Hierarchical Position, Gender, Accident Severity, and Causal Attribution

Kouabenan, Dongo Rémi; Medina, Muriel; Gilibert, Daniel; Bouzon, Frederic

doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02056.x

Cited by 55 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…By leading people to attach value to internal explanations, this norm allows them to say that "what must be attributed to people is the consequence of what they do and hence of what they are" (Beauvois & Le Poultier, 1986, p. 100). Today, a large body of experimental data, too copious to mention here, justifies this socionormative point of view (Beauvois & Dubois, 1988;Dubois, 1994Dubois, , 2002Beauvois, Gilibert, Panusu, & Abdelaoui, 1998;Kouabenan, Gilibert, Medina, & Bouzon, 2001;Pansu, Bressoux, & Louche, 2002). The most useful findings for the purposes of this article are the ones obtained with the self-presentation paradigm or the judge paradigm.…”

Section: Value Of Internal Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 80%

Effect of Causal Explanations on Work‐related Judgments

Pansu

Gilibert

2002

Applied Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quatre études, réalisées en entreprise, portent sur la valeur des explications internes et externes relatives à des événements professionnels. Les résultats de la première étude montrent que les managers choisissent préférentiellement des explications internes lorsqu'on leur demande de donner une image favorable d'eux-mêmes (vs une image défavorable). Dans les trois études suivantes on observe que les managers jugent plus favorablement un candidat lorsque celui-ci est connu pour avoir produit des explications internes (vs externes). De plus, des différences de valeur sont observées au sein des registres explicatifs internes et externes. Les explications internes en termes d'efforts comportementaux apparaissent les plus valorisées pour rendre compte des réussites et échecs professionnels. Ces résultats sont discutés en regard de la norme sociale d'internalité et des pratiques d'évaluation.Four studies investigated the value granted to internal versus external causal attributions of events in the workplace. The results showed that (a) managers provided more internal explanations when they were asked to present a favorable self-image, and (b) managers favored targets ( job applicants) who had expressed internal rather than external explanations. The results also showed that not all internal explanations are valued equally: "efforts" are preferred over "traits" in explanations of job outcomes. The results are discussed in terms of a norm that regulates social judgments: the norm of internality.

show abstract

Section: Value Of Internal Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 80%

Effect of Causal Explanations on Work‐related Judgments

Pansu

Gilibert

2002

Applied Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The high top score for workers actions/behaviour in the Australian case may be influenced by the fact that this study was a re-review of coroner's reports where there is often a tendency to 'blame the worker' (e.g. Kouabenan et al, 2001 andHofmann &Stetzer, 1998). It is also noteworthy that workers' capabilities was one of the least frequently identified immediate circumstances in the Australian analysis, identified as being relevant in only 11 cases.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Construction accident causality: learning from different countries and differing consequences

Gibb

Lingard

Behm

et al. 2014

Construction Management and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fundamental questions remain about the practical value and generalizability of accident causation frameworks for explaining construction accidents. Relevant causality literature is reviewed; three research projects compared and implications of accident causation theories for accident investigation and analysis discussed, particularly for accidents with differing consequences and in different national contexts. The effectiveness of UK accident causality framework ConAC (Construction Accident Causality) in identifying occupational accident causes in different industry contexts (Australia and the USA) is evaluated; and the implications of the choice of theoretical framework in the analysis of construction accident causation considered. The ConAC framework was developed from a real-time analysis of 100 relatively minor construction accidents. The Australian study used this framework to analyse the National Coroners reports of 258 construction fatalities and the USA study used it to develop research instruments for interviews regarding 27 construction accidents of varying consequences. The results suggest that the ConAC framework is helpful for the analysis of the causes of accidents with outcomes of differing severity. The studies also suggest that it has international applicability despite differing occupational health and safety legislative contexts and industrial arrangements. Furthermore, significant learning can be obtained from considering underlying causes of accidents.

show abstract

“…Much of this research argues that identifying possible disparities between the causal attributions of "expert" (managers) and "lay" (rankand-file employees) audience is critical, as these differences may impact the effectiveness or appropriateness of risk management strategies in workplaces (Kouabenan, Gilbert, Medina, & Bouzon, 2001;Salminen, 1992;Steensma, den Hartigh, & Lucardie, 1994).…”

Section: Similarity and Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%