAMPLE BACKGROUNDS = -0.500sig < 0.01), and also between risk propensity
Item Category Number Percentage and age (r = -0.235sig < 0.01). A significant positive
Male 295 90.7% correlation is found between marital status and unsafe
Sex
Female 30 9.3% behavior (r = 0.253, sig <0.01), indicating that married
Marital Married 252 77.5% worker has a stronger sense of responsibility to family.
status Unmarried 43 22.5% B. Risk Perception and Unsafe Behavior
Primary 120 36.9% Linear regression method is used to further validate
Junior high school 157 48.3% the relationship among the three variables. Regression
Education
Senior middle school 40 12.3% analysis between risk perception and unsafe behavior
background
Technical Colleges 7 2.2% indicated that there is a significant negative correlation
Bachelor degree or above 1 0.003% between them ( = -0.500sig = 0.000). The workers
20-29 46 14.2% who realize possible serious consequences caused by
30-39 135 41.5% unsafe behavior would pay more attention to avoid unsafe
Age 40-49 127 39.1% behavior. Thus, hypothesis 1 is supported.
50-59 16 4.9%
60 or above 1 0.003
C. Risk Propensity and Unsafe Behavior
Regression analysis between risk propensity and
respondents risk propensity can be measured by the
unsafe behavior indicates that there is a significant
frequency of their risk-taking behavior in different areas.
positive correlation between them ( = 0.346sig =
The definition of risk perception in this research
follows the risk-decision model proposed by Stikin and 0.008), indicating that the risk-seeking workers are easier
Pablo [6]. Besides, unsafe behavior mostly results in to relax vigilance, resulting in unsafe behavior. Thus,
losses not benefits. Therefore, we chose the scale designed hypothesis 2 is supported.
by Stikin and Pablo and revised it according to the D. Risk Propensity and Risk Perception
characteristics of Chinese construction situation. Finally, Regression analysis between risk propensity and risk
five items are included such as I tend to make decisions perception indicates that there is a significant negative
based on the rules and regulations of the project. The correlation between them ( = -0.439, sig = 0.001) when
response format is a seven-point Likert scale ranging from we take risk propensity as independent variable and risk
1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). perception as dependent variable. Risk-averse workers are
Control Variables: It is obvious that there are more likely to be aware of the serious consequences of
apparent differences of risk perception between male and unsafe behavior. Thus, hypothesis 3 is supported.
female. Women are more conservative, leading to a higher E. Risk Perceptions Mediating Role
level of risk perception. Meanwhile, Reference [24] found The four factors, i.e. family, co-workers,
that married workers tend to have a higher level of risk management and perceived behavioral control can affect
perception than the unmarried. Therefore, we chose the the unsafe behavior. In order to make a better inspection
basic information as the first set of control variables, of the relationship among risk perception, risk propensity
including sex, age, type of work, and marital status. and unsafe behavior, we should make the four factors stay
The theory of planned behavior suggests that a relatively stable level. During the inspection of
individual behavior is also influenced by subjective norms mediating effect, the four control variables which can
and perceived behavioral control [25]. Besides, the unsafe significantly affected unsafe behavior are added to
behavior of workers can be greatly influenced by regression equation as Model 1. We add risk propensity to
organizational management. Namely, the larger the scale the regression model to form model 2. Risk perception is
of a project is, the more stringent management and added to the regression model to form model 3. Finally,
punishment measures are. Therefore, subjective norms, risk perception and risk propensity are added to the
perceived behavioral control and the scale of the project regression model to form model4. The regression results
were set as the second set of control variables. are shown in Table II.
We can conclude that risk propensity has a
significant influence on unsafe behavior ( = 0.318, sig <
IV. RESULTS 0.05) from model 2 and risk perception has a significant
influence on
A. Preliminary Analyses unsafe behavior ( = -0.477, sig < 0.05) from model 3. As
All measuring scales obtained a very satisfactory it can be seen from Model 2, when we take the risk
reliability level because Cronbach of three latent perception as a mediated variable into the regression
variable scales are above 0.7(risk propensity = 0.753, risk equation, the regression coefficient is still significant,
perception = 0.725, unsafe behavior = 0.753). Then while regression coefficients of risk propensity drop from
correlation analysis is conducted. The variables yielded

