Hostility and hearing protection behavior: The mediating role of personal beliefs and low frustration tolerance.

Rabinowitz, Stanley; Melamed, Samuel; Feiner, Mabel; Weisberg, Esther; Ribak, Joseph

doi:10.1037/1076-8998.1.4.375

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Dissimilar to previous studies of other worker groups, benefits of use (Lusk, Ronis, & Hogan, 1997), and self‐efficacy of use (Lusk, Ronis, & Hogan, 1997; Melamed et al, 1996; Rabinowitz et al, 1996) were not statistically significant predictors of use (i.e., these factors did not separate users from non‐users) in the study reported here. This finding suggests that even in the presence of high scores on the benefits of use and self‐efficacy of use instruments, the presence of high barriers and/or low access and availability may limit the use of hearing protection among farmers.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

“…Workers who did not perceive barriers (e.g., interference of HPDs with work tasks) reported higher use of HPDs (Lusk, Ronis, & Hogan, 1997; Ronis, Hong, & Lusk, 2006; Wadud, Kreuter, & Clarkson, 1998). A positive relationship was found between HPD use and self‐efficacy (Lusk, Ronis, & Hogan, 1997; Melamed, Rabinowitz, Feiner, Weisberg, & Ribak, 1996; Rabinowitz, Melamed, Feiner, Weisberg, & Ribak, 1996). Lusk, Ronis, and Hogan (1997) also found that, when workers perceived the use of HPDs as having benefits, such as prevention of NIHL and protection of their inner ear, they had higher rates of HPD use.…”

Section: Background and Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predictors of use of hearing protection among a representative sample of farmers

McCullagh

Ronis²,

Lusk

2010

Research in Nursing & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Farmers experience higher rates of noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) than workers in most other industries. We developed a model of farmers' use of hearing protection, and tested it with a random sample (n = 532) of farmers from the upper Midwest. Barriers to using hearing protection (e.g., difficulty communicating; OR = .44, p < .003) were negatively related to use. Greater access/availability of hearing protectors (OR = 1.75, p < .010) and male gender (OR = .43, p < .019) were positively related to use. The model correctly predicted use of hearing protection for 74% of the cases. Overall, farmers demonstrated low hearing protector use, and results were similar to those from previous studies of non-farm workers. Findings from this study will be useful in designing interventions to increase farmers' hearing protector use and decrease their rates of NIHL.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Background and Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of use of hearing protection among a representative sample of farmers

McCullagh

Ronis²,

Lusk

2010

Research in Nursing & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After all the variables had been entered into the model, the multiple correlation of this regression was .734, and the adjusted R 2 , considering the overall number of predictors, was .535 (p < .0001), which indicates that the final model included variables that accounted for 53.5% of the variability observed in HPD use. This result is fairly consistent with other authors' findings when exploring multivariable analysis of HPD use, which have varied between 42% and 50% (Lusk et al, 1999;S. Rabinowitz, Melamed, Feiner, & Weisberg, 1996).…”

Section: Use Of Hearing Protection Devices (Hpds)supporting

confidence: 94%

Individual Perception of Noise Exposure and Hearing Protection in Industry

Arezes

Miguel

2005

Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Existing approaches that explain the behavior of workers in noisy environments rarely include quantitative variables related to central factors such as noise exposure levels and workers' hearing status. The aim of this study is to analyze the relationship among individual, contextual, and perceptual-cognitive factors and the use of hearing protection devices (HPDs). We studied 516 industrial workers exposed to noise levels greater than the Portuguese action level and developed a conceptual model for HPD use. The multivariate data analysis of the several variables considered revealed that individual risk perception and the outcome value for hearing preservation were the main direct predictors of the use of HPDs. Workers' opinions about the company's safety climate and their perception of noise exposure effects also play important roles as predictors. However, much of the effects of these factors are indirect (i.e., mediated by other variables). Furthermore, these results suggest that risk perception should be considered an essential issue in the design and implementation of any hearing conservation program, particularly in the development of training programs. Actual or potential applications of this research include the definition of more accurate strategies for promoting and motivating the use of HPDs.

show abstract

“…Group education is thus the most common training approach in the field. Investigators have shown that instruction, practice, and motivational methods can independently affect the efficiency of a hearing protector (ANSI, 1997;Melamed et al, 1996;Rabinowitz et al, 1996). The amount of instruction impacts greatly on the performance of earplugs and the level of protection afforded by them (Casali & Epps, 1986;Casali & Lam, 1986;Merry et al, 1992).…”

Section: Sumariomentioning

confidence: 97%

The effects of training format on earplug performance

Joseph

Punch

Stephenson

et al. 2007

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This experiment investigated the effect of small-group versus individual hearing loss prevention (HLP) training on the attenuation performance of passive insert-type hearing protection devices (HPDs). A subject-fit (SF) methodology, which gave naive listeners access only to the instructions printed on the HPD product label, was used to determine real-ear attenuation at threshold (REAT) at third-octave noise bands between 125-8000 Hz. REAT measurements were augmented by use of the Hearing Loss Prevention Attitude-Belief (HLPAB) survey, a field-tested self-assessment tool developed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four experimental groups, consisting of 25 listeners each, in a controlled behavioral-intervention trial. There were two types of HPDs (formable and premolded) and two training formats (individual and small group). A short multimedia program, including a practice session, was presented to all 100 listeners. Results showed training to have a significant effect, for both HPDs on real-ear attenuation and attitude, but, importantly, there was no difference between small-group and individual training.

show abstract

Hostility and hearing protection behavior: The mediating role of personal beliefs and low frustration tolerance.

Cited by 16 publications

References 25 publications

Predictors of use of hearing protection among a representative sample of farmers

Predictors of use of hearing protection among a representative sample of farmers

Individual Perception of Noise Exposure and Hearing Protection in Industry

The effects of training format on earplug performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About