Journal of Occupational Health Psychology Copyright 2003 by the Educational Publishing Foundation

2003, Vol. 8, No. 4, 316 327 1076-8998/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1076-8998.8.4.316

Workplace Safety Performance: Conscientiousness,

Cognitive Failure, and Their Interaction
J. Craig Wallace Stephen J. Vodanovich
Georgia Institute of Technology University of West Florida

This research investigated the effects of cognitive failure on workplace safety and accidents over
2 studies. It was hypothesized that cognitive failure would directly predict safety behavior and
workplace accidents and predict these outcomes over and above conscientiousness. It was found
that cognitive failure uniquely accounted for workplace safety behavior and accidents. However,
it has been suggested by researchers that certain individual differences might interact to produce
differential effects. Thus, a moderated model was tested examining the interaction of cognitive
failure and conscientiousness. It was found that cognitive failure moderated the relationship
between conscientiousness and accidents and unsafe work behaviors. Overall, results suggest that
cognitive failure plays an important part in individual safety behavior, especially when consci-
entiousness is low.

Workplace accidents are reported to result in thou-
sands of deaths and permanent disabilities each year
in the United States, as well as increased accident-
related costs. For example, in 1982, accidents ac-
counted for nearly 100,000 deaths and 9 million
disabling injuries (National Safety Council, 1983). In
1998, there were almost 5,000 workplace deaths and
almost 4 million disabling injuries in the United
States. This has been equated to over $108 billion
being lost due to medical expenses, lost wages, and
administrative expenses (National Safety Council,
1999). Although the number of disabling injuries has
somewhat decreased over the past few years, the
occurrence of job-related accidents is still high.
A multitude of studies have examined the cogni-
tive aspects of accidents (e.g., Hale & Hale, 1972;
Hansen, 1988), with most of this research being
focused on differentiating worker characteristics.
Relatively recently, research has examined the rela-
tionship between the construct of cognitive failure
and accident rates (e.g., Larson, Alderton, Neideffer,
& Underhill, 1997; Larson & Merritt, 1991). How-
ever, studies investigating this relationship are fairly
J. Craig Wallace, School of Psychology, Georgia Institute
of Technology; Stephen J. Vodanovich, Department of Psy-
chology, University of West Florida.
This article was presented in April 2003 at the 18th
Annual Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology
Conference, Orlando, Florida.
We thank Gilad Chen for his helpful comments and
feedback.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to J. Craig Wallace, School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of
Technology, 654 Cherry Street, J. S. Coon Building, Atlanta,
Georgia 30332-0170. E-mail: CraigWallace@comcast.net
316
sparse. Thus, the purpose of the present study is
twofold. First, it is to explore and confirm the rela-
tionship among cognitive failure and conscientious-
ness, workplace safety behavior, and workplace ac-
cidents. Second, it is to test the moderating effect of
cognitive failure on the relationship between consci-
entiousness and workplace safety and accidents. Two
separate studies were conducted to examine these
issues.
Cognitive Failure
Reason (1988) stated that failures consist of two
unique classes: planning failures (e.g., mistakes) and
execution failures (e.g., cognitive failures). Cognitive
failure was conceptualized as an enduring traitlike
construct, and empirical work has supported this
view (Broadbent, Cooper, Fitzgerald, & Parkes,
1982; Vom Hofe, Mainemarre, & Vannier 1998).
Specifically, a cognitive failure has been described as
a breakdown in cognitive functioning that results in a
cognitively based mistake or error in task execution
that a person should normally be capable of complet-
ing (Martin, 1983), with some people being more
prone to experiencing cognitive failures than others
(Wallace, Kass, & Stanny, 2002). Reason (1988)
further stated that people prone to cognitive failure
might have a rigid attentional focus, thereby creating
a cognitive management style that is inflexible. Such
a style might allow for the occurrence of cognitive
breakdowns in dealing with intervening and concur-
rent stimuli. For instance, individuals with high lev-
els of cognitive failure may be relatively unaware of
dynamic or novel conditions or that incoming infor-
mation exceeds their attentional capacity while per-
 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND ACCIDENTS
forming tasks. This might be especially true in the
presence of task automization (Heckhausen & Beck-
mann, 1990). Additionally, accidents are commonly
the result of faulty cognitive/attentional processes
such as poor selective attention, mental errors, and
distractibility (Arthur, Barrett, & Alexander, 1991;
Hansen, 1989; Mihal & Barrett, 1976). Therefore, it
appears plausible that the occurrence of cognitive
failures and unsafe behaviors and accidents may be
significantly related (Wallace & Vodanovich, 2003).
Early research by Reason (e.g., 1977, 1979, 1984)
proposed that cognitive failures tend to occur under
familiar conditions in which tasks are automated and
a persons attention is externally or internally dis-
tracted or preoccupied. For example, accidentally
cheering for the opposing team, replacing the coffee
lid with the lid for the sugar (Manly, Robertson,
Galloway, & Hawkins, 1999), or throwing away a
book of unused matches and retaining the used match
(Broadbent et al., 1982) are all common, everyday
examples of cognitive failure. However, other more
serious cognitive failures have been studied by vari-
ous researchers (e.g., Broadbent et al., 1982; Reason,
1977, 1979), such as an air traffic controller over-
looking an inbound airplane, shutting down the lone
surviving engine when all other engines had failed,
and pilots plotting the flight course by the wrong end
of the compass needle.
Over the past few years the predictive ability of
ones proneness for cognitive failure, captured by the
Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ; Broadbent et
al., 1982), has been examined by correlating it with
several constructs. For instance, Reason and Lucas
(1984) found a positive relationship between cogni-
tive failure and absentminded shoplifting. Likewise,
Robertson, Manly, Andrade, Baddeley, and Yiend
(1997) and Wallace, Kass, and Stanny (2001) found
a significant negative relationship between cognitive
failure and performance on a no-go sustained at-
tention task (i.e., participants are required to withhold
a response). However, few studies have directly ex-
amined the relationship between cognitive failure and
workplace safety and accidents.
One such study that has been conducted in this area
found a significant, positive relationship between CFQ
scores and self-reports of work-related accidents (Wal-
lace & Vodanovich, 2003). The authors also found that
self-reports of accidents and safety behavior were sig-
nificantly correlated with more objective reports of ac-
cidents and safety (i.e., supervisor and organizational
records). To date, this is the only study that has directly
examined the relationship between cognitive failure and
occupational safety.
Some studies have examined the relationship be-
