Safety Risk Tolerance in the Construction

Industry: Cross-Cultural Analysis

Rico Salas 1; Matthew Hallowell, Ph.D. 2; Rajagopalan Balaji, Ph.D. 3;
and Siddharth Bhandari, Ph.D. 4

Abstract: Disparities in worker risk tolerance may create barriers to implementing safety management systems and improving safety per-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 02/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

formance. At present, it is unclear if and to what extent construction safety risk tolerance vary across broad geographic regions. To better
understand patterns in these sociocultural constructs, a survey of building trade contractors and subcontractors was administered. Using
principal component analysis and K-means clustering, the determinants of risk tolerance were analyzed for 11,997 construction workers
from 17 countries via controlled sampling for equal representation. The analysis showed that risk tolerance is influenced and linked by
individual and sociocultural determinants, i.e., affective associations, control beliefs, safety culture, and risk-taking attitudes. Differences
and distinct groupings were observed when the derived global risk tolerance scores were compared to country-specific risk-tolerance scores.
This study contributes to the literature by empirically identifying determinants of risk tolerance and quantifying cross-cultural disparities in
risk tolerance. It was found that the natural grouping of countries, based on their risk-tolerance determinants, coincides with their ancestral
heritage and socioeconomic systems. The results can be used to inform policymakers, stakeholders, safety professionals, and industry leaders
to improve safety decisions in the workplace, promote strong situational awareness, design structural policies, and implement safety
programs. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001789. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Construction; Safety; Risk tolerance; Situational awareness; Cross-culture; Fundamental social cause.

Introduction
Globalization has facilitated the rapid growth of international con-
struction markets via advancement in communications, materials,
technology, and transportation. In 2016, the construction industry
accounted for approximately 6% of the global gross domestic prod-
uct (GDP) with total annual revenues of $13 trillion (Gerbert et al.
2016). In the US alone, construction spending increased by 3.1% to
$1.2 trillion in 2017, representing approximately 6.5% of the
national GDP (US Census 2017). Already a sizeable contributor
to the global GDP, the industry is expected to grow with estimated
revenues of $15 trillion by 2025 (Oxford Economics 2018). As a
result, an increasing number of construction companies are explor-
ing international opportunities.
The construction industry has allocated significant effort and
resources to promote the safety and well-being of its workers.
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural En-
gineering, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder, 1111 Engineering Dr., Boulder,
CO 80309 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002
-4692-8416. Email: rico.salas@colorado.edu
2
Beavers Professor of Construction Engineering, Dept. of Civil, Envir-
onmental, and Architectural Engineering, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder,
1111 Engineering Dr., Boulder, CO 80309. Email: matthew.hallowell@
colorado.edu
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineer-
ing, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder, 1111 Engineering Dr., Boulder,
CO 80309. Email: balajir@colorado.edu
4
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Construction Engineering,
Western Michigan Univ., 1903 W. Michigan Ave., Kalamazoo, MI 49008.
Email: siddharth.bhandari@wmich.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 8, 2019; approved on
August 29, 2019; published online on February 6, 2020. Discussion period
open until July 6, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineer-
ing and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.
During the last two decades, the prevention of serious incidents
and fatalities has been at the forefront of project planning. Safety
management systems have been commonly adopted by con-
struction companies, which are sets of interrelated or interacting
elements to establish systematic safety and health policy and ob-
jectives to proactively implement interventions and improve out-
comes (Robson et al. 2007). Despite these efforts, serious injury
and fatality rates in the industry have plateaued for the past 5 years
(ILO 2018). With increasing societal expectations and environmen-
tal pressures, the financial and reputational consequences of major
accidents have never been greater (Hopkins 2010; Rasmussen
1997). Therefore, much improvement is still needed.
High-quality construction safety management systems are re-
quired for competitiveness in global and domestic markets. Most
safety management systems are dependent on the situational aware-
ness of the workforce, which requires strong hazard recognition
skills, reasonable risk perception and tolerance, and risk-averse
decision making (Hallowell 2010). Among these elements of situa-
tional awareness, risk tolerance remains comparatively elusive
with relatively less scientific literature. In the context of global
construction organizations, risk tolerance is a key challenge. For
example, it is not yet understood how diversity in construction
workers’ backgrounds, demographics, and national cultures impact
risk tolerance. Disparities in risk tolerance at the individual worker
level may create barriers for training, hazard avoidance, and other
safety efforts. Thus, in the design of safety management systems,
individual risk tolerance should be considered to achieve the
desired safety objectives (Robson et al. 2007).
In terms of individual situational awareness, risk tolerance is
defined as an individual’s subjective understanding of and behavior
regarding danger that could possibly lead to injury. Because of its
subjective nature, risk tolerance is nuanced and challenging to
clearly define, measure, and manage. Understanding cross-cultural
differences in risk tolerance could help to catalyze a shift in cultural

