| Literature DB >> 32947955 |
Abstract
This study explored the influencing factors of safety behavior from the perspective of employees, studied the mechanism of the psychological contract on employees' safety behavior in the context of the Chinese epidemic situation, tested the mediating role of job burnout and perceived insider status in the process of work resumption, and provided preventive suggestions for combating the global spread of COVID-19. A questionnaire survey was utilized to collect data and, combined with the necessary protective measures taken for employees in China, was used to modify the mature safety behavior scale. Finally, through the analysis of 402 employees' questionnaires, the hypotheses were verified; that is, in the process of Chinese enterprises returning to work to cope with COVID-19, the psychological contract has a positive role in promoting employees' safety behavior, while job burnout plays a weakened mediating role, and perceived insider status plays a strengthening mediating role. The psychological contract negatively affects job burnout but positively affects perceived insider status. Job burnout negatively affects employees' safety behavior, but perceived insider status positively affects employees' safety behavior. The results show that employees' conscious participation in safety behavior plays an irreplaceable role in the prevention of COVID-19 and safety of work resumption.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; double mediators; job burnout; perceived insider status; psychological contract; safety behavior
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32947955 PMCID: PMC7557612 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17186747
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Conceptual framework.
The COVID-19 safety behavior scale.
| Number | Item |
|---|---|
| 1 | I put the epidemic prevention supplies well in my work. |
| 2 | I wear the necessary anti-epidemic protective equipment as requiring. |
| 3 | I abide by the safety rules of epidemic prevention in my work. |
| 4 | I actively cooperate with the managers in the work of epidemic prevention. |
| 5 | Even if there is not any supervision, I will pay attention to epidemic prevention. |
| 6 | I (will) put forward suggestions to improve the safety of epidemic prevention. |
| 7 | I (will) take part in activities to improve the safety of epidemic prevention. |
| 8 | I (will) take the initiative to demonstrate the correct epidemic prevention methods to my colleagues. |
| 9 | I (will) take the initiative to correct the inappropriate behavior of my colleagues. |
Basic statistics of employees.
| Characteristics | Classification | Number | Proportion (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 174 | 43.3 |
| Female | 228 | 56.7 | |
| Missing Value | 0 | 0.0 | |
| Age | 20 Years Old and Below | 10 | 2.5 |
| 21–30 Years Old | 150 | 37.3 | |
| 31–40 Years Old | 139 | 34.6 | |
| 41–50 Years Old | 92 | 22.9 | |
| 51 Years Old and Above | 11 | 2.7 | |
| Missing Value | 0 | 0.0 | |
| Level of Education | High School and Below | 274 | 68.2 |
| Junior College | 69 | 17.2 | |
| Undergraduate | 55 | 13.7 | |
| Master’s Degree and Above | 4 | 1.0 | |
| Missing Value | 0 | 0.0 | |
| Position | Staff | 290 | 72.1 |
| Manager | 111 | 27.6 | |
| Missing Value | 1 | 0.2 | |
| Working Years | Within 1 Year | 51 | 12.7 |
| 1–5 Years | 188 | 46.8 | |
| 6–10 Years | 106 | 26.4 | |
| More than 10 Years | 55 | 13.7 | |
| Missing Value | 2 | 0.5 |
Factor load matrix after rotation: the COVID-19 safety behavior scale.
| Dimensions | Items | Factor Load after Rotation | Variance Interpretation Rate | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor 1 | Factor 2 | |||
| Safety Obedience Behavior | 3 | 0.841 | 0.285 | 38.464% |
| 4 | 0.801 | 0.289 | ||
| 5 | 0.784 | 0.334 | ||
| 2 | 0.765 | 0.366 | ||
| 1 | 0.635 | 0.483 | ||
| Safety Participation Behavior | 8 | 0.266 | 0.889 | 32.681% |
| 9 | 0.290 | 0.828 | ||
| 7 | 0.411 | 0.680 | ||
| 6 | 0.433 | 0.600 | ||
| Cumulative Variance Interpretation Rate | 71.145% | |||
Results of confirmatory factor analysis.
