ISSN : 1229-6783(Print)
ISSN : 2288-1484(Online)
ISSN : 2288-1484(Online)
Journal of the Korea Safety Management & Science Vol.15 No.4 pp.145-152
DOI : https://doi.org/10.12812/ksms.2013.15.4.145
DOI : https://doi.org/10.12812/ksms.2013.15.4.145
퀵서비스 종사자의 사고 경험에 영향을 미치는 안전의식의 복합적 특성 분석
The Complex Characterization Analysis of the Risk Awareness Affecting an Accident Experience of Quick Service Workers
Received October 20, 2013; Revision Received December 3, 2013; Accepted December 4, 2013.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of risk awareness on injury experience in quickdelivery service workers. Risk awareness has complicate characteristics such as its level of worker andworker's decision about the level of other's risk perception. Data were collected by interview survey withstructured questionnaire about injury experience, risk perception, work characteristics, and socio-demographiccharacteristics of quick delivery service workers by cross sectional survey design in 2012. The sample size was120 respondent of quick delivery service workers. Statistical method for this study was hierarchical logisticregression method with 3 different models using socio-demographic characteristics and work characteristics andrisk perception, etc. The difference between the level of risk perception of quick delivery service and other’swas statistically significant effect on the experience of injury. Especially the higher the level of risk perceptionof quick delivery service workers is than other’s, the lower the injury experience of quick delivery serviceworker is. The limitation of this study can be found in survey design. The future study for investigation ofmechanism of the combined effect of risk perception of quick delivery service workers and others on injuryexperience.
- 0060-01-0015-0004-18.pdf386.7KB
Reference
1.Cooper, M. D. (2000). Towards a model of safety culture. Safety Science, 36(2), 111-136. 
2.Cooper, M., and Phillips, R. (2004). Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and safety behavior relationship. Journal of Safety Research 35(5), 497-512. 
3.Flin, R., Mearns, K., O'Connor, P., and Bryden, R. (1998). Measuring safety climate: Identifying the common features. Safety Science, 34(1-3), 177-192.
4.Gibbons, A., von Thaden, T. and Wiegmann, D. (2006) Development and initial validation of a survey for assessing safety culture within commercial flight operations. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 16 (2), NJ: LEA.
5.Glendon, A.I., and Stanton, N.A. (2000). Perspectives on safety culture. Safety Science, 34(1-3), 193-214.
6.Neal, A., and Griffin, M.A. (2002). Safety Climate and Safety Behaviour. Australian Journal of Management, 27, 67-75
7.Park, N.S., and Kang, H.J, (2009). Emotion, Cognition and Behavior Responses of the Drivers in Dangerous Driving Scenario. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Health, 14(2), 403-418.
8.Schömig, N and Metz B.(2013). Three levels of situation awareness in driving with secondary tasks. Safety Science 56(2013), 44-51.
9.Simon, H.(1990). A mechanism for social selection and successful altruism. Science 250(4988):1665-1668.
10.Simon, H.(1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organizational Science 2(1):125-134.
11.11. PASWStatistics 18(Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc., 2009).
12.Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and applied implicatio ns. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(1), 96-102.
13.Zohar, D. (2000). A group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of group climate on microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 587-596.
14.Zohar, D., and Luria, G. (2003). The use of supervisory practices as leverage to improve safety behavior: A cross-level intervention model. Journal of Safety Research, 34(5), 567-577.
2.Cooper, M., and Phillips, R. (2004). Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and safety behavior relationship. Journal of Safety Research 35(5), 497-512.
3.Flin, R., Mearns, K., O'Connor, P., and Bryden, R. (1998). Measuring safety climate: Identifying the common features. Safety Science, 34(1-3), 177-192.
4.Gibbons, A., von Thaden, T. and Wiegmann, D. (2006) Development and initial validation of a survey for assessing safety culture within commercial flight operations. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 16 (2), NJ: LEA.
5.Glendon, A.I., and Stanton, N.A. (2000). Perspectives on safety culture. Safety Science, 34(1-3), 193-214.
6.Neal, A., and Griffin, M.A. (2002). Safety Climate and Safety Behaviour. Australian Journal of Management, 27, 67-75
7.Park, N.S., and Kang, H.J, (2009). Emotion, Cognition and Behavior Responses of the Drivers in Dangerous Driving Scenario. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Health, 14(2), 403-418.
8.Schömig, N and Metz B.(2013). Three levels of situation awareness in driving with secondary tasks. Safety Science 56(2013), 44-51.
9.Simon, H.(1990). A mechanism for social selection and successful altruism. Science 250(4988):1665-1668.
10.Simon, H.(1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organizational Science 2(1):125-134.
11.11. PASWStatistics 18(Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc., 2009).
12.Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and applied implicatio ns. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(1), 96-102.
13.Zohar, D. (2000). A group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of group climate on microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 587-596.
14.Zohar, D., and Luria, G. (2003). The use of supervisory practices as leverage to improve safety behavior: A cross-level intervention model. Journal of Safety Research, 34(5), 567-577.
-
-
Online Submission
http://submission.koreasafety.or.kr
-
KSSM
The Korean Society of Safety ManagementWaste Society
-
Editorial Office
Contact Information- Tel: +82.31.336.2844
- Fax: +82.31.336.2845
- E-mail: safety@mju.ac.kr -
-
-
-
-
-
-