© ASCE 04020022-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020022

 and organizational approaches to safety and promote a transition
from reliance on structural intervention to a broader approach that
considers variability in individual risk tolerance.
This study explores how individual (characteristics, situation,
and safety exposure) and sociocultural (societal views and safety
culture) factors may explain determinants of risk tolerance across
national cultures in the construction industry. The corresponding
hypothesis was that there are differences in risk tolerance associated
with the joint influences of individual and sociocultural factors.
Background
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 02/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Understanding Risk Perception and Tolerance as
Sociocultural Constructs
Risk is a measure of potential loss, typically expressed in terms of
the product of accident likelihood and magnitude of loss (Eaton
and Little 2011; Pinheiro et al. 2011). Risk is often associated with
the possibility that an undesirable state of reality may occur due
to natural events or human actions (Reason 1997). Because safety
often involves making decisions under uncertainty, safety risk
management is not simply an objective measurement of danger.
Rather, each social group and each individual within the group
may have highly varied risk tolerance based on culture, personal
experiences, and rationality (Reason 1997; Rohrmann and Renn
2006; Rundmo 2011).
There is an element of risk inherent in all construction safety
decisions because of the uncertainty associated with dynamic con-
struction sites. Endsley and Jones (2004) showed that situational
awareness is an essential element in decision-making processes
and comprises three distinct levels: perception, comprehension,
and projection. Perception is the processing of information, status,
attributes and dynamics of relevant elements in the environment.
Then, comprehension involves the synthesis and integration of the
perceived information through the processes of pattern recognition,
interpretation and evaluation to understand how it will impact the
individual’s goals and objectives. Finally, projection is the ability of
individuals to predict future events and action in their environment
(Endsley and Jones 2004).
With the situational awareness model in mind, risk recognition
is the identification of hazards that are present or can be anticipated
(Pinheiro et al. 2011). The identified risks are processed through
perception. Risk perception is defined as an individual’s subjective
judgment of the frequency and severity of particular risks through
processing of information restricted by a known space and period
of time (Hallowell 2010). Thus, risk tolerance is the personal
appraisal of risk and corresponding feelings of comfort or discom-
fort given the risk. These constructs include the extent and control
of uncertainty and confidence in the evaluation of the situation
(Williams and Noyes 2007).
Risk tolerance relates to the quantity of risk, qualitative features
of hazards, perceived benefits of risk taking, personal relation to the
hazard, and feelings of acceptability. Risk tolerance is driven by
individual circumstances such as the type of work or form of a haz-
ard; personal characteristics such as affective associations, expo-
sure history, and feelings of control; perceived consequences
such as the probability of injury or death; and social and cultural
factors such as having an economic perspective, skepticism and
safety culture (Rohrmann and Renn 2006). How an individual re-
acts to the situation depends on how they see controllable situations
as opportunities or how they tolerate uncontrollable situations
(Krueger and Dickson 1994). Thus, every decision is made with
a subjective assessment of risk and is often followed by a selection
© ASCE 04020022-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020022
of alternatives based on risk tolerance (Hallowell 2010). Most indi-
viduals balance their risk-taking behaviors by pursuing an optimal
risk strategy while ensuring a satisfactory payoff and avoiding neg-
ative impacts (Rohrmann and Renn 2006; Williams and Noyes 2007).
The influence of self-efficacy on risk-taking behaviors is signifi-
cant and fully mediated by risk tolerance (Krueger and Dickson
1994; Sitkin and Pablo 1992). Social structures, together with per-
sonal and environmental factors, shape individual risk tolerance,
decision-making processes, behaviors, actions, and attempts to in-
fluence others (Rohrmann and Renn 2006; Zhao et al. 2016). Social
networks and group judgments are influential in shaping risk tol-
erance as most information regarding risk acceptability is not
learned only through personal experience but through second-hand
learning (Williams and Noyes 2007).
There are many definitions of culture, and the landscape is
changing, but for the purpose of this research it is the collective
mechanisms of managing risk and uncertainty. Understanding the
sociocultural constructs of individual risk tolerance, in relation to
situational awareness, help in the framing and strategizing of this
research and explaining the risk tolerance of construction workers
across national cultures. This study focused on risk tolerance but
risk perception was considered to be its antecedent.
Risk Perception and Tolerance in the Construction
Industry
Construction workers generally consider construction work to be
risky in nature (Man et al. 2017). Some studies have identified
that a lack of safety awareness, work pressure, coworker attitudes,
and socioeconomic factors are reasons for risk-taking behaviors
(Choudhry and Fang 2008; Hinze and Gambatese 2003). A com-
mon finding is that there are differences in risk perception
across organizational levels (e.g., management versus workers)
and national cultures (Hallowell 2010; Korkmaz and Park 2018;
Perlman et al. 2014). For instance, Hallowell (2010) found that
workers have a much higher risk tolerance than their managers
in the US Pacific Northwest. Additionally, Korkmaz and Park
(2018) suggested that differences in the risk perception of South
Korean and foreign construction workers are influenced by their
management’s commitment to safety.
Such dissimilarities in risk perception are influenced by safety
policy and standards, management norms, workgroup norms, and
personal attitude toward risks (Choi et al. 2017; Hallowell 2010;
Korkmaz and Park 2018). Choi et al. (2017) shows that individual
risk perception is manifested through a perceived workgroup norm,
which mediates the relationship between the management norm
and safety and risk-taking behavior. Individual risk perceptions re-
garding decisions and/or actions are influenced by information and
feedback from others.
Risk perception in the construction industry is well-researched
as evidenced by the reviewed literature. The literature pertinent to
risk perception relies on the understanding of concepts, with a fo-
cus on workplace safety contexts (i.e., organizational structure, pol-
icies, and work experience) and the benefit/payoff. However, the
understanding of risk tolerance, as a mediator of risk perception
and safety actions, is limited. In addition, the available literature
provides limited evidence of the shaping of and disparities in risk
tolerance in construction organizations and projects in broader indi-
vidual and sociocultural contexts.
Point of Departure
Existing research efforts have focused on the understanding of risk
perception in the context of workplace safety and culture, such as
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 organizational structure, policy, work experience, and training.
However, a study to examine the shaping of and disparities in safety
risk tolerance in the construction industry has yet to be completed.
Though it is difficult to separate risk perception and tolerance, it is
important to understand and explain potential determinants of risk
tolerance because it intercedes risk decisions and actions.
According to Hofstede (2016), organizations serve two main
functions: distribution of power and control of uncertainty. It is im-
portant to understand the influence of individual and sociocultural
constructs in the shaping of and disparities in risk tolerance to gain
insights regarding appropriate construction safety management sys-
tems, policies, processes and/or programs. However, to date, little is
known regarding cultural differences in risk tolerance. To address
this knowledge gap, individual and sociocultural contexts that col-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 02/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
lectively explain the risk tolerance of construction workers were
explored using data collected from 17 countries. Specifically,
the following hypothesis was tested: There are measurable and per-
vasive differences in risk tolerance among construction workers
from different geographical regions. Testing this hypothesis helps
to identify and explain the determinants and disparities of risk
tolerance across national cultures.
Research Approach
Data Collection Instrument
A survey was designed to collect relevant demographic information
and measure risk tolerance. The survey was administered globally
Fig. 1. Risk-tolerance survey questions.
© ASCE 04020022-3
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020022
to building trade contractors and subcontractors during 2018.
In countries where English was not the primary language, survey
questions were translated into the native language by a native
speaker. The target sampling population included both construction
and maintenance workers who build, maintain, and service building
components. The survey was created by the authors but was dis-
tributed via hyperlink to the workforce by their employers. The
authors did not preselect nor direct the country where the survey
was administered. The respondents to the survey provided basic
demographic information, such as age, marital status, years of
experience, and number of personal- and work-related injuries. All
risk-tolerance questions were answered using a Likert scale as
shown in Fig. 1 and represented as categorical data.
Per the human subject protocol, data were anonymously
reported through the survey system (Survey Monkey, San Mateo,
California) and no questions were asked that could be used to
identify any specific individual. In addition, the description of
the building trades is purposefully terse to protect the identity of
the participating organizations who may be inferred through de-
scriptions of specific trades, population size, and geographical
dispersion.
Sample Population
A total of 12,323 construction workers from 19 countries re-
sponded to the global survey. Two of the 19 countries had less than
20 respondents and were removed from the sample. As expected in
any survey, there were respondents who initiated but did not
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 02/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Sample distribution by country.
complete the survey while others completed the survey but with
missing responses. These observations were also dropped from
the sample. After data cleaning and processing, the sample com-
prised 11,997 workers from 17 countries. The demographic
dispersion of the sample was large and geographically dispersed
and the included countries have different economic and sociocul-
tural norms and systems. Fig. 2 and Table 1 (Panel A) show the
distribution of the sample by country.
The majority of the respondents were nonsupervisory workers
(80%) who have formal training. They skewed young in age
(20–49 years) with 3–15 years of work experience. Most were mar-
ried (72%) and had children (62%). Among these workers, 89% did
not report experiencing work-related injuries. Only 5% reported
experiencing work-related injuries beyond first aid (i.e., medical
treatment or a day away from work). Panels B and C of Table 1
show the descriptive statistics of the sample.
Analytical Approach
R Core Team (version 2019), an open-source software environment
for statistical computing and graphics, was used to analyze the data
(R Project version 2018). To explore the individual characteristics
and sociocultural context of the construction worker’s risk toler-
ance, a global principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted.
PCA is used as a data aggregation and variable reduction technique
and the resulting principal components represent the original larger
set of fractional variables. PCA involves a linear/nonlinear mapping
of the data to a lower-dimensional space such that the variance of
the data in the low-dimensional representation is maximized
(James et al. 2013). In PCA, latent variables represent unobserved
constructs and are referred to as components or dimensions
© ASCE 04020022-4
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020022
(Thompson 2010). The PCA methodology serves two distinct
purposes: data summation and data reduction. Data summation
analysis groups a highly correlated set of variables into a
singular component (James et al. 2013). Data reduction
analysis identifies a set of representative variables for each
component that can be combined to produce a set of components
representing the original much larger set of variables (James
et al. 2013).
PCA was applied to the following variables, with the unit of
analysis of an individual worker, as described in Table 2: (1) Indi-
vidual Context—Affective Association and Controllability Belief
(variable codes IA1–IA5 and ICo1–ICo7, respectively); (2) Social
and Cultural Context—Societal View and Safety Culture (variable
codes SE2–SE3 and SS1–SS11, respectively); and (3) Attitude to-
ward Risk Taking (variable code AR1–AR2). Principal components,
comprising correlated determinants, were identified using the
Kaiser criterion. The Kaiser criterion was used to drop all compo-
nents with eigenvalues equal to or less than 1.0 which is the eigen-
value equal to the information accounted for by an average single
item (Thompson 2010). The potential components (i.e., high load-
ing) were examined using Cronbach alpha in establishing an effec-
tive representation of variables. The value of the Cronbach alpha
varies and the higher the positive number (at least 1.0), the more the
set of variables being tested is correlated with the latent factor
(Greene 2000). Then, the averages of the loading factors of the
highest loading components from the global PCA were calculated
and assigned as global risk-tolerance scores. There are no good or
bad risk-tolerance scores as these numbers were derived from latent
variables (i.e., components) represented by unobserved constructs
(Thompson 2010). This method is commonly used in ranking in-
stitutions (e.g., top universities, colleges, and hospitals) or countries
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Table 1. Descriptive statistics (e.g., Human Development Index, Freedom House, and Doing
Characteristic N Distribution (%) Business) by weighting of various measures based on the patterns
embedded in the data.
Panel A: Sample distribution by country
Because the majority of the observations were from China and
Country
Australia 88 0.7 Japan, the sampling of observations from each country was con-
Brazil 733 6.1 trolled, i.e., random sampling with replacement, in the global
Chile 74 0.6 PCA to equally represent the 17 countries. After completing the
China 5,667 47.2 global PCA, the process was repeated to explore country-specific
Colombia 97 0.8 determinants of risk tolerance for the 17 countries, i.e., the local
Hong Kong 804 6.7 PCA. The local risk-tolerance scores were calculated using
India 783 6.5 the average of the loading factors of the highest loading compo-
Indonesia 117 1.0 nents from the country-specific PCA. The global risk-tolerance
Japan 1,303 10.9
scores were compared to the local risk-tolerance scores and the
Korea 727 6.1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 02/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Malaysia 215 1.8