| Fit Indices |
| χ2/df | GFI | RMSEA | RMR | CFI | NFI | NNFI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion | >0.05 | <3 | >0.9 | <0.10 | <0.05 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 |
| Psychological Contract | 0.000 | 2.621 | 0.953 | 0.063 | 0.018 | 0.969 | 0.951 | 0.959 |
| Job Burnout | 0.000 | 1.854 | 0.954 | 0.046 | 0.023 | 0.966 | 0.930 | 0.958 |
| Perceived Insider Status | 0.049 | 2.381 | 0.990 | 0.059 | 0.008 | 0.996 | 0.993 | 0.990 |
| Safety Behavior | 0.000 | 5.229 | 0.930 | 0.103 | 0.021 | 0.952 | 0.941 | 0.933 |
N = 402, GFI is goodness of fit index; RMSEA is root mean square error of approximation; RMR is root mean square residual; CFI is comparative fit index; NFI is normalize fit index; NNFI is non-normed fit index.
The results of correlation analysis.
| Variable | Psychological Contract | Job Burnout | Perceived Insider Status | Safety Behavior |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Psychological Contract | 1 | |||
| Job Burnout | −0.633 ** | 1 | ||
| Perceived Insider Status | 0.620 ** | −0.582 ** | 1 | |
| Safety Behavior | 0.629 ** | −0.580 ** | 0.508 ** | 1 |
N = 402, ** is significantly correlated at 0.01 level (bilateral).
Multiple linear regression analysis results of the variables.
| Outcome Variable | Job Burnout | Perceived Insider Status | Safety Behavior | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | Model 7 | Model 8 | Model 9 | Model 10 | |
| Gender | 0.010 | 0.012 | −0.032 | −0.046 | 0.038 | 0.026 | 0.039 | 0.030 | 0.052 | 0.033 |
| Age | −0.140 | −0.004 | 0.021 | 0.009 | −0.006 | −0.016 | −0.015 | −0.018 | −0.015 | −0.017 |
| Psychological Contract | −0.561 ** | 0.733 ** | 0.629 ** | 0.436 ** | 0.509 ** | |||||
| Job Burnout | −0.655 ** | −0.344 ** | ||||||||
| Perceived Insider Status | 0.432 ** | 0.164 ** | ||||||||
| R2 | 0.001 | 0.401 | 0.001 | 0.386 | 0.001 | 0.397 | 0.339 | 0.453 | 0.261 | 0.420 |
| ΔR2 | −0.004 | 0.396 | −0.004 | 0.381 | −0.004 | 0.392 | 0.334 | 0.447 | 0.255 | 0.414 |
| F | 0.140 | 88.772 ** | 0.290 | 83.430 ** | 0.267 | 87.306 ** | 67.909 ** | 82.054 ** | 46.745 * | 71.825 ** |
N = 402, * is significantly correlated at 0.05 level (bilateral), ** is significantly correlated at 0.01 level (bilateral).
Mediating effects of job burnout and perceived insider status.
| Effect | Effect Value | Boot S.E. | Boot LLCI | Boot ULCI | Proportion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 0.2394 | 0.0512 | 0.1395 | 0.3404 | 38.05% |
| Indirect effect 1 | 0.1709 | 0.0436 | 0.0872 | 0.2579 | 27.16% |
| Indirect effect 2 | 0.0685 | 0.0321 | 0.0063 | 0.1310 | 10.89% |
| Indirect effect 3 | 0.1025 | 0.0570 | −0.065 | 0.2183 | 16.29% |
N = 402, S.E. is standard error; LLCI is lower level of confidence interval; ULCI is upper level of confidence interval.
Figure 2Double mediating effect. N = 402, * is significantly correlated at 0.05 level (bilateral), ** is significantly correlated at 0.01 level (bilateral).