317
tween automobile accidents and CFQ scores. For
instance, Larson and Merritt (1991), after excluding
extreme number of automobile accidents (i.e., more
than eight accidents), found a positive relationship
between cognitive failure and self-reports of accident
rates. Similarly, Larson et al. (1997) found cognitive
failure to be positively related to reports of automo-
bile accidents, occurrences of hospitalizations, and
injuries from falling among a sample of United States
Naval recruits. Finally, congruent with the results of
Larson et al. (1997), Wallace and Vodanovich (2003)
reported a positive relationship between cognitive
failure and automobile accidents.
On the basis of this research, we believe that ones
proneness for cognitive failure will positively relate
to reports of on-the-job accidents as well as unsafe
workplace behaviors. We operationalized accidents
and unsafe work behaviors as separate outcomes be-
cause they have been shown to only moderately
relate to each other (Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996) and
because unsafe work behaviors do not necessarily
result in an accident. Thus, the following hypothesis
is presented to test and fill the gap in the literature
regarding accidents and unsafe work behaviors.
Hypothesis 1: Cognitive failure will positively
relate to workplace accidents and unsafe work
behaviors.
Conscientiousness, Safety Behavior,
and Accidents
Facets of personality have long been shown to
possess a great deal of utility in predicting job per-
formance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Salgado, 1997).
Specifically, the five-factor model (FFM) of person-
ality, which consists of Conscientiousness, Agree-
ableness, Extroversion, Openness to Experience, and
Emotional Stability (Costa & McRae, 1992; Gold-
berg, 1992), has been used by many investigators in
this context. In particular, conscientiousness has been
shown to predict job performance in studies across a
variety of occupations and occupational levels (Stew-
art, 1999), including meta-analytic studies (e.g., Bar-
rick & Mount, 1991; Salgado, 1997). A conscientious
person is believed to possess qualities that reflect
dependability (e.g., thorough, careful, organized, re-
sponsible), competence, and dutifulness as well as
volitional constructs such as hardworking and
achievement oriented that a variety of jobs require
(Barrick & Mount, 1991). However, only a handful
of studies have examined the relationship between
the FFM (and specifically conscientiousness) and
workplace accidents.
318 WALLACE AND VODANOVICH
In one study, Fallon, Avis, Kudisch, Gornet, and
Frost (2000) did not find a significant relationship
between conscientiousness and safety. Rather, con-
scientiousness significantly predicted overall perfor-
mance ratings, willingness to rehire, and employee
attendance. However, it should be noted that Fallon
et al.s sample consisted of retail salespersons
wherein the frequency of accidents is less common
than other occupations. Also, the measure of safety
behavior used in this study was combined with rat-
ings of integrity, which could compromise the accu-
racy of measurement of workplace safety behavior. A
more recent study reported a significant relationship
between accidents and conscientiousness (Cellar,
Nelson, Yorke, & Bauer, 2001). However, the sample
consisted solely of undergraduate students. Finally,
Arthur and Graziano (1996) found a significant, neg-
ative relationship between conscientiousness and be-
ing involved in driving accidents. That is, individuals
who rated themselves higher on the conscientious-
ness scale of the FFM were less likely to be involved
in automobile accidents than those who rated them-
selves lower on conscientiousness. Unlike Cellar et
al. (2001), Arthur and Graziano (1996) used both
undergraduates and employees from a temporary em-
ployment service.
These disparate results do not provide conclusive
evidence for the role of conscientiousness in predict-
ing safety behavior or accidents. Thus, one of the
goals of the present study was to demonstrate the
relationship between conscientiousness and occupa-
tional safety and accidents. It was anticipated that
conscientiousness would be negatively related to un-
safe behaviors and accidents as highly conscientious
individuals tend to exhibit behaviors that are more
reflective of on-task processes (e.g., organized, duti-
ful, careful), which we believe results in fewer acci-
dents and less engagement in unsafe work behaviors.
Specifically, the following hypothesis is presented:
Hypothesis 2: Conscientiousness will negatively
relate to unsafe work behaviors and workplace
accidents.
Cognitive Failure and Conscientiousness
Although previous work has found cognitive fail-
ure to be positively related to accidents (e.g., Larson
et al., 1997), a similar relationship has not been
explored between cognitive failure and safety behav-
ior. Nor has cognitive failure been shown to relate to
unsafe behavior and accidents after controlling for
more robust constructs such as conscientiousness.
Thus, another goal of the present study was to more
closely examine the relationship among cognitive
failure, unsafe behaviors, and accidents while con-
trolling for conscientiousness. This was done to de-
termine if ones proneness for cognitive failure
would account for unique variance in safety out-
comes beyond conscientiousness. It is believed that
cognitive failure would account for incremental vari-
ance in safety behavior and accidents over and above
conscientiousness scores. This is because the two
constructs can broadly be considered to reflect op-
posing regulatory styles. That is, highly conscien-
tiousness individuals are typically hard-working, dis-
ciplined, and organized, which has been shown to
lead to behaviors that are consistent with on-task
processes and behaviors (e.g., Barrick, Stewart, &
Piotrowski, 2002). Conversely, people with a higher
propensity for cognitive failure tend to be absent-
minded and forgetful, easily distracted, and com-
monly involved in slips of action, all of which are
consistent with off-task processes and behaviors,
which result in a poor cognitive management style
(Larson et al., 1997; Reason, 1988; Wallace et al.,
2002). Thus the following hypothesis is presented:
Hypothesis 3: Cognitive failure will account for
unique variance in workplace accidents and unsafe
work behaviors over and above conscientiousness.
Cognitive Failure Conscientiousness
Hansen (1989) suggested that the impact of poten-
tial mediating and moderating variables within the
individual differenceaccident relationship needs to
be explored. He further stated that such techniques
would allow researchers to elaborate on relationships
beyond typical accident research designs (see Han-
sen, 1988; Larson & Merritt, 1991). Recently, Witt,
Burke, Barrick, and Mount (2002) demonstrated the
moderating effects of conscientiousness and agree-
ableness in predicting job performance. It was found
that highly conscientiousness individuals who also
tended to be high on agreeableness received higher
performance scores as opposed to those who were
high on conscientiousness and low on agreeableness.
In a similar study, Tziner, Murphy, and Cleveland
(2002) found that conscientiousness actually moder-
ated the relationship between rater attitudes and rater
behavior when assessing worker performance. These
findings highlight the possible interaction effects of
stable individual differences and the different predic-
tive ability of the constructs at different levels.