results were analyzed to identify the factors influencing risk
Mexico 86 0.7 tolerance.
Singapore 60 0.5 The K-means clustering method was applied to the local risk-
Spain 678 5.7 tolerance scores. That is, the highest loading components from
Thailand 233 1.9 PCA were used to find the grouping of sampled countries. In this
Turkey 277 2.3 method, the scores were partitioned into distinct homogenous
Vietnam 55 0.5 groups such that the observations within each group are similar
Panel B: Demographics to each other while the observations in different groups are quite
Age different from each other (James et al. 2013). A random number,
Less than 20 years old 117 1 from 1 to K, was assigned to each observation and served as the
20–29 years old 3,909 33 initial cluster assignment. Iteration was performed until the cluster
30–39 years old 3,595 30 assignments stopped changing (James et al. 2013). Then, the local
40–49 years old 2,735 23 risk-tolerance scores nearest the centroid of the K cluster were
50–59 years old 1,471 12 assigned.
60 years or older 168 1
No response 2 0
Employment classification Results
Worker 9,642 80
Supervisor 2,355 20
Global Risk-Tolerance Scores
Years of work experience
Less than 1 year 684 6 PCA was performed to identify the determinants influencing risk
1–2 years 1,097 9 tolerance (i.e., Affective Association [IA1-IA5], Control Belief
3–4 years 1,755 15 [ICo1-ICo7], Societal View [SE2-SE3], Safety Culture [SS1-
5–10 years 2,880 24 SS10], and Attitude to Risk-taking [AR1-AR2]). A random sam-
11–15 years 1,542 13
pling of 100 observations from each country was made for the
16–20 years 1,102 9
21–30 years 1,242 10
global PCA with a total of 1,700 observations. For countries with
More than 30 years 953 8 less than 100 observations, a random sampling with replacement
No response 742 6 was used. The goodness of fit statistics of the global PCA are
as follows: χ2 ð729Þ ¼ 79.276 and the root mean square of the re-
Formal training
siduals ðRMSRÞ ¼ 0.06. The principal component factor loadings,
No formal training 816 7
With formal training 11,181 93
proportion, cumulative distribution and reliability (alpha) are pre-
sented in Table 3.
Marital status The PCA factor loadings shown in Fig. 3 and Table 3 indicate
Other 3,518 29 that Components 1 and 2 are the higher loading components, with a
Married 8,479 71
reliability of 67% and 68%, respectively, and can explain 27% of
Children the fractional variance. Though the other components have higher
No children 4,542 38 reliability, their factor loadings were lower than those of the first
With children 7,455 62 two components. In addition, the first two components generated
Panel C: Injury history eigenvalues greater than the Kaiser criterion of 1.0, at 1.068 and
Work-related injury history 1.029, respectively.
None 10,650 89 Component 1 in the global PCA was explained by Affective As-
First aid or below 762 6 sociation, Control Belief, Safety Culture, and Risk-taking Attitude
Recordable injury 312 3 determinants with the following high loading variables: work-
Day away from work 223 2 related injury exposure (code: IA5), multitasking (code: ICo1), un-
Disability 50 0 planned activities (code: ICo4), breaking critical rules (code: ICo6),
Personal injury history following rules and procedures (code: SS1), others unsafely oper-
None 9,793 82 ating machinery (code: SS2), others not following rules (code: SS3),
First aid or less 875 7 high risk work without training (code: SS4), working at heights
Recordable injury 784 7 without fall protection (code: SS6), personal protective equipment
Day away from work 487 4 (PPE) availability (code: SS11), and risk-taking behavior (code:
Disability 58 0
AR1). Meanwhile, Component 2 was explained by the Control

