The effects of workplace stress and various types of safety interventions on the intention of retail industry workers to violate safety rules: A questionnaire study

The effects of workplace stress and various types of safety interventions on the intention of retail industry workers to violate safety rules: A questionnaire study | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The effects of workplace stress and various types of safety interventions on the intention of retail industry workers to violate safety rules: A questionnaire study Yoshiko Yabe, Akiko Takahashi This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8023038/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 6 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Previous research has linked job demands and resources to safety behavior. While most studies focus on habitual safety behaviors, responses under dynamic conditions remain less explored. We focus on the influence of workplace factors (job demands, job resources, and management commitment to safety) on employees’ safety behaviors to prevent slip and fall incidents. Slip and fall incidents represent major occupational hazards, with retail workers experiencing higher accident rates than the general workforce does. Methods We recruited 146 supermarket employees in Japan through an online survey panel. The survey comprisesthree parts: demographics, workplace factors, and scenario-based items. Workplace factors included work overload, job control, interpersonal support, and fall prevention measures. The scenario-based items presented six situations where workers could reduce time or social pressures by violating safety rules, and participants rated their intentions, perceived benefits, and perceived risks of safety violations on visual analog scales. Path analysis was conducted using R. Results After exclusions, 118 supermarket employees (mean age = 51 years) were analyzed. Path analysis indicated that a lack of job control increased perceived time-saving benefits and that work overload increased fall risk recognition. Conversely, a greater variety of workplace prevention measures reduced both perceived stress-reduction and time-saving benefits. Perceived time-saving and stress-reduction benefits were positively associated with the intention to violate safety rules, whereas fall risk recognition was negatively associated. Indirect effects were also observed: prevention measures reduced the intention to violate rules via lowered perceived benefits, and lack of job control marginally increased intentions through stress-reduction benefits. Conclusions This study explored supermarket employees’ intentions to violate safety rules, considering job demands, resources, and perceived benefits and risks. Perceived time-saving benefits had the strongest influence on employees’ intentions to violate safety rules, reflecting the role of acute time pressure. In contrast, work overload increasesfall risk recognition. The variety of fall prevention measures indirectly reduced violation intentions by lowering perceived benefits, suggesting that management’s commitment to safety shapes a culture where rule violations are seen as less advantageous. Overall, perceptions of workplace safety mediate the link between conditions and behaviors. Safety violation Time pressure Job demand-resource model Slip and fall accidents Retail industry Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Background Slip and fall incidents are among the most significant occupational hazards across industries. Identifying high-risk areas in the workplace, ensuring their visibility, maintaining proper housekeeping, wearing appropriate footwear, and staying physically fit have been suggested as key measures to prevent slip and fall incidents[ 1 – 3 ]. Engaging in safety behaviors is the most direct and effective way to reduce slip and fall incidents. However, in practice, employees often engage in safety violations that increase the risk of accidents. Previous studies have investigated which factors influence employees’ intentions to engage in safe or unsafe behaviors. Using path analysis, Ghasemi et al. suggested that the inclination toward safe behavior is influenced by perceived work pressure, excessive workload, and the pace of work, which are mediated through the group attitudes of how employees react to their colleagues’ safe or unsafe behaviors and the personal attitudes of how employees voluntarily contribute to the safety of their workplaces [ 4 ]. Another study by Khoshakhlagh et al., using structural equation modeling, assessed various dimensions of job stress, such as conflict at work, lack of job control, and work overload, to show that the effect of safety climate on the risk of occupational accidents is mediated by job stress [ 5 ]. Taken together, these findings suggest that daily job stress affects employees’ intentions to engage in safety behaviors, serving as a mediator or with other mediators. The influence of job stress on workers is not determined solely by stressors. Instead, its impact is mediated by workplace resources that support employees. For example, emotional care and support from managers serve as resources that mitigate the influence of customer deviance in retail stores [ 6 ]. Previous studies on burnout mechanisms have proposed and tested a model called the job demand-resource (JD-R) model, which indicates that burnout occurs when job demands, such as time pressure and physical workload, are high and when job resources that empower workers, such as job control and support from colleagues, family, and peer groups, are limited [ 7 , 8 ]. Other well-known models concerning the effect of job demands on workers’ well-being are the job demand-control (JDC) model and the job demand-control (-support) (JDCS) model [ 9 ]. Both the JDC and JDCS models conceptualize two dimensions of adverse work conditions: job demands (e.g., workload and time pressure) and job control. The JDCS model further included social support in the workplace as a third dimension. Although the JD-R, JDC, and JDCS models were originally developed to explain the impact of adverse working conditions on employees’ health and well-being, they have since been extended to the safety context [ 10 – 18 ]. Hansez and Chmiel (2010) [ 16 ] conducted one of the first studies to extend the JD-R model to safety behaviors. They hypothesized that employees would prioritize maintaining performance over safety as job demands increase. In contrast, increasing job resources was expected to enhance work engagement, thereby influencing safety violations. Using structural equation modeling, they demonstrated that job demands and resources affect safety violations through job strain and engagement. Additionally, significant paths were found from perceived management’s commitment to safety to rule violations. The safety violations of employees are most often examined via questionnaires in which participants report their everyday practices, such as wearing appropriate footwear and using safety equipment. In addition to such habitual behaviors, safety behaviors also have a dynamic aspect, namely, how workers respond to irregular events under work pressure. A key question is how work pressure influences workers’ safety behaviors when they are required to make rapid decisions in specific situations. Adachi et al. [ 19 ] conducted a questionnaire survey of hospital nurses to investigate the conditions under which they are inclined to violate safety rules. In this survey, Adachi et al. created scenarios in which a nurse experienced varying levels of social and time pressure and decided to break a rule to escape from that pressure. The participants in that study were required to imagine whether they would take the same action as the nurse in the scenario. Each scenario specified the levels of social and time pressure to which the nurse was exposed, as well as the objective risks and benefits of the deviant behavior. For each scenario, the participants were asked three questions: “Would you take the same action described in the scenario?” (intention to violate safety rules), “How dangerous do you expect if you take the same action?” (perceived risk), and “How much benefit would you expect if you take the same action?” (perceived benefit). The results revealed four main findings. First, the intention to violate safety rules was affected by objective risk, objective benefit, and time pressure. Second, objective risk affects perceived risk. Third, objective risk, objective benefits, time pressure, and social pressure influence perceived benefits. Finally, perceived risk and perceived benefits were negatively and positively correlated, respectively, with the intention to violate safety rules. The effects of daily job demands and resources on the perceived benefits and risks of safety violations, as well as on the intention to engage in unsafe behaviors in dynamic situations, remain unclear. To address this issue, we conducted a questionnaire survey focusing on rule violations related to slip and fall incidents in the retail industry. The incidence rate of slip and fall accidents among retail workers is 1.54 times higher than that among the general workforce (calculated from [ 20 , 21 ]). In particular, this study targeted supermarket employees, who frequently move between the stockroom and the busy sales area. Spills caused by customers further increase the risk of accidents, making adherence to safety rules—such as refraining from running inside the store—crucial for prevention. The questionnaire consisted of three sections: demographic information, workplace factors, and scenario-based assessments. In the second section, job demands and resources, as well as the variety of fall prevention measures, were assessed. The variety of fall prevention measures was asked as an indicator of the perceived management commitment to safety. In the third section, for each question, participants were asked to read a scenario in which a supermarket employee engaged in an action with a high potential for causing a slip and fall incident. The task of the participants was to evaluate (1) the extent to which they would take the same unsafe action, (2) the expected benefits if the action did not result in an accident, and (3) the perceived risk of the action. Instead of taking a hypothesis-driven approach, we examine the workplace factors that influence the perceived benefits and risks associated with safety violations. Our goal is to identify indirect pathways through which these factors shape workers’ intentions to violate safety rules. Methods Participants The participants were recruited from an online survey panel provided by a market research company in Japan. A total of 146 supermarket employees completed the study. Data collection The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Japan. On the first page of our online questionnaire, participants were provided with a brief description of this study. The purpose of this study was to examine workers’ awareness of measures to prevent fall accidents. Only those who provided informed consent completed the questionnaire. On the final page of the questionnaire, we reported that the true objective of this study was to investigate the possibility that prevention of falls sometimes fails even when workers believe that they are complying with fall prevention measures. We explained that the true goal had not been disclosed at the onset of the study to avoid biasing the participants’ responses by drawing their attention to lapses in prevention measures. The participants were then asked to confirm their consent again. The responses of participants who declined to provide consent at this stage were excluded from the analysis. Questionnaires The questionnaire consisted of three parts. Part 1: Demographic information The first section collected demographic information, including age, sex, years of work experience at the current workplace, years of work experience in the current job, employment type, work sections at a supermarket or at a management office, and occupational accidents experienced (Table 1 ). Table 1 Details of the occupational accidents experienced Accident Type Frequency Falls from height 4 Fall on same level 27 Struck against object 3 Struck by flying or falling objects 2 Caught in or crushed in collapsing materials 2 Struck by moving objects / vehicles 5 Caught in or compressed by equipment or objects 6 Cuts, abrasions, or scrapes 26 Stepping through (penetration injury) 2 Drownings 0 Contact with extreme temperatures (hot or cold surfaces/objects) 5 Exposure to harmful substances 0 Electric shock 3 Explosion 0 Rupture (of pressure vessels, containers, etc.) 0 Fire 0 Transportation accidents (road) 5 Transportation accident (other) 1 Overexertion or awkward/repetitive motion 16 Other 3 Unclassifiable / Not otherwise classified 0 No experience 56 Part 2: Workplace factors The second section included questions on workload, job control, interpersonal support, and safety measures for fall prevention in workplaces (Table 2 ). Most of those questions were derived from the Brief Job Stress Questionnaire (BJSQ) [ 22 ], a questionnaire developed by a research team sponsored by the Ministry for Labor of Japan and based on the Generic Job Stress Questionnaire (GJSQ)[ 23 ] of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (the United States of America). Instead of assessing social support only from supervisors and coworkers, we assessed social support from supervisors, senior coworkers (those with more experience in the workplace), and peer coworkers, as the informal hierarchy based on years of experience has been recognized as important in Japanese organizations[ 24 ]. It is plausible that part-time employees with more experience than full-time employees may exert considerable influence within the community at supermarkets. Additionally, a question was added to assess interpersonal support from customers. Table 2 Items and constructs of the workplace factors (Part 2) Construct # Item Scoring Work overload 1 I have to do too many things. from 1(Strongly Disagree) to 4(Strongly Agree) 2 I cannot finish tasks in work hours. from 1(Strongly Disagree) to 4(Strongly Agree) Lack of job control 3 I can decide the order or the way to handle my tasks. from 1(Strongly Agree) to 4(Strongly Disagree) 4 I can reflect on the policy of my workplace with my opinion. from 1(Strongly Agree) to 4(Strongly Disagree) Lack of interpersonal support 5 The atmosphere of my workplace is friendly. from 1(Strongly Agree) to 4(Strongly Disagree) 6 The atmosphere of our customers is friendly. from 1(Strongly Agree) to 4(Strongly Disagree) 7 How do you feel easy to communicate with your supervisors? from 1(To a Great Extent) to 4(Not at All) Exclusion: No supervisors 8 How do you feel easy to communicate with your seniors? from 1(To a Great Extent) to 4(Not at All) Exclusion: No seniors 9 How do you feel easy to communicate with your peers? from 1(To a Great Extent) to 4(Not at All) Exclusion: No peers 10 How reliable are your supervisors? from 1(To a Great Extent) to 4(Not at All) Exclusion: No supervisors 11 How reliable are your seniors? from 1(To a Great Extent) to 4(Not at All) Exclusion: No seniors 12 How reliable are your peers? from 1(To a Great Extent) to 4(Not at All) Exclusion: No peers Fall prevention measures 13 Choose all the action prevention measures taken at your workplace. 