Applying such theoretical reasoning to the present
study, and heeding the request of Hansen (1989), it
seems likely that conscientiousness and cognitive
 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND ACCIDENTS
failure might interact in a similar way. Reason (1988)
stated that people prone to cognitive failure are not
able to handle interfering stimuli during task engage-
ment. Consequently, these individuals fail to com-
plete the task. Highly conscientious individuals, in
contrast, tend to be more task-oriented, organized,
diligent, methodical, and purposeful (Witt et al.,
2002). They repeatedly check their progress, which is
likely to lead to less errors and ultimately to less
accidents. This suggests that conscientiousness
would be negatively related to unsafe work behaviors
and accidents at higher levels of cognitive failure. In
other words, if individuals are low on conscientious-
ness, then an additional scattiness, through high
propensity for cognitive failure, might lead to higher
rates of unsafe work behaviors and accidents. Indi-
viduals who are high on conscientiousness might be
able to overcome a propensity for committing a cog-
nitive failure by tending to engage in behaviors that
would reduce the occurrence of accidents. Addition-
ally, because conscientiousness is considered to be an
integral part of the most basic personality taxonomy
(Hough & Schneider, 1996), we believe its relation-
ship to safety will be moderated by cognitive failure.
Thus the following hypothesis is presented:
Hypothesis 4: Cognitive failure will moderate
the relationship between conscientiousness and
unsafe work behaviors and accidents such that
the negative relationship between conscientious-
ness and unsafe work behaviors and accidents
will be stronger at higher levels of cognitive
failure than at lower levels.
To examine and clarify these issues and test the
proposed hypotheses, we conducted two separate
studies in an effort to increase the generalizability of
the findings. Specifically, we examined the hypothe-
sized relationships using a sample of full-time pro-
duction workers and a sample of military machinists.
Study 1
Method
Participants and Procedure
A sample of 219 production workers located in the south-
eastern United States participated in the present study.
Within the sample, 91 participants were female, and the
mean age was 33.2 years (SD 6.5). Employees were
responsible for various activities in the facility that ranged
from maintenance to assembly-line work. However, all of
the participants were involved in the production of the
organizations product (i.e., chemical production). The av-
erage experience level of the sample was found to be 4.4
319
years, with 83% claiming safety was a major concern in
their job and only 8% claiming safety was of no concern.
All of the participants completed the measures described
below (i.e., CFQ, safety questionnaire, accident data sheet,
and conscientiousness measure) in a single session. Each
employee was sent a message by e-mail that contained a
link to a secure Web page on which the measures and their
corresponding directions were located. Participants had
been informed prior to receiving the e-mail that a study was
being conducted that could help create a safer working
environment and were encouraged to participate. Participa-
tion was voluntary, and all data were collected anony-
mously. Each employee was also informed that no other
employee of the organization would be allowed access to
individual reports. Participants completed the survey at their
leisure. Reminders were sent out 1 week after initial recruit-
ment e-mails. Two-hundred fifty workers were contacted,
which resulted in a return rate of 75.6%. After completing
the survey, participants were directed to another Web page
that provided debriefing information and contact informa-
tion if they desired further information.
Again, it should also be noted that both unsafe work
behaviors and workplace accidents were treated as separate
outcomes given previous research that has found only a
moderate relationship between the two, which suggests that
these behaviors are relatively distinct (e.g., Hechanova-
Alampay & Beehr, 2001; Hoffman & Stetzer, 1996). Thus,
we examined these behaviors separately to more closely
examine the relationship conscientiousness and cognitive
failure might share with both unsafe behaviors and
accidents.
Materials
CFQ. The CFQ (Broadbent et al., 1982) comprises 25
items that inquire about a persons minor mistakes (e.g.,
physical blunders, forgetfulness, and distractibility) in ev-
eryday life over the past 6 months to assess ones proneness
for cognitive failure. Although there was originally no time
period included with the instructions on the CFQ, the au-
thors of the CFQ found that participants were unclear re-
garding how to reply to the items on the scale. In addition,
it was believed that this time period might be sensitive to
temporary state rather than underlying trait . . . and, thus
useful as an indicator of occupational stresses (Broadbent
et al., 1982, p. 3). However, Broadbent et al. (1982) con-
cluded that the CFQ appears to measure a general liability
to failure (p. 13) and, after further administrations of the
CFQ, they decided that a 6-month time frame was optimal
to use when asking participants to complete the scale
(Broadbent et al., 1982). Subsequent research has continued
to use this 6-month time frame (e.g., Martin, 1983; Reason
& Lucas, 1984; Wallace & Vodanovich, 2003), and test
retest reliability results tend to support the stability of the
construct (e.g., r .82 over a 2-month time period; Vom
Hofe et al., 1998). The internal consistency of the CFQ in
the present study was .90. Additionally, the CFQ has been
correlated with a number of other constructs such as Type A
behavior pattern, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder,
boredom proneness (Wallace et al., 2002), and vigilance
performance (Robertson et al., 1997; Wallace et al., 2001).
Workplace Safety Questionnaire. Hoffman and Stetzers
(1996) Workplace Safety Questionnaire was used as a mea-
sure of safety behavior and performance. It contains 29
items that relate to improper tool use, improper work strat-
320 WALLACE AND VODANOVICH
egies, inappropriate personal protection equipment, and im-
proper storage of tools. A high score on the measure con-
stitutes unsafe work behavior. Hoffman and Stetzer reported
the coefficient alpha of the scale to be .89 for the entire
scale. In the present study the internal consistency was .83.
Accident data. Participants were asked to complete a
short questionnaire devised for the present study pertaining
to their work history. Specifically, the following question
was asked: How many work-related accidents (i.e., minor
and major accidents) have you been responsible for causing
over the last 3 years? Examples of work-related accidents
were provided to participants in an effort to provide them
with the range of accidents that were considered minor
and major. For example, a minor accident was described
as something that delayed the completion of a project but
did not result in bodily harm requiring medical attention
beyond basic first aid. An example of a major accident was
a bodily injury in which medical attention was required or in
which equipment was damaged. Major accidents are similar
to the notion of microaccidents as described by Zohar
(2000). We inquired about accidents over the 3 years as
accidents are not overly common in short durations (e.g., 3