© ASCE 04020022-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020022

 Table 2. Measurement matrix
Construct Code Measure Unit of analysis
Characteristics (ICh) ICh1 Age group Individual worker
ICh2 Employee classification Individual worker
ICh3 Employee work experience Individual worker
ICh4 Formal training Individual worker
Situation (IS) IS1 Marital status Individual worker
IS2 Children Individual worker
Safety exposure (IE) IE1 Work-related injuries Individual worker
IE2 Personal-related injuries Individual worker
Affective association (IA) IA1 Accident reaction Individual worker
IA2 Coworker/friend work-related injuries Individual worker
IA3 Disagreement reaction Individual worker
IA4 Distraction Individual worker
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 02/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

IA5 Work-related injury exposure Individual worker

Control belief (ICo) ICo1 Multitasking Individual worker
ICo2 Walking home alone Individual worker
ICo3 Control of safety Individual worker
ICo4 Unplanned activities Individual worker
ICo5 Dangerous activities Individual worker
ICo6 Breaking critical rule Individual worker
ICo7 Reasons for breaking critical rule Individual worker
Societal view (SE) SE1 Country Individual worker
SE2 Industry perspective Individual worker
SE3 Productivity before safety Individual worker
Safety culture (SS) SS1 Following rules and procedures Individual worker
SS2 Others unsafely operating machinery Individual worker
SS3 Other not following rules Individual worker
SS4 High risk work without training Individual worker
SS5 Lifting load without proper equipment Individual worker
SS6 Working at heights without fall protection Individual worker
SS7 Safety rules and procedure training Individual worker
SS8 Equipment and tools availability Individual worker
SS9 Coworker unsafely working Individual worker
SS10 Supervisor led safety discussion Individual worker
SS11 PPE availability Individual worker
Attitude toward risk taking (AR) AR1 Risk-taking behavior Individual worker
AR2 Risk choices Individual worker

Belief and Safety Culture determinants with the following high
loading variables: coworker/friend work-related injuries (code:
IA2), control of safety (code: ICo3), breaking critical rules (code:
ICo6), reasons for breaking critical rules (code: ICo7), following
rules and procedures (code: SS1), high risk work without training
(code: SS4), working at heights without fall protection (code: SS6),
safety rules and training (code: SS7), coworker unsafely working
(code: SS9), PPE availability (code: SS11), and risk choices
(code: AR2).
The high loading components from global PCA identified the
important determinants of risk tolerance of construction workers
from 17 countries. The results suggest that risk tolerance is highly
influenced by Affective Association, Control Belief, Safety
Culture, and Risk-taking Attitudes.
Local Risk-Tolerance Scores
PCA was performed on the represented 17 countries using their
country-specific determinants with the mean of the loading factors
in each component calculated and assigned as their local risk-
tolerance score. As previously discussed, there are no good or
bad risk-tolerance scores. The scores are a representation of the
unobserved constructs of the determinants. However, the scores
provide the rank (for this case, the represented countries) of the
latent variables (i.e., components). The analysis generated from low
to high risk-tolerance scores.
Figs. 4(a and b) and Table 4 show the local risk-tolerance scores
by country based on Components 1 and 2. Singapore (2.147) and
South Korea (2.111) ranked highest in the local risk-tolerance score
in the first component of the local PCAs. Colombia (1.641) and
Turkey (1.654) had the lowest scores in the first component.
In the second component, Singapore (1.377) ranked first while
Spain (0.918) was last. This result indicates that individuals in the
higher-ranked countries have a higher tolerance for risk while those
from lower-ranked countries have a lower risk tolerance.
The K-means clustering grouped Mexico, Colombia, Brazil,
Chile, and Spain into the first cluster based on their local risk
scores; Australia, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, and China
in the second cluster; and Turkey, India, Thailand, Malaysia,
Indonesia, and Vietnam were in the third cluster. Note that these
clusters were analytically created and not directed by the research
team. The K-means clustering of Component 2 grouped the risk-
tolerance scores of the sampled countries into three clusters which
coincide with the geographical regions (i.e., Asia Pacific, Latin
America, and Europe). Figs. 5(a and b) show the K-means
clustering results of Components 1 and 2.
The local PCA identified the important determinants of risk
tolerance in each country; however, there were disparities in the
risk tolerance when the scores were compared. Interestingly,
the clustering of country-specific risk scores indicates that the char-
acteristics and sociocultural background are influenced and shared
not only within the country but also among several countries.

