Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 67 (2020) 104223

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jlp

Research on multilevel information loss of the sharing process for

safety information
Lianhua Cheng, Huimin Guo *, Changhui Wang, Shugang Li
College of Safety Science and Engineering, Xían University of Science and Technology, Xían, Shaanxi, 710054, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: To reveal the mechanism of information loss in the flow of safety information, and to derive an evaluation
Safety information method for describing this information loss, this paper analyzes the flow of safety information based on research
Information sharing in safety informatics and cognitive psychology. Theoretical analysis shows that the flow of safety information can
Information cognition
be divided into four stages: transformation, transmission, perception, and cognition. This paper describes a
Adaptive agent
Information loss
simplified model of the flow of safety information based on these four stages. Then, the concept of adaptive
subjects is introduced, and the sources and losses of safety information are explored. In addition, a model of
safety information flow loss is constructed. This model is used to analyze the connection between the information
loss at each stage of the sharing process, and then a “ladder hierarchical” model for the loss of safety information
is developed. Comprehensive analysis of this ladder hierarchical model of safety information leads to a formal
mathematical model of safety information loss. Finally, according to the various development stages of the safety
information sharing process, four key factors that affect the multilevel information loss of the safety information
sharing process are extracted by the hierarchical method.

1. Introduction necessary for developing the elements of process safety management.

Numerous studies have shown that safety is closely connected to
human health, loss prevention, environmental protection, sustainability,
and cleaner production (Wang and Wu, 2019). According to research in
cognitive psychology, human behavior is the external expression of an
internal cognitive process (Neisser, 1977; Anderson, 2016). The essence
of human behavior errors is, therefore, the fault of human information
processing (Rasmussen, 1986). Work safety practice shows that when
individuals judge whether their behavior is safe, the process is usually
based on their own cognition of surrounding safety information (Wu,
2017). However, there is an unavoidable loss in the flow of safety in­
formation. When the loss of safety information affects the ability of the
subject to judge and make decisions on the safety situation, the possi­
bility of behavioral errors often increases, potentially leading to acci­
dents. Underwood and Waterson (2013) concluded that factors such as
information loss have a major effect on system safety, and a high pro­
portion of accidents are caused by information loss. Lei et al. (2019)
highlighted that the accurate, smooth flow of safety information in a
system is very important for overall safety. And Liaw (2019) maintained
that process safety information provides the fundamental information
Therefore, studying the process and mechanism of safety information
losses can reduce the occurrence of unsafe behavior and further prevent
accidents.
To date, there has been relatively little research on safety informa­
tion in the safety field, and the little research that has been conducted
has not yet formed a complete system. Most scholars focus on the con­
struction of safety information system platforms and consider the
application of information technology. Basic research on safety infor­
mation theory is relatively inadequate (Huang et al., 2015), with safety
information flow and its losses particularly in need of further study. Wu
(2017) focused on the process of safety information cognition, and dis­
cussed seven key events and five-level distortion in the process of safety
information flow. In addition, Wu and Huang (2019) established a new
accident causation model based on information flow. Zhao and Zhou
(2012) believed that a lack of safety information would directly or
indirectly lead to the occurrence of accidents and affect the development
of accident scenarios, and proposed the accident-causing theory and
mathematical model of safety information loss. Li et al. (2017) built a
general model of safety information flow based on the information
sharing process, and proposed a multi-level safety information

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: 741949878@qq.com (H. Guo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104223
Received 2 April 2020; Received in revised form 25 May 2020; Accepted 23 June 2020
Available online 4 July 2020
0950-4230/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Cheng et al.
asymmetry accident-causing model. Luo and Wu (2017) explored the
delay and attenuation of related safety information based on the general
method of information dissemination, and revealed the underlying
mechanism for the loss and attenuation of safety information. It is clear
that the layer attenuation or loss of safety information is the funda­
mental cause of the injury accident. But the researchers did not make
any breakthroughs in the mechanism analysis of safety information
science. Therefore, it is theoretically and practically significant to
establish and discuss the foundation of safety information science (Luo
and Wu, 2019).