months) and aggregated minor and major accidents into a
single outcome (i.e., accidents). This was also done in an
effort to overcome the problem associated with skewed
distributions commonly associated with accident data (Zo-
har, 2000, 2002). However, an examination of the accident
distribution found a positively skewed distribution. There-
fore, we performed a square-root transformation on the
accident data. Similar to Hofmann and Stetzer (1996), both
the raw and transformed accident data are analyzed and
presented.
The use of self-report accident data is consistent with the
approach used by Larson and Merritt (1991) and Larson et
al. (1997) in their examination of the association between
cognitive failures and accident/injury rate. Additionally,
Hoffman and Stetzer (1996) and Wallace and Vodanovich
(2003) have demonstrated that self-report and objective
reports of accidents and safety are significantly related (e.g.,
r .65).
Conscientiousness. Sauciers (1994) Mini-Markers,
which is a brief version of Goldbergs (1992) Big-Five
Adjective Checklist, was used as a measure of the FFM;
specifically, the Conscientiousness scale was used (
.85). Goldbergs (1992) measure of the FFM has been
correlated with other measures of the FFM such as the
NEOPersonality Inventory and has been shown to have
validity coefficients ranging from .50 to .70 for like factors.
Additionally, Goldbergs five factors have been validated
against the Hogan Personality Inventory (see Goldberg,
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Correlations for Study 1
Variable M SD
1. Cognitive failure 38.04 13.65
2. Unsafe behavior 37.03 13.34
3. Accidents 2.73 5.74
4. Conscientiousness 30.41 5.23
5. Transformed accidents 0.97 1.02
Note. Reliabilities are presented in parentheses on the diagonal.
* p .05.
1992). Similarly, the Mini-Marker (Saucier, 1994) also
demonstrated strong correlations with the NEOFive-Factor
Inventory with correlations ranging from .54 to .70 (Moo-
radian & Nezlek, 1996).
Results
It was proposed that cognitive failure scores would
be positively related to workplace accidents and un-
safe behaviors (Hypothesis 1). Correlation analyses
fully supported this hypothesis (see Table 1). Signif-
icant, positive relationships emerged between cogni-
tive failure and accidents (raw r .29, p .05;
transformed r .35, p .05) as well as between
cognitive failure and unsafe work behaviors (r .31,
p .05).
Hypothesis 2 proposed that a negative relationship
would exist between conscientiousness and work-
place accidents and unsafe work behaviors, respec-
tively. Correlation analysis indicated full support for
these hypotheses as well. Specifically, significant
negative relationships were found between conscien-
tiousness and accidents (raw r .17, p .05;
transformed r .17, p .05) and between consci-
entiousness and unsafe work behaviors (r .33,
p .05).
To examine the impact that cognitive failure has
on safety performance, we conducted two hierarchi-
cal regression analyses. Initially, the predictive utility
of cognitive failure was tested for its unique impact
on workplace accidents over and above conscien-
tiousness (see Table 2). Conscientiousness was en-
tered in the first step of the equation and was found to
be a significant predictor, F(1, 191) 5.4, p .05.
At the second step, cognitive failure was entered into
the equation and was also found to be significant,
F(2, 190) 10.6, p .05. The final model accounted
for 10% of the variance in workplace accidents.
Thus, cognitive failure uniquely accounted for 7% of
the variance in workplace accidents over and above
1 2 3 4 5
(.90)
.31* (.83)
.29* .20*
.32* .33* .17* (.85)
.35* .28* .87* .17*
 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND ACCIDENTS
Table 2
Regression of Safety Behavior and Accidents on
Conscientiousness and Cognitive Failure
Variable t R2 R2 F
Accidents (raw)
Step 1
C .17 2.32* .028 .028 5.40*
Step 2
C .08 1.03
CF .29 3.93* .101 .073 10.63*
Unsafe behaviors
Step 1
C .34 4.97* .116 .116 24.72*
Step 2
C .26 3.74*
CF .24 3.35* .166 .05 18.65*
Accidents (transformed)
Step 1
C .17 2.34* .03 .03 5.46*
Step 2
C .06 0.77
CF .35 4.95* .14 .11 15.36*
Note. Degrees of freedom for Step 1 F(1, 191), t(191);
for Step 2 F(2, 190), t(190). C conscientiousness;
CF cognitive failure.
* p .05.
conscientiousness using the raw accident data (see
Table 2). When examining the transformed data, the
same pattern of results were obtained, F(2, 190)
15.4, R2 .11, p .05.
A hierarchical regression was also conducted to
examine the utility of cognitive failure in the predic-
tion of unsafe work behaviors. The first step in the
analysis regressed unsafe work behaviors on consci-
entiousness. This model was found to be significant,
F(1, 191) 24.7, p .05. On the second step,
cognitive failure was added to the equation. The
model was found to be significant, F(2, 190) 18.6,
p .05, accounting for 16% of the variance in unsafe
work behaviors with cognitive failure uniquely ac-
counting for 5% of the variance. These results sup-
ported Hypothesis 3.
Lastly, Hypothesis 4 was tested. However, we
centered the variables before creating the interaction
terms to control for any spurious effects (Bell &
Kozlowski, 2002; Cohen & Cohen, 1983). At the first
step of the moderated regression analysis, cognitive
failure and conscientiousness were entered into the
equation, which proved to be significant predictors of
raw accidents (p .05), transformed accidents (p
.05), and unsafe behaviors (p .05). At the second
step, the interaction term was entered into the equa-
tion. However, when examining the significance of
321
the interaction term, we found that the interaction of
cognitive failure and conscientiousness was signifi-
cant for unsafe behaviors, t(189) 2.94, p .05, but
was only marginally significant for accidents, raw
t(189) 1.89, p .061; transformed t(189)
1.72, p .09. These results partially supported
Hypothesis 4 (see Table 3). Also see Figures 1 and 2.
These results generally supported all proposed hy-
potheses. However, the analyses did not control for
certain descriptive variables that might influence the
results. For example, experience has been shown to
influence ones safety behavior (Frone, 1998). This
could happen for several reasons such as prior in-
volvement in accidents and subsequent learning from
such experiences (Rundmo, 1995) or the develop-
ment of informal safety rules and procedures that
employees only develop with experience (Greenberg,
1971). Similarly, age and gender have also been
suggested to differentially relate to occupational
safety. For example, Kingma (1994) pointed out that
most occupational accidents occur to those who are
younger (i.e., under 19), and some recent empirical
work has supported this suggestion. Specifically,
Barling, Loughlin, and Kelloway (2002) reported a
weak negative correlation between age and work
injuries and safety-related events. With regard to
gender, several significant relationships with acci-
Table 3
Regression of Interaction on Safety Outcomes:
Study 1
Variable t R2 R2 F
Accidents (raw)
Step 1
C .08 1.03
CF .29 3.93* .10 .10 10.63*
Step 2
C CF .63 1.89 .12 .02 8.64*
Unsafe behaviors
Step 1
C .26 3.74*
CF .24 3.35* .15 .15 18.65*
Step 2
C CF .93 2.94* .19 .04 15.82*
Accidents (transformed)
Step 1
C .06 4.95*
CF .35 0.78 .13 .13 15.36*
Step 2
C CF .52 1.72 .15 .02 11.17*
Note. Degrees of freedom for Step 1 F(2, 190), t(190);
for Step 2 F(3, 189), t(189). C conscientiousness;
CF cognitive failure.
p .10. * p .05.
322 WALLACE AND VODANOVICH