© ASCE 04020022-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020022

 Table 3. Principal components of risk tolerance and Thailand (þ0.046) were above the baseline score for Affective
Eigenvalue Cumulative Reliability Association, while Chile (−0.024), Malaysia (−0.021), Mexico
Component (factor loading) Proportion ratio (alpha) (−0.060), and Singapore (−0.048) were below the baseline score.
For the Control Belief category, Australia (þ0.059), Colombia
1 5.62 0.20 0.20 0.67
2 1.96 0.07 0.27 0.68
(þ0.093), Mexico (0.025), and Singapore (0.025) were
3 1.77 0.06 0.33 0.67 above the baseline score, while Vietnam (−0.021) was below
4 1.25 0.04 0.38 0.69 the baseline. Indonesia (þ0.022), Malaysia (þ0.020), Mexico
5 1.20 0.04 0.42 0.69 (þ0.042) and Singapore (þ0.071) were above the baseline score
6 1.07 0.04 0.46 0.69 for Safety Culture, while Spain was 0.021 lower than the baseline.
7 1.06 0.04 0.50 0.68 Table 6 shows the Component 2 factor loading score of the risk-
8 0.99 0.04 0.53 0.69 tolerance determinants. The comparison illustrates the variation in
9 0.93 0.03 0.57 0.68 the determinants and the composition of risk tolerance in each
10 0.88 0.03 0.60 0.67 country.
11 0.88 0.03 0.63 0.68
The variability in the tolerance and determinant scores indicate
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 02/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

12 0.84 0.03 0.66 0.68

13 0.80 0.03 0.69 0.69
differences in the construct of risk tolerance. For instance, the
14 0.74 0.03 0.71 0.67 risk-tolerance score of Australia was influenced by the Affective
15 0.71 0.03 0.74 0.66 Association and Control Belief determinants as indicated by
16 0.69 0.02 0.76 0.66 Australia’s Component 1. Distraction (code: IA4), multitasking
17 0.67 0.02 0.79 0.69 (code: ICo1), walking home alone (code: ICo3), and planned ac-
18 0.66 0.02 0.81 0.68 tivities (code: ICo5) were the high loading determinant variables
19 0.65 0.02 0.83 0.69 influencing Australia’s score. However, in Singapore, the Control
20 0.61 0.02 0.86 0.68 Belief and Safety Culture determinants influenced the risk-
21 0.59 0.02 0.88 0.67 tolerance score but less so for Affective Association. The high load-
22 0.58 0.02 0.90 0.67
ing determinant variables influencing Singapore’s risk-tolerance
23 0.58 0.02 0.92 0.68
24 0.53 0.02 0.94 0.65 score are as follows: not breaking critical rules (code: ICo6),
25 0.49 0.02 0.96 0.69 no reasons for breaking critical rules (code: ICo7), following rules
26 0.48 0.02 0.97 0.65 and procedures (code: SS1), training on high risk work (code: SS4),
27 0.46 0.02 0.99 0.66 lifting a load with proper equipment (code: SS5), working at
28 0.31 0.01 1.00 0.7 heights with fall protection (code: SS6), and equipment/tool avail-
ability (code: SS8).
When the high loading determinant variables were compared
within cluster countries as illustrated in the previous section, the
risk-tolerance scores of the Cluster 1 countries were influenced
Comparison of Global and Local Risk-Tolerance
by the following: control of safety (code: ICo1), following
Scores
rules and procedures (code: SS1), others unsafely operating machi-
To understand the composition and pattern of the global and local nery (code: SS2), lifting a load without proper equipment (code:
risk-tolerance scores, the determinants were analyzed. Table 5 SS5), safety rules and procedures training (code: SS7), coworker
shows that global Component 1 had high factor loading on Affec- unsafely working (code: SS9), PPE availability (code: SS11),
tive Association (0.172), Control Belief (0.193), and Safety Culture and risk choices (code: AR2). Meanwhile, the risk-tolerance
(0.195). Using the global Component 1 as the baseline for deter- scores of the Cluster 2 countries were influenced by the following:
minant scores, the local (i.e., country specific) determinants were multitasking (code: ICo1), training on high risk work (code: SS4),
compared. Australia (þ0.057), Japan (þ0.041), Spain (þ0.086), lifting a load without proper equipment (code: SS5), safety

Fig. 3. Eigenvalue distribution for global PCA of risk tolerance.

© ASCE 04020022-7 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020022

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 02/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Local risk-tolerance scores using (a) Component 1; and (b) Component 2.

rules and procedures training (code: SS7), coworker unsafely unsafely working (code: SS9), risk-taking behaviors (code:
working (code: SS9), and risk choices (code: AR2). The risk- AR1), and risk choices (code: AR2). The results indicate that
tolerance scores of Cluster 3 countries were influenced by the there were determinants common to the countries within a
following: training on high-risk work (code: SS4), coworker cluster that influence the risk tolerance of construction workers.

© ASCE 04020022-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020022

 Table 4. Risk-tolerance score (Components 1 and 2) by country socioeconomic perspective. By inference through their risk-
Country Component 1 Component 2 tolerance scores, the analysis provides an insight regarding their
ability and capacity to control safety, health, disease, and death.
Australia 1.680 1.204
This supports the argument of Link (2008) that social shaping
Brazil 1.831 1.110
Chile 1.785 1.247 occurs because of fundamental social causes, in which the
China 1.942 1.173 ability and capacity are not equally distributed throughout the pop-
Colombia 1.641 1.256 ulation. Often, they are secured by individuals and groups who
Hong Kong 1.752 1.218 have greater access to knowledge, money, power, prestige, and ben-
India 1.942 0.940 eficial social connections (Link 2008).
Indonesia 1.874 1.119
Japan 1.714 1.058
Korea 2.111 1.120
Malaysia 1.869 1.140
Contribution to Practice
Mexico 1.793 1.196
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 02/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

