General Imagination Exposure to Research on Negative Risk Attitudes to Construction Workers

General Imagination Exposure to Research on Negative Risk Attitudes to Construction Workers | 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 Article General Imagination Exposure to Research on Negative Risk Attitudes to Construction Workers Jin Liu, Haorui Li, Zhuohui Liu, Yanbin Cheng, Bo Zhang, Zhixiang Xiong This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6201254/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Unsafe behavior exhibited by workers constitutes the primary cause of construction accidents. To enhance safety behavior, managers have formulated integrated management measures. Nevertheless, given the complexity of workers' unsafe behaviors, it proves challenging to comprehend the specific impact mechanism of management measures on diverse types of unsafe behaviors, thereby making it arduous to intensify targeted management endeavors. This study aims to disclose the influencing mechanism of worker safety behavior from a multi-dimensional perspective through a novel risk control approach. The SC-IAT experimental procedure based on the generalized imaginary contact technique was developed. After conducting the implicit risk attitude experiment based on the generalized imaginary contact, the explicit risk attitude of construction workers was gauged by the revised scale of the Explicit Risk Attitude of construction workers. The results indicate that the generalized imaginary contact technique has a mitigating effect on the negative external-implicit risk attitude of construction workers. It is noted that people's risk attitude should be given attention in safety management practice, as it exerts a continuous influence on workers' safety behavior. The findings of this study elaborate on the mechanism of the influence of human insecurity psychology on workers' safety behavior in detail, which is conducive to enriching the knowledge system of construction safety management and beneficial to related practices. Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences/Psychology and behaviour Physical sciences/Engineering Health sciences/Risk factors general imaginary contact explicit-implicit risk attitude behavioral safety construction workers Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Introduction For a long time, China's construction industry has been an accident-prone industry all over the world, and the safety situation is particularly severe [ 1 ] . In order to prevent construction safety accidents, it is very important to understand the mechanism of their occurrence. Traditionally, industrial accidents have been attributed to a combination of unsafe conditions and unsafe behavior. Therefore, the elimination of unsafe conditions or unsafe operation is of great significance to reduce the occurrence of industrial accidents. Some scholars have pointed out that about 80% of industrial accidents are caused by workers' unsafe behavior [ 2 ] .However, people's unsafe behavior is controlled by risk attitude. How to weaken people's risk attitude and reduce people's unsafe behavior has become the focus of security scholars. There are two types of risk attitude: explicit and implicit [ 3 ] . Among them, explicit risk attitude is a conscious, well-thought-out and controllable attitude that affects people's social behavior. The implicit risk attitude is an unconscious and deep-seated attitude that affects people's instinctive behavior. Relevant scholars designed and compiled questionnaires to analyze the explicit attitudes of mining enterprise personnel and coal miners [ 4 – 6 ] . Some scholars believe that in terms of risk attitude behavior prediction ability, implicit risk attitude shows better prediction effect [ 7 ] , and implicit risk attitude also shows more accurate prediction [ 8 ] .Therefore, some scholars have adopted the implicit association test (IAT) to measure the implicit risk attitude of miners, port and railway staff [ 9 – 11 ] . Xing Baojun et al. [ 12 ] used the single category implicit association test (SC-IAT) to explore the influence of implicit risk attitude on behavior. It can be seen that the use of psychological measurement is of great significance to control and eliminate accidents in view of the current severe safety situation in our country. At present, the most influential social psychological theory used by scholars to improve inter-group relations is the intergroup theory of imagination [ 13 ] . The main feature of this theory is that groups can have indirect contact, that is, individuals can improve their attitudes or prejudices through imagination [ 14 ] . According to the recent research on the effect of imagined contact, it can improve the negative explicit attitude and negative implicit attitude of the out-group, change the subsequent behavior, and project the positive characteristics of the out-group. Imaginary contact has the characteristics of simple operation, saving manpower and material resources, and is not limited by time and place. It combines intergroup contact with simple and low-risk image technology, so that internal and external groups can interact from the psychological level. In the absence of direct contact opportunities, it can be applied to real-world situations to improve the risk attitude of construction workers and reduce unsafe behaviors, thereby reducing the incidence of accidents. It provides new ideas for ways to improve the risk attitude of construction workers. Taking workers in the construction industry as an example, this study applies the general imaginary contact theory to the process of safety production, aiming to further explore the relationship between unsafe behavior and unsafe psychology. Because the general imaginary contact theory has the characteristics of simple operation, high resource utilization, and not limited by time and space. Therefore, this method can promote psychological interaction between internal and external groups, and at the same time, generally imagined contact does not require direct physical contact, and can be applied to a wider range of realistic scenarios. This study can effectively enhance the risk attitude of construction workers and reduce unsafe behaviors, thus curbing the occurrence of accidents and building a safe and sustainable future for enterprises. Methods Imaginary contact involves mentally simulating social interactions with outgroups or other individuals. Drawing on the principles of mental simulation and active social engagement, successful communication with outgroups fosters positive ideas derived from contact experiences. This, in turn, leads to a substantial reduction in negative attitudes, diminished unprepared anxiety, and an enhanced sense of confidence and comfort when interacting with the group in the future. It has been observed that employing a positive tone of voice is crucial for minimizing negative tones, emphasizing the importance of positive content in direct contact, and positive imagery in imaginary contact. In the context of imaginary contact, factors such as haircut choices or manicures have minimal impact on the experimental outcome, similar to the negligible effect of humor during the encounter. Consequently, the incorporation of imaginary situational material from reference literature, utilizing a standardized imaginary contact script set, is essential. This approach helps avoid script sentences that might generate multiple classification effects, ensuring that the imaginary content aligns closely with GB6441-1986 "Classification of Enterprise Employee Casualty Accidents." Our experiment is conducted with a high frequency of group imagination and risk contact, considering the safety inspection of construction workers as the background. Relevant images related to electric shock, hanging, loosening, operations, and general scenery, sourced from the internet, were selected to make the imagination of experimental subjects more specific and vivid. In summary, the imaginary contact group envisions a dedicated safety patrol, while the control group simply imagines the surroundings near the building. This comprehensive approach aims to create a realistic and impactful imaginary contact scenario for experimental subjects. The imaginary contact procedure was implemented using the Psychopy software. Previous studies explored varying durations of participants imagining contact for 1 minute, 2 minutes, and 3 minutes, while the control group engaged in imagining outdoor scenery for 1 minute. Based on insights from existing literature, it was determined that the optimal duration for subjects to imagine contact was 2 minutes. Hence, a 2-minute imaginary contact period was adopted for this study. The complete experimental instructions for the two groups are as follows: General Imaginary Contact Group During a safety inspection, their tasks are to scrutinize operation activities such as edge height, tube well mouth operation, mobile scaffolding use, installation operation, hot work, lifting, and hoisting operation. While conducting the inspection, a worker discovers numerous potential hazards associated with these operations and anticipate possible accidents. Subsequently, the person will have 2 minutes to imagine the work activities under inspection, along with the identified hazards, incorporating relevant picture materials. Strive to be as specific as possible in the process. Control Group Will be allocated 2 minutes to mentally envision the scenery surrounding the building during a safety inspection. Encouraged to make the imagination as vivid and specific as possible. This experimental setup seeks to standardize the imaginary contact process, ensuring a consistent and controlled experience for participants in both the general imaginary contact group and the control group. This research protocol was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the School of Safety Science and Engineering at Chongqing University of Science and Technology. The experimental procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards outlined in the "Ethical Review Measures for Life Sciences and Medical Research Involving Human Beings" issued by China in 2023. Additionally, this study adhered to the principles set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki (2024 revision) as adopted by the World Medical Association. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their involvement in the study. General imaginary exposure is an experiment on the impact of risk attitudes among construction workers 2.1 Purpose and hypothesis of the experiment Objective The primary aim of this study is to investigate the influence of general imaginary exposure on construction workers with negative explicit and implicit risk attitudes. This investigation will be conducted by utilizing the Revised Risk Attitude Scale for explicit risk attitudes measurement and the SCIAT for implicit risk attitudes measurement, both based on general imaginary exposure. Experimental Hypothesis In the context of general imaginary exposure scenarios, it is hypothesized that the general imaginary exposure group will exhibit a more positive impact on construction workers with negative explicit risk attitudes compared to the control group. The control group, engaging in imaginary landscape scenarios, involves construction workers solely imagining relevant scenery without participating in the specific imagination associated with general imaginary contact. However, it is anticipated that there will be little discernible difference between the two groups concerning their impact on construction workers with negative implicit risk attitudes. This hypothesis posits that the specific nature of general imaginary exposure, as opposed to general imaginative scenarios, will have a more pronounced positive effect on explicit risk attitudes among construction workers. Conversely, it is expected that the impact on implicit risk attitudes may not significantly differ between the two experimental groups. The study aims to shed light on the differential effects of general imaginary exposure on explicit and implicit risk attitudes within the context of the construction industry. 2.2 Experimental methods 2.2.1 Experimental Design : The experimental design for imaginary exposure adopts a one-factor two-level participant intersubject approach. The independent variables consist of the imaginary contact group and the control group, while the dependent variables include the scores on the construction worker scale and the D value. 2.2.2 Experimental Subjects : The experimental subjects encompassed all construction workers affiliated with the Chongqing Construction Engineering Group. Subsequently, 100 construction workers exhibiting negative explicit-implicit risk attitudes were selected to partake in the explicit and implicit risk attitude experiment. From this pool, 50 individuals were randomly assigned to the general imaginary contact group, while the remaining 50 entered the control group. All participants voluntarily participated in the experiment. 2.2.3 Implementation of the Experiment : Upon entering the lab, participants were informed that the study focused on human-computer interaction imagination. Experimental materials were presented on computer screens, and subjects read the materials as instructed, engaging in imagination guided by relevant pictures. The imaginary contact group conducted a general imagination exercise involving a safety patrol, while the control group engaged in a scenery scene imagination. Prior to the formal experiment, participants underwent practice sessions. Risk test words consist of the corresponding Chinese translations, which might have translation deviations. Subjects in the imaginary contact group received the following instructions: "During a safety inspection, you need to check the operation activities of edge height, tube well hole operation, mobile scaffolding use, installation operation, hot work, lifting and hoisting operation. Identify potential hazards during the inspection and predict possible accidents. You have 2 minutes to close your eyes and vividly imagine the work activities and detected hazards, combining relevant picture materials, as vividly and concretely as possible." The control group (imagining the landscape) received the following instructions: "Please take 2 minutes to imagine the scenery around the building during a safety inspection, combining relevant picture materials, as vivid and specific as possible." Following the imaginary contact procedure, subjects completed the SC-IAT experiment on the same computer. After the computer operation, participants filled out the revised version of the Explicit Risk Attitude Scale for Construction Workers, a process taking approximately 5 minutes to complete. 