The above studies are significant in understanding the process of
safety information flow and preventing the occurrence of safety infor­
mation loss, but most research is not specific to the classification of the
safety information sharing process and pays insufficient attention to the
self-adaptive ability of information subjects. Additionally, there is a lack
of descriptive methods of safety information loss, meaning that no cor­
responding evaluations can be performed. Therefore, to enrich the
relevant theories and methods of safety information flow and provide a
theoretical basis for enterprises to make better use of safety information,
this paper divides the process of safety information flow into specific
stages based on previous research, describes a model of losses in the flow
of safety information, and introduces methods for the expression and
evaluation of safety information loss.
2. Safety information sharing process and model construction
At present, the research on safety information has not formed a
unified conceptual definition, but its essence is consistent in the field of
safety. Li and Chen (2007) believed that safety information is a general
term for information that has an impact on word safety. It is a specific
form that reflects the differences between safety things and their
changes, including warning information, production status information
and safety instructions, etc. Zhao and Zhou (2012) put forward that
safety information is all relevant information that can be known to
humans, machines, and the environment in human production activities
and can affect the occurrence and development of accidents. Sun and Hu
(2014) believed that safety information is a collection of relevant data in
the production and life, with the purpose of eliminating hidden dangers
of accidents, reducing accident losses, promoting work safety and
ensuring life safety. Wang and Wu (2017) defined the safety information
as the self-display of the future safety status. Luo and Wu (2018) pointed
out that safety information is a kind of resource which can reflect the
emergence, development and change of all safety activities or things in
the field of safety, and the purpose of safety information is to protect
human’s physical and mental health. From the perspective of system
safety, safety information refers to the safety status and changes of the
system.
2.1. Analysis of the safety information sharing process
The process of information exchange and the flow among the ele­
ments within the safety system are complex (Cheng, 2015). According to
analysis of the safety information cognitive model and the safety in­
formation flow model, the process of obtaining and cognizing safety
information can be summarized as the “information source–information
channel–information subject” event process chain. In this chain, the
information source is the origin that generates safety information. The
information source needs to be converted into information forms such as
data, sound waves, and light waves and passed through the information
channel to be further perceived by the safety information subjects.
Finally, the safety information subjects detect and transform the
perceived information through complex physiological and psychological
processes to form cognitive information.
(1) Information source. Information sources in the safety information
flow can be people, machines, and organizations; the
2
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 67 (2020) 104223
“information,” which represents the structure, state, behavior,
and future trend of the information source, is meta-information.
Simple meta-information is not real-time information, and only
that meta-information which can be separated from the charac­
terized information source is real-time information in the process
of the information flow (Miao, 2010). The “real information” that
characterizes the source is the original information at the
beginning of the information sharing process.
(2) Safety information subject. The safety information subject refers
to the recipient of safety information, equivalent to the concept of
a “sink” in the information dissemination mode of the commu­
nication field. In contrast, however, the safety information flow
involves more content, and is not a simple information trans­
mission in the information dissemination mode. For example,
after the information flow has been completed, the information
receiver can serve as a new information source, sharing and
exchanging the information they have obtained, and this process
can be repeated.
(3) Information carrier and carrier information. Information carrier
is the medium that carries information in the information
dissemination, and is the material basis on which information is
attached, that is, the entity used to record, transmit, accumulate
and save information. However, the carrier information is a
specific entity, such as safety instructions, detection data, and so
on. The source information needs to be converted into carrier
information that can be transmitted by the information carrier:
subsequent information flow can only occur through information
carriers. If information about the state of equipment is converted
into detection data carried by the information carrier, the infor­
mation can be transmitted and subsequent information-aware
cognition can be performed. Information carriers can be
divided into general carriers and special carriers. General carriers
refer to physical entities such as paper and microchips. Special
carriers include material wave signals such as sound waves and
light waves. Natural language and various artificial languages (e.
g., notes, engineering symbols) are special information carriers.
(4) Perceptive information. In the process of information perception,
the safety information subject perceives the stimulation of sound
waves, odors, and light waves (detection data, device sounds, and
abnormal odors) transmitted by the information carrier through
the eyes, ears, nose, and other senses. This stimulation is then
transmitted to the sensory center of the brain. Visual information,
auditory information, and olfactory information received by the
information subject at this stage are forms of perceptive infor­
mation (Huang et al., 2018).