1. Improvements to facilities, such as installing handrails and anti-slip measures, eliminating level differences, and ensuring adequate lighting; 2. Organizing, tidying, and cleaning of walkways, stairs, and work areas ; 3. Provision or recommendation of slip-resistant footwear ; 4. Visual identification of hazardous areas by posting warning signs in places prone to falls ; 5. Implementation of employee education on fall prevention; 6. Modification of work speed, posture, or methods; 7. Assessment of fall risk through physical fitness tests ; 8. Adjusting tasks or workplaces based on physical function or fitness level ; 9. Implementation of stretching exercises or physical activities ; 10. Other measures; 11. No measure is taken The number of selected prevention measures was counted. To assess perceived management’s commitment to safety, questions regarding safety measures to prevent falls were also included. The participants were required to select all fall prevention measures implemented in their workplaces from a list of nine commonly adopted measures for fall prevention. If the participants selected “Other measures,” they were asked to specify additional practices. They were also given the option to select “No measure is taken” if they believed that their workplaces did not implement any fall prevention measures. Part 3: Scenario-Based Items The third section consisted of six items, each describing a scenario in which a supermarket worker faced a difficult situation involving time or social pressures that could be alleviated by violating fall-prevention safety rules (Table 3 ). In each scenario, the target unsafe action of the scenario was underlined. After reading the scenario, the participants were asked to evaluate the following statements for the underlined action: how much did the following descriptions apply to each target action in the scenario? 1. “I would take the same action as described.” (intention to violate safety rules), 2. “If I took the same action and no accident occurred, it would save more time than taking the ideal action.” (perceived time-saving benefit), 3. “If I took the same action and no accident occurred, it would make me feel less stressed than taking the ideal action.” (perceived stress-reduction benefit), and 4. “If I took the same action, I or my colleagues would fall” (fall risk recognition). Responses were provided on a visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0 (“Does not apply at all”) to 100 (“Fully applies”). Table 3 The scenario-based items (Part 3) # Scenario 1 Five minutes before opening, you noticed that the cashier was absent and started heading to the register from the back room. Ideally, you should walk to the register, but instead you hurried over . 2 You heard an in-store announcement requesting backup at the register and started heading there from the back room. At this time, there are only a few customers waiting in line, and the sales floor is relatively less busy. Ideally, you should walk to the register, but instead you hurried over . 3 It is raining today, and the entrance area is wet from customers’ umbrellas and shoes. A colleague asked if you could carry two delayed delivery boxes upstairs at once. This store does not an elevator. Carrying both boxes stacked together could cause you to slip on the wet stairs or bump into someone. Ideally, you would say, “I’ll take them in two trips.” However, because the delivery was urgent, you carried both boxes at once . 4 It is a busy time of day with many customers in the store. You were about to return a stack of baskets to the register when you noticed that the floor around the bagging area was widely wet. Since the baskets were already piled up, leaving them there without returning them could be unsafe. Ideally, you would inform others that the baskets had piled up and that the floor around the bagging area was wet, and then coordinate with colleagues to divide the tasks of returning the baskets and cleaning the floor. However, without asking for help, you cleaned the floor and returned the baskets by yourself . 5 You noticed that the soles of a colleague’s work sneakers were worn down and had lost their tread. Ideally, you would point this out to your colleague, but you decided it was not something worth mentioning . 6 Your shift today is an early one. By chance, you learned that the sales floor will be waxed after closing tonight. However, the store manager left without informing the others and planned to go straight home. Ideally, you would tell the late-shift staff that the floor would be slippery after closing due to waxing and that they should be careful. However, you left work without making any particular effort to share this information with them . Analysis Participants who did not belong to supermarket sections were excluded. To control interpersonal factors in the workplace, we also excluded participants who reported having no supervisors, senior colleagues, or peer colleagues. All analyses were conducted using R software version 4.3.3. Path analysis was conducted to examine the indirect effects of workplace factors on the dynamic intention to violate safety rules, with perceived benefit and risk as mediators. Path analyses were performed with lavaan package version 0.6–19 [ 25 ], semtools package version 0.3.1, semPlot package version 1.1.6, and semTools package version 0.5-7. The goodness of fit was evaluated using the chi-square statistic ( χ 2 ), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) [ 26 ]. Following conventional criteria, RMSEA values below .08, CFI values above .90, and SRMR values below .08 were considered to indicate a good fit [ 27 ]. The significance level was set at 5%. Variables regarding workplace factors The second part of the questionnaire was used to assess daily job demands and resources. Scores were converted so that higher scores indicated greater job demands, as shown in the "Scoring" column of Table 2 . The variable “work overload” was computed as the sum of the responses to Items 1 and 2. The variable “lack of job control” was calculated as the sum of the responses to Items 3 and 4. The variable “lack of interpersonal support” was derived from the total score of Items 5 through 12. The number of fall prevention measures selected in Item 13 was used as the score for “variety of fall prevention measures.” If the response “Other measures” was selected, it was counted as one fall prevention measure. Variables related to the dynamic intention to violate safety rules and perceived benefits and risks The third part of the questionnaire assessed the dynamic intention to violate safety rules and the perceived benefits and risks of safety violations. Each of the six items in this section asked participants to provide four VAS scores, corresponding to “intention to violate safety rules”, “perceived time-saving benefit”, “perceived stress-reduction benefit”, and “fall risk recognition.” Each of these four variables was calculated as the sum of the VAS scores from the six items. Results Demographic information The demographic characteristics of the participants are illustrated in Fig. 1. After excluding individuals who did not belong to any on-supermarket-site section and those without supervisors, seniors, or peers, a total of 118 participants (24 females) were included in the analysis. The mean age was 50.99 years (SD = 10.90, range: 25–75). Thirty-six participants (30.51%) were part-timers. The mean tenure at the current workplace was 12.90 (SD = 10.90, range: 0–45) years. The mean duration of experience in the current job was 21.18 (SD = 11.55, range: 0–45) years. Details regarding the occupational accidents the participants experienced are summarized in Table 1 . Path analysis The descriptive statistics (means ± SDs) for Parts 2 and 3 of the survey are presented in Tables 4 and 5 , respectively. We constructed a model to examine how the influence of daily job demands and resources on intentions dynamically affects perceived benefits and risks and how the dynamically perceived benefits and risks affect the intention to violate safety rules (Fig. 2). The results of the measurement model fit assessment are shown in Table 6 . All indices except for the RMSEA met the recommended criteria. The reason why the RMSEA in this study was high may be attributed to the relatively small sample size. RMSEA values in the range of 0.08 to 0.1 are thought to indicate a mediocre fit [ 28 ]. Table 4 Results (means ± SDs) of Part 2 Construct # Item Mean ± SD Work overload 1 I have to do too many things. 3.017 ± 0.599 2 I cannot finish tasks in work hours. 2.517 ± 0.792 Lack of job control 3 I can decide the order or the way to handle my tasks. 2.059 ± 0.766 4 I can reflect on the policy of my workplace with my opinion. 2.339 ± 0.808 Lack of interpersonal support 5 The atmosphere of my workplace is friendly. 2.093 ± 0.704 6 The atmosphere of our customers is friendly. 2.144 ± 0.543 7 How do you feel easy to communicate with your supervisors? 2.576 ± 0.821 8 How do you feel easy to communicate with your seniors? 2.568 ± 0.79 9 How do you feel easy to communicate with your peers? 2.364 ± 0.736 10 How reliable are your supervisors? 2.61 ± 0.858 11 How reliable are your seniors? 2.593 ± 0.819 12 How reliable are your peers? 2.5 ± 0.76 Fall prevention measures 13 Choose all the action prevention measures taken at your workplace. 2.314 ± 1.852 Table 5 Results (means ± SDs) of Part 3 Scenario # Intention to violate safety rules Perceived time-saving benefit Perceived stress-reduction benefit Fall risk recognition 1 64.653 ± 28.306 62.636 ± 28.375 58.432 ± 26.607 57.797 ± 25.777 2 61.949 ± 28.676 60.28 ± 27.33 58.297 ± 26.495 56.136 ± 25.595 3 51.5 ± 29.516 54.102 ± 28.211 51.72 ± 28.339 65.492 ± 22.081 4 53.712 ± 29.979 50.941 ± 28.505 53.161 ± 28.407 61.432 ± 23.694 5 48.992 ± 29.756 43.144 ± 26.274 42.161 ± 27.06 62.237 ± 23.618 6 31.542 ± 30.056 35.373 ± 28.783 34.305 ± 28.203 67.415 ± 28.648 Table 6 The results of the measurement model fit assessment Model fit index Result Recommended value χ 2 χ 2(7) = 14.575, p = .042 RMSEA 0.096 .90 SRMR 0.059 < .08 Table 7 presents the direct effect of each path. A positive effect of a lack of job control on perceived stress-reduction benefits and work overload on fall risk recognition was observed. In contrast, the variety of fall prevention measures had negative effects on both perceived stress-reduction benefits and perceived time-saving benefits. Furthermore, perceived time-saving benefits and perceived stress-reduction benefits positively affected the intention to violate safety rules, whereas fall risk recognition had a negative effect on the intention to violate safety rules. Table 7 Details of the direct effect of each path of the path model From To Parameter estimate SE z -statistic p -value Standardized estimate Lack of interpersonal support Perceived time-saving benefit -0.706 2.48 -0.285 0.776 -0.029 Perceived stress-reduction benefit 0.543 2.352 0.231 0.817 0.023 Fall risk recognition -1.224 2.119 -0.578 0.563 -0.059 Lack of job control Perceived time-saving benefit 10.668 8.027 1.329 0.184 0.133 Perceived stress-reduction benefit 15.872 7.613 2.085 0.037 0.203 Fall risk recognition -4.028 6.859 -0.587 0.557 -0.059 Fall prevention measures Perceived time-saving benefit -12.607 5.713 -2.207 0.027 -0.207 Perceived stress-reduction benefit -14.215 5.419 -2.623 0.009 -0.24 Fall risk recognition 4.669 4.881 0.956 0.339 0.09 Work overload Perceived time-saving benefit -6.112 8.717 -0.701 0.483 -0.064 Perceived stress-reduction benefit 3.403 8.268 0.412 0.681 0.036 Fall risk recognition 16.819 7.448 2.258 0.024 0.205 Perceived time-saving benefit Intention to violate safety rules 0.687 0.067 10.271 0 0.687 Perceived stress-reduction benefit Intention to violate safety rules 0.221 0.067 3.297 0.001 0.221 Fall risk recognition Intention to violate safety rules -0.126 0.054 -2.348 0.019 -0.126 Next, we examined the indirect effects of daily job demands and resources on the intention to violate safety rules, mediated by dynamically perceived benefits and risks. As shown in Table 8 , the indirect paths from the variety of fall prevention measures to the intention to violate safety rules via perceived stress-reduction benefits and perceived time-saving benefits were statistically significant. Additionally, the indirect path from lack of job control to the intention to violate safety rules via perceived stress-reduction benefits was marginally significant. Table 8 Details of the indirect effect of each path of the path model From To via Parameter estimate SE z -statistic p -value Standardized estimate Work overload Intention to violate safety rules Fall risk recognition -2.123 1.304 -1.628 0.104 -0.022 Lack of job control Intention to violate safety rules Perceived stress-reduction benefit 3.501 1.987 1.762 0.078 0.043 Fall prevention measures Intention to violate safety rules Perceived time-saving benefit -8.655 4.012 -2.157 0.031 -0.141 Perceived stress-reduction benefit -3.135 1.527 -2.053 0.04 -0.051 Discussion Slip and fall accidents are the most common occupational hazards among employees of supermarkets. These incidents sometimes occur as a result of violations of safety regulations. This study examined how supermarket employees decide to violate safety rules, taking into account the daily job demands and resources they are exposed to in their work environment. Our results suggest that employees’ perceptions of the benefits and risks associated with safety violations play a key role in their decision-making process. The variety of fall prevention measures in the workplace was found to decrease the perceived time-saving benefits and the perceived stress-reduction benefits, which in turn indirectly reduced the intention to violate safety rules. Furthermore, we identified a marginal indirect effect whereby a lack of job control positively affects the intention to violate safety rules, which is mediated by the stress-reducing benefit. Perceived time-saving benefits Among the perceived benefits and risks associated with safety violations, the perceived time-saving benefit was found to have the strongest influence on employees’ intentions to violate safety rules. The perceived time-saving benefits likely reflect the time pressure experienced by employees. Understandably, employees perceive a greater benefit in violating safety rules when such violations help them alleviate time constraints and complete tasks more efficiently. This interpretation is consistent with a previous study by Adachi et al. (2010)[ 19 ] which reported that the objective benefits potentially gained from safety violations and the presence of time pressure increased employees’ intention to engage in safety violations. Production pressure can lead to misconduct [ 29 ] and a poor safety climate [ 30 ]. It is expected that time pressure negatively impacts ethical behaviors [ 31 , 32 ]. Importantly, however, work overload, which is typically considered a source of job strain and safety violations [ 16 ], was not found to significantly affect the perceived time-saving benefit. This inconsistency is likely explained by the difference between chronic time pressure caused by work overload and acute time pressure that arises in a dynamic context. In our study, workload was measured on the basis of responses to items concerning the amount of work required within a typical workday, whereas the perceived time-saving benefits were assessed on the basis of responses to hypothetical scenarios involving acute time pressure. A previous study [ 33 ] has shown that anticipation of time pressure can significantly reduce unethical behavior. In contrast, our present results suggest that acute time pressure, rather than chronic (i.e. anticipable) time pressure, is potentially a more salient trigger for safety violations. The indirect effect of the variety of fall prevention measures on the intention to violate safety rules Path analysis revealed two indirect pathways linking the variety of fall prevention measures to the intention to violate safety rules: one is mediated by the perceived stress-reduction benefit, and the other is mediated by the perceived time-saving benefit. The fall prevention measures listed in Item 13 of our questionnaire (Table 2 ) encompassed nine types of interventions. Although most of these involved organizational-level modifications, some were aimed at changing the behaviors of individual employees. A comprehensive review by Dyreborg et al. [ 34 ] on safety interventions suggested that combining organizational-level interventions with those targeting both organizational and individual levels is moderately effective in preventing accidents. For example, a study by Bell et al. [ 35 ] that focused on the prevention of slip and fall incidents among hospital workers reported a 58% decrease in compensation claims of occupational accidents following a multifaceted intervention. They argued that slip and fall incidents stem from a wide variety of circumstances; thus, combinations of countermeasures are more