Recent conceptual and methodological advances in behavioral safety research afford an opportunity to integrate past and recent research findings. Building on theoretical models of worker performance and work climate, this study quantitatively integrates the safety literature by meta-analytically examining person- and situation-based antecedents of safety performance behaviors and safety outcomes (i.e., accidents and injuries). As anticipated, safety knowledge and safety motivation were most strongly related to safety performance behaviors, closely followed by psychological safety climate and group safety climate. With regard to accidents and injuries, however, group safety climate had the strongest association. In addition, tests of a meta-analytic path model provided support for the theoretical model that guided this overall investigation. The implications of these findings for advancing the study and management of workplace safety are discussed.

As a test of the 2-dimensional model of work stressors, the present study proposed differential relationships between challenge stressors and hindrance stressors and role-based performance, which were expected to be moderated by organizational support. In a sample of 215 employees across 61 offices of a state agency, the authors obtained a positive relationship between challenge stressors and role-based performance and a negative relationship between hindrance stressors and role-based performance. In addition, organizational support moderated the relationship between challenge stressors and role-based performance but did not moderate the relationship between hindrance stressors and role-based performance. This suggests that organizations would benefit from increasing challenges in the workplace as long as they are supportive of employees and removing hindrances. Further implications for organizational theory and practice are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).

Over the past 15 years, regulatory focus has gained prominence as a theory of self-regulatory motivation. Building from personality and social psychology research, the nomological network of regulatory focus spans individuals, groups, and organizations. This review provides an appraisal of regulatory focus from a multilevel perspective as it relates to organizational behavior, human resources, strategic management, and entrepreneurship. We begin with a discussion of the theoretical foundations of regulatory focus, including hierarchical motivation and regulatory fit theory. Using these foundations, we summarize empirical research on regulatory focus and provide actionable avenues for future research on regulatory focus, with particular attention paid to how individuals adjust their motivational strategies on the basis of context. We also consider regulatory focus as a collective function of teams to develop our understanding of motivational processes in the workplace.When I'm old and dying, I plan to look back on my life and say "wow, that was an adventure," not "wow, I sure felt safe." -Tom Preston-Werner, Github Cofounder (2008)

The authors reexamined the factor structure of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (D. E. Broadbent, P. F. Cooper, P. Fitzgerald, & K. R. Parkes, 1982) and its correlates. The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire was designed to assess a person's likelihood of committing an error in the completion of an everyday task. A principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation yielded 4 internally consistent, interpretable factors. These factors were labeled Memory, Distractibility, Blunders, and (memory for) Names. This study lends partial support for the factor analytic solution proposed by L. K. Pollina, A. L. Greene, R. H. Tunick, and J. M. Puckett (1992). In addition, it extends previous findings by providing initial evidence for the construct validity of the factors established by correlating factor scores with measures of other related constructs (i.e., boredom proneness, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, Type A behavior pattern).

This study examined whether cognitive, affective-motivational, and behavioral training outcomes relate to posttraining regulatory processes and adaptive performance similarly at the individual and team levels of analysis. Longitudinal data were collected from 156 individuals composing 78 teams who were trained on and then performed a simulated flight task. Results showed that posttraining regulation processes related similarly to adaptive performance across levels. Also, regulation processes fully mediated the influences of self- and collective efficacy beliefs on individual and team adaptive performance. Finally, knowledge and skill more strongly and directly related to adaptive performance at the individual than the team level of analysis. Implications to theory and practice, limitations, and future directions are discussed.