(5) Cognitive information. The safety information subject detects,
screens, and converts perceptive information via the function of
the brain and its knowledge reserve, and then forms an overall
understanding of the structure, state, behavior, and future trend
of information sources. At this time, the result within the brain is
cognitive information. Cognitive results such as “unsafe behavior
of human” and “unsafe situation” are usually formed in the brain
according to the received perception information, and constitute
a kind of cognitive information. Through a transformation pro­
cess, cognitive information can be communicated and shared in
the form of the language of the safety information subject. The
information then enters the next process of safety information
flow.
2.2. Model of safety information sharing process
From the above description and analysis, it is clear that the safety
information flow is a process whereby safety information is passed from
the information source to the safety information subject through a
certain transmission channel, and is recognized by the safety informa­
tion subject (Cheng et al., 2019). In this paper, the work safety
L. Cheng et al.
information sharing process is considered as the research object, and the
actual work safety process is integrated to form a theoretical model of
the safety information flow, as shown in Fig. 1.
The safety information flow can be divided into four basic processes:
transformation, transmission, perception, and cognition. Furthermore,
the transformation and transmission processes can be referred to as the
external flow phase of the safety information, with the perception and
cognition processes forming the internal flow phase of the safety infor­
mation. Note that the safety information subject is the cognizant of
safety information. In the cognitive process, the safety information
subject has the ability to continuously learn and accumulate experience,
and the cognitive information mode of the subject can change according
to accumulated experience. Additionally, the safety information subject
has innovative thinking consciousness, i.e., a certain foresight, and can
make appropriate adjustments to the information cognitive results. That
is, the safety information subject is an adaptive agent (Cheng and Guo,
2017). The losses in the safety information flow studied in this paper are
mainly the information losses in the process of safety information ex­
change between the information agents within an enterprise.
3. Loss and analysis of safety information flow
3.1. Losses during safety information flow
The safety information flow can be roughly divided into two cate­
gories: the safety information flow generated by safety items related to
the safety information subject, and the information exchange between
safety information subjects. Limited by the physiological and psycho­
logical conditions of the safety information subjects, as well as the in­
fluence of factors such as the information environment at the time, the
process of information flow inevitably suffers losses (Li et al., 2018;
Chaxel and Russo, 2016). In this paper, the information losses during the
flow of safety information are defined as the losses caused by the
transformation, transmission, perception, and cognition processes of
safety information. According to the relevant research on two modes of
safety information flow and information cognition (He and Fang, 2006;
Cen et al., 2016), and combined with the actual information flow situ­
ation in the work safety, a loss model for the flow of safety information is
constructed, as shown in Fig. 2.
Losses in the safety information flow make it impossible for the in­
formation subject to obtain complete cognitive safety information. This
affects the judgment of the information subject, triggers unsafe
behavior, and may eventually lead to accidents. A more serious loss of
safety information results in a greater possibility of accidents.
3.2. Analysis of safety information flow losses
(1) Losses during safety information transformation. The process of
safety information transformation refers to the transformation of
source information into carrier information. This process involves
Fig. 1. Simplified model of the safety information sharing process.
3
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 67 (2020) 104223
many factors. Identifying the characteristics of safety information
and the real-time changes in rules is very complicated, as is
expressing this information in a way that can be perceived by
humans. Information standardization, signal strength, signal
redundancy, and the perception threshold of the safety informa­
tion subject should all be considered in the process of safety in­
formation transformation. Therefore, it is difficult to avoid losses
during the process of safety information transformation.
(2) Losses during safety information transmission. There is a lot of
signal noise in the process of safety information transmission.
Thus, the chaotic crossover of channels and collisions mean that
information transmission can easily become confused. In addi­
tion, poor channel capabilities affect the information trans­
mission rate, resulting in distortion of the transmission of
information. Therefore, the process of safety information trans­
mission often results in information loss and attenuation.
(3) Losses during safety information perception. The safety infor­
mation subject obtains information by perceiving data, sound
waves, and light waves carried by the information carrier. The
perception of information includes two aspects. First, the safety
information subject directly performs sensory functions (such as
observing, listening, touching) for perceptual recognition, which
is affected by the individual sensory threshold, and the infor­
mation subject is often unable to fully sense the safety informa­
tion. Second, according to their own knowledge and skills, the
information subject perceives and obtains information by means
of specific information equipment. The information subject’s lack
of knowledge and skills, as well as insufficient software and
hardware facilities to obtain safety information, results in safety
information perception losses.
