Group strength in safety performance: the effects of group characteristics on individual personality expression in high-speed railway operators

References

• Christian MS, Bradley JC, Wallace JC, et al. Workplace safety: a meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. J Appl Psychol. 2009;94(5):1103–1127. doi: 10.1037/a0016172
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ye L, Liu S, Chu F, et al. Effects of personality on job burnout and safety performance of high-speed rail drivers in China: the mediator of organizational identification. J Transp Saf Secur. 2019;1–19. doi:10.1080/19439962.2019.1667931
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabai BH, Bagheri M, Sadeghi-Firoozabadi V, et al. Evaluating the impact of train drivers’ cognitive and demographic characteristics on railway accidents. Safety Sci. 2018;110:162–167. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.03.027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo M, Liu SZ, Ye L, et al. Supervisory and coworker support for safety: buffers between job insecurity and safety performance of high-speed railway drivers in China. Safety Sci. 2019;117:290–298. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.04.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu F, Fu Y, Liu S. Organization is also a ‘life form’: organizational-level personality, job satisfaction, and safety performance of high-speed rail operators. Accident Anal Prev. 2019;125:217–223. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2019.01.027
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo M, Wei W, Liao G, et al. The impact of personality on driving safety among Chinese high-speed railway drivers. Accident Anal Prev. 2016;92:9–14. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2016.03.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Day DV, Silverman SB. Personality and job performance: evidence of incremental validity. Pers Psychol. 1989;42(1):25–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb01549.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant S, Langan-Fox J. Personality and the occupational stressor–strain relationship: the role of the Big Five. J Occup Health Psych. 2007;12(1):20–33. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judge TA, Rodell JB, Klinger RL, et al. Hierarchical representations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance: integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. J Appl Psychol. 2013;98(6):875–925. doi: 10.1037/a0033901
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke S, Robertson IT. A meta-analytic review of the Big Five personality factors and accident involvement in occupational and non-occupational settings. J Occup Organ Psych. 2005;78(3):355–376. doi: 10.1348/096317905X26183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jornetgibert M, Gallardopujol D, Suso C, et al. Attitudes do matter: the role of attitudes and personality in DUI offenders. Accident Anal Prev. 2013;50(1):445–450. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2012.05.023
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Barrick MR, Mount MK. The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Pers Psychol. 1991;44(1):1–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider RJ, Hough LM. Personality and industrial/organizational psychology. Int Rev Ind Organ Psych. 1995;10:75–130.
   Google Scholar
• Barrick MR, Mount MK. Yes, personality matters: moving on to more important matters. Hum Perform. 2005;18(4):359–372. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1804_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hough LM, Oswald FL. They’re right, well … mostly right: research evidence and an agenda to rescue personality testing from 1960s insights. Hum Perform. 2005;18(4):373–387. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1804_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt JA, Ogunfowora B, Bourdage JS. No person is an island: the effects of group characteristics on individual trait expression. J Organ Behav. 2012;33(7):925–945. doi: 10.1002/job.781
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell ST. Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2007;92:595–615. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prewett MS, Brown MI, Goswami A, et al. Effects of team personality composition on member performance: a multilevel perspective. Group Organ Manage. 2018;43(2):316–348. doi: 10.1177/1059601116668633
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beus JM, Muñoz GJ, Arthur W. Jr. Personality as a multilevel predictor of climate: an examination in the domain of workplace safety. Group Organ Manage. 2015;40(5):625–656. doi: 10.1177/1059601115576597
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tett RP, Burnett DD. A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88:500–517. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowers K S. Situationism in psychology: an analysis and a critique. Psychol Rev. 1973;80:307–336. doi: 10.1037/h0035592
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mischel W. The interaction of person and situation. In: D Magnussen, N Endler, editors. Personality at the crossroads: current issues in interactional psychology. Hillsdale (NJ): Erlbaum; 1977:333–352.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper WH, Withey MJ. The strong situation hypothesis. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2009;13(1):62–72. doi: 10.1177/1088868308329378
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaty JC Jr, Cleveland JN, Murphy KR. The relation between personality and contextual performance in ‘strong’ versus ‘weak’ situations. Hum Perform. 2001;14(2):125–148. doi: 10.1207/S15327043HUP1402_01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tett RP, Guterman HA. Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: testing a principle of trait activation. J Res Pers. 2000;34(4):397–423. doi: 10.1006/jrpe.2000.2292
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neal A, Griffin MA, Hart PM. The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behavior. Safety Sci. 2000;34(1):99–109. doi: 10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00008-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa PT, Mccrae RR. Four ways five factors are basic. Pers Indiv Differ. 1992;13(6):653–665. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen CP. Personality characteristics of the accident involved employee. J Bus Psychol. 1988;2(4):346–365. doi: 10.1007/BF01013766
   Google Scholar
• Lawton R, Parker D. Clinical protocols and risk management in the NHS: the patients’ perspective. Risk Decision Policy. 1998;3(3):199–211. doi: 10.1080/135753098348158
   Google Scholar
• John OP. The search for basic dimensions of personality. Advances Psychol Assess. 1990;7:1–37.