1123
 Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE IEEM

0.318 to 0.195. So what could be inferred is that risk easier to understand for workers.
perception partially mediate the relationship between the
risk propensity and unsafe behavior. VI. DISCUSSION

TABLE II In this research, the theory of risk decision-making

HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION was applied to the field of unsafe behavior from the
Independent Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4 perspective of individual level. It made a clear
variables
understanding of the relationship among risk perception,
Family
influence
-0.048 -0.060 -0.013 -0.027 risk propensity and unsafe behavior, which may be helpful
Co-workers in further research of the mechanism of unsafe behavior
-0.011 -0.107 -0.310 0.323
influence from the personal psychological level.
Leadership
-0.443* -0.489* -0.496* -0.514*
Management
Perceived ACKNOWLEDGMENT
behavioral -0.019 0.019 -0.026 -0.018
control
Risk propensity 0.318 0.195 We would thank to all the respondents of research. In
Risk Perception -0.477 -0.389 addition, we appreciate the financial support of the
R2 0.227 0.322 0.376 0.407 National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant
Adjusted R2 0.168 0.255 0.315 0.335
No.71231006)

V. CONCLUSION REFERENCES

A. Contributions [1] P. X. W. Zou, R. Y. Sunindijo, and A. R. J. Dainty, A

This research first clarifies the interacting effects of
risk propensity and risk property on construction workers
unsafe behavior which is vital to safety outcomes [12, 26].
The results showed that: (1) risk propensity is positively
and significantly related to unsafe behavior, (2) risk
perception is negatively and significantly related to unsafe
behavior, (3) risk propensity is negatively and
significantly related to risk perception, and (4) risk
perception partly mediates the relationship between risk
propensity and unsafe behavior. In addition, this research
has also confirmed that workers unsafe behavior is also
affected by their relatives, co-workers and managers in the
context of Chinese construction industry. This conclusion
explained the theory of planned behaviors applicability in
works unsafe behavior to some extent.
B. Practice
Firstly, project management should focus on
improving construction workers perception levels of risk
which can help reduce workers unsafe behavior. And
regular safety trainings are also very important.
In addition, companies should pay attention to
workers risk propensity. For example, a safety test can be
conducted on the workers, before the start of the project.
Meanwhile, companies can divide them into different risk
propensity levels and design different training programs
with a focus on risk-seeking workers.
C. Limitations and Future Research
One deficiency of this research is that the unsafe
behavior is a sensitive topic. Although the authors have
emphasized that surveyed data was only used for
academic research to the workers before the survey, it is
inevitable that some respondents avoided to provide true
answers. Besides, as most of the workers are in a
relatively low education level, we found the questionnaire
format is a little hard for them. Thus, we can use Bohm
[13] paired comparison in further research that can be
mixed methods research design for bridging the gap
between research and practice in construction safety, Saf.
Sci., vol. 70, pp. 316326, 2014.
[2] Fernndez-Muiz, B., J. M. Montes-Pen and C. J.
Vzquez-Ords. "Safety leadership, risk management and
safety performance in Spanish firms." Saf. Sci. vol.70:
pp.295-307, 2014.
[3] Heinrich H. Industrial Accident Prevention, 2nd edition,
New York: McGraw-Hill.
[4] Reason, J. Human Error,Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 1990.
[5] S. B. Sitkin and L. R. Weingart, Determinants of risky
decision-making behavior: A test of the mediating role of
risk perceptions and propensity, Acad. Manag. J. vol.38,
no. 6, pp.1573-1592, 1995.
[6] S. B. Sitkin and A. L. Pablo, Reconceptualizing the
determinants of risk behaviour, Acad. Manage. Rev., vol.
17, no. 1, pp. 938, 1992.
[7] G. J. Fogarty and A. Shaw, Safety climate and the theory
of planned behavior: towards the prediction of unsafe
behaviour, Accid. Anal. Prev., vol. 42, no. 5, pp.
14551459, 2010.
[8] D. R. Kouabenan, R. Ngueutsa, and S. Mbaye, Safety
climate, perceived risk, and involvement in safety
management, Saf. Sci., vol. 77, pp. 7279, 2015.
[9] E. C. Alexopoulos, Z. Kavadi, G. Bakoyannis and S.
Papantonopoulos, Subjective risk assessment and
perception in the Greek and English Bakery industries, J.
Environ. Pub. Heal. , pp.1-8, 2009.
[10] M. Keil, L. Wallace and D. Turk, An investigation of risk
perception and risk propensity on the decision to continue
a software development project, J. Syst. Software., vol. 53,
no.2, pp. 145-157, 2000.
[11] E. H. W. Chan and C. Y. A. Maria, Building contractors
behavioral pattern in pricing weather risks, Int. J. Proj.
Manag., vol. 25, no. 6, pp.615-626, 2007.
[12] D. Fang, C. Wu, and H. Wu, Impact of the Supervisor on
Worker Safety Behavior in Construction Projects, J.
Manage. Eng., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 04015001, 2015.
[13] A. Taroun, Towards a better modelling and assessment of