This paper began by describing construction industry growth and

Singapore 2.147 1.377
Spain 1.737 0.918
Thailand 1.966 1.031
Turkey 1.654 1.203
Vietnam 1.672 1.156
Analytical Summary
This analysis showed that risk tolerance is influenced and linked
together by the individual and sociocultural determinants. The
PCA method uncovered latent variables (referred to as compo-
nents) from the observed risk determinant variables from the
sampled 17 countries. The factors of the high loading components
are instrumental in assigning global and local (country-specific)
risk-tolerance scores for comparison. The global PCA, using a
Kaiser criterion and scree plot, identified two high loading compo-
nents (i.e., Components 1 and 2), which explain 27% of the frac-
tional variance in the dataset. The analysis showed that risk-taking
attitude, unsafely operating machinery, following rules and proce-
dures, and work-related injury exposure played significant roles in
the quantifying of risk tolerance. This study suggests that negative
changes in these factors could lead to a higher risk tolerance. For
example, a decrease in the response to risk/failure could later ex-
pose workers to risk irrespective of whether the harm propagates.
Notably, these are not the only factors influencing risk tolerance
and there may be other determinants not considered; this limitation
is addressed in the study limitation section.
Evidence of the differences in risk tolerance is provided by
country. For example, Singapore and South Korea are ranked high-
est in risk tolerance, while Colombia and Turkey rated lowest. Fol-
lowing critical rules, policies, and procedures are more important in
Singapore and Korea compared to Colombia and Turkey. Regi-
mented rules, policies, and procedures drive high risk-tolerance
scores in Singapore and South Korea, making them vulnerable
if these fail. Structural influences, such as rules and policies, have
a significant effect on individual behavior and/or lifestyle practices;
however, there are situations in which structure can be so over-
whelming that it can mask the problem leading to ineffective ex-
ecution (Cockerman 2005).
This analysis also shows the clustering of the sampled countries
based on their individual and sociocultural determinants. Latin
American countries and Spain were naturally grouped as the first
cluster by the data in the analysis, followed by China, Korea, Hong
Kong, Japan, Singapore, and Australia as the second cluster, and
the remainder as the third cluster. The countries within these clus-
ters share similar attributes regarding how they tolerate risk. Inter-
estingly, the majority of the countries in the second cluster share the
same ancestral linkage and cultural heritage, with the exception of
Australia, but are economically and socially connected to the West
similar to Australia. This may merit further research regarding the
its dependency on strong situational awareness and risk decision-
making of workers in the delivery of high-quality construction
safety management systems and safety performance. Understand-
ing risk tolerance in a cross-cultural construction industry provides
an enhanced approach to implementing construction safety man-
agement systems. It also helps organizations understand risk-
tolerant behaviors of geographical regions to strategically design
safety systems that complement local culture and social norms
and individual differences in multinational crews.
Workers are often exposed to unsafe conditions even at con-
trolled worksites (Rasmussen 1997). They need to continuously
make decisions that could impact their safety. In most cases, strong
situational awareness and risk decision-making skills are needed to
avert errors and safely perform tasks (Reason 2000). This can be
achieved only if they have well-calibrated risk tolerance that re-
flects the appetite of the organization. This alignment may promote
the use of rules/procedures and appropriate equipment and/or tools
(Rundmo 2011).
The importance of identifying the key determinants influencing
risk tolerance will inform policymakers, stakeholders, safety pro-
fessionals, and industry leaders as they strengthen situational
awareness. As most construction safety management systems are
based on occupational safety regulations (e.g., US Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, Safe Work Australia, Japan
International Conference on Sociality and Humanities), Occupa-
tional Safety and Health Management Systems (e.g., Occupational
Health and Safety Assessment Series 18001, ISO 45001), and/or
industry-recommended practices (e.g., American Petroleum Insti-
tute 1646, International Association of Oil & Gas Producers 577),
the consideration of individual’s risk tolerance is often limited.
By integrating the determinants of risk tolerance into the safety
management system, a more inclusive approach may be promoted
that recognizes variations in trends among workers in different
regions.
As one may expect, differences in risk tolerance between coun-
tries exist and the results presented here support this assumption.
Hence, construction safety management system should be flexible
and robust in addressing these differences. For instance, a construc-
tion company based in Country A commissioned to deliver a
project in Country B should not assume that the safety management
system applied in Country A will function in Country B. Instead,
determinants influencing Country B’s risk tolerance should be
considered in the development and implementation of the safety
management system. Policymakers, safety professionals and indus-
try leaders may take advantage of and leverage the determinants
common to the countries within a cluster (i.e., risk-tolerance
clustering) when developing and implementing regional-level con-
struction safety management systems. The determinants and mech-
anisms in managing risk tolerance will allow a better approach
in understanding individual differences in multinational crews.

© ASCE 04020022-9 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020022

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 02/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. K-means clustering of (a) Component 1 risk-tolerance scores; and (b) Component 2 risk-tolerance scores.

Hence, multinational construction companies can better strategize Aside from strengthening structural policies and building safety
to customize plans and programs in implementing a safety manage- cultures, targeted interventions, such as education, training and
ment system based on geography, national culture, subcultures, and engagements, are needed in countries where risk tolerance is
social norms. high. Though some countries may have regimented policies and

© ASCE 04020022-10 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020022

 Table 5. Component 1 risk-tolerance determinants
Component 1 (fractional variable explained: 20%)
Affective association Control belief Societal view Safety culture Risk-taking attitude
Country (Code: IA) (Code: ICo) (Code: SE) (Code: SS) (Code: AR)
Global 0.172 0.193 0.126 0.195 0.158
Australia 0.057 0.059 −0.106 −0.001 −0.041
Brazil 0.019 0.014 −0.034 −0.001 −0.035
Chile −0.024 0.008 −0.020 0.019 −0.023
China 0.005 −0.006 −0.004 0.000 0.001
Colombia −0.002 0.093 0.035 −0.018 −0.021
Hong Kong −0.002 0.000 0.026 −0.004 0.010
India −0.020 −0.001 −0.019 0.017 0.002
Indonesia −0.012 −0.007 0.017 0.022 −0.017
−0.010 −0.025
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 02/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Japan 0.041 0.011 0.040

Korea 0.006 −0.008 −0.004 −0.002 0.017
Malaysia −0.021 −0.015 −0.007 0.020 0.013
Mexico −0.060 0.025 −0.015 0.042 −0.003
Singapore −0.048 0.025 −0.033 0.071 0.042
Spain 0.086 0.007 −0.006 −0.021 −0.015
Thailand 0.046 0.008 −0.034 0.001 −0.008
Turkey 0.006 0.012 0.042 −0.010 0.017
Vietnam 0.009 −0.021 0.010 0.001 0.050