dents have been found (Barling, Kelloway, & Iverson,

2003; Iverson & Erwin, 1997), with men tending to
be involved in more accidents than women (Frone,
1998). Although these relationships are important to
consider, they are not a primary focus of the present
study. However, we felt that these variables needed to
be controlled for in follow-up analyses to more fully
ascertain if the relationships found in this study still
exist after the inclusion of certain control variables.
Therefore, we conducted follow-up analyses con-
trolling for age, gender, and job experience in assess- Figure 2. Effects of Consciousness Cognitive Failure
(CF) on work accidents in Study 1.
ing Hypotheses 3 and 4. Hypothesis 3 was still sup-
ported when controlling for age, gender, and job
experience in predicting raw accidents (p .05),
transformed accidents (p .05), and unsafe behav-
iors (p .05). Cognitive failure significantly ac-
and Graziano (1996) in their examination of consci-
counted for 8% of the variance in raw accidents, 7%
entiousness and accident involvement. However,
in transformed accidents, and 5% of the variance in
only partial support was found for Hypothesis 4. That
unsafe behaviors over and above all other variables.
is, the moderating effect of cognitive failure and
The same pattern of results was also obtained when
conscientiousness was only moderately significant
reexamining Hypothesis 4. Specifically, the interac-
for accidents. However, tests for moderation are no-
tion term was found to be significant for unsafe
toriously low on power, and the sample used was not
behaviors (p .05). As before, the interaction term
very large. This was part of the impetus for conduct-
for raw accidents (p .09) and transformed accident
ing Study 2 that used a larger sample.
data (p .10) was only marginally significant.
As with previous studies investigating accidents,
one possible shortcoming of Study 1 is the use of
Discussion self-reports of accidents. However, as stated previ-
ously, several researchers have found empirical evi-
The results provide support that cognitive failure is
dence that self-reports of accidents are significantly
related to safety behavior and workplace accidents.
related to more objective reports of accidents. Addi-
This was still the case when controlling for a number
tionally, Grunberg, Moore, and Greenberg (1996)
of variables (i.e., age, gender, experience, and con-
and Barling et al. (2003) have argued adamantly that
scientiousness). In reaching this hypothesis, we
workers have no basis to falsify injury reports and
found that cognitive failure is positively related to
that it is possible that objective organizational reports
workplace accidents and unsafe behaviors, whereas
may systematically underestimate the occurrence of
conscientiousness is negatively related to unsafe
such accidents. However, research is needed to in-
work behaviors and accidents. This lends support for
vestigate this possible limitation. For instance, it is
the results found by Cellar et al. (2001) and Arthur
possible that people who observe themselves better
and describe themselves more realistically (e.g.,
higher propensity for cognitive failure) may also re-
port more areas in which they are not conscientious.
Thus, they may perceive a higher rate of accidents
and unsafe behaviors as much as they perceive their
own mistakes.1 Thus, Study 2 used more objective
reports of these outcomes in an effort to overcome
such limitations. Additionally, Study 2 was also con-
ducted to overcome the possibility of contamination.
That is, our treatment and assessment of minor acci-
dents (e.g., delayed completion of work, first aid-
based medical attention) might be contaminated by