effective in reducing slip and fall incidents. Taken together, a variety of fall prevention measures can effectively reduce the actual occurrence of falls. However, preventing the occurrence of falls and reducing employees’ intention to violate safety rules for fall prevention are not necessarily the same. Why, then, was the variety of fall prevention measures found to reduce the intention to violate safety rules in this study? One possible explanation is that workplaces where management commits to safety are more likely to implement a broader range of fall prevention measures. The safety climate of a workplace is related to the perception of management attitudes toward safety [ 36 ]. In such environments where management commits to safety, employees prioritize safety over production performance and feel less intention to violate safety rules. This interpretation is consistent with our findings that the variety of fall prevention measures is negatively associated with both the perceived time-saving benefits and the stress-reduction benefits of safety violations. These results suggest that in workplaces where safety is deeply embedded in the organizational culture, employees are less likely to perceive safety violations as beneficial, thereby reducing their intention to engage in such behaviors. Work overload Notably, work overload had a positive effect on fall risk recognition. The Japanese retail industry is currently experiencing a chronic labor shortage. According to a survey conducted by the Japan Institute for Labor Policy and Training, 55% of retail facilities reported a shortage of full-time workers, and 53% reported a shortage of part-time workers [ 37 ]. Given these conditions, it is understandable that understaffing leads to work overload for individual employees. We suggest that in such environments, employees may place greater importance on preventing injuries for themselves and for their coworkers because losing a team member due to an accident would further exacerbate the workload. This heightened awareness of the consequences of an accident may lead to greater recognition of fall risk. Another interpretation is that work overload forces employees to work long hours, leaving them with less time to sleep and rest. Long hours of working is one of the biggest health hazards. Previous studies have reported that employees who work long hours have a higher risk of stroke than those working standard hours [ 38 ]. It is plausible that participants who reported higher workloads perceived greater fall risk due to concerns about their health. Limitations of this study This study has several limitations that should be considered. First, it is impossible to validate the self-reports collected with online questionnaires. It is plausible that the participants were not free from social desirability bias or any other response biases. In addition, even when participants answered the questions about the intention to violate safety rules as honestly as possible, the intention simulated on the basis of the scenarios and the intention that comes to mind in the real situation would not be the same. Second, the generalizability of the findings may be limited to supermarket employees in Japan. The factors specific to the Japanese retail industry, such as chronic labor shortages, sales areas with narrow aisles, and a strong custom to treat customers as “always right”, may influence how employees perceive and respond to safety demands. Future research should replicate and extend this study in different cultural and occupational contexts. Third, the study utilized a cross-sectional design, which limits the ability to infer causal relationships between variables. A longitudinal study could provide stronger evidence regarding the causal mechanisms underlying safety violations in the workplace. The fourth limitation is the recruitment bias. The participants were recruited from an online survey panel that pooled potential responders who earned pocket money by completing questionnaires using smartphones in their free time. It is plausible that we missed obtaining data from supermarket employees who did not prefer using smartphones or had no free time. Finally, we interpreted that the path from work overload to fall risk recognition is attributed to the labor shortage in the Japanese retail industry or employees’ healthcare concerns. However, this interpretation is still a mere speculation because we have not collected data about whether participants were experiencing understaffing or whether they had any health concerns. Future research should examine the influence of understaffing and health conditions on the intention to violate safety rules. Conclusions This study employed scenario-based questions to investigate the effects of job demands, job resources, and management commitment to safety on employees’ intentions to violate safety rules under dynamic circumstances. As a result, we found that employees’ perceptions of benefits and risks significantly influence their intentions to violate safety rules. A greater variety of fall prevention measures reduced the perceived benefits of safety violations, thereby indirectly lowering the intention to violate safety rules. A marginal effect of a lack of job control on the intention to violate safety rules via the stress-reducing benefit was also found. Chronic overload, often considered a source of violations of habitual safety behaviors, does not enhance the perceived benefits of safety violations in a dynamic context. While previous studies have focused mainly on habitual safety behaviors, responses under dynamic conditions remain underexplored. Future studies should deepen the understanding of the decision-making process of safety violations in dynamic contexts. Abbreviations BJSQ Brief Job Stress Questionnaire CFI Comparative fit index GJSQ Generic Job Stress Questionnaire JD-R Job Demand-Resource JDC Job Demand-Control JDCS Job Demand-Control (-Support) RMSEA Root mean square error of approximation SD Standard deviation SRMR Standardized root mean square residual VAS Visual analog scale Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Japan and conducted in accordance with "Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects" issued by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, which are based on the Declaration of Helsinki, the Fundamental Principles of Research on the Human Genome issued by Council for Science and Technology, Japan, and relevant Japanese laws. Informed consent was obtained from all participants before they participated in this study. Informed consent was collected again from all participants after debriefing. Consent for publication Not applicable Availability of data and materials The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Competing interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Funding This study was supported by an internal research grant of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Japan. Authors’ contributions YY: study concept and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, and critical revision of the manuscript. AT: study concept and design, interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, and critical revision of the manuscript. Acknowledgments We would like to express our gratitude to all the participants in this study. References Ahmad NA, Tap MM, Syahrom A, Rohani JM, Rani MRA. Perception Study on Leading Factors of Slip and Fall Incidents in Manufacturing Industry. Procedia Manuf. 2015;2:263–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.046 . Chang W-R, Leclercq S, Lockhart TE, Haslam R. State of science: occupational slips, trips and falls on the same level. Ergonomics. 2016;59:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2016.1157214 . Hu K, Rahmandad H, Smith-Jackson T, Winchester W. Factors influencing the risk of falls in the construction industry: a review of the evidence. Constr Manag Econ. 2011;29:397–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2011.558104 . Ghasemi F, Kalatpour O, Moghimbeigi A, Mohhamadfam I. A path analysis model for explaining unsafe behavior in workplaces: the effect of perceived work pressure. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2018;24:303–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2017.1313494 . Khoshakhlagh AH, Sulaie S, Al, Yazdanirad S, Park J. Examining the effect of safety climate on accident risk through job stress: a path analysis. BMC Psychol. 2023;11:89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01133-2 . Mayr K, Teller C. Customer deviance in retailing: Managers’ emotional support and employees’ affective wellbeing. J Retail Consum Serv. 2023;72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103291 . February:103291. Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, Schaufeli WB. The job demands-resources model of burnout. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86:499–512. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. J Organ Behav. 2004;25:293–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248 . Häusser JA, Mojzisch A, Niesel M, Schulz-Hardt S. Ten years on: A review of recent research on the Job Demand–Control (-Support) model and psychological well-being. Work Stress. 2010;24:1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678371003683747 . Nielsen MB, Mearns K, Matthiesen SB, Eid J. Using the Job Demands-Resources model to investigate risk perception, safety climate and job satisfaction in safety critical organizations. Scand J Psychol. 2011;52:465–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00885.x . Nahrgang JD, Morgeson FP, Hofmann DA. Safety at Work: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Link Between Job Demands, Job Resources, Burnout, Engagement, and Safety Outcomes. J Appl Psychol. 2011;96:71–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021484 . Li F, Jiang L, Yao X, Li Y. Job demands, job resources and safety outcomes: The roles of emotional exhaustion and safety compliance. Accid Anal Prev. 2013;51:243–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.11.029 . Bronkhorst B. Behaving safely under pressure: The effects of job demands, resources, and safety climate on employee physical and psychosocial safety behavior. J Saf Res. 2015;55:63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2015.09.002 . Derdowski LA, Mathisen GE. Psychosocial factors and safety in high-risk industries: A systematic literature review. Saf Sci. 2023;157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105948 . January 2022:105948. Osca A, López-Araújo B. Work stress, personality and occupational accidents: Should we expect differences between men and women? Saf Sci. 2020;124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104582 . December 2019:104582. Hansez I, Chmiel N. Safety Behavior: Job Demands, Job Resources, and Perceived Management Commitment to Safety. J Occup Health Psychol. 2010;15:267–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019528 . Seo HJ, Rhee S-Y, Yoon Y-G. Enhancing Worker Safety Behaviors Through the Job Demands–Resources Approach: Insights from the Korean Construction Sector. Buildings. 2025;15:486. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15030486 . Seo HJ, Rhee S-Y, Kim NK. A Study on the Factors Affecting Safety Behaviors and Safety Performance in the Manufacturing Sector: Job Demands-Resources Approach. Safety. 2025;11:29. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety11020029 . Adachi Y, Usui S, Matsumoto T. A Study of Psychological Factors in Nursing Violation. Japanese J Appl Psychol. 2010;35:71–80. (in Japanese). Ministry of Internal Affairs and, Communications J. Labour Force Survey. 2024. Ministry of Health, Labour and, Welfare J. Statistics on Occupational Accidents Resulting in Injuries and Illnesses Based on the Annual Workers’ Accident/Illness Report. 2024. Shimomitsu T, Haratani T, Nakamura K, Kawakami N, Hayashi T, Hiro H et al. Final development of the Brief Job Stress Questionnaire mainly used for assessment of the individuals. In: Kato M, editor. Ministry for Labour sponsored grant for the prevention of work-related illness: The 1999 report. 2000. pp. 126–138 (in Japanese). Hurrell JJJ, McLaney MA. Exposure to job stress–a new psychometric instrument. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1988;14(Suppl 1):27–8. Sekiguchi T, Ikeda M. The Informal Structure of Senpai (Seniors), Kohai (Juniors), and Doki (Peers) in Japanese Organizations. Encyclopedia. 2025;5:49. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5020049 . Rosseel Y. lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02 . 2 SE-Articles:1–36. Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 5th edition. The Guilford Press; 2023. Byrne BM, Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling With EQS. Routledge; 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203726532 . MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol Methods. 1996;1:130–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130 . Byun G, Lee S, Dai Y, Rhie J, Lee JH. When Pressure Breeds Misconduct: Job Strain, Coworker Support, and Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior. Behav Sci (Basel). 2025;15:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15050573 . Hashemian SM, Triantis K. Production pressure and its relationship to safety: A systematic review and future directions. Saf Sci. 2023;159:106045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.106045 . Moberg DJ. Time Pressure and Ethical Decision-Making. Bus Prof Ethics J. 2000;19:41–67. https://doi.org/10.5840/bpej200019214 . Zhang Z, Jia X. No Time for Ethics: How and When Time Pressure Leads to Abusive Supervisory Behavior. J Bus Ethics. 2023;188:807–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05510-0 . Koh HP, Scully G, Woodliff DR. Can Anticipating Time Pressure Reduce the Likelihood of Unethical Behaviour Occurring? J Bus Ethics. 2018;153:197–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3352-y . Dyreborg J, Lipscomb HJ, Nielsen K, Törner M, Rasmussen K, Frydendall KB, et al. Safety interventions for the prevention of accidents at work: A systematic review. Campbell Syst Rev. 2022;18. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1234 . Bell JL, Collins JW, Wolf L, Grönqvist R, Chiou S, Chang W-R, et al. Evaluation of a comprehensive slip, trip and fall prevention programme for hospital employees. Ergonomics. 2008;51:1906–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130802248092 . Flin R, Mearns K, O’Connor P, Bryden R. Measuring safety climate: Identifying the common features. Saf Sci. 2000;34:177–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00012-6 . JILPT. Hitode busoku to sono taio ni kakawaru chosa [Survey on labor shortage and its management]. Tokyo, Japan; 2024. Virtanen M, Kivimäki M. Long Working Hours and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2018;20:123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-018-1049-9 . Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 17 Dec, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 04 Dec, 2025 Editor invited by journal 12 Nov, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 11 Nov, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 11 Nov, 2025 First submitted to journal 03 Nov, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8023038","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":556225753,"identity":"625ea57b-30f1-478c-a765-f989f2e0b32a","order_by":0,"name":"Yoshiko Yabe","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Japan","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yoshiko","middleName":"","lastName":"Yabe","suffix":""},{"id":556225754,"identity":"baf13ca6-867d-4394-a52a-d614691721b2","order_by":1,"name":"Akiko Takahashi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Japan","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Akiko","middleName":"","lastName":"Takahashi","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-11-04 00:23:17","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8023038/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8023038/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":97694858,"identity":"b98c40f8-3b90-4132-b565-5d56ef1b44dd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 11:27:27","extension":"png","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":121091,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8023038/v1/5bb4f65ebadcaa61057b1ce8.png"},{"id":97892791,"identity":"2ba93339-3e16-498c-b6b3-0f585b2688fe","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-10 15:21:26","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":111460,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscriptYabeandTakahashi20251110.