Table 6. Component 2 risk-tolerance determinants

Component 2 (fractional variable explained: 7%)
Affective association Control belief Societal view Safety culture Risk-taking attitude
Country (Code: IA) (Code: ICo) (Code: SE) (Code: SS) (Code: AR)
Global 0.061 0.196 0.085 0.181 0.158
Australia −0.109 0.022 −0.076 0.025 0.108
Brazil −0.090 −0.042 0.049 0.038 0.047
Chile −0.117 0.021 −0.054 0.017 0.080
China −0.057 −0.028 −0.056 0.029 0.033
Colombia −0.062 −0.054 −0.076 0.082 0.044
Hong Kong −0.060 −0.012 −0.028 0.000 0.012
India −0.045 0.001 0.031 0.029 0.108
Indonesia 0.007 0.049 −0.166 0.012 −0.022
Japan −0.019 0.027 0.001 −0.004 −0.032
Korea −0.005 −0.061 −0.060 0.014 0.045
Malaysia −0.086 −0.016 −0.030 0.011 0.041
Mexico −0.075 0.055 −0.005 0.003 −0.092
Singapore −0.015 −0.002 0.042 −0.002 0.018
Spain −0.082 0.071 −0.243 0.033 0.006
Thailand −0.068 0.075 0.043 −0.011 0.075
Turkey −0.033 0.031 −0.014 −0.020 0.041
Vietnam −0.059 0.050 −0.027 −0.023 0.053

adequate equipment, tools, and PPE, workers may still be vulner-
able to serious injuries or fatalities. Continuous communication and
engagements are needed to address risky behaviors that may cause
affective reaction to risk. Equally important, workers in countries
with low risk tolerance will require similar interventions, in
addition to adequate equipment, tools, and PPE, in performing
their jobs. In locations where risk tolerance is high, construction
safety policies should focus on compliance education/engagements
and incentives. However, in locations where risk tolerance is
low, policies should focus on access to proper equipment/tools,
plans/procedures, and safety education/training. Again, these
construction safety policy interventions and resource allocation
may change depending on the location, culture, and background
of workers and their mechanisms in addressing risk and
uncertainty. Hence, broadening the suite of structural policies
considering worker’s risk tolerance may help construction
organizations better understand, identify, and manage safety
risks. It may also accelerate the development of a robust safety
culture.
Study Limitations
There are some important limitations within the data and as-
sumptions employed in this research. First, the data are mostly
representative of building and services construction companies
resulting in the possibility that small enterprises are underrepre-
sented. The survey and data collection were administered by the
owners and/or representatives of the construction companies,
which may have resulted in some biases or failure to generalize
to other populations. To address these issues, appropriate data
analysis techniques were applied to test the consistency and