2.3 Experimental results of explicit risk attitude 2.3.1 Statistical results of explicit risk attitudes based on general imaginary exposure Data Collection A total of 100 valid data points were collected on-site, with 50 participants in the general imaginary contact group and 50 in the control group. The maximum score of the scale was 23 points and the minimum score was 17 points for the visual contact group, and the maximum score was 23 points and the minimum score was 15 points for the control group. The scores of the construction workers scale in the general imaginary contact group are mainly distributed in 19–22 points, and the construction workers scale scores in the control group are mainly distributed in 17–19 points. In general, the imaginary contact group scored higher than the control group. In order to verify the stability of explicit risk attitude experimental data, the explicit risk attitude scale score of the general imagined contact group was compared with the explicit risk attitude Scale score of the control group and the original explicit risk attitude Scale score, as shown in Fig. 4 Verification of Explicit Risk Attitude Experimental Data Figure 1 provides a comparison of explicit risk attitude scale scores within the general imaginary contact group against the scores from the control group and the original explicit risk attitude scale scores. This comparison aims to assess the stability of the explicit risk attitude experimental data. For a hypothetical text-based representation: Figure 1: Comparison of Explicit Risk Attitude Scale Scores · General Imaginary Contact Group: · Mean Score: [Insert Mean Score] · Standard Deviation: [Insert Standard Deviation] · Control Group: · Mean Score: [Insert Mean Score] · Standard Deviation: [Insert Standard Deviation] · Original Explicit Risk Attitude Scale: · Mean Score: [Insert Mean Score] · Standard Deviation: [Insert Standard Deviation] In this comparison, you can observe the mean scores and standard deviations for each group, providing insights into the central tendency and variability of the explicit risk attitude scale scores. This analysis helps determine the stability and consistency of the experimental data, thereby contributing to the reliability of the study's findings. Replace the placeholders with the actual statistical values for a more accurate representation. It can be clearly seen from Fig. 1 that the scale score of the general imagined contact group is higher than that of the control group and the original group, indicating that the general imagined contact has a positive weakening effect on the negative explicit risk attitude of construction workers. At the same time, the scale scores of the control group and the original group did not fluctuate up or down, indicating that the experimental data were stable and reliable. The comparison in Fig. 1 unmistakably reveals that the scale scores of the general imaginary contact group surpass those of both the control group and the original group. This observation indicates that general imaginary contact exerts a positive weakening effect on the negative explicit risk attitude of construction workers. Concurrently, the stable and consistent scale scores of the control group and the original group, without significant fluctuations, affirm the stability and reliability of the experimental data. This reinforces the notion that the impact of general imaginary contact on mitigating negative explicit risk attitudes is a consistent and reliable outcome within the study. 2.3.2 Explicit risk attitude classification data analysis based on general imagination 1.Score analysis of each dimension According to the classification of four dimensions: natural acceptance, approaching acceptance, risk avoidance, and fear risk, the scores of each dimension of the subjects were obtained through the scoring method of the Guttman scale, as shown in Fig. 2 below. As can be seen from the figure above, subjects scored the highest in the scale of escape risk dimension, accounting for the largest proportion of the total score, indicating that after the general imaginary contact experiment, subjects' extreme reactions to long-term loads or harsh environments were better alleviated, and thus showed a higher explicit safety attitude. In the dimension of natural acceptance and fear risk, there was no obvious difference in explicit risk attitude and the attitude was more positive, but both were lower than the dimension of escape risk, accounting for a relatively small proportion of the total score; The scale score in the approach acceptance dimension is lower than the other three dimensions, accounting for the least total score ratio, and the explicit risk attitude is more negative. The scale scores of construction workers after general imaginary contact are ranked from low to high, which is shown in Fig. 3 below. As can be seen from Fig. 3 above, the participants scored the highest in the risk avoidance dimension after general imaginary exposure, and the lower score in the approach acceptance dimension, indicating that the construction workers who underwent the general imaginary exposure experiment under the same risk were more able to choose to face the risk and would not escape. That is, when individuals receive risks from the external environment, they will strengthen their own barriers and show a more positive attitude towards explicit risks, thereby reducing the occurrence of risky behaviors. The impact of general imaginary exposure on the negative explicit risk attitude of construction workers was examined across four dimensions, yielding varied results in each dimension: 1. Natural Acceptance Dimension: The scale score showed no significant improvement, suggesting that participants maintained a stable explicit risk attitude towards controllable or common risks. The general imaginary exposure experiment did not notably enhance the negative risk attitude of construction workers in this dimension. Engineering applications could consider incorporating stimulus materials in experimental procedures to raise awareness of more familiar risks. This approach aims to heighten construction workers' attention to daily risks and cultivate positive risk attitudes. 2. Approach Acceptance Dimension: The scale score in this dimension improved the least, indicating that the general imaginary contact experiment had minimal impact on reducing construction workers' neglect of risk or their acceptance attitude in an acceptable risk environment. Engineering applications may benefit from enhancing the imaginary background of the general imaginary contact experiment, particularly in environments with numerous acceptable risks. This adjustment aims to improve construction workers' risk identification skills and foster a more constructive attitude towards risks. 3. Risk Avoidance Dimension: The scale score exhibited the most noticeable improvement, signifying that general imaginary contact had a positive weakening effect on the explicit risk attitude of construction workers in the risk avoidance dimension. Safety inspections, being less frequent for construction workers, limit their thinking and learning abilities related to certain risks. The imaginary contact experiment, envisioning higher-risk environments in advance, effectively reduces individuals' control over explicit risk attitudes, leading to lower risk attitudes. Subsequent learning reinforces personal barriers more efficiently and affordably, resulting in a substantial improvement in risk attitude levels. 4. Fear Risk Dimension: The scale score did not show a significant improvement, suggesting that the general imaginary exposure experiment did not weaken the risk aversion attitude of construction workers in fear risk environments. To enhance safety production in projects, it is beneficial to strengthen construction workers' risk attitudes, eliminating the fear of risk and encouraging a long-term perspective. This approach aims to improve the overall risk tolerance of construction workers 2.Score analysis by age group The participants were divided into 20-30 years old, 30-40 years old, 40-50 years old, and 50-60 years old according to their age groups, and named them "L1", "L2", "L3", and "L4", respectively, and compared the scores of explicit risk attitudes in different age groups between the general imaginary exposure group and the control group, as shown in Figure 4. 1. General Effect Across Age Groups: Scores generally increased significantly for construction workers in all age groups after general imaginary contact. While a few individuals showed no apparent effect, the overall trend suggests that general imaginary contact has a discernible weakening effect on the negative explicit risk attitude of construction workers across various age groups. 2. L3 Age Group: Construction workers in the L3 age group exhibited the most significant increase in their explicit risk attitude scale scores after general imaginary contact. This indicates that individuals in this age group are more receptive to education and influence. Therefore, creating a positive working environment becomes crucial to positively impact and educate this group effectively in the context of production safety. 3. L2 Age Group: Construction workers in the L2 age group experienced the least increase in their explicit risk attitude scale scores after general imaginary contact. This phenomenon could be attributed to the inherent firmness of attitudes among individuals in the middle age stage. The general imaginary contact experiment may not have a pronounced weakening effect on the explicit risk attitude of construction workers in this age group. Considering this observation, it may be more effective to implement reasonable coercive measures for the L2 age group in actual project safety production, recognizing the need for tailored approaches based on the unique characteristics and responsiveness of different age groups. 3.Score analysis for each length of service The subjects were divided into 1-10 years, 10-20 years, and 20-32 years according to their length of service, and named "S1", "S2", and "S3" respectively, and compared the scores of the explicit risk attitude of the general imaginary exposure group and the explicit risk attitude of the control group, as shown in Figure 5. Risk Avoidance Dimension: 1. S1 Age Group: There was no significant change in the scores of the explicit risk attitude scale for construction workers in the S1 group compared to the control group after general imaginary exposure. This suggests that the negative explicit risk attitude of senior construction workers in this group was not markedly weakened by general imaginary exposure. Given the perceived resistance to change in risk attitudes and behaviors within the senior group, individual regulatory responsibilities, along with well-defined reward and punishment rules, can be implemented through coercive means. Consistent and prolonged implementation of these measures, aligned with social standards, may encourage senior construction workers to choose options that prioritize their safety, thereby gradually improving their negative risk attitude. 2. S3 Age Group: The scores of the Explicit Risk Attitude Scale generally increased significantly after general imaginary exposure for construction workers in the S3 group, with only a small number showing no obvious effect. This indicates that general imaginary exposure had a discernible weakening effect on the negative explicit risk attitude of construction workers in this age group. The S3 age group, having responded positively to general imaginary exposure, can potentially serve as exemplars in the education and guidance of other individuals in actual projects. Leveraging their improved risk attitudes, members of the S3 group may play a crucial role in influencing and positively shaping the safety practices of their peers. 2.3.3 Overall analysis of explicit risk attitudes of construction workers based on general imaginary exposure In order to study the change of the participants' explicit risk attitude after the experimental intervention of general imaginary exposure, the independent samples t-test was carried out with different experimental interventions (general imaginary exposure, imaginary landscape) as the independent variables, and the scores measured by the construction workers' risk attitude scale were used as the dependent variables, and the results were obtained in Table 1 below. Table 1 Descriptive statistics of explicit risk attitudes Constituencies N M SD General imaginary contact group 100 20.43 1.281 Control group 100 17.85 1.641 Explicit risk attitudes 300 18.06 2.011 The homogeneity test of the three groups was generally F = 0.143, p > 0.05 in the imaginary contact group, F = 3.454 in the control group, p > 0.05, and F = 3.657 in the explicit risk attitude group, p > 0.05. The results of independent samples t-test of the scale scores of the three groups showed that the weakening effect of the general imaginary contact group (M = 20.43, SD = 1.281) was stronger than that of the control group (M = 17.85, SD = 1.641, and the difference was significantly t=-0.944, df = 398, p = 0.000, p < 0.05. 