1124
 Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE IEEM
construction risk: insights from a literature review. Int. J.
Project Manage. , vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 101115, 2014.
[14] M. Ji, X. You, J. Lan, and S. Yang, The impact of risk [21]
tolerance, risk perception and hazardous attitude on safety
operation among airline pilots in China, Saf. Sci., vol. 49,
no. 10, pp. 14121420, 2011.
[15] D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, Prospect theory: An [22]
analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica, vol. 47, no.
2, pp. 263291, 1979.
[16] R. J. Johnson, K. D. Mccaul and W. M. P. Klein, Risk
involvement and risk perception among adolescents and [23]
young adults, J. Behav. Med., 25, no. 1, pp. 67-82, 2002.
[17] S. Mohamed, T. H. Ali and W. Y. V. Tam, National culture [24]
and safe work behavior of construction workers in
Pakistan, Saf. Sci., vol.47, no. 1, pp. 29-35, 2009.
[18] J. Bohm and D. Harris, Risk perception and risk-taking [25]
behavior of construction site dumper driver, Int. J. Occup.
Saf. Ergon. , vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 5567, 2010.
[19] D. Forlani and J. W. Mullins, Perceived risks and choices [26]
in entrepreneurs new venture decisions, J. Bus. Vent. ,
vol.15 no. 4, pp. 305-322, 2000.
[20] L. Lopes, Between hope and fear: The psychology of
1125
risk, Advances in experimental social psychology, vol.20
pp. 255-295.
T. J. Madden, P. S. Ellen and I. Ajzen, A comparison of
the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned
action, Personality and social psychology Bulletin, vol.
18 no.1, pp.3-9, 1992.
E. U. Weber, A.-R. Blais, and N. E. Betz, A
domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk
perceptions and risk behaviors, J. Behav. Decis. Mak., vol.
15, no. 4, pp. 263290, 2002.
N. Nicholson, Personality and domain-specific risk
taking, J. Risk. Res., vol.8, no.2, pp.157-176, 2005.
Q. Chen and R. Jin, A comparison of subgroup
construction workers perceptions of a safety program, Saf.
Sci., vol.74, pp.15-26, 2015.
I. Ajzen, The theory of planned behavior, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 50 no.2,
pp.179-211, 1991.
J. L. Zhou, Z. H. Bai and Z. Y. Sun, A hybrid approach for
safety assessment in high-risk
hydropower-construction-project work systems, Saf. Sci.,
vol. 64, pp.163-172, 2014.