| Literature DB >> 31159337 |
Shanshan Li1, Hong Chen2, Xinru Huang3, Congmei Hou4, Feiyu Chen5.
Abstract
Background: The effective governance of occupational safety and health problems is inseparable from public participation and response.Entities:
Keywords: occupational safety and health; psychological distance; public response; response gap
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31159337 PMCID: PMC6604029 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16111944
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Profile chart of public psychological distance structural relationships in occupational safety and health behaviors.
The scale items for public occupational safety and health psychological distance.
| Dimensions | Items Descriptions |
|---|---|
| Cognitive distance | I am very familiar with occupational safety and health implications |
| I am very familiar with occupational safety and health present situation | |
| I am very familiar with the importance of occupational safety and health | |
| I am very familiar with occupational disease-related knowledge in occupational safety and health | |
| Emotional distance | I feel grief about domestic security incidents and occupational diseases in my mind |
| I feel indignation about the frequent occurrence condition of domestic security incidents and occupational diseases in my mind | |
| I feel comfort about the high attention paid by the country and enterprises to occupational safety and health problems | |
| I always focus on the development of occupational safety and health in my mind | |
| Expected distance | I think that the public perceptions of occupational safety accidents and the extent of injury are exaggerated |
| I think that the development of medical treatments and techniques ensures that occupational safety and health problems will not severely threaten the public | |
| I think that the quality of occupational safety and health problem governance has influence on the future perceptions of the public | |
| I think that occupational safety and health problems will be controlled within a rational scope if everyone stresses them | |
| Behavioral distance | I am willing to concentrate on occupational safety and health problems in response to the call of the country |
| I am willing to commit to occupational safety and health problem governance | |
| I am willing to popularize occupational safety and health knowledge to surrounding people | |
| I am willing to make donations to those injured in occupational accidents and occupational disease patients |
Sample structure.
| Social-Demographic Variable | Frequency ( | Proportion (%) | Social-Demographic Variable | Frequency ( | Proportion (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 1782 | 74.69 | Age | <20 | 8 | 0.34 |
| Female | 604 | 25.31 | 21–30 | 671 | 28.12 | ||
| Education | Primary school and below | 61 | 2.56 | 31–40 | 775 | 32.48 | |
| Junior middle school | 403 | 16.89 | 41–50 | 556 | 23.30 | ||
| Senior middle school | 635 | 26.61 | 51–60 | 273 | 11.44 | ||
| Junior college | 600 | 25.15 | >60 | 103 | 4.32 | ||
| Undergraduate | 469 | 19.66 | Marital status | Single | 306 | 12.82 | |
| Master and higher | 218 | 9.14 | Married | 1978 | 82.90 | ||
| Identity | Government staff | 109 | 4.57 | Divorced | 69 | 2.89 | |
| Coal mine enterprise leader | 106 | 4.44 | Widowed | 33 | 1.38 | ||
| Coal mine safety supervisor | 155 | 6.50 | Political status | CPC member | 660 | 27.66 | |
| Coal mine front-line worker | 887 | 37.18 | Democratic party | 48 | 2.01 | ||
| Third-party social staff | 210 | 8.80 | Non-Party personage | 169 | 7.08 | ||
| Pneumoconiosis patient | 207 | 8.68 | The mass | 1509 | 63.24 | ||
| Ordinary people | 712 | 29.84 | |||||
Note: CPC = Communist Party of China, N = number.
Descriptive statistical analysis of psychological distance (N = 2386).
| Variable | M | SD | (1–2) | (2–3) | (3–4) | (4–5) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PD | 2.5520 | 0.53745 | 454, 19.04% | 1434, 60.15% | 495, 20.76% | 1, 0.04% |
| CD | 3.2791 | 0.90552 | 316, 13.24% | 580, 24.31% | 1111, 46.56% | 379, 15.88% |
| ED | 2.1954 | 0.68459 | 1194, 50.08% | 929, 38.97% | 243, 10.19% | 18, 0.76% |
| ExD | 2.5624 | 0.96773 | 900, 37.72% | 797, 33.40% | 535, 22.42% | 154, 6.45% |
| BD | 2.1698 | 0.89793 | 1286, 53.90% | 792, 33.19% | 250, 10.48% | 58, 2.43% |
Note: PD = Psychological distance, CD = cognitive distance, ED = emotional distance, ExD = expected distance, BD = behavioral distance, N = number, M = mean value, SD = standard deviation.