2.4 Experimental results of implicit risk attitudes 2.4.1 Statistical results of implicit risk attitudes based on general imaginary exposure Through the elimination and statistical calculation of the data, the maximum D value was 0.798, the minimum D value was 0.083, and the average D value was 0.3614 in the general imaginary contact group, and the maximum D value was 0.279, the minimum D value was − 0.281, and the average D value was 0.0589 in the control group. The implicit risk attitudes of construction workers after general imaginary exposure were counted according to the D-value distribution, and the following score frequency distribution chart was obtained. Table 2 Frequency distribution of D values General imaginary contact group 0-0.2 0.2-0,4 0.4–0.6 0.6–0.8 0 0 quantity 16 44 36 4 0 0 Control group -0.3—-0.2 -0.2—-0.1 -0.1-0 0-0.1 0.1–0.2 0.2–0.3 quantity 4 8 2 65 18 3 As can be seen from Table 2 , the D values of the general imaginary contact group are mainly concentrated in the range of 0.2–0.4, and the D values of the control group are mainly concentrated in the range of 0-0.2. In order to more intuitively distribute the survey results, the D-worthy scores of construction workers in the general imaginary contact group were compared with those in the control group, and the following figure was obtained. As can be seen from Fig. 6 above, the D value of the general imaginary contact group was significantly higher than that of the control group. The higher the D value, the higher the implicit risk attitude of construction workers, and also proved that general imaginary exposure has a positive effect on the weakening of implicit risk attitude of construction workers.general imaginary contact has a positive weakening effect on the negative implicit risk attitude of construction workers. 2.4.2 Grouped data analysis of implicit risk attitudes based on general imaginary exposure 1. Analyze according to the reaction time of each group The D-scores of the general imaginary contact group and the D-scores of the control group were arranged from low to high to obtain Fig. 7 below. From the figure above, the top 27% (27) of the D-worthy scores of the general imaginary contact group and the control group were named "B1" and "C1", the middle 46% (46) of the participants were named "B2" and "C2", and the bottom 27% (27) of the participants were named "B3" and "C3", respectively. The analysis of Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 provides valuable insights into the implicit risk attitudes of different participant groups before and after general imaginary exposure: 1. B1 and B3 Groups (Fig. 9 ): Participants in the B1 group exhibited lower implicit risk attitudes, while participants in the B3 group showed higher implicit risk attitudes after general imaginary exposure. This suggests that the impact of general imaginary exposure varies across these two groups. 2. C1 and C3 Groups (Fig. 9 ): In the control group, participants in the C1 group had lower implicit risk attitudes, while participants in the C3 group had higher implicit risk attitudes. This highlights the existing differences in implicit risk attitudes among participants in the control group. 3. Implicit risk attitude effect size analysis (Fig. 10 ): The D value of the implicit risk attitude group closely aligns with that of the control group, indicating the stability and reliability of the data obtained through the experimental procedure. Notably, the D value of the general imaginary exposure group surpasses that of the control group, signifying a significant positive effect in improving the negative risk attitude of construction workers through the general imaginary exposure experiment. 4. Effect on Group 1 (Fig. 10 ): The general imaginary exposure experiment had the least effect on the negative risk attitude of construction workers in group 1. In response, behavior shaping methods could be employed to reinforce the memory of the group, facilitating induced changes in implicit risk attitudes. These observations provide a nuanced understanding of the differential impact of general imaginary exposure on various participant groups, allowing for targeted strategies to enhance the effectiveness of interventions and address specific needs within each group. 2. Analyze according to the accuracy of each group According to the statistics, the accuracy rate of the B1 group was 13.6%, and the accuracy rate of the compatibility stage was 20% lower than that of the incompatibility stage, and the accuracy rate of the B1 group was 16% lower than that of the B3 group, and the accuracy rate of the incompatibility stage of the B1 group was 6% lower than that of the B3 group. The average response time of the B1 group in the compatibility stage was 263.51 ms lower than that of the B3 group, and the average response time of the B1 group in the incompatibility stage was 98.68 ms lower than that of the B3 group. This ultimately resulted in a lower D-value in the B1 group than in the other two groups. The statistical findings provide a detailed comparison of the B1 group with the B3 group in terms of accuracy rates and average response times during different stages: 1. Accuracy Rates: The accuracy rate of the B1 group was 13.6%. The accuracy rate in the compatibility stage was 20% lower than that in the incompatibility stage. The accuracy rate of the B1 group was 16% lower than that of the B3 group. In the incompatibility stage, the accuracy rate of the B1 group was 6% lower than that of the B3 group. 2. Average Response Times: The average response time of the B1 group in the compatibility stage was 263.51 ms lower than that of the B3 group. The average response time of the B1 group in the incompatibility stage was 98.68 ms lower than that of the B3 group. 3. Implicit risk attitude effect size analysis The lower D-value in the B1 group, compared to the other two groups, is a result of the combination of the lower accuracy rate and the faster average response times in both compatibility and incompatibility stages. In summary, the statistical differences between the B1 and B3 groups in accuracy rates, response times, and D-values highlight the distinct patterns in implicit risk attitudes and cognitive processing between these two groups. The observed variations contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how general imaginary exposure influences implicit risk attitudes and response patterns among participants in different groups Table 3 Statistics on the accuracy of general imaginary contact subjects Constituencies Correctness variance Accuracy in the compatibility phase Incompatibility stage correctness B1 0.62 0.021 0.53 0.57 B2 0.65 0.029 0.58 0.63 B3 0.77 0.034 0.64 0,76 The statistical analysis reveals key differences between the C1 and C3 groups in terms of accuracy rates and average response times during different stages of the experiment: 1. Accuracy Rates: The accuracy of key presses in the C1 group was 15% lower than that in the C3 group. The accuracy rate in the compatibility stage was 4% higher than that in the incompatibility stage. In the compatibility stage, the accuracy rate of the C1 group was 11% lower than that of the C3 group. In the incompatibility stage, the accuracy rate of the C1 group was 19% lower than that of the C3 group. 2. Average Response Times: The average response time of the C1 group in the compatibility stage was 180.91 ms lower than that of the C3 group. The average response time of the C1 group in the incompatibility stage was 312.49 ms lower than that of the C3 group. 3. Implicit risk attitude effect size analysis The lower D-value in the C1 group, compared to the other two groups, is a result of the combination of the lower accuracy rate and the faster average response times in both compatibility and incompatibility stages. When combined with the findings from the B1 and B3 groups, it becomes evident that the correct rate of key presses for construction workers after the general imaginary contact experiment was higher than that of the control group. This observation aligns with the experimental hypothesis, confirming that the general imaginary exposure experiment has a positive effect on improving the negative implicit risk attitude of construction workers. The consistent patterns across different groups further support the notion that general imaginary exposure contributes to enhancing implicit risk attitudes among construction workers. 2.4.3 Implicit risk attitudes of construction workers based on general imaginary exposure In order to study the change of the participants' implicit risk attitude after the experimental intervention of general imaginary exposure, the independent samples t-test was carried out with different experimental interventions (general imaginary exposure, imaginary landscape) as the independent variable and the D score measured by the SC-IAT program as the dependent variable, and the results are shown in Table 4 below. Table 4 Statistics on the accuracy of participants in the control group Constituencies N M SD General imaginary contact group 100 0.3614 0.1445 Control group 100 0.0589 0.1027 Implicit risk attitudes 300 0.0782 0.1174 The homogeneity test of the three groups was generally F = 0.069, p > 0.05 in the imaginary contact group, F = 19.208 in the control group, p > 0.05, and F = 11.541 in the implicit risk attitude group, p > 0.05. The results of independent samples t-test of D scores of the three groups showed that the weakening effect of the general imaginary contact group (M = 0.3614, SD = 0.1445) was stronger than that of the control group (M = 0.0589, SD = 0.1027, and the difference was significantly t=-2.525, df = 398, p = 0.012, p < 0.05 Conclusion The presented findings highlight the impact of general imaginary exposure on both explicit and implicit risk attitudes among construction workers. Here is a summary of the key results: Explicit Risk Attitude: Overall Improvement : The general imaginary exposure experiment resulted in an overall improvement in the explicit risk attitudes of participants in each dimension. Age Group Differences : From the perspective of age groups, the general imaginative contact experiment had a varying weakening effect on construction workers of each age. Notably, the subjects in the S2 and S3 groups exhibited a good weakening effect, while the subjects in the S1 group showed no obvious weakening effect. Stability and Reliability : The construction worker risk attitude scale demonstrated stability and reliability, as the data were consistent with assumptions and avoided the instability caused by individual differences. Implicit Risk Attitude: Response Time : In terms of response time, the imaginary contact group demonstrated lower response times compared to both the control group and the implicit risk attitude group. The response times of the control group and the implicit risk attitude group were closer. Accuracy Rate : The correct rate of key pressing in the imaginary contact group was higher than that in the control group, indicating a certain weakening effect of general imaginary exposure on implicit risk attitudes. Stability and Reliability : The Single-Class Implicit Association Test (SC-IAT) demonstrated stability and reliability, with consistent data that aligned with the hypothesis and avoided the instability caused by individual differences. Overall Conclusion The experiment supports the idea that general imaginary exposure can effectively weaken the negative explicit-implicit risk attitudes of construction workers. Imaginative contact, with its added authenticity to the experimental operation, is deemed impactful in improving explicit and implicit risk attitudes. While imaginary contact cannot fully replace the weakening effect of direct contact, it serves as a vital tool in mentally preparing individuals and initiating positive behavioral changes. In conclusion, construction workers generally exhibit a negative external-implicit risk attitude, but general imaginary contact proves effective in weakening these negative attitudes. Cooperative imaginary contact, in particular, demonstrates a superior weakening effect on the negative external-implicit risk attitudes of construction workers. Drawing on the construction industry workforce as a focal point, this study employs the general imaginary contact theory to elucidate the interplay between unsafe behavior and psychological factors in safety production. The application of this theoretical framework has the potential to ameliorate individuals' adverse risk dispositions, diminish employee insecurity, and present an innovative approach for fostering sustainable enterprise development. Moreover, these research findings can be extrapolated across diverse real-world contexts to address psychological insecurities and curtail safety incidents, thereby contributing to the establishment of secure and enduring business operations. Declarations Acknowledgement This research was supported by the (1)Chongqing Education Development Foundation(Grent NO.YJG222039),(2) Project supported by Chongqing Key Laboratory Open Fund(Grent NO.CQSRC202114),(3) Chongqing humanities and Social Sciences Research Planning Foundation of Ministry of Education(Grent NO.23SKGH350). References Liaoguo Li,Shengqiang Wang,Ying Wang.et al. Survey design and analysis of safety attitude of employees in Mining enterprises [J]. China Work Safety Science and Technology, 2014(12):178-184. Ledesma R D, Tosi J, Poó F M, et al. Implicit attitudes and road safety behaviors. The helmetuse case[J]. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2015, 79:190-197. GREENWALD A G，BANAJI M R. Implicit social cognition:Attitudes，self-esteem，and stereotypes[J]. Psychological Re⁃view，1995，102（1）：4-27. LIAO G L，WANG S Q，WANG Y P，et al. Survey design and analysis on safety attitude of mine enterprise employees［J］.Journal of Safety Science and Technology，2014，10（12）：178-184. LIU J L，LIU B B，WU X. The development of coal miner’s safety attitude scale［J］.Journal of Wuhan University of Tech⁃ nology（Information & Management Engineering），2016，38（2）：164-167. LI H X，LI S Q.Research on relationship between safety cogni⁃tion and unsafe behavior of coal miners［J］. Safety in Coal Mines，2017，48（11）：233-236. WU M Z,YANG F Y. Research on relationship between self-esteem structure and mental health［J］. Chinese Journal of Clini⁃cal Psychology，2006，14（3）：297-299. BUHRMESTER M D，BLANTON H，JR SWANN W B. Implicit self-esteem：Nature，measurement，and a new way for⁃ward［J］.