Noort Mark C, Reader Tom W, Gillespie Alex
Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom.
Front Psychol. 2019 Apr 2;10:668. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00668. eCollection 2019.
The investigation of people raising or withholding safety concerns, termed safety voice, has relied on report-based methodologies, with few experiments. Generalisable findings have been limited because: the behavioural nature of safety voice is rarely operationalised; the reliance on memory and recall has well-established biases; and determining causality requires experimentation. Across three studies, we introduce, evaluate and make available the first experimental paradigm for studying safety voice: the "Walking the plank" paradigm. This paradigm presents participants with an apparent hazard (walking across a weak wooden plank) to elicit safety voice behaviours, and it addresses the methodological shortfalls of report-based methodologies. Study 1 ( = 129) demonstrated that the paradigm can elicit observable safety voice behaviours in a safe, controlled and randomised laboratory environment. Study 2 ( = 69) indicated it is possible to elicit safety silence for a single hazard when safety concerns are assessed and alternative ways to address the hazard are absent. Study 3 ( = 75) revealed that manipulating risk perceptions results in changes to safety voice behaviours. We propose a distinction between two independent dimensions (concerned-unconcerned and voice-silence) which yields a 2 × 2 safety voice typology. Demonstrating the need for experimental investigations of safety voice, the results found a consistent mismatch between self-reported and observed safety voice. The discussion examines insights on conceptualising and operationalising safety voice behaviours in relationship to safety concerns, and suggests new areas for research: replicating empirical studies, understanding the behavioural nature of safety voice, clarifying the personal relevance of physical harm, and integrating safety voice with other harm-prevention behaviours. Our article adds to the conceptual strength of the safety voice literature and provides a methodology and typology for experimentally examining people raising safety concerns.
对提出或隐瞒安全问题（即安全建言）的人员的调查一直依赖于基于报告的方法，实验较少。可推广的研究结果有限，原因如下：安全建言的行为本质很少被操作化；对记忆和回忆的依赖存在既定的偏差；确定因果关系需要进行实验。在三项研究中，我们引入、评估并提供了首个用于研究安全建言的实验范式：“走木板”范式。该范式向参与者呈现一种明显的危险（走过一块脆弱的木板），以引发安全建言行为，并且它解决了基于报告的方法在方法论上的不足。研究1（n = 129）表明，该范式能够在安全、可控且随机的实验室环境中引发可观察到的安全建言行为。研究2（n = 69）表明，当评估安全问题且不存在解决该危险的替代方法时，有可能针对单一危险引发安全沉默。研究3（n = 75）揭示，操纵风险认知会导致安全建言行为的改变。我们提出区分两个独立维度（关心 - 不关心和建言 - 沉默），这产生了一种2×2的安全建言类型学。结果发现自我报告的安全建言与观察到的安全建言之间始终存在不匹配，这表明需要对安全建言进行实验研究。讨论探讨了关于将安全建言行为与安全问题相关联进行概念化和操作化的见解，并提出了新的研究领域：重复实证研究、理解安全建言的行为本质、阐明身体伤害的个人相关性，以及将安全建言与其他伤害预防行为相结合。我们的文章增强了安全建言文献的概念力量，并为实验性地研究提出安全问题的人员提供了一种方法和类型学。