Figure 1. Effects of Consciousness Cognitive Failure 1

We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this
(CF) on unsafe work behaviors in Study 1. alternative explanation.
 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND ACCIDENTS
certain CFQ items that inquire about physical mis-
takes and blunders (e.g., do you drop things?).
Study 2
This study was designed to replicate the findings in
Study 1 by retesting the four hypotheses presented
using a different sample. Additionally, this study
used supervisor and organizational reports of unsafe
behaviors and accidents to overcome the limitation of
self-reported outcomes used in Study 1.
Method
Participants
A sample of 263 enlisted military personnel participated
in this study. Participants were machinists/mechanics who
worked on aviation equipment (e.g., airplanes, helicopters).
Within the sample, 208 participants were male with an
average age of 24.26 years (SD 5.91). The sample con-
sisted of 89% Caucasian, 4% African American, 3% His-
panic, 2% Asian, and 2% other or nondisclosed. Addition-
ally, 78% of the sample believed that safety was a major
concern in the workplace, 11% felt it was a moderate
concern, and 10% felt it was of no concern. Also, during
data collection we were informed that safety had been a
serious concern in this area of work for quite some time,
which is congruent with the 78% believing that safety was
a major concern in their work.
Materials and Procedure
The same materials used in Study 1 were used in the
present study. However, the general measure of unsafe work
behaviors (Hoffman & Stetzer, 1996) was used to facilitate
data collection. That is, supervisors were requested to com-
plete the survey to overcome the problem of common
source variance associated with self-reports. The measure of
unsafe work behaviors ( .82) contains six items that are
found on the complete 29-item version but rather pertain to
unsafe behaviors in general (e.g., Generally rushing
through a job due to time pressure thereby increasing risk to
yourself). Additionally, immediate supervisors (noncom-
missioned officers) were requested to report the number of
recordable injuries each worker had on his or her record for
the past 2 years (i.e., 2000 2001). Eleven supervisors com-
pleted the safety ratings and provided reports of accidents.
Accidents in Study 2 were more consistent with Zohars
(2000, 2002) conceptualization of microaccidents (i.e., ac-
cidents requiring at least minor medical attention). Such
accidents were categorized as major accidents in Study 1.
Unlike Study 1, a test of the distribution of microaccidents
revealed that it was uniformly distributed. Each worker
separately completed the Conscientiousness scale of Sauc-
iers (1994) FFM measure and the CFQ. Complete results
were available from 236 workersupervisor pairs, which
equates to a response rate of 89%.
323
Results
To assess the hypotheses presented in the present
article, we used the same analytic procedures as
described in Study 1. Again, the data were centered
before creating the interaction term to control for any
spurious effects (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Chen,
Gully, Whiteman, & Kilcullen, 2000; Cohen & Co-
hen, 1983). Using the centered data, we obtained the
same pattern of results in the present study as in
Study 1 (see Table 4) except that full support was
obtained for all hypotheses. Specifically, a positive
relationship emerged between cognitive failure and
accidents (r .23, p .05) and unsafe work behav-
iors (r .32, p .05), whereas a negative relation-
ship emerged between conscientiousness and acci-
dents (r .14, p .05) and unsafe work behaviors
(r .29, p .05).
Additionally, we replicated the results found
regarding the uniqueness of cognitive failure in
accounting for accidents, F(2, 233) 10.47, p
.001, with cognitive failure uniquely accounting
for 6.2% of the variance over and above conscien-
tiousness (see Table 5). We also replicated the
results regarding unsafe work behaviors in that
cognitive failure uniquely accounted for 6.7% of
the variance in unsafe work behaviors, F(2, 233)
20.23, p .001.
To test the interaction between cognitive failure
and conscientiousness, we again used hierarchical
regression. We found that cognitive failure moder-
ated the relationship between conscientiousness and
unsafe work behaviors, t(232) 1.95, p .05; see
Table 6). Additionally, the interaction was found to
be a significant predictor of accidents, t(232)
2.68, p .05. These results fully support Hypoth-
esis 4 in that the negative relationships between con-
scientiousness and accidents and unsafe work behav-
iors were stronger at a higher propensity for cognitive
failure than at lower levels (see Figures 3 and 4).
Similar to Study 1, we conducted follow-up anal-
yses to determine if the results would hold after
considering additional variables. Again, we con-
trolled for age, gender, and job experience. Hypoth-
esis 3 was still supported for accidents (p .05)
and unsafe behaviors (p .05), with cognitive
failure accounting for 7% of the variance in accidents
and unsafe behaviors over and above all other vari-
ables. Hypothesis 4 was also supported in the fol-
low-up analyses. The interaction term was still sig-
nificant for unsafe behaviors (p .05) and accidents
(p .05).
324 WALLACE AND VODANOVICH

Table 4
Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Correlations for Study 2
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4
1. Cognitive failure 38.26 13.4 (.90)
2. Unsafe behavior 10.81 4.1 .32* (.82)
3. Accidents 2.23 0.5 .23* .21*
4. Conscientiousness 30.30 5.3 .28** .29* .14* (.81)
Note. Reliabilities are presented in parentheses on the diagonal.
* p .05. ** p .01.

Discussion mitting cognitive failures and might have a rigid

Empirical support was found for the moderating
role of cognitive failure in the relationship between
conscientiousness and unsafe work behaviors and
accidents. Specifically, the impact of cognitive fail-
ure on accidents and unsafe behaviors is much stron-
ger for those who score low on conscientious. In
other words, cognitive failure scores are more pre-
dictive of workplace safety problems when individ-
uals are relatively deficient in conscientiousness. This
finding may suggest that personality tendencies such
as cognitive failure should be considered when exam-
ining models of accident occurrence and prevention.
These results are supportive of the findings reported by
Cellar et al. (2001) in their examination of the rela-
tionship between accidents and conscientiousness.
Additionally, Study 2 confirmed the results of
Study 1 using different criteria measurements. How-
ever, it would be useful for future studies to identify
additional mediating and moderating variables (e.g.,
negative affect, boredom) that may facilitate or
hinder other such relationships. The relationships
identified in the present study suggest a moderate link
among conscientiousness, cognitive failure, safety
behavior, and accidents. To reiterate, Reason (1988)
stated that certain individuals are more prone to com-
attentional focus that creates a cognitive management
style that is inflexible. Such an inflexible cognitive
management style might allow for greater occur-
rences of cognitive failure in dealing with intervening
and concurrent stimuli. In the present studies, it is
possible that mechanical and production workers
with high levels of cognitive failure might be prone
to commit a mistake in their work when faced with
new stimuli as these stimuli exceed their ability to
attend to a given operation, especially when the task
has been automated (Heckhausen & Beckmann, 1990).
It has been noted that interfering stimuli could be
the result of self-regulatory strategies that consume
cognitive resources in such a fashion that it does not
permit the successful completion of the behavior
(Kanfer, Ackerman, Murtha, Dugdale, & Nelson,
1994). This suggests that people prone to committing
cognitive failure may engage in more off-task pro-
cesses when executing tasks, which could be a me-
diating link between ones propensity for cognitive
failures and safety-related outcomes. Specifically, it
is believed that more distal traits (e.g., conscientious-
ness and cognitive failure) relate to outcomes such as
accidents and unsafe behaviors through more proxi-
mal states (e.g., off-task behaviors). It could also be