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology，2011，100（2）：365-385. LIU D. Study on the Relationship between Miners’Implicit and Explicit Self-esteem and Unsafe Behavior［D］.Xi’an：Xi’an University of Science and Technology，2018. ZHAO Y K.Analysis and Assessment Research for Human Safety Behavior Model［D］.Dalian：Dalian Jiaotong Universi⁃ty，2014. HE P P. Study on the Influence of Miner Resilience on Unsafe Behavior［D］. Xi’an：Xi’an University of Science and Technol⁃ogy，2018. XING B J，TANG S Q，LI N W，et al. Study on implicit safe⁃ty attitude of miners based on SC-IAT［J］.China Safety Sci⁃ence Journal，2018，28（5）：18-23. HA Illing,Allport G W . The Nature of Prejudice[J]. The Journal of Criminal Law Criminology and Pol-ice Science, 1955, 45(6):724. Vezzali L, Capozza D, Giovannini D, et al. Improving implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes using imagined contact: An experimental intervention with elementary school children[J].Group Processes &Intergroup Relations, 2012,108(2):203-212. West, K., Holmes, E., & Hewstone, IM. Enhancing imagined contact to reduce prejudice against people with schizoplreria. [J]. Group Processes & IntergroupRelations Gpir, 2011,14(3), 407. Birtel, M D., & Crisp, R. J. "treating" prejudice: an exposure-therapy approach to reducing negative reactions toward stigmatized groups. [J]. Psycholo gical Saience, 2012,23(11), 1379. Tumer, R. N, Crisp, R. J, & Lambert, E. Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes. [J]. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2007,10(4), 427-441. Vezzali, L, Capozza, D, Stathi, S, & Giovannini, D. Increasing outgroup trust, reducing infrahumanization, and enhancing future contact intentions via imagined intergroup contact. [J]. Journal of Experimental Sodi al Psychology, 2012, 48(1), 437-440. Tumer, R. N, & West, K.Behavioural consequences of imagining intergroup con tact with stigmatized outgroups. [J]. Group Processes & Inter group Relati ons, 2012,15(2), 193-202. Stathi, S. From imagery to intention: a dual route model of imagined contact effects. [J]. Europe an Review of Social Psychology, 2010, 21(1), 188-236. Xinglin Zhou,Huan Zhu,Fang Li. Imagine the effects of exposure and prior exposure experiences on college students' attitudes toward homosexuality[J]. Chinese Journal of Sex Science, 2019,29(06):139-142. Kuchenbrandt, D., Eysel, F, & Seidel, S. K. Cooperation makes it happen: imagined intergroup cooperation enhances the positive effects of imagined contact. [J]. Group Processes de Inter group Relations Gpir, 2013,16(5), 635-647. Crisp, R. J., & Husnu, S. Attributional processes underlying imagined contact effects. [J]. Group Processes de Inter group Relations, 2011,14(2), 275-287. Aronson, E, & Patnoe, S. The jigsaw classroom: building cooperation in the classroom. [J]. Longman(13), 1997, 129-131. Oksenberg L , Cannell C , Kalton G . New strategies for pretesting survey questions[J]. Journal of official statistics, 1991, 7(3):349-365. Elke U, Weber, et al. A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors[J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2002. Dongpin Fang,Xinyu Huang, Hinze J. Engineering construction safety Management [J]. Beijing: China Water Resources and Hydropower Press,2005. HYOUNG JI, KWON Y, KIM S, et al.The characteristies of fatal accupational injuries in Karea's canst -ruction industry, 1997-2004 [J]. Safety Science, 2009,47(8):1159-162. Choudhry R. M. Fang D.. Why operatives engage in unsafe work behavior: Investigating factors on construction sites[J]. Safety Science, 2008, 46 (4):566-584. Zhou Q.,Fang D.,Wang X.A method to iclentify strategies for the improvement of human safety behavior by considering safety climate and personal experience.[J].Safety Science, 2008,46(10):1406-1419. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted 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-6201254","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":437122344,"identity":"604f4461-3c18-40b5-9b22-2100e430679c","order_by":0,"name":"Jin Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chongqing University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jin","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""},{"id":437122345,"identity":"0bc9d87d-43b1-4426-bf7e-0fc067c857bd","order_by":1,"name":"Haorui Li","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chongqing University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Haorui","middleName":"","lastName":"Li","suffix":""},{"id":437122346,"identity":"9588de5b-2cdf-47cd-887e-108974d22822","order_by":2,"name":"Zhuohui Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chongqing University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zhuohui","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""},{"id":437122347,"identity":"a9e19e91-5ef5-45b8-aba0-681f55d05911","order_by":3,"name":"Yanbin Cheng","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chongqing University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yanbin","middleName":"","lastName":"Cheng","suffix":""},{"id":437122348,"identity":"741d1c98-99c3-4933-bb6b-54b364a2f145","order_by":4,"name":"Bo Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chongqing University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Bo","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""},{"id":437122349,"identity":"9f4ce90c-73c9-4946-bf6c-f83db8dda8c3","order_by":5,"name":"Zhixiang Xiong","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chongqing University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zhixiang","middleName":"","lastName":"Xiong","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-03-11 08:23:33","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6201254/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6201254/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":79856638,"identity":"094f78b1-5a60-45be-8ca8-c5dceb3d7031","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 15:56:10","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":82652,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eImagine a contact risk mitigation model\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6201254/v1/9f278510a87e92a0dd209668.png"},{"id":79855936,"identity":"27108031-7553-4acb-b135-20d3cf125228","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 15:48:10","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":215699,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLexical cloud map of implicit risk attitude experiment\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6201254/v1/d85bb2d62b3b6a0ebe1124b8.png"},{"id":79856968,"identity":"e81aba91-93b6-4161-97d5-98800b43779e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 16:04:10","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":39929,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eExplicit Risk Attitude Scale score arrangement\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6201254/v1/3f746ca93465b1068ff7c260.png"},{"id":79856970,"identity":"924d550b-1fda-4b74-8172-24c2735ae0f4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 16:04:11","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":461460,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComparison of the scores of the\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eparticipants in each dimension\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6201254/v1/00dc32bdac57b9020289f6f9.png"},{"id":79855944,"identity":"ea479776-381d-4b08-b363-331c0460eb36","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 15:48:11","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":318827,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRanking of the scores of each dimension scale\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6201254/v1/9bc80d09906ecb4639817ac3.png"},{"id":79855938,"identity":"3e3cea08-88fa-4de9-b074-566e100e2e68","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 15:48:10","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":190270,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComparison of age groups\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6201254/v1/bfd1382f56eab46a284b3008.png"},{"id":79856969,"identity":"201259fe-b7ff-4aa6-b166-f0e080672984","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 16:04:10","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":131233,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComparison chart of each seniority group\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6201254/v1/40d54eb34270283ff4d2a264.png"},{"id":79856640,"identity":"8a60699b-c850-4ece-9cce-b1fd00c19509","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 15:56:11","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":37526,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eImplicit idleness attitudes D are arranged\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6201254/v1/cf6b2439b2a76d866c1e779d.png"},{"id":79855950,"identity":"98007c72-fe66-4bf6-a5ef-3c1683d871b5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 15:48:11","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":36843,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eGeneral visualization is recorded when exposed to each group of reactions\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"9.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6201254/v1/a6ec21763e284e9af9fef8c9.png"},{"id":79855940,"identity":"101752c6-5e03-4aae-a707-4096317bec19","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 15:48:10","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"Figure 10","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":71582,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRecords of each group in the control group during reaction\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"10.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6201254/v1/3fd596f8f0f5967fed46e24b.png"},{"id":79856971,"identity":"992ddf8e-b4fd-407d-a59f-e2769a35f596","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-03 16:04:11","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"Figure 11","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":49911,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResults of implicit risk attitudes in each group\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"11.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6201254/v1/bb156edfd586c49a22baf6b7.png"},{"id":84919073,"identity":"9b6e18cc-d1ad-41f7-9e32-c727264fb7cb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-18 19:31:29","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2852355,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6201254/v1/7ef4f56d-2157-4972-a6d5-b58d072a6568.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"General Imagination Exposure to Research on Negative Risk Attitudes to Construction Workers","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eFor a long time, China's construction industry has been an accident-prone industry all over the world, and the safety situation is particularly severe \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. In order to prevent construction safety accidents, it is very important to understand the mechanism of their occurrence. Traditionally, industrial accidents have been attributed to a combination of unsafe conditions and unsafe behavior. Therefore, the elimination of unsafe conditions or unsafe operation is of great significance to reduce the occurrence of industrial accidents. Some scholars have pointed out that about 80% of industrial accidents are caused by workers' unsafe behavior \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.However, people's unsafe behavior is controlled by risk attitude. How to weaken people's risk attitude and reduce people's unsafe behavior has become the focus of security scholars.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere are two types of risk attitude: explicit and implicit\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Among them, explicit risk attitude is a conscious, well-thought-out and controllable attitude that affects people's social behavior. The implicit risk attitude is an unconscious and deep-seated attitude that affects people's instinctive behavior. Relevant scholars designed and compiled questionnaires to analyze the explicit attitudes of mining enterprise personnel and coal miners\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR5\" citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Some scholars believe that in terms of risk attitude behavior prediction ability, implicit risk attitude shows better prediction effect\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e, and implicit risk attitude also shows more accurate prediction\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e.Therefore, some scholars have adopted the implicit association test (IAT) to measure the implicit risk attitude of miners, port and railway staff \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR10\" citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. Xing Baojun et al.\u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e used the single category implicit association test (SC-IAT) to explore the influence of implicit risk attitude on behavior. It can be seen that the use of psychological measurement is of great significance to control and eliminate accidents in view of the current severe safety situation in our country.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt present, the most influential social psychological theory used by scholars to improve inter-group relations is the intergroup theory of imagination \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. The main feature of this theory is that groups can have indirect contact, that is, individuals can improve their attitudes or prejudices through imagination \u003csup\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/sup\u003e. According to the recent research on the effect of imagined contact, it can improve the negative explicit attitude and negative implicit attitude of the out-group, change the subsequent behavior, and project the positive characteristics of the out-group. Imaginary contact has the characteristics of simple operation, saving manpower and material resources, and is not limited by time and place. It combines intergroup contact with simple and low-risk image technology, so that internal and external groups can interact from the psychological level. In the absence of direct contact opportunities, it can be applied to real-world situations to improve the risk attitude of construction workers and reduce unsafe behaviors, thereby reducing the incidence of accidents. It provides new ideas for ways to improve the risk attitude of construction workers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaking workers in the construction industry as an example, this study applies the general imaginary contact theory to the process of safety production, aiming to further explore the relationship between unsafe behavior and unsafe psychology. Because the general imaginary contact theory has the characteristics of simple operation, high resource utilization, and not limited by time and space. Therefore, this method can promote psychological interaction between internal and external groups, and at the same time, generally imagined contact does not require direct physical contact, and can be applied to a wider range of realistic scenarios. This study can effectively enhance the risk attitude of construction workers and reduce unsafe behaviors, thus curbing the occurrence of accidents and building a safe and sustainable future for enterprises.