Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1990, 70, 1351-1359.

O Perceptual and Motor SkiUs 1990

PERCEIVED RISK O F OCCUPATIONAL INJURY:

CONTROL OVER PACE O F WORK AND BLUE-COLLAR VERSUS
WHITE-COLLAR WORK

W. ANDREW HARRELL

Centre for Experimentul Sociology, University of Affiertu

Summary.-Factors influencing the perception of risk of work-related accidental

injury were investigated for 244 full-time employed men and women. Autonomy and
freedom in one's work were the strongest predictors of perceived risk, with those re-
spondents exercising the greatest control over their work perceiving the least risk of
accidental injury. Two other dimensions of control over work-task repetitiveness and
speed of pace-had weaker effects. Respondents using primarily blue collar kinds of
equipment felt more at risk than those using white collar equipment or no equipment.
This result is interpreted in terms of the impact of 'sudden harm' on perceptions.
Present working conditions, represented by the number of hazards identified in the
workplace, predicted perceived risk more strongly than previous accident history.

Workplace safety relies on the ability of workers to recognize hazards

that may result in personal injury and to take action removing or minimizing
these dangers. For example, Blignault (1979a, 197913) found that the more
experience mineworkers had on the job, the better able they were to detect
warnings of dangerous situations such as rockfalls. Increasing familiarity with
a source of danger can influence perceptions of personal risk (Ittleson, 1978).
In a recent study of the perception of work-related dangers (Jermier, Gaines,
& McIntosh, 1989), the authors found that the type of role played by a
police officer was a significant predictor of perceived danger. Officers who
were patrolmen or investigators perceived greater occupational risks than
deskbound officers.
The present study attempts to generalize the Jermier, et al. finding by
comparing perceptions of risk of individuals in a variety of blue-collar and
white-collar occupations. Perceptions of risk should be greater for workers in
blue-collar occupations who use heavy machinery or inherently hazardous
equipment than for white-collar workers using more benign equipment such
as word processors or computes.
Another aspect of work that may influence perceptions of risk is the
pacing of one's work, i.e., the extent to which a worker exercises control
over the work process (Hurrell & Colligan, 1986). An inability to control the
pace of work has been related to anxiety and depression (Hurrell & Colligan,
1986), absenteeism (Fried, Weitman, & Davis, 1972), monotony (Franken-

'Address correspondence to W. A. HarreU, Centre for Experimental Sociology, University of

Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2H4.
1352 W. A. HARRELL

haeusen & Gardell, 1976), and job dissatisfaction and poor mental health
(Hesketh & Shouksmith, 1986). To our knowledge, no study has related con-
trol over work pace to either perceptions of risk or actual accidental injury,
though Rachman (1978) has suggested that perceived dangers are lower when
one feels in control.
Two dimensions of pacing that may influence perceptions of risk are the
repetitiveness of work-related tasks and the speed at which one must work
(Hurrell & Colligan, 1986). Working at a rapid pace may be perceived as
riskier because one may be unable to attend quickly enough to warning
signals or to take adequate protective measures. Fast-paced work may also
increase the chance of error or fatigue in operating equipment. Repetitive
work may also lead to boredom which lessens one's vigilance.
Another factor influencing the perception of risk is whether or not an
individual has had a recent job-related accident resulting in personal injury.
Common sense leads one to expect that past accidents should alert workers
to hazards in the workplace and make the risk of future injury more salient.
Research by Johnson and Tversky (1983) suggests that individuals who have
experienced accidents themselves or witnessed accidents involving serious in-
jury or death may exaggerate the hazardousness of the occupation associated
with the incident.

The Sample
The data are from a major survey of working life conducted in
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada in 1983. Two hundred forty-four adults over the
age of 17 yr. each were intensively interviewed, face-to-face, over a 2-ht.
period by highly trained interviewers horn the University of Alberta's
Population Research Laboratory. Comparison of sample data with Canadian
census statistics showed the sample to be clearly representative of the
fully-employed working population in Edmonton (Kinzel, 1983).
The Variables
(a) Exposure to hazards.-Respondents were asked to itemize the haz-
ards to which their jobs might expose them, including such hazards as
chemicals, air pollutants, dangerous work areas, and dangerous tools. The
itemized hazards were added together to construct this variable.
(b) Accident history.-Respondents were asked whether they had experi-
enced any accidents at work over the last five years that may have affected
their health and required medical attention. The number of accidents over
five years were added together.
(c) Type of equipment used.-Respondents were asked to identify the
kinds of equipment with which they worked daily. Respondents who worked
principally with equipment such as lathes, cutting/rolling equipment, hand
 PERCEIVED RISK OF OCCUPATIONAL INJURY 1353