Table 5
Regression of Safety Behavior and Accidents on Conscientiousness and Cognitive Failure
Accidents Unsafe behaviors
Variable t R 2
R 2
F t R2 R2 F
Step 1
C .16 2.39* .026 .026 5.73* .30 4.67* .092 .092 21.86*
Step 2
C .08 1.12 .21 3.26*
CF .26 3.85* .088 .062 10.47* .27 4.12* .159 .067 20.23*
Note. Degrees of freedom for Step 1 F(1, 234), t(234); for Step 2 F(2, 233), t(233). C conscientiousness; CF
cognitive failure.
* p .05.
 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND ACCIDENTS 325

Table 6
Regression of Interaction on Safety Behavior and Accidents for Study 2
Accidents Unsafe behaviors
Variable t R2 R2 F t R2 R2 F
Step 1
C .27 4.12* .08 3.85*
CF .21 3.27* .159 .159 20.23* .26 1.12 .09 10.47*
Step 2
C CF .17 2.68* .186 .027 16.26* .13 1.95* .103 .015 8.3*
Note. Degrees of freedom for Step 1 F(2, 233), t(233); for Step 2 F(3, 232), t(232). C conscientiousness; CF
cognitive failure.
* p .05.

that constructs such as boredom or fatigue (Wallace
& Vodanovich, 2003) could greatly impact ones
safety behavior regardless of personality, motiva-
tional, or cognitive tendencies, especially in highly
monotonous work environments or jobs that require
sustained attention. Future studies of this type may
help to reduce the frequency of on-the-job accidents
and prevent injuries, especially in highly safety-sen-
sitive jobs such as air traffic controllers, truck drivers,
and airline pilots. Similarly, people scoring high on
measures of this nature may benefit from possible
interventions aimed at reducing a rigid cognitive
management style, thus possibly allowing these indi-
viduals to be better suited to handle novel stimuli in
familiar tasks and environments. However, before
using such an approach, future research should be
conducted to provide researchers and practitioners
alike a better understanding of cognitively based mis-
takes and their relationship to accidents.
Finally, it is important to note limitations that exist
in Study 2. One possible limitation are the ratings
provided by supervisors. It is possible that ratings
were subject to halo errors by supervisors assuming
that those with a tendency to be more absentminded
or scattered (i.e., higher rate of cognitive failures)
were those likely to be involved in more accidents.
An additional limitation is that the sample contained
a large portion of men. Future research should exam-
ine the relationships found in the present studies
using more diverse samples that are more represen-
tative of the general population as opposed to the
military, which is typically male dominated.
Conclusion
The results of the present investigation have
greatly expanded the work of other researchers in-
vestigating workplace safety. However, further in-
vestigations are needed that identify additional me-
diating and boundary conditions that may affect
accident rates as the effect sizes in the present study
are moderate and allow room for additional con-
structs to be included when predicting occupational
safety. For instance, similar to the research on auto-
mobile accidents, it is possible that other personality
traits and individual differences, such as Type A
behavior pattern (Magnavita et al., 1997), may mod-