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8023038/v1/53f44eed38626e749e973499.docx"},{"id":97694862,"identity":"3046ef13-a2f8-4af6-ad72-57de84030a46","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 11:27:27","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":997227,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8023038/v1/9962d0906ef113aad54dfbec.png"},{"id":97694861,"identity":"1f12e536-1984-4663-84ea-eb8309c7b626","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 11:27:27","extension":"json","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5541,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"1f8ad311d7e344cc900c582738aa7ad7.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8023038/v1/8108db6cfe5f09a610eb2e29.json"},{"id":97892977,"identity":"880e33a0-454b-4993-9423-8436ccb26c65","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-10 15:25:10","extension":"xml","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":129311,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"1f8ad311d7e344cc900c582738aa7ad71enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8023038/v1/3c152bc519db37a3a9249d59.xml"},{"id":97694866,"identity":"53711b62-103f-4004-acb0-b8cf99f9adef","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 11:27:27","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":121091,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8023038/v1/e7cd7bd688201fada09e38f2.png"},{"id":97694865,"identity":"16d6c038-a9f1-4527-a6e4-b4336daaa4f4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 11:27:27","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":997227,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8023038/v1/1061d9a619891a9e90e23399.png"},{"id":97894026,"identity":"03f70be4-2e81-4e6f-a687-fb30016d6eb2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-10 15:31:49","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":51271,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFigure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8023038/v1/3444d6c3ff34caeaa8a12222.png"},{"id":97694870,"identity":"23f821de-bfa1-4a36-8075-792481f285f7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 11:27:27","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":908684,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFigure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8023038/v1/8124ea9f890585da4f65b4a8.png"},{"id":97894363,"identity":"0483a357-52d4-4e52-8960-1bad58025017","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-10 15:32:23","extension":"xml","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":127095,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"1f8ad311d7e344cc900c582738aa7ad71structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8023038/v1/02435d89f6bde9d81f7e33f4.xml"},{"id":97694868,"identity":"c22f7c46-1278-4337-a6cb-73c1519eeb7c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 11:27:27","extension":"html","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":135827,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8023038/v1/4f875881532314baf2075a08.html"},{"id":97694859,"identity":"d886e483-0af7-4eb5-83a1-8f478ff6fe05","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 11:27:27","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":612040,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eHistograms of age (top), work experience at the current workplace (middle), and years of work experience in the current job (bottom) of the participants.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8023038/v1/f0c0a02d8bee975e2ee7e214.png"},{"id":97892980,"identity":"427d8b44-1720-4426-a40b-7f6c73bc7d0d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-10 15:25:11","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":997227,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe path model of the relations between the studied variables. Edge labels display the standardized parameter estimates. Red and blue lines indicate negative and positive relationships, respectively. ***p\u0026lt;.001, **p\u0026lt;.01, *p\u0026lt;.05\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8023038/v1/5d9f2555d2cb8f76d75e1d39.png"},{"id":99306858,"identity":"f2a5f6a5-8f50-4278-977a-6b685f07e525","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:02:10","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":3269449,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8023038/v1/aed94f5d-9f96-4fdc-a5c9-b98f99436678.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The effects of workplace stress and various types of safety interventions on the intention of retail industry workers to violate safety rules: A questionnaire study","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eSlip and fall incidents are among the most significant occupational hazards across industries. Identifying high-risk areas in the workplace, ensuring their visibility, maintaining proper housekeeping, wearing appropriate footwear, and staying physically fit have been suggested as key measures to prevent slip and fall incidents[\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR2\" citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e–\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. Engaging in safety behaviors is the most direct and effective way to reduce slip and fall incidents. However, in practice, employees often engage in safety violations that increase the risk of accidents. Previous studies have investigated which factors influence employees’ intentions to engage in safe or unsafe behaviors. Using path analysis, Ghasemi et al. suggested that the inclination toward safe behavior is influenced by perceived work pressure, excessive workload, and the pace of work, which are mediated through the group attitudes of how employees react to their colleagues’ safe or unsafe behaviors and the personal attitudes of how employees voluntarily contribute to the safety of their workplaces [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. Another study by Khoshakhlagh et al., using structural equation modeling, assessed various dimensions of job stress, such as conflict at work, lack of job control, and work overload, to show that the effect of safety climate on the risk of occupational accidents is mediated by job stress [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Taken together, these findings suggest that daily job stress affects employees’ intentions to engage in safety behaviors, serving as a mediator or with other mediators.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe influence of job stress on workers is not determined solely by stressors. Instead, its impact is mediated by workplace resources that support employees. For example, emotional care and support from managers serve as resources that mitigate the influence of customer deviance in retail stores [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. Previous studies on burnout mechanisms have proposed and tested a model called the job demand-resource (JD-R) model, which indicates that burnout occurs when job demands, such as time pressure and physical workload, are high and when job resources that empower workers, such as job control and support from colleagues, family, and peer groups, are limited [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Other well-known models concerning the effect of job demands on workers’ well-being are the job demand-control (JDC) model and the job demand-control (-support) (JDCS) model [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Both the JDC and JDCS models conceptualize two dimensions of adverse work conditions: job demands (e.g., workload and time pressure) and job control. The JDCS model further included social support in the workplace as a third dimension. Although the JD-R, JDC, and JDCS models were originally developed to explain the impact of adverse working conditions on employees’ health and well-being, they have since been extended to the safety context [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR11 CR12 CR13 CR14 CR15 CR16 CR17\" citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e–\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. Hansez and Chmiel (2010) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e] conducted one of the first studies to extend the JD-R model to safety behaviors. They hypothesized that employees would prioritize maintaining performance over safety as job demands increase. In contrast, increasing job resources was expected to enhance work engagement, thereby influencing safety violations. Using structural equation modeling, they demonstrated that job demands and resources affect safety violations through job strain and engagement. Additionally, significant paths were found from perceived management’s commitment to safety to rule violations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe safety violations of employees are most often examined via questionnaires in which participants report their everyday practices, such as wearing appropriate footwear and using safety equipment. In addition to such habitual behaviors, safety behaviors also have a dynamic aspect, namely, how workers respond to irregular events under work pressure. A key question is how work pressure influences workers’ safety behaviors when they are required to make rapid decisions in specific situations. Adachi et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e] conducted a questionnaire survey of hospital nurses to investigate the conditions under which they are inclined to violate safety rules. In this survey, Adachi et al. created scenarios in which a nurse experienced varying levels of social and time pressure and decided to break a rule to escape from that pressure. The participants in that study were required to imagine whether they would take the same action as the nurse in the scenario. Each scenario specified the levels of social and time pressure to which the nurse was exposed, as well as the objective risks and benefits of the deviant behavior. For each scenario, the participants were asked three questions: “Would you take the same action described in the scenario?” (intention to violate safety rules), “How dangerous do you expect if you take the same action?” (perceived risk), and “How much benefit would you expect if you take the same action?” (perceived benefit). The results revealed four main findings. First, the intention to violate safety rules was affected by objective risk, objective benefit, and time pressure. Second, objective risk affects perceived risk. Third, objective risk, objective benefits, time pressure, and social pressure influence perceived benefits. Finally, perceived risk and perceived benefits were negatively and positively correlated, respectively, with the intention to violate safety rules.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe effects of daily job demands and resources on the perceived benefits and risks of safety violations, as well as on the intention to engage in unsafe behaviors in dynamic situations, remain unclear. To address this issue, we conducted a questionnaire survey focusing on rule violations related to slip and fall incidents in the retail industry. The incidence rate of slip and fall accidents among retail workers is 1.54 times higher than that among the general workforce (calculated from [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]). In particular, this study targeted supermarket employees, who frequently move between the stockroom and the busy sales area. Spills caused by customers further increase the risk of accidents, making adherence to safety rules—such as refraining from running inside the store—crucial for prevention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe questionnaire consisted of three sections: demographic information, workplace factors, and scenario-based assessments. In the second section, job demands and resources, as well as the variety of fall prevention measures, were assessed. The variety of fall prevention measures was asked as an indicator of the perceived management commitment to safety. In the third section, for each question, participants were asked to read a scenario in which a supermarket employee engaged in an action with a high potential for causing a slip and fall incident. The task of the participants was to evaluate (1) the extent to which they would take the same unsafe action, (2) the expected benefits if the action did not result in an accident, and (3) the perceived risk of the action. Instead of taking a hypothesis-driven approach, we examine the workplace factors that influence the perceived benefits and risks associated with safety violations. Our goal is to identify indirect pathways through which these factors shape workers’ intentions to violate safety rules.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eParticipants\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe participants were recruited from an online survey panel provided by a market research company in Japan. A total of 146 supermarket employees completed the study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eData collection\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Japan. On the first page of our online questionnaire, participants were provided with a brief description of this study. The purpose of this study was to examine workers’ awareness of measures to prevent fall accidents. Only those who provided informed consent completed the questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn the final page of the questionnaire, we reported that the true objective of this study was to investigate the possibility that prevention of falls sometimes fails even when workers believe that they are complying with fall prevention measures. We explained that the true goal had not been disclosed at the onset of the study to avoid biasing the participants’ responses by drawing their attention to lapses in prevention measures. The participants were then asked to confirm their consent again. The responses of participants who declined to provide consent at this stage were excluded from the analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuestionnaires\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe questionnaire consisted of three parts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePart 1: Demographic information\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first section collected demographic information, including age, sex, years of work experience at the current workplace, years of work experience in the current job, employment type, work sections at a supermarket or at a management office, and occupational accidents experienced (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDetails of the occupational accidents experienced\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccident Type\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFalls from height\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFall on same level\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStruck against object\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStruck by flying or falling objects\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCaught in or crushed in collapsing materials\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStruck by moving objects / vehicles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCaught in or compressed by equipment or objects\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCuts, abrasions, or scrapes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStepping through (penetration injury)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDrownings\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eContact with extreme temperatures (hot or cold surfaces/objects)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExposure to harmful substances\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eElectric shock\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExplosion\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRupture (of pressure vessels, containers, etc.)