   Google Scholar
• John OP, Srivastava S. The Big Five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook Pers: Theory Res. 1999;2:102–138.
   Google Scholar
• Bing MN, Lounsbury JW. Openness and job performance in U.S. based Japanese manufacturing companies. J Bus Psychol. 2000;14(3):515–522. doi: 10.1023/A:1022940519157
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeYoung CG, Quilty LC, Peterson JB, et al. Openness to experience, intellect, and cognitive ability. J Persy Assess. 2014;96(1):46–52. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2013.806327
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bock GW, Zmud RW, Kim YG, et al. Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quart. 2005;29(1):87–111. doi: 10.2307/25148669
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judge TA, Zapata CP. The person–situation debate revisited: effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the Big Five personality traits in predicting job performance. Acad Manage J. 2015;58(4):1149–1179. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0837
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witt LA, Ferris GR. Social skill as moderator of the conscientiousness–performance relationship: convergent results across four studies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):809–820. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.809
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Brummelhuis L. Work engagement, performance, and active learning: the role of conscientiousness. J Vocat Behav. 2012;80(2):555–564. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.08.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng YH. Railway safety climate: a study on organizational development. Int J Occup Saf Ergo. 2019;25(2):200–206. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2017.1361591
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smillie LD, Deyoung CG, Hall PJ. Clarifying the relation between extraversion and positive affect. J Pers. 2015;83(5):564–574. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12138
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee K, Ashton MC, Shin KH. Personality correlates of workplace anti-social behavior. Appl Psychol-Int Rev. 2005;54:81–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00197.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuman GA, Wright J. Team effectiveness: beyond skills and cognitive ability. J Appl Psychol. 1999;84(3):376–389. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.376
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliver ML, Han K, Bos AJ, et al. The relationship between ADHD symptoms and driving behavior in college students: the mediating effects of negative emotions and emotion control. Transport Res F-Traf. 2015;30:14–21. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2015.01.005
   Google Scholar
• Jing G, Chengjun W, Faben LI, et al. Mechanism study of construction workers negative emotions and organizational safety performance based on safety climate. Constr Technol. 2018;47(17):127–132.
   Google Scholar
• Chraif M, Aniţei M, Burtăverde V, et al. The link between personality, aggressive driving, and risky driving outcomes – testing a theoretical model. J Risk Res. 2016;19(6):780–797. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2015.1042500
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manzoor A, Treur J. An agent-based model for integrated emotion regulation and contagion in socially affected decision making. Biol Inspir Cogn Arc. 2015;12:105–120.
   Google Scholar
• Smith ER, Conrey FR. Agent-based modeling: a new approach for theory building in social psychology. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2007;11(1):87–104. doi: 10.1177/1088868306294789
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei W, Guo M, Ye L, et al. Work–family conflict and safety participation of high-speed railway drivers: job satisfaction as a mediator. Accident Anal Prev. 2016;95(Pt A):97–103. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2016.06.022
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Matuszek PAC, Nelson DL, Quick JC. Gender differences in distress: are we asking all the right questions? J Soc Behav Pers. 1995;10(4):99.
   Google Scholar
• Miller K, Greyling M, Cooper C, et al. Occupational stress and gender: a cross-cultural study. Stress Medicine. 2000;16(5):271–278.
   Google Scholar
• Chan D. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: a typology of composition models. J Appl Psychol. 1998;83:234–246. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bliese PD, Maltarich MA, Hendricks JL. Back to basics with mixed-effects models: nine take-away points. J Bus Psychol. 2018;33(1):1–23. doi: 10.1007/s10869-017-9491-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West SG, Aiken LS, Krull JL. Experimental personality designs: Analyzing categorical by continuous variable interactions. J Pers. 1996;64(1):1–48.
   Google Scholar
• Tett RP, Christiansen NP. Personality tests at the crossroads: a response to Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, and Schmitt (2007). Pers Psychol. 2007;60:967–993. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00098.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LePine JA, Buckman BR, Crawford ER, et al. A review of research on personality in teams: accounting for pathways spanning levels of theory and analysis. Hum Resour Manage R. 2011;21:311–330. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beus JM, Dhanani LY, Mccord MA. A meta-analysis of personality and workplace safety: addressing unanswered questions. J Appl Psychol. 2015;100(2):481–498. doi: 10.1037/a0037916
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Triandis HC, Bontempo R, Villareal MJ, et al. Individualism and collectivism: cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54(2):323–338. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.323
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar