Factors Affecting Safety Courtesy Behavior among Thai Flight Crews: Construct Validity and Structural Regression Analysis
Pattarachat Maneechaeye *
Helicopter Pilot, Arial Survey Division, Royal Thai Survey Department, Bangkok, Thailand.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Previous research indicates that safety climate has a significant impact on safety-related behaviors in a variety of circumstances; however, few researchers have examined at how safety climate affects safety courtesy behaviors among flight crews. The purpose of this study was to investigate the elements connecting to safety courtesy behaviors in Thai flight crews context using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling technique on 590 Thai flight crew samples. The results confirmed that the fleet safety climate had a favorable influence on flight crew safety courtesy behaviors via an increase in their safety knowledge and safety behavior. Furthermore, the direct, indirect, and total effects of fleet safety climate on safety courtesy via safety knowledge and safety motivation were significant. According to the findings, even in the Thai flight crews setting, a positive fleet safety climate, along with positive safety knowledge and positive safety motivation, can lead to desirable safety courtesy conduct. As a result, airlines should stress these elements and promote fleet-wide safety policies to encourage positive safety courtesy behavior among flight crews members. Future research should expand on the findings of this study by conducting additional multi-level analyses or use qualitative methods to delve into deeper results.
Keywords: Aviation, construct validity, flight crews, safety courtesy, structural regression analysis
How to Cite
Downloads
References
DaRBy R. Commercial jet hull losses, fatalities rose sharply in 2005. Aviation Safety World. 2006;1(2):51–3.
Brondino M, Silva SA, Pasini M. Multilevel approach to organizational and group safety climate and safety performance: Co-workers as the missing link. Saf Sci. 2012;50(9):1847–56.
Karagülle AÖ. The evaluation of fleet structures in Turkish aviation industry from strategic management point of view. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012;58:93–7.
Maneechaeye P, Potipiroon W. The impact of fleet-level and organization-level safety climates on safety behavior among Thai civilian pilots : The role of safety motivation. Saf Sci [Internet]. 2022;147(3): 105614.
Quach ED, Kazis LE, Zhao S, Ni P, McDannold SE, Clark VA, et al. Safety climate associated with adverse events in nursing homes: A national VA study. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021;22(2):388–92.
Guo BHW, Yiu TW, González VA. Predicting safety behavior in the construction industry: Development and test of an integrative model. Saf Sci. 2016;84:1–11.
Hedlund A, Gummesson K, Rydell A, Andersson M. Safety motivation at work: Evaluation of changes from six interventions. Saf Sci. 2016;82:155–63.
Neal A, Griffin MA. A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2006;91(4):946.
Vandsburger E. A critical thinking model for teaching human behavior and the social environment. Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work. 2004;10(1):1–11.
Eagly AH, Wood W. The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist. 1999;54(6):408.
Zohar D. Thirty years of safety climate research: Reflections and future directions. Accid Anal Prev. 2010;42(5):1517–22.
Zohar D, Luria G. Group leaders as gatekeepers: Testing safety climate variations across levels of analysis. Applied Psychology. 2010;59(4):647–73.
Latham GP, Pinder CC. Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annu Rev Psychol. 2005;56:485–516.
Kapp EA. The influence of supervisor leadership practices and perceived group safety climate on employee safety performance. Saf Sci. 2012;50(4):1119–24.
Curcuruto M, Griffin MA. Prosocial and proactive safety citizenship behaviour (SCB): The mediating role of affective commitment and psychological ownership. Saf Sci. 2018;104:29–38.
Griffin M, Neal A. Safety climate and safety behaviour. Australian Journal of Management. 2002;27(Special 2002):67–75.
Chmiel N, Laurent J, Hansez I. Employee perspectives on safety citizenship behaviors and safety violations. Saf Sci. 2017;93:96–107.
Lu CS, Weng HK, Lee CW. Leader-member exchange, safety climate and employees’ safety organizational citizenship behaviors in container terminal operators. Maritime Business Review. 2017;2(4):331–48.
Maneechaeye P, Maneechaeye W, Potipiroon W. Operating Room and Flight Deck: What Do These Places Have in Common ? Siriraj Med J [Internet]. 2021; 73(10):710–20.
Available:https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/sirirajmedj/article/view/254007/172730
Daily BF, Bishop JW, Govindarajulu N. A conceptual model for organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the environment. Bus Soc. 2009;48(2):243–56.
You X, Ji M, Han H. The effects of risk perception and flight experience on airline pilots’ locus of control with regard to safety operation behaviors. Accid Anal Prev. 2013;57:131–9.
Ji M, Li Y, Zhou C, Han H, Liu B, He L. The impact of perfectionism on situational judgment among Chinese civil flying cadets: The roles of safety motivation and self-efficacy. J Air Transp Manag. 2017; 63:126–33.
Milkman KL, Chugh D, Bazerman MH. How can decision making be improved? Perspectives on psychological science. 2009;4(4):379–83.
Zohar D. Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1980;65(1):96.
Heryati AN, Nurahaju R, Nurcholis G, Nurcahyo FA. Effect of safety climate on safety behavior in employees: The mediation of safety motivation. Psikohumaniora: Jurnal Penelitian Psikologi. 2019;4(2):191–200.
Wolf EJ, Harrington KM, Clark SL, Miller MW. Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educ Psychol Meas. 2013;73(6):913–34.
Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit in the analysis of covariance structure. Psychol Bull. 1993; 88:588–606.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003;88(5):879–903.
Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research. 1981; 18(1):39–50.
Bagozzi RP, Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark Sci. 1988;16(1):74–94.
Hulland J. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic management journal. 1999;20(2):195–204.
Chen CF, Chen SC. Measuring the effects of Safety Management System practices, morality leadership and self-efficacy on pilots’ safety behaviors: Safety motivation as a mediator. Saf Sci. 2014;62:376–85.
Maneechaeye P. The Commodification of Idol Culture with a Loot-Boxes-Style Marketing Strategy Practice in Thai Idol Culture and Aspects of Consumer Psychology toward Uncertainties. Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences Studies [Internet]. 2021;21(2):179–87.
Available:https://so02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/hasss/article/view/239553/168245
Pohl S, Galletta M. The role of supervisor emotional support on individual job satisfaction: A multilevel analysis. Applied Nursing Research. 2017;33:61–6.