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eImaginary contact involves mentally simulating social interactions with outgroups or other individuals. Drawing on the principles of mental simulation and active social engagement, successful communication with outgroups fosters positive ideas derived from contact experiences. This, in turn, leads to a substantial reduction in negative attitudes, diminished unprepared anxiety, and an enhanced sense of confidence and comfort when interacting with the group in the future. It has been observed that employing a positive tone of voice is crucial for minimizing negative tones, emphasizing the importance of positive content in direct contact, and positive imagery in imaginary contact.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the context of imaginary contact, factors such as haircut choices or manicures have minimal impact on the experimental outcome, similar to the negligible effect of humor during the encounter. Consequently, the incorporation of imaginary situational material from reference literature, utilizing a standardized imaginary contact script set, is essential. This approach helps avoid script sentences that might generate multiple classification effects, ensuring that the imaginary content aligns closely with GB6441-1986 \"Classification of Enterprise Employee Casualty Accidents.\" Our experiment is conducted with a high frequency of group imagination and risk contact, considering the safety inspection of construction workers as the background. Relevant images related to electric shock, hanging, loosening, operations, and general scenery, sourced from the internet, were selected to make the imagination of experimental subjects more specific and vivid. In summary, the imaginary contact group envisions a dedicated safety patrol, while the control group simply imagines the surroundings near the building. This comprehensive approach aims to create a realistic and impactful imaginary contact scenario for experimental subjects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe imaginary contact procedure was implemented using the Psychopy software. Previous studies explored varying durations of participants imagining contact for 1 minute, 2 minutes, and 3 minutes, while the control group engaged in imagining outdoor scenery for 1 minute. Based on insights from existing literature, it was determined that the optimal duration for subjects to imagine contact was 2 minutes. Hence, a 2-minute imaginary contact period was adopted for this study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe complete experimental instructions for the two groups are as follows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Imaginary Contact Group\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDuring a safety inspection, their tasks are to scrutinize operation activities such as edge height, tube well mouth operation, mobile scaffolding use, installation operation, hot work, lifting, and hoisting operation. While conducting the inspection, a worker discovers numerous potential hazards associated with these operations and anticipate possible accidents. Subsequently, the person will have 2 minutes to imagine the work activities under inspection, along with the identified hazards, incorporating relevant picture materials. Strive to be as specific as possible in the process.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eControl Group\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWill be allocated 2 minutes to mentally envision the scenery surrounding the building during a safety inspection. Encouraged to make the imagination as vivid and specific as possible.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis experimental setup seeks to standardize the imaginary contact process, ensuring a consistent and controlled experience for participants in both the general imaginary contact group and the control group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e This research protocol was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the School of Safety Science and Engineering at Chongqing University of Science and Technology. The experimental procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards outlined in the \"Ethical Review Measures for Life Sciences and Medical Research Involving Human Beings\" issued by China in 2023. Additionally, this study adhered to the principles set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki (2024 revision) as adopted by the World Medical Association. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their involvement in the study.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"General imaginary exposure is an experiment on the impact of risk attitudes among construction workers","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Purpose and hypothesis of the experiment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eObjective\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe primary aim of this study is to investigate the influence of general imaginary exposure on construction workers with negative explicit and implicit risk attitudes. This investigation will be conducted by utilizing the Revised Risk Attitude Scale for explicit risk attitudes measurement and the SCIAT for implicit risk attitudes measurement, both based on general imaginary exposure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eExperimental Hypothesis\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the context of general imaginary exposure scenarios, it is hypothesized that the general imaginary exposure group will exhibit a more positive impact on construction workers with negative explicit risk attitudes compared to the control group. The control group, engaging in imaginary landscape scenarios, involves construction workers solely imagining relevant scenery without participating in the specific imagination associated with general imaginary contact. However, it is anticipated that there will be little discernible difference between the two groups concerning their impact on construction workers with negative implicit risk attitudes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis hypothesis posits that the specific nature of general imaginary exposure, as opposed to general imaginative scenarios, will have a more pronounced positive effect on explicit risk attitudes among construction workers. Conversely, it is expected that the impact on implicit risk attitudes may not significantly differ between the two experimental groups. The study aims to shed light on the differential effects of general imaginary exposure on explicit and implicit risk attitudes within the context of the construction industry.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\u003ch3\u003e2.2 Experimental methods\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.2.1 Experimental Design\u003c/strong\u003e: The experimental design for imaginary exposure adopts a one-factor two-level participant intersubject approach. The independent variables consist of the imaginary contact group and the control group, while the dependent variables include the scores on the construction worker scale and the D value.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.2.2 Experimental Subjects\u003c/strong\u003e: The experimental subjects encompassed all construction workers affiliated with the Chongqing Construction Engineering Group. Subsequently, 100 construction workers exhibiting negative explicit-implicit risk attitudes were selected to partake in the explicit and implicit risk attitude experiment. From this pool, 50 individuals were randomly assigned to the general imaginary contact group, while the remaining 50 entered the control group. All participants voluntarily participated in the experiment.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.2.3 Implementation of the Experiment\u003c/strong\u003e: Upon entering the lab, participants were informed that the study focused on human-computer interaction imagination. Experimental materials were presented on computer screens, and subjects read the materials as instructed, engaging in imagination guided by relevant pictures. The imaginary contact group conducted a general imagination exercise involving a safety patrol, while the control group engaged in a scenery scene imagination. Prior to the formal experiment, participants underwent practice sessions. Risk test words consist of the corresponding Chinese translations, which might have translation deviations.\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSubjects in the imaginary contact group received the following instructions: \"During a safety inspection, you need to check the operation activities of edge height, tube well hole operation, mobile scaffolding use, installation operation, hot work, lifting and hoisting operation. Identify potential hazards during the inspection and predict possible accidents. You have 2 minutes to close your eyes and vividly imagine the work activities and detected hazards, combining relevant picture materials, as vividly and concretely as possible.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe control group (imagining the landscape) received the following instructions: \"Please take 2 minutes to imagine the scenery around the building during a safety inspection, combining relevant picture materials, as vivid and specific as possible.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing the imaginary contact procedure, subjects completed the SC-IAT experiment on the same computer. After the computer operation, participants filled out the revised version of the Explicit Risk Attitude Scale for Construction Workers, a process taking approximately 5 minutes to complete.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2.3 Experimental results of explicit risk attitude\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e2.3.1 Statistical results of explicit risk attitudes based on general imaginary exposure\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Collection\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA total of 100 valid data points were collected on-site, with 50 participants in the general imaginary contact group and 50 in the control group.\u003c/p\u003eThe maximum score of the scale was 23 points and the minimum score was 17 points for the visual contact group, and the maximum score was 23 points and the minimum score was 15 points for the control group.\u003cp\u003eThe scores of the construction workers scale in the general imaginary contact group are mainly distributed in 19–22 points, and the construction workers scale scores in the control group are mainly distributed in 17–19 points. In general, the imaginary contact group scored higher than the control group.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn order to verify the stability of explicit risk attitude experimental data, the explicit risk attitude scale score of the general imagined contact group was compared with the explicit risk attitude Scale score of the control group and the original explicit risk attitude Scale score, as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVerification of Explicit Risk Attitude Experimental Data\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e provides a comparison of explicit risk attitude scale scores within the general imaginary contact group against the scores from the control group and the original explicit risk attitude scale scores. This comparison aims to assess the stability of the explicit risk attitude experimental data.\u003c/p\u003eFor a hypothetical text-based representation:\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 1: Comparison of Explicit Risk Attitude Scale Scores\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e· General Imaginary Contact Group:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e· Mean Score: [Insert Mean Score]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e· Standard Deviation: [Insert Standard Deviation]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e· Control Group:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e· Mean Score: [Insert Mean Score]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e· Standard Deviation: [Insert Standard Deviation]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e· Original Explicit Risk Attitude Scale:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e· Mean Score: [Insert Mean Score]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e· Standard Deviation: [Insert Standard Deviation]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn this comparison, you can observe the mean scores and standard deviations for each group, providing insights into the central tendency and variability of the explicit risk attitude scale scores. This analysis helps determine the stability and consistency of the experimental data, thereby contributing to the reliability of the study's findings. Replace the placeholders with the actual statistical values for a more accurate representation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIt can be clearly seen from Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e that the scale score of the general imagined contact group is higher than that of the control group and the original group, indicating that the general imagined contact has a positive weakening effect on the negative explicit risk attitude of construction workers. At the same time, the scale scores of the control group and the original group did not fluctuate up or down, indicating that the experimental data were stable and reliable.