4.4 Article

Safety Training Transfer: The Roles of Coworkers, Supervisors, Safety Professionals, and Felt Responsibility

期刊

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 92-107

出版社

EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING FOUNDATION-AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/ocp0000125

关键词

safety training; transfer of training; safety professionals; supervisor sanction; felt responsibility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study is to identify the influence of social dimensions of the work environment and the employees' felt responsibility on the transfer of safety training. We tested a model in which responses and reactions from safety players such as coworkers, supervisors, and safety professionals are positively related to the transfer of training (TT), through the mediating effect of the employees' felt responsibility and the moderating influence of supervisor support and sanctions. A two-time data collection was implemented among blue-collar employees, all low qualified, from four city councils who attended a fundamental safety training program delivered by in-house safety trainers, all safety professionals (n = 203). Data analysis revealed that (a) supervisors' safety responses, coworkers' safety responses, and safety professionals' reactions positively influenced the TT, an effect (b) mediated by employees' felt responsibility and (c) moderated by supervisor sanctions, but not by supervisor support. The results suggest that high sanctions enhance the positive effect of high self-responsibility on TT, and, importantly, aggravate the negative effect of low self-responsibility on TT. This is the first study to empirically test both the influence of felt responsibility and the safety professionals' reactions in the transfer process. Research should continue to examine the former construct's influence on the transfer process including, for example, its effect on supervisor support, and the latter as a safety-related social dimension variable of the work environment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据