tools, power tools, other forms of heavy equipment, etc., were classed as
using blue-collar types of equipment. Those working with computers, office
equipment, medical-dental-scientific equipment, etc., were classified as using
white-collar types of equipment. Those who reported not working with any
kinds of equipment fell into a residual "no-equipment" group. To assess the
unique effect of blue-collar use of equipment, respondents using predomi-
nantly this kind of equipment were assigned a value of 1. They were
contrasted with white-collar users of the equipment and respondents who
used no equipment by assigning these two groups a value of 0. Similarly, the
unique effect of white-collar use of equipment was measured by assigning,
for the variable "white-collar use of equipment," the value of 1 to respon-
dents using predominantly such equipment and contrasting them with
blue-collar users and users of no equipment, who were given a value of 0.
The same procedure was used to contrast users of no equipment
.-
with those
using white- or blue-collar kinds of equipment; i.e., no equipment users were
given a value of 1 and the others a value of 0.
(d) Pacing of work, repetitiveness and speed of work.-Four items in the
survey dealt with autonomy on the job. They were: (1) "I have the freedom
to decide what work to do"; (2) "I have the responsibility to decide how my
job is done"; (3) "I can decide when to take breaks"; (4) "I can determine
the speed at which I work." Each item had seven response categories, rang-
ing from strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1). A composite index,
Control Over Pace, was formed from the mean of these four items.
Repetitiveness of work was measured by the item, "My job requires that I
d o the same thing over and over." Speed of Work was measured by the item,
"My job requires that I work very fast." Both items also had seven response
categories.
(e) Perceived risk of injury.-The dependent variable in this study was
indexed by three items: (1) "My chances of being hurt are pretty remote in
the kind of work I do"; (2) "I don't worry about being hurt on the job"; (3)
"Accidents are a major job hazard at my work." All three items had response
categories ranging from strongly agree (7) to strongly disagree (1).
(f) Other variables.-Age and sex were also examined as predictors of
perceived risk. I n this analysis, men were assigned a value of 1 and women a
value of 0.

Descriptive Statistics
Fifty-nine percent of the respondents are men, 41.0% are women
(M= 0.5, SD = 0.5). They range in age from 18 yr. to 87 yr., with a mean age
of 38 yr. (SD = 15.1). Forty-seven percent of the respondents itemize at least
one job hazard. Mean number of hazards identified is 1.3 (SD = 0.5). Fully
1354 W. A. HARRELL

25.0% of the sample have been injured on the job one or more times in the
last five years. Mean numbers of accidents is 0.7 (SD= 3.3). Forty-nine per-
cent of the sample works exclusively with white-collar lunds of equipment
(M= 0.5, SD = 0.5), 39.8% with blue-collar equipment (M= 0.4, SD = 0.5),
and 8.6% with no equipment
. -
(M = 0.1, SD = 0.3). On the average, respon-
dents feel very much in control of their work, with a mean for this index of
6.5 (SD= 2.1). Mean scores for repetitiveness and speed of work are 5.0
(SD= 1.86) and 4.6 (SD= 1.7), respectively. Means for the three measures of
perceived risk are 5.3 (SD= 2.0) for Chances of Being Hurt, 6.6 (SD = 2.4)
for Worry About Being Hurt, and 5.1 (SD= 3.4) for Accidents are a Hazard.

TABLE 1
MEANSAND STANDARDDEVIATIONS
FORVARIABLES

Variable M SD Variable M SD
Worry about being hurt 6.6 2.4 White collar 0.1 0.3
Chance of being hurt 5.3 2.0 Number of hazards 1.3 0.1
Accidents a hazard 5.1 3.4 Total accidents 0.7 3.3
Sex 0.5 0.5 Control of pace 6.6 2.1
Age, yr. 38.1 15.1 Repetition 5.0 1.9
Blue collar 0.0 0.1 S ~ e e dof work 4.6 1.7