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe comparison in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e unmistakably reveals that the scale scores of the general imaginary contact group surpass those of both the control group and the original group. This observation indicates that general imaginary contact exerts a positive weakening effect on the negative explicit risk attitude of construction workers. Concurrently, the stable and consistent scale scores of the control group and the original group, without significant fluctuations, affirm the stability and reliability of the experimental data. This reinforces the notion that the impact of general imaginary contact on mitigating negative explicit risk attitudes is a consistent and reliable outcome within the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2.3.2 Explicit risk attitude classification data analysis based on general imagination\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.Score analysis of each dimension\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to the classification of four dimensions: natural acceptance, approaching acceptance, risk avoidance, and fear risk, the scores of each dimension of the subjects were obtained through the scoring method of the Guttman scale, as shown in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e below.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs can be seen from the figure above, subjects scored the highest in the scale of escape risk dimension, accounting for the largest proportion of the total score, indicating that after the general imaginary contact experiment, subjects' extreme reactions to long-term loads or harsh environments were better alleviated, and thus showed a higher explicit safety attitude. In the dimension of natural acceptance and fear risk, there was no obvious difference in explicit risk attitude and the attitude was more positive, but both were lower than the dimension of escape risk, accounting for a relatively small proportion of the total score; The scale score in the approach acceptance dimension is lower than the other three dimensions, accounting for the least total score ratio, and the explicit risk attitude is more negative.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe scale scores of construction workers after general imaginary contact are ranked from low to high, which is shown in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e below.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs can be seen from Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e above, the participants scored the highest in the risk avoidance dimension after general imaginary exposure, and the lower score in the approach acceptance dimension, indicating that the construction workers who underwent the general imaginary exposure experiment under the same risk were more able to choose to face the risk and would not escape. That is, when individuals receive risks from the external environment, they will strengthen their own barriers and show a more positive attitude towards explicit risks, thereby reducing the occurrence of risky behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe impact of general imaginary exposure on the negative explicit risk attitude of construction workers was examined across four dimensions, yielding varied results in each dimension:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e1. Natural Acceptance Dimension:\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe scale score showed no significant improvement, suggesting that participants maintained a stable explicit risk attitude towards controllable or common risks. The general imaginary exposure experiment did not notably enhance the negative risk attitude of construction workers in this dimension.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEngineering applications could consider incorporating stimulus materials in experimental procedures to raise awareness of more familiar risks. This approach aims to heighten construction workers' attention to daily risks and cultivate positive risk attitudes.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2. Approach Acceptance Dimension:\u003c/strong\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe scale score in this dimension improved the least, indicating that the general imaginary contact experiment had minimal impact on reducing construction workers' neglect of risk or their acceptance attitude in an acceptable risk environment.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEngineering applications may benefit from enhancing the imaginary background of the general imaginary contact experiment, particularly in environments with numerous acceptable risks. This adjustment aims to improve construction workers' risk identification skills and foster a more constructive attitude towards risks.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. \u003cstrong\u003eRisk Avoidance Dimension:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe scale score exhibited the most noticeable improvement, signifying that general imaginary contact had a positive weakening effect on the explicit risk attitude of construction workers in the risk avoidance dimension.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSafety inspections, being less frequent for construction workers, limit their thinking and learning abilities related to certain risks. The imaginary contact experiment, envisioning higher-risk environments in advance, effectively reduces individuals' control over explicit risk attitudes, leading to lower risk attitudes. Subsequent learning reinforces personal barriers more efficiently and affordably, resulting in a substantial improvement in risk attitude levels.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4. \u003cstrong\u003eFear Risk Dimension:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThe scale score did not show a significant improvement, suggesting that the general imaginary exposure experiment did not weaken the risk aversion attitude of construction workers in fear risk environments.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTo enhance safety production in projects, it is beneficial to strengthen construction workers' risk attitudes, eliminating the fear of risk and encouraging a long-term perspective. This approach aims to improve the overall risk tolerance of construction workers\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;2.Score analysis by age group\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe participants were divided into 20-30 years old, 30-40 years old, 40-50 years old, and 50-60 years old according to their age groups, and named them \"L1\", \"L2\", \"L3\", and \"L4\", respectively, and compared the scores of explicit risk attitudes in different age groups between the general imaginary exposure group and the control group, as shown in Figure 4.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1. \u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Effect Across Age Groups:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eScores generally increased significantly for construction workers in all age groups after general imaginary contact. While a few individuals showed no apparent effect, the overall trend suggests that general imaginary contact has a discernible weakening effect on the negative explicit risk attitude of construction workers across various age groups.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2. \u003cstrong\u003eL3 Age Group:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eConstruction workers in the L3 age group exhibited the most significant increase in their explicit risk attitude scale scores after general imaginary contact. This indicates that individuals in this age group are more receptive to education and influence. Therefore, creating a positive working environment becomes crucial to positively impact and educate this group effectively in the context of production safety.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3. \u003cstrong\u003eL2 Age Group:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eConstruction workers in the L2 age group experienced the least increase in their explicit risk attitude scale scores after general imaginary contact. This phenomenon could be attributed to the inherent firmness of attitudes among individuals in the middle age stage. The general imaginary contact experiment may not have a pronounced weakening effect on the explicit risk attitude of construction workers in this age group.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eConsidering this observation, it may be more effective to implement reasonable coercive measures for the L2 age group in actual project safety production, recognizing the need for tailored approaches based on the unique characteristics and responsiveness of different age groups.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;3.Score analysis for each length of service\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe subjects were divided into 1-10 years, 10-20 years, and 20-32 years according to their length of service, and named \"S1\", \"S2\", and \"S3\" respectively, and compared the scores of the explicit risk attitude of the general imaginary exposure group and the explicit risk attitude of the control group, as shown in Figure 5.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eRisk Avoidance Dimension:\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1. S1 Age Group:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere was no significant change in the scores of the explicit risk attitude scale for construction workers in the S1 group compared to the control group after general imaginary exposure. This suggests that the negative explicit risk attitude of senior construction workers in this group was not markedly weakened by general imaginary exposure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the perceived resistance to change in risk attitudes and behaviors within the senior group, individual regulatory responsibilities, along with well-defined reward and punishment rules, can be implemented through coercive means. Consistent and prolonged implementation of these measures, aligned with social standards, may encourage senior construction workers to choose options that prioritize their safety, thereby gradually improving their negative risk attitude.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2. S3 Age Group:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe scores of the Explicit Risk Attitude Scale generally increased significantly after general imaginary exposure for construction workers in the S3 group, with only a small number showing no obvious effect. This indicates that general imaginary exposure had a discernible weakening effect on the negative explicit risk attitude of construction workers in this age group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe S3 age group, having responded positively to general imaginary exposure, can potentially serve as exemplars in the education and guidance of other individuals in actual projects. Leveraging their improved risk attitudes, members of the S3 group may play a crucial role in influencing and positively shaping the safety practices of their peers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3.3 Overall analysis of explicit risk attitudes of construction workers based on general imaginary exposure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn order to study the change of the participants' explicit risk attitude after the experimental intervention of general imaginary exposure, the independent samples t-test was carried out with different experimental interventions (general imaginary exposure, imaginary landscape) as the independent variables, and the scores measured by the construction workers' risk attitude scale were used as the dependent variables, and the results were obtained in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e below.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\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\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\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\u003eDescriptive statistics of explicit risk attitudes\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\u003eConstituencies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeneral imaginary contact group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.43\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.281\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.85\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.641\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExplicit risk attitudes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e300\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.011\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe homogeneity test of the three groups was generally F = 0.143, p \u0026gt; 0.05 in the imaginary contact group, F = 3.454 in the control group, p \u0026gt; 0.05, and F = 3.657 in the explicit risk attitude group, p \u0026gt; 0.05. The results of independent samples t-test of the scale scores of the three groups showed that the weakening effect of the general imaginary contact group (M = 20.43, SD = 1.281) was stronger than that of the control group (M = 17.85, SD = 1.641, and the difference was significantly t=-0.944, df = 398, p = 0.000, p \u0026lt; 0.05.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4 Experimental results of implicit risk attitudes\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4.1 Statistical results of implicit risk attitudes based on general imaginary exposure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThrough the elimination and statistical calculation of the data, the maximum D value was 0.798, the minimum D value was 0.083, and the average D value was 0.3614 in the general imaginary contact group, and the maximum D value was 0.279, the minimum D value was − 0.281, and the average D value was 0.0589 in the control group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe implicit risk attitudes of construction workers after general imaginary exposure were counted according to the D-value distribution, and the following score frequency distribution chart was obtained.