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFire\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTransportation accidents (road)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTransportation accident (other)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverexertion or awkward/repetitive motion\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOther\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnclassifiable / Not otherwise classified\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo experience\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e56\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003ePart 2: Workplace factors\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second section included questions on workload, job control, interpersonal support, and safety measures for fall prevention in workplaces (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Most of those questions were derived from the Brief Job Stress Questionnaire (BJSQ) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e], a questionnaire developed by a research team sponsored by the Ministry for Labor of Japan and based on the Generic Job Stress Questionnaire (GJSQ)[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e] of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (the United States of America). Instead of assessing social support only from supervisors and coworkers, we assessed social support from supervisors, senior coworkers (those with more experience in the workplace), and peer coworkers, as the informal hierarchy based on years of experience has been recognized as important in Japanese organizations[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. It is plausible that part-time employees with more experience than full-time employees may exert considerable influence within the community at supermarkets. Additionally, a question was added to assess interpersonal support from customers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eItems and constructs of the workplace factors (Part 2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConstruct\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e#\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eItem\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScoring\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWork overload\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI have to do too many things.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003efrom 1(Strongly Disagree) to 4(Strongly Agree)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI cannot finish tasks in work hours.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003efrom 1(Strongly Disagree) to 4(Strongly Agree)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLack of job control\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI can decide the order or the way to handle my tasks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003efrom 1(Strongly Agree) to 4(Strongly Disagree)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI can reflect on the policy of my workplace with my opinion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003efrom 1(Strongly Agree) to 4(Strongly Disagree)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"7\" rowspan=\"8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLack of interpersonal support\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe atmosphere of my workplace is friendly.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003efrom 1(Strongly Agree) to 4(Strongly Disagree)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe atmosphere of our customers is friendly.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003efrom 1(Strongly Agree) to 4(Strongly Disagree)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow do you feel easy to communicate with your supervisors?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003efrom 1(To a Great Extent) to 4(Not at All)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExclusion: No supervisors\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow do you feel easy to communicate with your seniors?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003efrom 1(To a Great Extent) to 4(Not at All)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExclusion: No seniors\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow do you feel easy to communicate with your peers?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003efrom 1(To a Great Extent) to 4(Not at All)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExclusion: No peers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow reliable are your supervisors?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003efrom 1(To a Great Extent) to 4(Not at All)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExclusion: No supervisors\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow reliable are your seniors?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003efrom 1(To a Great Extent) to 4(Not at All)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExclusion: No seniors\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow reliable are your peers?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003efrom 1(To a Great Extent) to 4(Not at All)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExclusion: No peers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFall prevention measures\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChoose all the action prevention measures taken at your workplace.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e1. Improvements to facilities, such as installing handrails and anti-slip measures, eliminating level differences, and ensuring adequate lighting;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e2. Organizing, tidying, and cleaning of walkways, stairs, and work areas\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e; 3. Provision or recommendation of slip-resistant footwear\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e; 4. Visual identification of hazardous areas by posting warning signs in places prone to falls\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e; 5. Implementation of employee education on fall prevention;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e6. Modification of work speed, posture, or methods;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e7. Assessment of fall risk through physical fitness tests\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e; 8. Adjusting tasks or workplaces based on physical function or fitness level\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e; 9. Implementation of stretching exercises or physical activities\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e; 10. Other measures;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e11. No measure is taken\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe number of selected prevention measures was counted.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo assess perceived management’s commitment to safety, questions regarding safety measures to prevent falls were also included. The participants were required to select all fall prevention measures implemented in their workplaces from a list of nine commonly adopted measures for fall prevention. If the participants selected “Other measures,” they were asked to specify additional practices. They were also given the option to select “No measure is taken” if they believed that their workplaces did not implement any fall prevention measures.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePart 3: Scenario-Based Items\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe third section consisted of six items, each describing a scenario in which a supermarket worker faced a difficult situation involving time or social pressures that could be alleviated by violating fall-prevention safety rules (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). In each scenario, the target unsafe action of the scenario was underlined. After reading the scenario, the participants were asked to evaluate the following statements for the underlined action: how much did the following descriptions apply to each target action in the scenario? 1. “I would take the same action as described.” (intention to violate safety rules), 2. “If I took the same action and no accident occurred, it would save more time than taking the ideal action.” (perceived time-saving benefit), 3. “If I took the same action and no accident occurred, it would make me feel less stressed than taking the ideal action.” (perceived stress-reduction benefit), and 4. “If I took the same action, I or my colleagues would fall” (fall risk recognition). Responses were provided on a visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0 (“Does not apply at all”) to 100 (“Fully applies”).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe scenario-based items (Part 3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e#\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScenario\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFive minutes before opening, you noticed that the cashier was absent and started heading to the register from the back room. Ideally, you should walk to the register, but instead \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eyou hurried over\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou heard an in-store announcement requesting backup at the register and started heading there from the back room. At this time, there are only a few customers waiting in line, and the sales floor is relatively less busy. Ideally, you should walk to the register, but instead \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eyou hurried over\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is raining today, and the entrance area is wet from customers’ umbrellas and shoes. A colleague asked if you could carry two delayed delivery boxes upstairs at once. This store does not an elevator. Carrying both boxes stacked together could cause you to slip on the wet stairs or bump into someone. Ideally, you would say, “I’ll take them in two trips.” However, because the delivery was urgent, \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eyou carried both boxes at once\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is a busy time of day with many customers in the store. You were about to return a stack of baskets to the register when you noticed that the floor around the bagging area was widely wet. Since the baskets were already piled up, leaving them there without returning them could be unsafe. Ideally, you would inform others that the baskets had piled up and that the floor around the bagging area was wet, and then coordinate with colleagues to divide the tasks of returning the baskets and cleaning the floor. However, without asking for help, \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eyou cleaned the floor and returned the baskets by yourself\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou noticed that the soles of a colleague’s work sneakers were worn down and had lost their tread. Ideally, you would point this out to your colleague, but \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eyou decided it was not something worth mentioning\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYour shift today is an early one. By chance, you learned that the sales floor will be waxed after closing tonight. However, the store manager left without informing the others and planned to go straight home. Ideally, you would tell the late-shift staff that the floor would be slippery after closing due to waxing and that they should be careful. However, \u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eyou left work without making any particular effort to share this information with them\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnalysis\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants who did not belong to supermarket sections were excluded. To control interpersonal factors in the workplace, we also excluded participants who reported having no supervisors, senior colleagues, or peer colleagues. All analyses were conducted using R software version 4.3.3.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePath analysis was conducted to examine the indirect effects of workplace factors on the dynamic intention to violate safety rules, with perceived benefit and risk as mediators. Path analyses were performed with lavaan package version 0.6–19 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e], semtools package version 0.3.1, semPlot package version 1.1.6, and semTools package version 0.5-7. The goodness of fit was evaluated using the chi-square statistic (\u003cem\u003eχ\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. Following conventional criteria, RMSEA values below .08, CFI values above .90, and SRMR values below .08 were considered to indicate a good fit [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. The significance level was set at 5%.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariables regarding workplace factors\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second part of the questionnaire was used to assess daily job demands and resources. Scores were converted so that higher scores indicated greater job demands, as shown in the \"Scoring\" column of Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. The variable “work overload” was computed as the sum of the responses to Items 1 and 2. The variable “lack of job control” was calculated as the sum of the responses to Items 3 and 4. The variable “lack of interpersonal support” was derived from the total score of Items 5 through 12. The number of fall prevention measures selected in Item 13 was used as the score for “variety of fall prevention measures.” If the response “Other measures” was selected, it was counted as one fall prevention measure.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariables related to the dynamic intention to violate safety rules and perceived benefits and risks\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe third part of the questionnaire assessed the dynamic intention to violate safety rules and the perceived benefits and risks of safety violations. Each of the six items in this section asked participants to provide four VAS scores, corresponding to “intention to violate safety rules”, “perceived time-saving benefit”, “perceived stress-reduction benefit”, and “fall risk recognition.” Each of these four variables was calculated as the sum of the VAS scores from the six items.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eDemographic information\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe demographic characteristics of the participants are illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;1. After excluding individuals who did not belong to any on-supermarket-site section and those without supervisors, seniors, or peers, a total of 118 participants (24 females) were included in the analysis. The mean age was 50.99 years (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.90, range: 25\u0026ndash;75). Thirty-six participants (30.51%) were part-timers. The mean tenure at the current workplace was 12.90 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.90, range: 0\u0026ndash;45) years. The mean duration of experience in the current job was 21.18 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;11.55, range: 0\u0026ndash;45) years. Details regarding the occupational accidents the participants experienced are summarized in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePath analysis\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe descriptive statistics (means\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SDs) for Parts 2 and 3 of the survey are presented in Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, respectively. We constructed a model to examine how the influence of daily job demands and resources on intentions dynamically affects perceived benefits and risks and how the dynamically perceived benefits and risks affect the intention to violate safety rules (Fig.