How rationality predicts individual perception of safety climate: An application of the hybrid model of learning in personality

Martina Dwi Mustika*    -  (Scopus ID 57189499273) Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia
Chris J. Jackson  -  (Scopus ID 7403075737) School of Management - UNSW Business School Kensington, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia

(*) Corresponding Author

Jackson’s (2008) Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality (HMLP) is designed to measure the effect of biological, socio-cognitive, and experiential processes of personality and learning mechanisms on developing rationality and directing functional or dysfunctional behaviors of employees. We use HMLP to determine if rational thinking predicts individual perception of safety climate. The results found that the proposed indirect paths of learning mechanisms significantly predict the individual perception of a safety climate through rationality. The goodness-of-fit demonstrated that the model provided a satisfactory fit: c2 = 13.200, p = 0.067; RMS = 0.000; RMSEA = 0.063; GFI = 0.981; AGFI = 0.943; and CFI = 0.988. As a result, we identify the importance of rationality in predicting individual safety climate and once again confirm the usefulness of HMLP in predicting useful workplace outcomes. The HMLP offers valuable insights into the influence of rationality in predicting individual perception of safety climate, as well as the underlying process of developing rationality.

Keywords : The Hybrid Model of Learning in Personality; HMLP; individual safety climate; Learning Style Profiler; rationality personality

  1. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.
  2. Beus, J. M., Dhanani, L. Y., & McCord, M. A. (2015). A meta-analysis of personality and workplace safety: Addressing unanswered questions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 481–498.
  3. Bjørnebekk, G., & Diseth, Å. (2010). Approach and avoidance temperaments and achievement goals among children. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(8), 938–943.
  4. Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. B. J. S. Long (Ed.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park: Sage Publication.
  5. Cellar, D. F., Nelson, Z. C., Yorke, C. M., & Bauer, C. (2002). The five-factor model and safety in the workplace: Investigating the relationships between personality and accident involvement. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 22(1), 43–52.
  6. Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J. (2009). Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1103–1127.
  7. Clarke, S., & Robertson, I. (2008). An examination of the role of personality in work accidents using meta-analysis. Applied Psychology, 57(1), 94–108.
  8. Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 599–609.
  9. Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325–334.
  10. DiGiuseppe, R. A., Doyle, K. A., Drylen, W., & Backx, W. (2014). A practitioner’s guide to rational emotive therapy (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
  11. Dryden, W., & Neenan, M. (2004). The rational emotive behavioural approach to therapeutic change. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  12. Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 804–818.
  13. Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2010). Approach and avoidance temperament as basic dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality, 78(3), 865–906.
  14. Ellis, A. (2004). Rational emotive behavior therapy: It works for me - it can work for you. New York: Prometheus Books.
  15. Ellis, A. (2017). Rational emotive behavior therapy. In Theoretical models of counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 311–335). Oxford: Routledge.
  16. Fraser, M., & Boag, S. (2010). Social facilitation and performance: Comparing online to face-to-face testing. In Paper presented at the 9th Australian Conference on Personality and Individual Differences. Wollongong, Australia.
  17. Gardiner, E., & Jackson, C. J. (2012). Workplace mavericks: How personality and risk-taking propensity predicts maverickism. British Journal of Psychology, 103(4), 497–519.
  18. Gardiner, E., & Jackson, C. J. (2015). Personality and learning processes underlying maverickism. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(6), 726–740.
  19. Hayakawa, K. (2019). Corrected goodness-of-fit test in covariance structure analysis. Psychological Methods, 24(3), 371–389.
  20. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
  21. Jackson, C. J. (2005). An applied neuropsychological model of functional and dysfunctional learning: Applications for business, education, training and clinical psychology. Sydney: Cymeon.
  22. Jackson, C. J. (2008). Measurement issues concerning a personality model spanning temperament, character, and experience. In The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment: Volume 2 — Personality Measurement and Testing (pp. 73–94). 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  23. Jackson, C. J. (2009). Using the hybrid model of learning in personality to predict performance in the workplace. In Paper Presented at the 8th IOP Conference. Sydney.
  24. Jackson, C. J. (2011a). How sensation seeking provides a common basis for functional and dysfunctional outcomes. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(1), 29–36.
  25. Jackson, C. J. (2011b). Introducing the YWEDO online cognitive laboratory. In Personality and Individual Differences: Theory, Assessment, and Application (pp. 283–293).
  26. Jackson, C. J., Baguma, P., & Furnham, A. (2009). Predicting grade point average from the hybrid model of learning in personality: Consistent findings from Ugandan and Australian students. Educational Psychology, 29(7), 747–759.
  27. Jackson, C. J., Izadikah, Z., & Oei, T. P. S. (2012). Mechanisms underlying REBT in mood disordered patients: predicting depression from the hybrid model of learning. Journal of Affective Disorders, 139(1), 30–39.
  28. James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1974). Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 81(12), 1096–1112.
  29. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: A guide to the program and applications (2nd ed.). Chicago, Illinois: SPSS.
  30. Kotzé, M., & Steyn, L. (2013). The role of psychological factors in workplace safety. Ergonomics, 56(12), 1928–1939.
  31. Lim, L. C., Teh, C. J., & Benjamin, C. Y. F. (2016). A preliminary study of the effects of personality traits on workplace deviance in the voluntary sector. International Review of Management and Marketing, 6(7Special Issue), 6–10.
  32. Mann, C. J. (2003). Observational research methods. research design II: Cohort, cross sectional, and case-control studies. Emergency Medicine Journal, 20(1), 54–60.
  33. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of fit in structural equation models. In A. Maydeu-Olivares & J. J. McArdle (Eds.), Contemporary psychometrics: A festschrift for Roderick P. McDonald (pp. 276–335). Psychology Press.
  34. Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Safety climate and safety at work. In J. B. & M. R. Frone (Ed.), The psychology of workplace safety (pp. 15–34). Washington: American Psychological Association.
  35. Sackett, P. R., Gruys, M. L., & Ellingson, J. E. (1998). Ability-personality interactions when predicting job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 545–556.
  36. Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self‐report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(5), 385–392.
  37. Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Cellar, D. F. (2002). The role of individual differences in understanding and predicting workplace safety. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 22(1), 1–3.
  38. Wallace, J. C., & Vodanovich, S. J. (2003). Workplace safety performance: Conscientiousness, cognitive failure, and their interaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(4), 316–327.
  39. Williamson, A. M., Feyer, A. M., Cairns, D., & Biancotti, D. (1997). The development of a measure of safety climate: The role of safety perceptions and attitudes. Safety Science, 25(1–3), 15–27.
  40. Witt, L. A., Burke, L. A., Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2002). The interactive effects of conscientiousness and agreeableness on job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 164–169.
  41. Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(1), 96–102.
  42. Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Open Access Copyright (c) 2020 Psikohumaniora: Jurnal Penelitian Psikologi
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Psikohumaniora: Jurnal Penelitian Psikologi
Program Studi Psikologi - Fakultas Psikologi dan Kesehatan (FPK)
Universitas Islam Negeri Walisongo Semarang
Jl Prof. Dr. Hamka Kampus III Ngaliyan Semarang 50185

ISSN: 2502-9363 (Print)
ISSN: 2527-7456 (Online)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License