Pearson Correlations
The measure of risk, "My chances of being hurt at work are remote," is
significantly related to all variables except for total accidents and speed of
work (Table 2). Perceptions of risk are greater for younger workers, workers
exposed to many hazards, workers lacking control over the pace of their
work, workers who view their work as repetitive, and workers using blue-
collar equipment as opposed to white-collar equipment or none.
On the variable, "I don't worry about being hurt," male workers are
more inclined than women to worry about being hurt, as are respondents
identifying a number of workplace hazards. Workers using predominantly
white-collar equipment are less likely to worry, but those using no equipment
worry more. Workers who can control the pace of work show less worry.
Workers performing repetitive and fast-paced work worry more than workers
who have less repetitive or slower-paced work.
Men and users of blue-collar equipment are more likely to perceive acci-
dents as a hazard of their employment. Users of white-collar equipment or
none are less likely to believe this. The more hazards itemized in the
workplace and the more repetitive and fast-paced the work, the more respon-
dents believe that accidents are a hazard of their particular occupation.
Older workers are more likely to see themselves in control of the pacing
of their work. Respondents who can control the pace of work perceive their
work as less repetitive and free of hazards such as exposure to pollutants,
 PERCEIVED RISK O F OCCUPATIONAL INJURY 1355

TABLE 2
PURSON
INTERCORRELATION
MATRIX, MEANS, AND DEVIATIONS
STANDARD

Variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Worry about being hurt .56* .53* -.15* .07 -.09 .14*
2. Chance of being hurt -33' -.IS* .19* -.42* .32*
3. Accidents a hazard .11 -.07 .29* -.26"
4. Sex -.12* .33* -.30*
5. Age -.12" .06
6. Blue collar -.75*
7. White collar
8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Worry about being hurt -.21* -.15* .02 .17* .11* .12*
2. Chance of being hurt .12+ -.40* -.03 .27* -.13* -.04
3. Accidents a hazard -.21* .35* .01 -.09 .15' .11*
4. Sex .03 .16* .I0 -.08 .23* -.13*
5. Age -.02 -.23* -.09 .27' .06 -.09
6. Blue collar -.32* .35* .OO -.12' .13* -.07
7. White collar -.40* -.27* .04 .01 -.08 .10
8. No equipment .04 -.05 -.12* -.06 -.03
9. Number of hazards .OO -.47* .05 .03
10. Total accidents .04 -.07 .08
11. Control of pace -.16' .10
12. Repetition .07
13. Soeed of work

chemicals, or dangerous equipment. I t , therefore, is not surprising to find

that those workers who feel in control of their work are less likely to use
blue-collar kinds of equipment; instead, they report not using any equip-
ment.
Men report their work as significantly less repetitive or fast-paced than
women. Respondents working exclusively with blue-collar h d s of equip-
ment report their work as repetitive.
The number of hazards reported in the workplace is greater for men,
younger workers, and workers using exclusively blue collar as opposed to
white-collar kinds of equipment.
A surprising finding is that total number of work-related accidents is
not significantly related to any of the predictor variables in this study.
Regression Analyses
Table 3 shows the results of a regression analysis for the first measure of
perceived risk, "My chances of being hurt are pretty remote." Altogether,
the nine predictors account for 31.0% of the variance in this dependent vari-
able. Blue-collar equipment use, number of hazards and control over pace of
work have similar betas and, therefore, equal predictive impact on this meas-
1356 W. A. HARRELL

TABLE 3
REGRESSION FOR THREEI m s
ANALYSES

Predictor Variables b Beta SE t P

"My Chances of Being Hurt Are Pretty Remote"
Sex -0.57 -0.14 0.25 -2.25 .03
Age 0.01 0.06 0.01 1.07 .29
Blue-collar equipment -0.99 -0.24 0.35 -2.81 .01
White-collar equipment 0.13 0.03 0.33 0.39 .70
Number of hazards -1.08 -0.26 0.24 -4.53 .OO
Total accidents -0.01 -0.02 0.03 -0.37 .71
Control over pace 0.35 0.24 0.08 4.32 .OO
Repetitiveness -0.11 -0.09 0.06 -1.66 .09
Speed of work -0.08 -0.07 0.07 -1.18 .24
Constant 6.18 0.87 7.15 .OO
R2 = 0.34, adjusted R2 = 0.31,
F,,,,, = 13.18, p<.001
"I Don't Worry About Being Hurt"
Sex -0.53 -0.13 0.29 -1.81 .07
Age 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.22 .83
Blue-collar equipment 0.51 0.12 0.41 1.23 .22
White-collar equipment 0.66 0.16 0.39 1.70 .09
Number of hazards -0.51 -0.13 0.28 -1.81 .07
Total accidents 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.34 .73
Control over pace 0.27 0.19 0.09 2.90 .OO
Repetitiveness 0.12 0.10 0.07 1.53 .13
Speed of work 0.10 0.08 0.08 1.21 .21
Constant 3.37 1.01 3.33 .oo
R2 = .lo, adjusted R2= 0.07,
F,,2,, = 3.00, p<.01
"Accidents Are a Job Hazard"
Sex
Age
Blue-collar equipment
White-collar equipment
Number of hazards
Total accidents
Control over pace
Repetitiveness
Speed of work
Constant
R2 = 0.19, adjusted R' = 0.16,
F,,,, = 6.30. ~ < . 0 0 1