\u0026nbsp;2). The results of the measurement model fit assessment are shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e. All indices except for the RMSEA met the recommended criteria. The reason why the RMSEA in this study was high may be attributed to the relatively small sample size. RMSEA values in the range of 0.08 to 0.1 are thought to indicate a mediocre fit [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResults (means\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SDs) of Part 2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConstruct\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e#\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eItem\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SD\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWork overload\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI have to do too many things.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.017\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.599\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI cannot finish tasks in work hours.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.517\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.792\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLack of job control\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI can decide the order or the way to handle my tasks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.059\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.766\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eI can reflect on the policy of my workplace with my opinion.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.339\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.808\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"7\" rowspan=\"8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLack of interpersonal support\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe atmosphere of my workplace is friendly.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.093\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.704\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe atmosphere of our customers is friendly.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.144\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.543\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow do you feel easy to communicate with your supervisors?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.576\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.821\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow do you feel easy to communicate with your seniors?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.568\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.79\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow do you feel easy to communicate with your peers?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.364\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.736\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow reliable are your supervisors?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.61\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.858\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow reliable are your seniors?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.593\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.819\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow reliable are your peers?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.76\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFall prevention measures\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChoose all the action prevention measures taken at your workplace.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.314\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.852\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResults (means\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SDs) of Part 3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScenario #\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntention to violate safety rules\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived time-saving benefit\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived stress-reduction benefit\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFall risk recognition\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e64.653\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;28.306\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e62.636\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;28.375\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e58.432\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;26.607\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e57.797\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;25.777\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e61.949\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;28.676\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e60.28\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;27.33\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e58.297\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;26.495\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e56.136\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;25.595\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e51.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;29.516\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e54.102\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;28.211\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e51.72\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;28.339\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e65.492\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;22.081\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e53.712\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;29.979\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50.941\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;28.505\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e53.161\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;28.407\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e61.432\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;23.694\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48.992\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;29.756\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e43.144\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;26.274\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e42.161\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;27.06\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e62.237\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;23.618\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e31.542\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;30.056\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35.373\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;28.783\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e34.305\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;28.203\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e67.415\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;28.648\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results of the measurement model fit assessment\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eModel fit index\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResult\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecommended value\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eχ\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eχ\u003c/em\u003e2(7)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14.575, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.042\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRMSEA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.096\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.08\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCFI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.976\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.90\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSRMR\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.059\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.08\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e presents the direct effect of each path. A positive effect of a lack of job control on perceived stress-reduction benefits and work overload on fall risk recognition was observed. In contrast, the variety of fall prevention measures had negative effects on both perceived stress-reduction benefits and perceived time-saving benefits. Furthermore, perceived time-saving benefits and perceived stress-reduction benefits positively affected the intention to violate safety rules, whereas fall risk recognition had a negative effect on the intention to violate safety rules.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab7\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 7\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDetails of the direct effect of each path of the path model\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParameter estimate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e-statistic\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStandardized estimate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLack of interpersonal support\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived time-saving benefit\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.706\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.48\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.285\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.776\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.029\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived stress-reduction benefit\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.543\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.352\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.231\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.817\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.023\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFall risk recognition\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.224\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.119\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.578\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.563\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.059\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLack of job control\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived time-saving benefit\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.668\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.027\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.329\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.184\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.133\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived stress-reduction benefit\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15.872\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.613\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.085\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.037\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.203\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFall risk recognition\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-4.028\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.859\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.587\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.557\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.059\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFall prevention measures\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived time-saving benefit\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-12.607\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.713\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.207\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.027\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.207\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived stress-reduction benefit\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-14.215\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.419\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.623\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.009\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFall risk recognition\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.669\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.881\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.956\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.339\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWork overload\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived time-saving benefit\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-6.112\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.717\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.701\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.483\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.064\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived stress-reduction benefit\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.403\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.268\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.412\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.681\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.036\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFall risk recognition\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16.819\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.448\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.258\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.024\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.205\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived time-saving benefit\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntention to violate safety rules\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.687\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.067\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.271\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.687\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived stress-reduction benefit\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntention to violate safety rules\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.221\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.067\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.297\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.001\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.221\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFall risk recognition\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntention to violate safety rules\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.126\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.054\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.348\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.019\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.126\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNext, we examined the indirect effects of daily job demands and resources on the intention to violate safety rules, mediated by dynamically perceived benefits and risks. As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, the indirect paths from the variety of fall prevention measures to the intention to violate safety rules via perceived stress-reduction benefits and perceived time-saving benefits were statistically significant. Additionally, the indirect path from lack of job control to the intention to violate safety rules via perceived stress-reduction benefits was marginally significant.