© ASCE 04020022-11 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020022

 validity. However, the inherent limitation of survey instruments,
such as recall bias, may remain.
This research was limited to data collected from 17 countries.
Although the objective was to provide a broader cross-cultural view
of construction risk tolerance, data from other countries in North
America, Europe, and Africa were not available. In addition, there
may be other determinants that could influence risk tolerance that
are not considered in this study. Hence, a continuation of this study
is recommended as new data become available.
There are also inherent limitations in latent variable models. The
components/scores are driven by the data and are only as good as
the data included in the model. The composition of variable groups
can also change based on varying data sources. For example, in-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 02/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
cluding other countries or a different set of observations from
different populations within a country can change which variables
comprise the different components or how the latent variables
(i.e., components) are weighted.
The causality effects of the identified risk-tolerance determi-
nants, including the effects due to migration, were not reviewed
due to the absence of randomized controlled experiments. Within
natural settings, or controls with established conditional inde-
pendence, more comprehensive analysis could be performed to
understand the causal effects and pathways of risk tolerance. Deter-
mination of causality may require the authors to conduct actual
experiments and a higher order of statistical analyses to make
causal inferences. Hence, this research focused mainly on identi-
fying latent variables and establishing relationships that influence
risk tolerance through the use of PCA and K-means clustering.
Conclusion
Risk is a social and cultural construct varying across social groups
driven by what they see and experience in their environment. At the
individual level, this can be observed through the subjective under-
standing of and behavior in response to a hazard that could possibly
lead to injury or failure. Risk tolerance is an important aspect of
managing risks in construction and may create barriers because
of different worker characteristics, situations, and safety exposure.
Various studies, though limited, have examined risk tolerance in
construction focusing on workplace safety and cultural contexts.
Their findings and results established a foundation in building
safety management programs and cultures through policy interven-
tions, organizational structure, and worker engagement in construc-
tion. However, the determinants, patterns, and differences in risk
tolerance in construction considering individual and sociocultural
contexts had not been fully studied.
This research shows that risk tolerance is complicated and is
intertwined and influenced by individual characteristics, situations,
affective associations, exposures, beliefs, social and cultural con-
text, environment, technology, culture, and risk-taking behaviors.
A combination of these elements, with underlying patterns, repre-
sented by key components, was used in this study to identify
risk-tolerance determinants. Two high-loading components were
observed to influenced risk tolerance: Component 1 explained
by Risk-taking Behaviors and Affective Association, and Compo-
nent 2 explained by Control Belief and Safety Culture. Differences
were observed when the global components were compared to the
local (country-specific) components; Singapore had the highest
risk-tolerance score while Colombia had the lowest.
Distinct groupings were observed when the risk-tolerance
scores were clustered. Countries with resources and regimented
structural policies, such as Australia, Japan, Korea, China,
Singapore, and Hong Kong (China), were clustered together based
© ASCE 04020022-12
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020022
on their risk-tolerance scores. Further, Affective Association,
Control Belief, and Safety Culture are significant determinants.
This study contributes to the existing literature by building
on a solid foundation established by previous researchers and em-
pirically identifying key determinants of risk tolerance in a cross-
cultural construction industry. It used measurable characteristics/
factors to quantify risk tolerance which can then be used to
(1) establish rankings, and (2) quantify a subjective measure which
that has been used, or could be used in the future, as a response
variable to identify the key determinants or potentially answer other
research questions regarding risk tolerance. The findings can be
used to inform policymakers, stakeholders, safety professionals,
and industry leaders of opportunity areas in their structural policy
and safety management systems that will allow a better approach in
understanding differences. This can in turn enable strong situa-
tional awareness and risk decision-making of construction workers.
It also facilitates a better strategy in customizing plans and
programs in implementing safety management systems based on
geography, culture, and social norms.
Future research may explore other determinants of risk tolerance
and broaden the scope to other countries or regions. For example,
a future analysis could further examine the regional clustering of
risk-tolerance scores, in which this research showed some align-
ment with ancestral linkage, cultural heritage, and socioeconomic
systems. Potential investigations could also examine the influence
and impact of varying laws, regulations, and company policies on
risk tolerance. Finally, an examination of causation could be
performed to explain the fundamental sociocultural causes of risk
tolerance. Such an effort may require cross-disciplinary (e.g., engi-
neering, economics, psychology, and sociology) collaboration in
performing research/experiments in understanding the direct, indi-
rect, and compounding effects of the determinants of risk tolerance.
Data Availability Statement
Data generated or analyzed during this study are available from
the corresponding author by request. Information regarding the
Journal’s data-sharing policy can be found at the following
website: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0001263.
References
Choi, B., S. Ahn, and S. Lee. 2017. “Role of social norms and social
identifications in safety behavior of construction workers. I: Theoretical
model of safety behavior under social influence.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage. 143 (5): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0001271.
Choudhry, R. M., and D. Fang. 2008. “Why operatives engage in unsafe
work behavior: Investigating factors on construction sites.” Saf. Sci.
46 (4): 566–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.027.
Cockerman, W. 2005. “Health lifestyle theory and the convergence of
agency and structure.” J. Health Social Behav. 46 (1): 51–67.
Eaton, G., and D. Little. 2011. “Risk: Assessing & mitigating to deliver
sustainable safety performance.” In ASSE Professional Development
Conf. and Exposition, 35–41. Park Ridge, IL: American Society of
Safety Engineers.
Endsley, M., and D. Jones. 2004. “Designing for situation awareness.”
In Designing for situation awareness. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Gerbert, P., S. Castagnino, C. Rothballer, and A. Renz. 2016. Shaping the
future of construction a breakthrough in mindset and technology, 1–64.
Cologny, Switzerland: World Economic Forum.
Greene, W. 2000. Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 Hallowell, M. R. 2010. “Safety risk perception in construction companies
in the Pacific Northwest of the USA.” Constr. Manage. Econ. 28 (4):
403–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446191003587752.
Hinze, J., and J. Gambatese. 2003. “Factors that influence safety perfor-
mance of specialty contractors.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 129 (2):
159–164. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:2(159).
Hofstede, G. 2016. “National cultures in four dimensions : A research-based
theory of cultural differences among nations.” Int. Stud. Manage. Organ.
13 (1): 46–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1983.11656358.
Hopkins, A. 2010. Failure to learn: The BP Texas city refinery disaster.
Sydney, NSW, Australia: CCH Australia Limited.
ILO (International Labour Organization). 2018. Key indicators of the
labour market. Geneva: ILO.
James, G., D. Witten, T. Hastie, and R. Tibshirani. 2013. An introduction to
statistical learning with applications in R. New York: Springer.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 02/16/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Korkmaz, S., and D. J. Park. 2018. “Comparison of safety perception be-
tween foreign and local workers in the construction industry in Republic
of Korea.” Saf. Health Work 9 (1): 53–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.shaw.2017.07.002.
Krueger, N., and P. Dickson. 1994. “How believing in ourselves increases
risk taking: Perceived.” Decis. Sci. 25 (3): 385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j
.1540-5915.1994.tb01849.x.
Link, B. 2008. “Epidemiological sociology and the social shaping of pop-
ulation health.” J. Health Social Behav. 49 (4): 367–384. https://doi.org
/10.1177/002214650804900401.
Man, S. S., A. H. S. Chan, and H. M. Wong. 2017. “Risk-taking behaviors
of Hong Kong construction workers: A thematic study.” Saf. Sci.
98 (Oct): 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.05.004.
Oxford Economics. 2018. The economic significance of the meetings and
events industry to the U.S. economy, 1–52. Oxford, UK: Oxford
Economics.
Perlman, A., R. Sacks, and R. Barak. 2014. “Hazard recognition and risk
perception in construction.” Saf. Sci. 64 (Apr): 22–31. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ssci.2013.11.019.
© ASCE 04020022-13
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2020, 146(4): 04020022
Pinheiro, A., B. Cranor, and D. Anderson. 2011. “Assessing risk: A sim-
plified methodology for prejob planning in oil & gas production.” Prof.
Saf. 56 (9): 34–40.
Rasmussen, J. 1997. “Risk management in a dynamic society: A modelling
problem.” Saf. Sci. 27 (2): 183–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925
-7535(97)00052-0.
Reason, J. 1997. Managing the risks of organizational accidents.
Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Reason, J. 2000. “Human error: Models and management.” Br. Med. J.
320 (768): 1–8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.320.7237.768.
Robson, L. S., J. A. Clarke, K. Cullen, A. Bielecky, C. Severin, P. L.
Bigelow, E. Irvin, A. Culyer, and Q. Mahood. 2007. “The effectiveness
of occupational health and safety management system interventions:
A systematic review.” Saf. Sci. 45 (3): 329–353. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.ssci.2006.07.003.
Rohrmann, B., and O. Renn. 2006. “Risk perception research: An introduction.”
In Cross-cultural risk perception: A survey of empirical studies, 13–43.
Boston: Springer.
Rundmo, T. 2011. “Employee images of risk.” J. Risk Res. 4 (4): 393–404.
https://doi.org/10.1080/136698701100653259.
Sitkin, S. B., and A. L. Pablo. 1992. “Reconceptualizing the determinants
of risk behavior.” Acad. Manage. Rev. 17 (1): 9. https://doi.org/10.5465
/amr.1992.4279564.
Thompson, B. 2010. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
US Census. 2017. Construction spending: Historical value put in place.
Washington, DC: US Census.
Williams, D., and J. Noyes. 2007. “How does our perception of risk
influence decision making? Implications for the design of risk informa-
tion.” Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 8 (1): 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080
/14639220500484419.
Zhao, D., A. P. McCoy, B. M. Kleiner, T. H. Mills, and H. Lingard. 2016.
“Stakeholder perceptions of risk in construction.” Saf. Sci. 82 (Feb):
111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.09.002.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.