Figure 3. Effects of Consciousness Cognitive Failure Figure 4. Effects of Consciousness Cognitive Failure
(CF) on unsafe work behaviors in Study 2. (CF) on work accidents in Study 2.
326 WALLACE AND VODANOVICH
erate this relationship. Additionally, there is the issue
of temporal order of the data in the present research.
That is, we used currently collected data to predict
archival data, which does not allow for strong causal
inferences. It would be beneficial for future research
to collect temporally ordered data to overcome this
limitation. Regardless, the present study has appre-
ciably expanded earlier studies in safety research
(e.g., Larson & Merritt 1991; Reason, 1984) and
confirmed the findings of others (e.g., Wallace &
Vodanovich, 2003) by demonstrating the ability of
cognitive failure and conscientiousness to predict un-
safe work behaviors and workplace accidents using
both self-report and objective criteria. Additionally,
this research used two distinct samples, which adds
support and stability for the external validity of the
results. We hope other researchers will be able to use
this study as a stepping stone to gain further insight
into work safety and help continue to reduce the
number of workplace accidents.
References
Arthur, W., Barrett, G. V., & Alexander, R. A. (1991).
Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: A meta-
analysis. Human Performance, 4, 89 105.
Arthur, W., & Graziano, W. G. (1996). The five-factor
model, conscientiousness, and driving accident involve-
ment. Journal of Personality, 63, 593 618.
Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & Iverson, R. D. (2003). High
quality work, job satisfaction, and occupational injuries.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 276 283.
Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). De-
velopment and test of a model linking safety-specific
transformational leadership and occupational safety.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 488 496.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five
personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-
analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 126.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002).
Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating
effects of motivation among sales representatives. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 87, 4351.
Bell, S. B., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2002). Goal orientation
and ability: Interactive effects on self-efficacy, perfor-
mance, and knowledge. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87, 497505.
Broadbent, D. E., Cooper, P. F., Fitzgerald, P., & Parkes,
K. R. (1982). The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire
(CFQ) and its correlates. British Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 21, 116.
Cellar, D. F., Nelson, Z. C., Yorke, C. M., & Bauer, C.
(2001). The five-factor model and safety in the work-
place: Investigating the relationships between personality
and accident involvement. Journal of Prevention and
Intervention in the Community, 22, 4352.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., Whiteman, J., & Kilcullen, R. N.
(2000). Examination of relationships among trait-like
individual differences, state-like individual differences,
and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 85, 835 847.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/
correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R profes-
sional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Fallon, J. D., Avis, J. M., Kudisch, J. D., Gornet, T. P., &
Frost, A. (2000). Conscientiousness as a predictor of
productive and counterproductive behaviors. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 15, 339 349.
Frone, M. R. (1998). Predictors of work injuries among
employed adolescents. Journal of Applied Psychology,
83, 565576.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the
big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4,
26 42.
Greenberg, L. (1971). Learning as a factor in accident
experience. Personnel Psychology, 24, 7176.
Grunberg, L., Moore, S., & Greenberg, E. (1996). The
relationship of employee ownership and participation to
workplace safety. Economic and Industrial Democracy,
17, 221241.
Hale, A. R., & Hale, M. (1972). A review of the industrial
accident literature. London: Her Majestys Stationery
Office.
Hansen, C. P. (1988). Personality characteristics of the
accident involved employee. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 2, 346 365.
Hansen, C. P. (1989). A causal model of the relationship
among accidents, biodata, personality, and cognitive fac-
tors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 8190.
Hechanova-Alampay, R., & Beehr, T. A. (2001). Empow-
erment, span of control, and safety performance in work
teams after workforce reduction. Journal of Occupa-
tional Health Psychology, 6, 275 -282.
Heckhausen, H., & Beckman, J. (1990). Intentional action
and action slips. Psychological Review, 97, 36 48.
Hoffman, D. A., & Stetzer, A. (1996). A cross-level inves-
tigation of factors influencing unsafe behaviors and ac-
cidents. Personnel Psychology, 49, 306 339.
Hough, L. M., & Schneider, R. J. (1996). Personality traits,
taxonomies, and applications in organizations. In K. R.
Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in
organizations (pp. 31 88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Iverson, R. D., & Erwin, P. J. (1997). Predicting occupa-
tional injury: The role of affectivity. Journal of Occupa-
tional and Organizational Psychology, 70, 113128.
Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L., Murtha, T. C., Dugdale, B., &
Nelson, L. (1994). Goal setting, conditions of practice,
and task performance: A resource allocation perspective.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 826 835.
Kingma, J. (1994). Causes of occupational injuries. Percep-
tual and Motor Skills, 79, 10251026.
Larson, G. E., Alderton, D. L., Neideffer, M., & Underhill,
E. (1997). Further evidence on dimensionality and cor-
relates of the cognitive failures questionnaire. British
Journal of Psychology, 88, 29 38.
Larson, G. E., & Merritt, C. R. (1991). Can accidents be
predicted? An empirical test of the cognitive failures
questionnaire. Applied Psychology: An International Re-
view, 40, 37 45.
Maganavita, N., Narda, R., Sani, L., Carbone, A., Lorenzo,
G. D., & Sacco, A. (1997). Type-A behavior pattern and
traffic accidents. British Journal of Medical Psychology,
70, 103107.
 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND ACCIDENTS
Manly, T., Robertson, I. H., Galloway, M., & Hawkins, K.
(1999). The absent mind: Further investigations of sus-
tained attention to response. Neuropsychologia, 37,
661 670.
Martin, M. (1983). Cognitive failure: Everyday and labora-
tory performance. Bulletin of Psychonomic Society, 21,
97100.
Mihal, W., & Barrett, G. V. (1976). Individual differences
in perceptual information processing and their relation to
automobile accident involvement. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 61, 229 233.
Mooradian, T. A., & Nezlek, J. B. (1996). Comparing the
NEO-FFI and Sauciers Mini-Markers as measures of the
big five. Personality and Individual Differences, 21,
213215.
National Safety Council. (1983). Accident facts 1983 edi-
tion. Chicago: Author.
National Safety Council. (1999). Injury facts 1999 edition.
Itasca, IL: Author.
Reason, J. T. (1977). Skill and error in everyday life. In M.
Howe (Ed.), Adult learning. London: Wiley.
Reason, J. T. (1979). Actions not as planned: The price of
automation. In G. Underwood & R. Stevens (Eds.), As-
pects of consciousness (pp. 67 89). London: Penguin.
Reason, J. (1984). Lapses of attention in everyday life. In R.
Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of atten-
tion (pp. 127). London: Academic Press.
Reason, J. (1988). Stress and cognitive failure. In S. Fisher
& J. Reason (Eds.), Handbook of life stress, cognition,
and health (pp. 405 421). New York: Wiley.
Reason, J. T., & Lucas, D. (1984). Absent-mindedness in
shops: Its incidence, correlates and consequences. British
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 23, 121131.
Robertson, I. H., Manly, T., Andrade, J., Baddeley, B. T., &
Yiend, J. (1997). Oops!: Performance correlates of
everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured
and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia, 35, 747758.
Rundmo, T. (1995). Perceived risk, safety status, and job
stress among injured and noninjured employees on off-
shore petroleum installations. Journal of Safety Re-
search, 26, 8797.
Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality
and job performance in the European community. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30 43.
327
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Markers: A brief version of Gold-
bergs unipolar big-five markers. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 63, 506 516.
Stewart, G. L. (1999). Trait bandwidth and stages of job
performance: Assessing differential effects for conscien-
tiousness and its subtraits. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 84, 959 968.
Tziner, A., Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (2002). Does
conscientiousness moderate the relationship between at-
titudes and beliefs regarding performance appraisal and
rating behavior? International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 10, 218 224.
Vom Hofe, A., Mainemarre, G., & Vannier, L. (1998).
Sensitivity to everyday failures and cognitive inhibition:
Are they related? European Review of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 48, 49 55.
Wallace, J. C., Kass, S. J., & Stanny, C. (2001). Predicting
performance in go situations: A new use for the Cog-
nitive Failures Questionnaire? North American Journal
of Psychology, 3, 481 490.
Wallace, J. C., Kass, S. J., & Stanny, C. (2002). Cognitive
failures questionnaire revisited: Correlates and dimen-
sions. Journal of General Psychology 129, 238 256.
Wallace, J. C., & Vodanovich, S. J. (2003). Can accidents
and industrial mishaps be predicted? Investigating work-
place performance. Journal of Business and Psychology,
17, 503514.
Witt, L. A., Burke, L. A., Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K.
(2002). The interactive effect of conscientiousness and
agreeableness on job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 164 169.
Zohar, D. (2000). A group-level model of safety climate:
Testing the effect of group climate on microaccidents in
manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
587596.
Zohar, D. (2002). Modifying supervisory practices to im-
prove subunit safety: A leadership-based intervention
model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 156 163.
Received October 7, 2002
Revision received June 6, 2003
Accepted June 11, 2003 y