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab8\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 8\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDetails of the indirect effect of each path of the path model\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003evia\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParameter estimate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e-statistic\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStandardized estimate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWork overload\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntention to violate safety rules\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFall risk recognition\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.123\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.304\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.628\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.104\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.022\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLack of job control\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntention to violate safety rules\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived stress-reduction benefit\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.501\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.987\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.762\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.078\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.043\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFall prevention measures\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntention to violate safety rules\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived time-saving benefit\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-8.655\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.012\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.157\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.031\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.141\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived stress-reduction benefit\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-3.135\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.527\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-2.053\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.04\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-0.051\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eSlip and fall accidents are the most common occupational hazards among employees of supermarkets. These incidents sometimes occur as a result of violations of safety regulations. This study examined how supermarket employees decide to violate safety rules, taking into account the daily job demands and resources they are exposed to in their work environment. Our results suggest that employees\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the benefits and risks associated with safety violations play a key role in their decision-making process. The variety of fall prevention measures in the workplace was found to decrease the perceived time-saving benefits and the perceived stress-reduction benefits, which in turn indirectly reduced the intention to violate safety rules. Furthermore, we identified a marginal indirect effect whereby a lack of job control positively affects the intention to violate safety rules, which is mediated by the stress-reducing benefit.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerceived time-saving benefits\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAmong the perceived benefits and risks associated with safety violations, the perceived time-saving benefit was found to have the strongest influence on employees\u0026rsquo; intentions to violate safety rules. The perceived time-saving benefits likely reflect the time pressure experienced by employees. Understandably, employees perceive a greater benefit in violating safety rules when such violations help them alleviate time constraints and complete tasks more efficiently. This interpretation is consistent with a previous study by Adachi et al. (2010)[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e] which reported that the objective benefits potentially gained from safety violations and the presence of time pressure increased employees\u0026rsquo; intention to engage in safety violations. Production pressure can lead to misconduct [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e] and a poor safety climate [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. It is expected that time pressure negatively impacts ethical behaviors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eImportantly, however, work overload, which is typically considered a source of job strain and safety violations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e], was not found to significantly affect the perceived time-saving benefit. This inconsistency is likely explained by the difference between chronic time pressure caused by work overload and acute time pressure that arises in a dynamic context. In our study, workload was measured on the basis of responses to items concerning the amount of work required within a typical workday, whereas the perceived time-saving benefits were assessed on the basis of responses to hypothetical scenarios involving acute time pressure. A previous study [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e] has shown that anticipation of time pressure can significantly reduce unethical behavior. In contrast, our present results suggest that acute time pressure, rather than chronic (i.e. anticipable) time pressure, is potentially a more salient trigger for safety violations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe indirect effect of the variety of fall prevention measures on the intention to violate safety rules\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePath analysis revealed two indirect pathways linking the variety of fall prevention measures to the intention to violate safety rules: one is mediated by the perceived stress-reduction benefit, and the other is mediated by the perceived time-saving benefit.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe fall prevention measures listed in Item 13 of our questionnaire (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) encompassed nine types of interventions. Although most of these involved organizational-level modifications, some were aimed at changing the behaviors of individual employees. A comprehensive review by Dyreborg et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e] on safety interventions suggested that combining organizational-level interventions with those targeting both organizational and individual levels is moderately effective in preventing accidents. For example, a study by Bell et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e] that focused on the prevention of slip and fall incidents among hospital workers reported a 58% decrease in compensation claims of occupational accidents following a multifaceted intervention. They argued that slip and fall incidents stem from a wide variety of circumstances; thus, combinations of countermeasures are more effective in reducing slip and fall incidents. Taken together, a variety of fall prevention measures can effectively reduce the actual occurrence of falls. However, preventing the occurrence of falls and reducing employees\u0026rsquo; intention to violate safety rules for fall prevention are not necessarily the same. Why, then, was the variety of fall prevention measures found to reduce the intention to violate safety rules in this study?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne possible explanation is that workplaces where management commits to safety are more likely to implement a broader range of fall prevention measures. The safety climate of a workplace is related to the perception of management attitudes toward safety [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. In such environments where management commits to safety, employees prioritize safety over production performance and feel less intention to violate safety rules. This interpretation is consistent with our findings that the variety of fall prevention measures is negatively associated with both the perceived time-saving benefits and the stress-reduction benefits of safety violations. These results suggest that in workplaces where safety is deeply embedded in the organizational culture, employees are less likely to perceive safety violations as beneficial, thereby reducing their intention to engage in such behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWork overload\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNotably, work overload had a positive effect on fall risk recognition. The Japanese retail industry is currently experiencing a chronic labor shortage. According to a survey conducted by the Japan Institute for Labor Policy and Training, 55% of retail facilities reported a shortage of full-time workers, and 53% reported a shortage of part-time workers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e]. Given these conditions, it is understandable that understaffing leads to work overload for individual employees. We suggest that in such environments, employees may place greater importance on preventing injuries for themselves and for their coworkers because losing a team member due to an accident would further exacerbate the workload. This heightened awareness of the consequences of an accident may lead to greater recognition of fall risk. Another interpretation is that work overload forces employees to work long hours, leaving them with less time to sleep and rest. Long hours of working is one of the biggest health hazards. Previous studies have reported that employees who work long hours have a higher risk of stroke than those working standard hours [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. It is plausible that participants who reported higher workloads perceived greater fall risk due to concerns about their health.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLimitations of this study\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study has several limitations that should be considered. First, it is impossible to validate the self-reports collected with online questionnaires. It is plausible that the participants were not free from social desirability bias or any other response biases. In addition, even when participants answered the questions about the intention to violate safety rules as honestly as possible, the intention simulated on the basis of the scenarios and the intention that comes to mind in the real situation would not be the same. Second, the generalizability of the findings may be limited to supermarket employees in Japan. The factors specific to the Japanese retail industry, such as chronic labor shortages, sales areas with narrow aisles, and a strong custom to treat customers as \u0026ldquo;always right\u0026rdquo;, may influence how employees perceive and respond to safety demands. Future research should replicate and extend this study in different cultural and occupational contexts. Third, the study utilized a cross-sectional design, which limits the ability to infer causal relationships between variables. A longitudinal study could provide stronger evidence regarding the causal mechanisms underlying safety violations in the workplace. The fourth limitation is the recruitment bias. The participants were recruited from an online survey panel that pooled potential responders who earned pocket money by completing questionnaires using smartphones in their free time. It is plausible that we missed obtaining data from supermarket employees who did not prefer using smartphones or had no free time. Finally, we interpreted that the path from work overload to fall risk recognition is attributed to the labor shortage in the Japanese retail industry or employees\u0026rsquo; healthcare concerns. However, this interpretation is still a mere speculation because we have not collected data about whether participants were experiencing understaffing or whether they had any health concerns. Future research should examine the influence of understaffing and health conditions on the intention to violate safety rules.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employed scenario-based questions to investigate the effects of job demands, job resources, and management commitment to safety on employees\u0026rsquo; intentions to violate safety rules under dynamic circumstances. As a result, we found that employees\u0026rsquo; perceptions of benefits and risks significantly influence their intentions to violate safety rules. A greater variety of fall prevention measures reduced the perceived benefits of safety violations, thereby indirectly lowering the intention to violate safety rules. A marginal effect of a lack of job control on the intention to violate safety rules via the stress-reducing benefit was also found. Chronic overload, often considered a source of violations of habitual safety behaviors, does not enhance the perceived benefits of safety violations in a dynamic context. While previous studies have focused mainly on habitual safety behaviors, responses under dynamic conditions remain underexplored. Future studies should deepen the understanding of the decision-making process of safety violations in dynamic contexts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eBJSQ\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Brief Job Stress Questionnaire\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCFI\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; Comparative fit index\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGJSQ\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; Generic Job Stress Questionnaire\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJD-R\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; Job Demand-Resource\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJDC\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Job Demand-Control\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJDCS\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Job Demand-Control (-Support)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRMSEA\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; Root mean square error of approximation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSD\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Standard deviation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSRMR\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Standardized root mean square residual\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVAS \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Visual analog scale\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Japan and conducted in accordance with \"Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects\" issued by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, which are based on the Declaration of Helsinki, the Fundamental Principles of Research on the Human Genome issued by Council for Science and Technology, Japan, and relevant Japanese laws. Informed consent was obtained from all participants before they participated in this study. Informed consent was collected again from all participants after debriefing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eCompeting interest\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was supported by an internal research grant of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Japan.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthors’ contributions\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eYY: study concept and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, and critical revision of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAT: study concept and design, interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, and critical revision of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgments\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe would like to express our gratitude to all the participants in this study.