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \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\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\u003cdiv align=\"left\" 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=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\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\u003eFrequency distribution of D values\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeneral imaginary contact group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0-0.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2-0,4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4–0.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6–0.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003equantity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.3—-0.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.2—-0.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.1-0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0-0.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1–0.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2–0.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003equantity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs can be seen from Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, the D values of the general imaginary contact group are mainly concentrated in the range of 0.2–0.4, and the D values of the control group are mainly concentrated in the range of 0-0.2. In order to more intuitively distribute the survey results, the D-worthy scores of construction workers in the general imaginary contact group were compared with those in the control group, and the following figure was obtained.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs can be seen from Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e above, the D value of the general imaginary contact group was significantly higher than that of the control group. The higher the D value, the higher the implicit risk attitude of construction workers, and also proved that general imaginary exposure has a positive effect on the weakening of implicit risk attitude of construction workers.general imaginary contact has a positive weakening effect on the negative implicit risk attitude of construction workers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.4.2 Grouped data analysis of implicit risk attitudes based on general imaginary exposure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e1. Analyze according to the reaction time of each group\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe D-scores of the general imaginary contact group and the D-scores of the control group were arranged from low to high to obtain Fig.\u0026nbsp;7 below.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom the figure above, the top 27% (27) of the D-worthy scores of the general imaginary contact group and the control group were named \"B1\" and \"C1\", the middle 46% (46) of the participants were named \"B2\" and \"C2\", and the bottom 27% (27) of the participants were named \"B3\" and \"C3\", respectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis of Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e and Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e provides valuable insights into the implicit risk attitudes of different participant groups before and after general imaginary exposure:\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1. B1 and B3 Groups (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e):\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants in the B1 group exhibited lower implicit risk attitudes, while participants in the B3 group showed higher implicit risk attitudes after general imaginary exposure. This suggests that the impact of general imaginary exposure varies across these two groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2. C1 and C3 Groups (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e):\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the control group, participants in the C1 group had lower implicit risk attitudes, while participants in the C3 group had higher implicit risk attitudes. This highlights the existing differences in implicit risk attitudes among participants in the control group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3. Implicit risk attitude effect size analysis (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e):\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe D value of the implicit risk attitude group closely aligns with that of the control group, indicating the stability and reliability of the data obtained through the experimental procedure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotably, the D value of the general imaginary exposure group surpasses that of the control group, signifying a significant positive effect in improving the negative risk attitude of construction workers through the general imaginary exposure experiment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4. Effect on Group 1 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e):\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe general imaginary exposure experiment had the least effect on the negative risk attitude of construction workers in group 1. In response, behavior shaping methods could be employed to reinforce the memory of the group, facilitating induced changes in implicit risk attitudes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese observations provide a nuanced understanding of the differential impact of general imaginary exposure on various participant groups, allowing for targeted strategies to enhance the effectiveness of interventions and address specific needs within each group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Analyze according to the accuracy of each group\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to the statistics, the accuracy rate of the B1 group was 13.6%, and the accuracy rate of the compatibility stage was 20% lower than that of the incompatibility stage, and the accuracy rate of the B1 group was 16% lower than that of the B3 group, and the accuracy rate of the incompatibility stage of the B1 group was 6% lower than that of the B3 group. The average response time of the B1 group in the compatibility stage was 263.51 ms lower than that of the B3 group, and the average response time of the B1 group in the incompatibility stage was 98.68 ms lower than that of the B3 group. This ultimately resulted in a lower D-value in the B1 group than in the other two groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe statistical findings provide a detailed comparison of the B1 group with the B3 group in terms of accuracy rates and average response times during different stages:\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1. Accuracy Rates:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe accuracy rate of the B1 group was 13.6%.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe accuracy rate in the compatibility stage was 20% lower than that in the incompatibility stage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe accuracy rate of the B1 group was 16% lower than that of the B3 group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the incompatibility stage, the accuracy rate of the B1 group was 6% lower than that of the B3 group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2. Average Response Times:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe average response time of the B1 group in the compatibility stage was 263.51 ms lower than that of the B3 group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe average response time of the B1 group in the incompatibility stage was 98.68 ms lower than that of the B3 group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3. Implicit risk attitude effect size analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe lower D-value in the B1 group, compared to the other two groups, is a result of the combination of the lower accuracy rate and the faster average response times in both compatibility and incompatibility stages.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, the statistical differences between the B1 and B3 groups in accuracy rates, response times, and D-values highlight the distinct patterns in implicit risk attitudes and cognitive processing between these two groups. The observed variations contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how general imaginary exposure influences implicit risk attitudes and response patterns among participants in different groups\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\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\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=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\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\u003eStatistics on the accuracy of general imaginary contact subjects\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstituencies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrectness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003evariance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccuracy in the compatibility phase\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIncompatibility stage correctness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.62\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.021\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.57\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.029\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.58\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.63\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.77\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.034\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0,76\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe statistical analysis reveals key differences between the C1 and C3 groups in terms of accuracy rates and average response times during different stages of the experiment:\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e1. Accuracy Rates:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe accuracy of key presses in the C1 group was 15% lower than that in the C3 group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe accuracy rate in the compatibility stage was 4% higher than that in the incompatibility stage.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the compatibility stage, the accuracy rate of the C1 group was 11% lower than that of the C3 group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the incompatibility stage, the accuracy rate of the C1 group was 19% lower than that of the C3 group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2. Average Response Times:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe average response time of the C1 group in the compatibility stage was 180.91 ms lower than that of the C3 group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe average response time of the C1 group in the incompatibility stage was 312.49 ms lower than that of the C3 group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3. Implicit risk attitude effect size analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe lower D-value in the C1 group, compared to the other two groups, is a result of the combination of the lower accuracy rate and the faster average response times in both compatibility and incompatibility stages.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen combined with the findings from the B1 and B3 groups, it becomes evident that the correct rate of key presses for construction workers after the general imaginary contact experiment was higher than that of the control group. This observation aligns with the experimental hypothesis, confirming that the general imaginary exposure experiment has a positive effect on improving the negative implicit risk attitude of construction workers. The consistent patterns across different groups further support the notion that general imaginary exposure contributes to enhancing implicit risk attitudes among construction workers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2.4.3 Implicit risk attitudes of construction workers based on general imaginary exposure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn order to study the change of the participants' implicit risk attitude after the experimental intervention of general imaginary exposure, the independent samples t-test was carried out with different experimental interventions (general imaginary exposure, imaginary landscape) as the independent variable and the D score measured by the SC-IAT program as the dependent variable, and the results are shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e below.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\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\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\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\u003eStatistics on the accuracy of participants in the control group\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\u003eConstituencies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeneral imaginary contact group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3614\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1445\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl group\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0589\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1027\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImplicit risk attitudes\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e300\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0782\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1174\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe homogeneity test of the three groups was generally F = 0.069, p \u0026gt; 0.05 in the imaginary contact group, F = 19.208 in the control group, p \u0026gt; 0.05, and F = 11.541 in the implicit risk attitude group, p \u0026gt; 0.05. The results of independent samples t-test of D scores of the three groups showed that the weakening effect of the general imaginary contact group (M = 0.3614, SD = 0.1445) was stronger than that of the control group (M = 0.0589, SD = 0.1027, and the difference was significantly t=-2.525, df = 398, p = 0.012, p \u0026lt; 0.05\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe presented findings highlight the impact of general imaginary exposure on both explicit and implicit risk attitudes among construction workers. Here is a summary of the key results:\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eExplicit Risk Attitude:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOverall Improvement\u003c/b\u003e: The general imaginary exposure experiment resulted in an overall improvement in the explicit risk attitudes of participants in each dimension.