ure of perceived risk. Perception of risk is greater for respondents working

principally with blue-collar equipment, for respondents exposed to many haz-
ards in their workplace, and for those lacking the freedom to control their
work. Sex has a weaker effect, with men reporting a greater chance of acci-
dental injury than women. In Table 3 only control of pace is a significant
predictor of whether the respondent worried about being hurt. The more
 PERCEIVED RISK OF OCCUPATIONAL INJURY 1357

control a respondent has, the less he worries. Only 7.0% of the variance in
this measure of risk is accounted for. The nine predictors explain 16.0% of
the variance in the third measure of risk, "Accidents are a major job hazard
at my work." Much of this variance is accounted for by three predictors:
number of hazards, repetitiveness, and speed of work. The more hazards
itemized by a respondent and the more repetitive or fast-paced the work, the
more perceived risk.
DISCUSSION
This study documents the impact of a worker's control over the pace of
work on perceptions of risk of accidental injury. The more control exercised
over work in terms of the kind of work one must do, how a job should be
done, when to take breaks, and control over the speed of work, then the
lower the perceived risk. This effect of control on perceived risk cuts across
occupations, applying to both blue- and white-collar kinds of work.
This linkage between control over work and perceived risk may stem
from a number of yet unexplored factors. For example, by exercising control
over the pace of work, one may be able to avoid hazardous features of the
workplace. One can simply leave when pollutants are present or when haz-
ardous equipment is in operation, returning only when conditions are safer.
One may refrain from using dangerous pieces of equipment, or one may dele-
gate dangerous tasks to others. By having control over one's work, one may
have the freedom to be more attentive or cautious when doing certain tasks
that otherwise might be done hurriedly or carelessly when the pace is dicta-
ted by a supervisor or by the equipment.
Another explanation may be that one's sense of safety when the pace is
under control may be illusory. This study showed that the greater one's con-
trol over pace, the fewer the hazards reported in the workplace. Perhaps,
however, such hazards as disease risks, dangerous chemicals, and so forth
may be objectively present if surveyed by someone other than the respon-
dent, but they are underestimated or ignored by the worker. Workers who
have high control over their jobs may underestimate their actual exposure to
such hazards.
Two other aspects of work-its repetitiveness and speed of pace-were
significant predictors of only one of the three indices of risk. Repetition and
fast-paced work increased the belief that accidents were a major job hazard
in a respondent's workplace. Repetition and speed, however, did not signifi-
cantly affect a respondent's personal concern about being hurt or the
expectation of injury. These work dimensions may be best regarded as pre-
dictors of an objectified rather than personalized sense of risk. Repetitive
and fast-paced work is seen as inherently hazardous, possibly dangerous in
an abstract sense for others, but not posing any particular danger to the
respondent himself.
1358 W. A. HARRELL