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAhmad NA, Tap MM, Syahrom A, Rohani JM, Rani MRA. Perception Study on Leading Factors of Slip and Fall Incidents in Manufacturing Industry. Procedia Manuf. 2015;2:263\u0026ndash;7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.046\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.046\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChang W-R, Leclercq S, Lockhart TE, Haslam R. State of science: occupational slips, trips and falls on the same level. Ergonomics. 2016;59:1\u0026ndash;23. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2016.1157214\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00140139.2016.1157214\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHu K, Rahmandad H, Smith-Jackson T, Winchester W. Factors influencing the risk of falls in the construction industry: a review of the evidence. Constr Manag Econ. 2011;29:397\u0026ndash;416. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2011.558104\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/01446193.2011.558104\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGhasemi F, Kalatpour O, Moghimbeigi A, Mohhamadfam I. A path analysis model for explaining unsafe behavior in workplaces: the effect of perceived work pressure. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2018;24:303\u0026ndash;10. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2017.1313494\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10803548.2017.1313494\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhoshakhlagh AH, Sulaie S, Al, Yazdanirad S, Park J. Examining the effect of safety climate on accident risk through job stress: a path analysis. BMC Psychol. 2023;11:89. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01133-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s40359-023-01133-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMayr K, Teller C. Customer deviance in retailing: Managers\u0026rsquo; emotional support and employees\u0026rsquo; affective wellbeing. J Retail Consum Serv. 2023;72. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103291\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103291\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. February:103291.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDemerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, Schaufeli WB. The job demands-resources model of burnout. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86:499\u0026ndash;512.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. J Organ Behav. 2004;25:293\u0026ndash;315. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/job.248\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/job.248\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eH\u0026auml;usser JA, Mojzisch A, Niesel M, Schulz-Hardt S. Ten years on: A review of recent research on the Job Demand\u0026ndash;Control (-Support) model and psychological well-being. Work Stress. 2010;24:1\u0026ndash;35. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/02678371003683747\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/02678371003683747\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNielsen MB, Mearns K, Matthiesen SB, Eid J. Using the Job Demands-Resources model to investigate risk perception, safety climate and job satisfaction in safety critical organizations. Scand J Psychol. 2011;52:465\u0026ndash;75. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00885.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00885.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNahrgang JD, Morgeson FP, Hofmann DA. Safety at Work: A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Link Between Job Demands, Job Resources, Burnout, Engagement, and Safety Outcomes. J Appl Psychol. 2011;96:71\u0026ndash;94. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/a0021484\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/a0021484\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi F, Jiang L, Yao X, Li Y. Job demands, job resources and safety outcomes: The roles of emotional exhaustion and safety compliance. Accid Anal Prev. 2013;51:243\u0026ndash;51. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.11.029\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.aap.2012.11.029\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBronkhorst B. Behaving safely under pressure: The effects of job demands, resources, and safety climate on employee physical and psychosocial safety behavior. J Saf Res. 2015;55:63\u0026ndash;72. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2015.09.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jsr.2015.09.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDerdowski LA, Mathisen GE. Psychosocial factors and safety in high-risk industries: A systematic literature review. Saf Sci. 2023;157. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105948\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105948\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. January 2022:105948.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOsca A, L\u0026oacute;pez-Ara\u0026uacute;jo B. Work stress, personality and occupational accidents: Should we expect differences between men and women? Saf Sci. 2020;124. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104582\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104582\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. December 2019:104582.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHansez I, Chmiel N. Safety Behavior: Job Demands, Job Resources, and Perceived Management Commitment to Safety. J Occup Health Psychol. 2010;15:267\u0026ndash;78. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/a0019528\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/a0019528\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSeo HJ, Rhee S-Y, Yoon Y-G. Enhancing Worker Safety Behaviors Through the Job Demands\u0026ndash;Resources Approach: Insights from the Korean Construction Sector. Buildings. 2025;15:486. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15030486\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/buildings15030486\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSeo HJ, Rhee S-Y, Kim NK. A Study on the Factors Affecting Safety Behaviors and Safety Performance in the Manufacturing Sector: Job Demands-Resources Approach. Safety. 2025;11:29. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/safety11020029\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/safety11020029\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdachi Y, Usui S, Matsumoto T. A Study of Psychological Factors in Nursing Violation. Japanese J Appl Psychol. 2010;35:71\u0026ndash;80. (in Japanese).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinistry of Internal Affairs and, Communications J. Labour Force Survey. 2024.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinistry of Health, Labour and, Welfare J. Statistics on Occupational Accidents Resulting in Injuries and Illnesses Based on the Annual Workers\u0026rsquo; Accident/Illness Report. 2024.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShimomitsu T, Haratani T, Nakamura K, Kawakami N, Hayashi T, Hiro H et al. Final development of the Brief Job Stress Questionnaire mainly used for assessment of the individuals. In: Kato M, editor. Ministry for Labour sponsored grant for the prevention of work-related illness: The 1999 report. 2000. pp. 126\u0026ndash;138 (in Japanese).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHurrell JJJ, McLaney MA. Exposure to job stress\u0026ndash;a new psychometric instrument. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1988;14(Suppl 1):27\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSekiguchi T, Ikeda M. The Informal Structure of Senpai (Seniors), Kohai (Juniors), and Doki (Peers) in Japanese Organizations. Encyclopedia. 2025;5:49. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5020049\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/encyclopedia5020049\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRosseel Y. lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.18637/jss.v048.i02\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. 2 SE-Articles:1\u0026ndash;36.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 5th edition. The Guilford Press; 2023.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eByrne BM, Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling With EQS. Routledge; 2013. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9780203726532\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4324/9780203726532\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol Methods. 1996;1:130\u0026ndash;49. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eByun G, Lee S, Dai Y, Rhie J, Lee JH. When Pressure Breeds Misconduct: Job Strain, Coworker Support, and Unethical Pro-Organizational Behavior. Behav Sci (Basel). 2025;15:1\u0026ndash;15. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/bs15050573\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/bs15050573\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHashemian SM, Triantis K. Production pressure and its relationship to safety: A systematic review and future directions. Saf Sci. 2023;159:106045. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.106045\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ssci.2022.106045\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoberg DJ. Time Pressure and Ethical Decision-Making. Bus Prof Ethics J. 2000;19:41\u0026ndash;67. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5840/bpej200019214\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5840/bpej200019214\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang Z, Jia X. No Time for Ethics: How and When Time Pressure Leads to Abusive Supervisory Behavior. J Bus Ethics. 2023;188:807\u0026ndash;25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05510-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10551-023-05510-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKoh HP, Scully G, Woodliff DR. Can Anticipating Time Pressure Reduce the Likelihood of Unethical Behaviour Occurring? J Bus Ethics. 2018;153:197\u0026ndash;213. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3352-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10551-016-3352-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDyreborg J, Lipscomb HJ, Nielsen K, T\u0026ouml;rner M, Rasmussen K, Frydendall KB, et al. Safety interventions for the prevention of accidents at work: A systematic review. Campbell Syst Rev. 2022;18. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1234\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/cl2.1234\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBell JL, Collins JW, Wolf L, Gr\u0026ouml;nqvist R, Chiou S, Chang W-R, et al. Evaluation of a comprehensive slip, trip and fall prevention programme for hospital employees. Ergonomics. 2008;51:1906\u0026ndash;25. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00140130802248092\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00140130802248092\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFlin R, Mearns K, O\u0026rsquo;Connor P, Bryden R. Measuring safety climate: Identifying the common features. Saf Sci. 2000;34:177\u0026ndash;92. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00012-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00012-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJILPT. Hitode busoku to sono taio ni kakawaru chosa [Survey on labor shortage and its management]. Tokyo, Japan; 2024.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVirtanen M, Kivim\u0026auml;ki M. Long Working Hours and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2018;20:123. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-018-1049-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11886-018-1049-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Safety violation, Time pressure, Job demand-resource model, Slip and fall accidents, Retail industry","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8023038/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8023038/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrevious research has linked job demands and resources to safety behavior. While most studies focus on habitual safety behaviors, responses under dynamic conditions remain less explored. We focus on the influence of workplace factors (job demands, job resources, and management commitment to safety) on employees’ safety behaviors to prevent slip and fall incidents. Slip and fall incidents represent major occupational hazards, with retail workers experiencing higher accident rates than the general workforce does.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe recruited 146 supermarket employees in Japan through an online survey panel. The survey comprisesthree parts: demographics, workplace factors, and scenario-based items. Workplace factors included work overload, job control, interpersonal support, and fall prevention measures. The scenario-based items presented six situations where workers could reduce time or social pressures by violating safety rules, and participants rated their intentions, perceived benefits, and perceived risks of safety violations on visual analog scales. Path analysis was conducted using R.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter exclusions, 118 supermarket employees (mean age = 51 years) were analyzed. Path analysis indicated that a lack of job control increased perceived time-saving benefits and that work overload increased fall risk recognition. Conversely, a greater variety of workplace prevention measures reduced both perceived stress-reduction and time-saving benefits. Perceived time-saving and stress-reduction benefits were positively associated with the intention to violate safety rules, whereas fall risk recognition was negatively associated. Indirect effects were also observed: prevention measures reduced the intention to violate rules via lowered perceived benefits, and lack of job control marginally increased intentions through stress-reduction benefits.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study explored supermarket employees’ intentions to violate safety rules, considering job demands, resources, and perceived benefits and risks. Perceived time-saving benefits had the strongest influence on employees’ intentions to violate safety rules, reflecting the role of acute time pressure. In contrast, work overload increasesfall risk recognition. The variety of fall prevention measures indirectly reduced violation intentions by lowering perceived benefits, suggesting that management’s commitment to safety shapes a culture where rule violations are seen as less advantageous. Overall, perceptions of workplace safety mediate the link between conditions and behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The effects of workplace stress and various types of safety interventions on the intention of retail industry workers to violate safety rules: A questionnaire study","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-12-08 11:27:22","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8023038/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"33438855282078436212410725357537454110","date":"2025-12-17T21:23:20+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-12-04T11:50:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-11-12T16:02:26+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-11-11T09:37:43+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-11-11T09:33:36+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Psychology","date":"2025-11-04T00:20:15+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"b4dbb5b5-a609-4ae3-8f7a-e11750d09eda","owner":[],"postedDate":"December 8th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-12-08T11:27:22+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-12-08 11:27:22","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8023038","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8023038","identity":"rs-8023038","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}