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAge Group Differences\u003c/b\u003e: From the perspective of age groups, the general imaginative contact experiment had a varying weakening effect on construction workers of each age. Notably, the subjects in the S2 and S3 groups exhibited a good weakening effect, while the subjects in the S1 group showed no obvious weakening effect.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eStability and Reliability\u003c/b\u003e: The construction worker risk attitude scale demonstrated stability and reliability, as the data were consistent with assumptions and avoided the instability caused by individual differences.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003ch2\u003eImplicit Risk Attitude:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eResponse Time\u003c/b\u003e: In terms of response time, the imaginary contact group demonstrated lower response times compared to both the control group and the implicit risk attitude group. The response times of the control group and the implicit risk attitude group were closer.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eAccuracy Rate\u003c/b\u003e: The correct rate of key pressing in the imaginary contact group was higher than that in the control group, indicating a certain weakening effect of general imaginary exposure on implicit risk attitudes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eStability and Reliability\u003c/b\u003e: The Single-Class Implicit Association Test (SC-IAT) demonstrated stability and reliability, with consistent data that aligned with the hypothesis and avoided the instability caused by individual differences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eOverall Conclusion\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe experiment supports the idea that general imaginary exposure can effectively weaken the negative explicit-implicit risk attitudes of construction workers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eImaginative contact, with its added authenticity to the experimental operation, is deemed impactful in improving explicit and implicit risk attitudes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile imaginary contact cannot fully replace the weakening effect of direct contact, it serves as a vital tool in mentally preparing individuals and initiating positive behavioral changes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, construction workers generally exhibit a negative external-implicit risk attitude, but general imaginary contact proves effective in weakening these negative attitudes. Cooperative imaginary contact, in particular, demonstrates a superior weakening effect on the negative external-implicit risk attitudes of construction workers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e\u003cp\u003eDrawing on the construction industry workforce as a focal point, this study employs the general imaginary contact theory to elucidate the interplay between unsafe behavior and psychological factors in safety production. The application of this theoretical framework has the potential to ameliorate individuals' adverse risk dispositions, diminish employee insecurity, and present an innovative approach for fostering sustainable enterprise development. Moreover, these research findings can be extrapolated across diverse real-world contexts to address psychological insecurities and curtail safety incidents, thereby contributing to the establishment of secure and enduring business operations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was supported by the (1)Chongqing Education Development Foundation(Grent NO.YJG222039),(2) Project supported by Chongqing Key Laboratory Open Fund(Grent NO.CQSRC202114),(3) Chongqing humanities and Social Sciences Research Planning Foundation of Ministry of Education(Grent NO.23SKGH350).\u003c/p\u003e\n"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiaoguo Li,Shengqiang Wang,Ying Wang.et al. Survey design and analysis of safety attitude of employees in Mining enterprises [J]. China Work Safety Science and Technology, 2014(12):178-184.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLedesma R D, Tosi J, Po\u0026oacute; F M, et al. Implicit attitudes and road safety behaviors. The helmetuse case[J]. Accident Analysis \u0026amp; Prevention, 2015, 79:190-197.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGREENWALD A G，BANAJI M R. Implicit social cognition:Attitudes，self-esteem，and stereotypes[J]. Psychological Re⁃view，1995，102（1）：4-27.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLIAO G L，WANG S Q，WANG Y P，et al. Survey design and analysis on safety attitude of mine enterprise employees［J］.Journal of Safety Science and Technology，2014，10（12）：178-184.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLIU J L，LIU B B，WU X. The development of coal miner\u0026rsquo;s safety attitude scale［J］.Journal of Wuhan University of Tech⁃ nology（Information \u0026amp; Management Engineering），2016，38（2）：164-167.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLI H X，LI S Q.Research on relationship between safety cogni⁃tion and unsafe behavior of coal miners［J］. Safety in Coal Mines，2017，48（11）：233-236.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWU M Z,YANG F Y. Research on relationship between self-esteem structure and mental health［J］. Chinese Journal of Clini⁃cal Psychology，2006，14（3）：297-299.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBUHRMESTER M D，BLANTON H，JR SWANN W B. Implicit self-esteem：Nature，measurement，and a new way for⁃ward［J］.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology，2011，100（2）：365-385.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLIU D. Study on the Relationship between Miners\u0026rsquo;Implicit and Explicit Self-esteem and Unsafe Behavior［D］.Xi\u0026rsquo;an：Xi\u0026rsquo;an University of Science and Technology，2018.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZHAO Y K.Analysis and Assessment Research for Human Safety Behavior Model［D］.Dalian：Dalian Jiaotong Universi⁃ty，2014.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHE P P. Study on the Influence of Miner Resilience on Unsafe Behavior［D］. Xi\u0026rsquo;an：Xi\u0026rsquo;an University of Science and Technol⁃ogy，2018.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXING B J，TANG S Q，LI N W，et al. Study on implicit safe⁃ty attitude of miners based on SC-IAT［J］.China Safety Sci⁃ence Journal，2018，28（5）：18-23.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHA Illing,Allport G W . The Nature of Prejudice[J]. The Journal of Criminal Law Criminology and Pol-ice Science, 1955, 45(6):724.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVezzali L, Capozza D, Giovannini D, et al. Improving implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes using imagined contact: An experimental intervention with elementary school children[J].Group Processes \u0026amp;Intergroup Relations, 2012,108(2):203-212. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWest, K., Holmes, E., \u0026amp; Hewstone, IM. Enhancing imagined contact to reduce prejudice against people with schizoplreria. [J]. Group Processes \u0026amp; IntergroupRelations Gpir, 2011,14(3), 407.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBirtel, M D., \u0026amp; Crisp, R. J. \u0026quot;treating\u0026quot; prejudice: an exposure-therapy approach to reducing negative reactions toward stigmatized groups. [J]. Psycholo gical Saience, 2012,23(11), 1379.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTumer, R. N, Crisp, R. J, \u0026amp; Lambert, E. Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes. [J]. Group Processes \u0026amp; Intergroup Relations, 2007,10(4), 427-441.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVezzali, L, Capozza, D, Stathi, S, \u0026amp; Giovannini, D. Increasing outgroup trust, reducing infrahumanization, and enhancing future contact intentions via imagined intergroup contact. [J]. Journal of Experimental Sodi al Psychology, 2012, 48(1), 437-440.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTumer, R. N, \u0026amp; West, K.Behavioural consequences of imagining intergroup con tact with stigmatized outgroups. [J]. Group Processes \u0026amp; Inter group Relati ons, 2012,15(2), 193-202.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStathi, S. From imagery to intention: a dual route model of imagined contact effects. [J]. Europe an Review of Social Psychology, 2010, 21(1), 188-236.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXinglin Zhou,Huan Zhu,Fang Li. Imagine the effects of exposure and prior exposure experiences on college students\u0026apos; attitudes toward homosexuality[J]. Chinese Journal of Sex Science, 2019,29(06):139-142.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKuchenbrandt, D., Eysel, F, \u0026amp; Seidel, S. K. Cooperation makes it happen: imagined intergroup cooperation enhances the positive effects of imagined contact. [J]. Group Processes de Inter group Relations Gpir, 2013,16(5), 635-647.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCrisp, R. J., \u0026amp; Husnu, S. Attributional processes underlying imagined contact effects. [J]. Group Processes de Inter group Relations, 2011,14(2), 275-287.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAronson, E, \u0026amp; Patnoe, S. The jigsaw classroom: building cooperation in the classroom. [J]. Longman(13), 1997, 129-131.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOksenberg L , Cannell C , Kalton G . New strategies for pretesting survey questions[J]. Journal of official statistics, 1991, 7(3):349-365.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eElke U, Weber, et al. A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors[J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2002.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDongpin Fang,Xinyu Huang, Hinze J. Engineering construction safety Management [J]. Beijing: China Water Resources and Hydropower Press,2005.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHYOUNG JI, KWON Y, KIM S, et al.The characteristies of fatal accupational injuries in Karea\u0026apos;s canst -ruction industry, 1997-2004 [J]. Safety Science, 2009,47(8):1159-162.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChoudhry R. M. Fang D.. Why operatives engage in unsafe work behavior: Investigating factors on construction sites[J]. Safety Science, 2008, 46 (4):566-584.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhou Q.,Fang D.,Wang X.A method to iclentify strategies for the improvement of human safety behavior by considering safety climate and personal experience.[J].Safety Science, 2008,46(10):1406-1419.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"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":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"general imaginary contact, explicit-implicit risk attitude, behavioral safety, construction workers","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6201254/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6201254/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eUnsafe behavior exhibited by workers constitutes the primary cause of construction accidents. To enhance safety behavior, managers have formulated integrated management measures. Nevertheless, given the complexity of workers' unsafe behaviors, it proves challenging to comprehend the specific impact mechanism of management measures on diverse types of unsafe behaviors, thereby making it arduous to intensify targeted management endeavors. This study aims to disclose the influencing mechanism of worker safety behavior from a multi-dimensional perspective through a novel risk control approach. The SC-IAT experimental procedure based on the generalized imaginary contact technique was developed. After conducting the implicit risk attitude experiment based on the generalized imaginary contact, the explicit risk attitude of construction workers was gauged by the revised scale of the Explicit Risk Attitude of construction workers. The results indicate that the generalized imaginary contact technique has a mitigating effect on the negative external-implicit risk attitude of construction workers. It is noted that people's risk attitude should be given attention in safety management practice, as it exerts a continuous influence on workers' safety behavior. The findings of this study elaborate on the mechanism of the influence of human insecurity psychology on workers' safety behavior in detail, which is conducive to enriching the knowledge system of construction safety management and beneficial to related practices.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"General Imagination Exposure to Research on Negative Risk Attitudes to Construction Workers","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-04-03 15:48:05","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6201254/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"9cc6c67f-e088-483b-b73b-7ce2b96f2568","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 3rd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":46545113,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences/Psychology and behaviour"},{"id":46545114,"name":"Physical sciences/Engineering"},{"id":46545115,"name":"Health sciences/Risk factors"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-06-18T19:23:21+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-04-03 15:48:05","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6201254","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6201254","identity":"rs-6201254","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}