Another major finding of this study was that the presence of hazards in
the work environment was a stronger predictor of perceived risk of injury
than was prior accident history. What is currently happening in the work sit-
uation influences perception of risk more strongly than past events. This is
reasonable if prior accidents occurred in other, unrelated work settings. Also,
since the index of accidents covered a 5-yr, period, the details of prior acci-
dents may have diminished with time.
Type of equipment used by workers was a significant predictor of per-
ceived risk. Those using blue-collar kinds of equipment, e.g., carpentry tools,
lathes, and drii presses, were more likely to perceive themselves at risk,
compared to white-collar workers using computers or typewriters, or em-
ployees using no identifiable equipment. This may reflect the fact that blue-
collar workers are at greater risk to sudden harm, such as losing a finger or
an arm in a piece of equipment. As other researchers have pointed out
(Slovic, Fischoff, & Lichtenstein, 1981; Jermier, et al., 1989), it is the sa-
lience of sudden harm which prompts a worker to indicate in a survey the
perception of being at risk. Sudden and dramatic incidents of harm may be
less apparent to white-collar workers. Nevertheless, white-collar workers may
be seriously at risk to longer term hazards in the workplace, such as from
disease or exposure to carcinogens (Jermier, et al., 1989); however, because
of the delayed effects, they may neither be aware of these hazards nor fully
appreciate their consequences in the more distant future.
The value of research into perceptions of occupational risk is that such
perceptions are logical and empirical precursors to actions that can reduce
danger. Research has shown that potential victims of natural or environ-
mental disasters must first perceive that the problem is sufficiently serious to
their well being (Preston, Taylor, & Hodge, 1983) and that their actions can
effectively resolve it (Arbuthnot, 1977) before they are willing to act against
it. "Escaping" from an hazardous environment has received the most consid-
eration (Davidson, Baum, & Collins, 1982; Kiecolt & Nigg, 1982). Work
environments in which aversive working conditions increase perceived risk of
injury are characterized by employees' high absenteeism (Hill & Trist, 1953;
Verhaegen, Vanhalst, Drijeke, & van Hoecke, 1976; Noweir, 1984). Ad-
ditional research must examine how perceived risk might mobllize employees
to educate themselves about hazards in their workplace, to monitor the
safety of fellow workers, to change to safer patterns of work, or to bring
hazardous situations to the attention of management or unions.

REFERENCES
ARBUTHNOT, J. (1977) The roles oE attitudinal and personality variables in the prediction of en-
vironmental behavior and knowledge. Environment nnd Behavior, 9 , 217-232.
BLIGNAULT,C. J. H. (1979a) Hazard perception: 2. The contribution of signal detection to
hazard perception. Ergonomics, 22, 1177-1183.
 PERCEIVED RISK O F OCCUPATIONAL INJURY 1359
BLIGNAULT, C. J. H. (1979b) The perception of hazard: 1. Hazard analysis and the contribu-
tion of visual search to hazard perception. Ergonomics, 22, 991-999.
DAVIDSON, L., BAUM,A,, & COLLINS,D. C. (1982) Srress and control-related problems at
T h e Mile Island. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 349-359.
FRANKENIWUSEN, M., & GARDELL,B. (1976) Underload and overload in working life: outline
of a multidisciplinary approach. Journal of Human Stress, 2, 35-46.
FRIED,J., WEITMAN,M., & DAVIS,M. K. (1972) Man-machine interaction and absenteeism.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 428-429.
HESKETH,B., & SHOUKSMITH, G. (1986) Job and non-job activities, job satisfaction and men-
tal health among veterinarians. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 7, 325-339.
HILL,S. M. M., & TRIST, E. L. (1953) A consideration of industrial accidents as a means of
withdrawal from the work situation. Human Relations, 6, 357-380.
HURRELL,J. J., & COLUGAN,M. J. (1986) Machine pacing and shiftwork: evidence for job
stress. Journal of Organizational Behavioral Management, 8, 159-175.
I m ~ s o W.~ , H. (1978) Environmental perception and urban experience. Environment and
Behavior, 10, 193-213.
JERMIER, J. M., GAINES,J., & MCINTOSH,N. S. (1989) Reactions to physically dangerous
work: a conceptual and empirical analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 15-34.
JOHNSON,E. J., & TVERSKY,A. (1983) Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 20-31.
KECOLT, K. J., & NIGG,J. M. (1982) Mobility and perceptions of a hazardous environment.
Environment and Behavior, 14, 131-154.
KINZEL, C. (1983) 1983 Edmonton Area Study Samplin Report. Population Research
Laboratory EAS Series, Report No. 29, University of Afberta.
NOWEIR,M. H. (1984) Noise exposure as related to productivity, disciplinary actions, absen-
teeism, and accidents among textile workers. Journal ofSafety Research, 15, 163-174.
PRESTON,V., TAYLOR, S. M., & HODGE, D. C. (1983) Adjustment to natural and technological
hazards. Environment and Behavior, 15, 143-164.
RACHMAN, S. S. (1978) Fear and courage. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
SLOVIC,P., FISCHOFF,B., & LICHTENSTEIN, S. (1981) Perceived risk: psychological tactics and
social implications. Proceedings o f f h e Royal Socieq oflondon, A376, 17-34.
VERHAEGAN, P., VANHAUT,B., DRIJF.KE, H., & V A N HOECKE,M. (1976) The value of some
psychological theories in industrial accidents. Journal of Occupational Accidents, 1,
39-45.

Accepted June 4 , 1990.