Figure 2Public occupational safety and health psychological distance four-dimension gap analysis. Note: 1: cognitive distance (CD) ≥ 3, emotional distance (ED) < 3, expected distance (ExD) < 3, behavioral distance (BD) < 3; 2: CD ≥ 3, ED < 3, ExD ≥ 3, BD < 3; 3: CD < 3, ED < 3, ExD < 3, BD < 3; 4: CD ≥ 3, ED ≥ 3, ExD < 3, BD ≥ 3; 5: CD < 3, ED < 3, ExD ≥ 3, BD < 3; 6: CD ≥ 3, ED < 3, ExD ≥ 3, BD ≥ 3; 7: CD ≥ 3, ED < 3, ExD < 3, BD ≥ 3; 8: CD ≥ 3, ED ≥ 3, ExD < 3, BD < 3; 9: CD ≥ 3, ED ≥ 3, ExD ≥ 3, BD < 3; 10: CD ≥ 3, ED ≥ 3, ExD ≥ 3, BD ≥ 3; 11: CD < 3, ED < 3, ExD ≥ 3, BD ≥ 3; 12: CD < 3, ED < 3, ExD < 3, BD ≥ 3; 13: CD < 3, ED ≥ 3, ExD < 3, BD < 3; 14: CD < 3, ED ≥ 3, ExD ≥ 3, BD < 3; 15: CD < 3, ED ≥ 3, ExD < 3, BD ≥ 3; 16: CD < 3, ED ≥ 3, ExD ≥ 3, BD ≥ 3. The bold indicates congruence.
Correlation analysis of public cognitive/emotional/expected/behavioral distance towards occupational safety and health.
| Variable | Observed Value | Cognitive Distance | Emotional Distance | Expected Distance | Behavioral Distance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cognitive distance | Pearson correlation | 1 | |||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | |||||
| Emotional distance | Pearson correlation | 0.280 ** | 1 | ||
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.000 | ||||
| Expected distance | Pearson correlation | 0.129 * | 0.05 1* | 1 | |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.044 | 0.012 | |||
| Behavioral distance | Pearson correlation | 0.180 ** | 0.564 ** | 0.079 ** | 1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Note: Sig. = significance. * indicates significant correlation at 0.05 level (bilateral). ** indicates significant correlation at 0.01 level (bilateral).
Regression analysis on public occupational safety and health psychological distance.
| Variable | Behavior M1 | Behavior M2 | Variable | Behavior M1 | Behavior M2 | Variable | Behavior M1 | Behavior M2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | 0.001 | −0.024 | Constant | 0.000 | 0.239 *** | Constant | 0.001 | 0.147 *** |
| Cognition | 0.023 | 0.047 * | Cognition | 0.180 *** | 0.190 *** | Emotion | 0.428 *** | 0.359 *** |
| Emotion | 0.425 *** | 0.416 *** | Expectation | 0.080 *** | 0.166 *** | Expectation | 0.055 ** | 0.084 *** |
| Cognition 2 | 0.011 | Cognition 2 | 0.045 ** | Emotion 2 | 0.016 * | |||
| Emotion 2 | −0.007 | Expectation 2 | −0.272 *** | Expectation 2 | −0.162 *** | |||
| Cognition × Emotion | 0.058 *** | Cognition × Expectation | −0.088 *** | Emotion × Expectation | −0.088 *** | |||
| Adjustment R2 | 0.318 | 0.323 | 0.037 | 0.125 | 0.320 | 0.352 |
Note: M1: model 1, M2: model 2. R2: R2 is the ratio of the sum of the squares of the regression to the sum of the squares used to measure the goodness of fit of the model. * indicates significant correlation at 0.05 level (bilateral). ** indicates significant correlation at 0.01 level (bilateral). *** indicates significant correlation at 0.001 level (bilateral). Cognition 2: Cognition distance square, Emotion 2: Emotion distance square, Cognition × Emotion: Interaction item of cognition distance and emotion distance.
Figure 3Response diagram of public cognitive and emotional distance towards occupational safety and health against behavioral distance.
Figure 4Response diagram of public cognitive and expected distance towards occupational safety and health against behavioral distance.
Figure 5Response diagram of public emotional and expected distance towards occupational safety and health against behavioral distance.