(4) Losses during safety information cognition. The information
subject needs to recognize safety information based on existing
knowledge reserves. However, the constraints of the information
subject’s knowledge structure and cultural level will bias the
perception of safety information (Clark, 2015). Moreover, the
safety information cognitive process is not isolated, but is a sys­
tematic and holistic approach based on the existing psychological
state of the information subject. Influenced by a series of psy­
chological factors and relevant experiences, the safety informa­
tion subject perceives things in different ways, that is, they have
“limited theory” and “selectivity” in the process of information
cognition (Kanheman, 2003). The above factors mean that safety
information cognition often produces information loss.
4. Formal expression of safety information flow losses
4.1. “Ladder hierarchical” model of safety information flow losses
Block diagram models, logical models, and other conceptual models
provide a formal expression of the research object by revealing its main
L. Cheng et al.
Fig. 2. Loss model of safety information flow.
concepts, definitions, and logical relationships. The “ladder hierarchi­
cal” model described in this paper is a conceptual model. To construct a
ladder hierarchical model of safety information loss, the following
conclusions based on the analysis of safety information flow and loss are
summarized.
(1) The safety information flow includes four stages: transformation,
transmission, perception, and cognition. Among them, the
transmission process is different from the signal transmission
process in the communication field. Safety information trans­
mission refers to the communication process between informa­
tion subjects and the transmission of safety instructions.
(2) Information loss may occur at each stage of the safety information
sharing process. The information losses from each stage cannot
simply be superimposed, but will affect each other, that is, the
information flow in the next stage is based on the effective in­
formation from the previous stage.
(3) The safety information sharing process involves sources, chan­
nels, and subjects. Among them, the safety information subject is
an adaptive agent who displays innovative thinking conscious­
ness during the safety information cognitive stage, and has a
certain foresight ability. Thus, the information cognitive results
can be adjusted appropriately.
Based on the above understanding and related descriptions, a
4
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 67 (2020) 104223
rectangular frame is used to represent the information status in the
process of safety information flow (see Fig. 3), and the dotted frames
indicate the adaptive ability of the information subject to modify and
adjust the information. A higher information flow conversion rate in a
certain stage of the safety information flow produces a higher rectan­
gular frame margin of the information status in the next stage. Thus, a
ladder hierarchical model of safety information flow loss is gradually
formed, as shown in Fig. 3
(1) Information loss may occur at each stage of the safety information
sharing process. T1 (Transformation), T2 (Transmission), P
(Perception), and C (Cognition) represent the information con­
version rate of the four stages. The conversion rate at each stage
ranges from 0 to 1.
(2) The information loss at each stage affects subsequent stages,
forming a complex serial relation. That is, the total safety infor­
mation loss is calculated by multiplying the conversion rate of
each stage.
(3) As the safety information loss increases, the cognitive result of the
information subject deviates further from the original informa­
tion of safety items, and makes it more likely that accidents will
occur.
(4) The safety information subject adjusts the received safety infor­
mation based on the perceived result of the information, thus
offsetting some of the negative impacts of information loss. That
L. Cheng et al.
Fig. 3. Ladder hierarchical model of safety information flow loss.
is, on the basis of a small amount of safety perception informa­
tion, it is still possible for the information subject to correctly
recognize the information. When the information loss is partic­
ularly significant, the information subject may also re-recognize
the safety information.
4.2. Formal mathematical model of safety information flow loss
Mathematical models can generally be divided into “conceptual
models,” “formal models,” and “application models” (Huang, 2015).
Conceptual models indicate the names of various factors that affect the
research target, that is, they only describe which factors are related to
the research target. According to the multi-level information flow loss in
the process of safety information sharing studied in this paper, the
multi-level information flow loss is related to the four processes of safety
information transformation, transmission, perception and cognition.
Thus, a conceptual model of safety information flow loss can be estab­
lished as follows:
L = F(T1 , T2 , P, C)
where L represents the degree of safety information loss, T1 is the safety
information conversion rate, T2 represents the safety information
transmission rate, P represents the safety information perception rate,
and C represents the safety information cognition rate.
When people have a certain understanding of the research objec­
tives, they can usually put forward formal mathematical models. Formal
mathematical models can give formal mathematical expressions, but the
specific functional forms or detailed parameters of such mathematical
models are not determined, so they are staged results from qualitative
research to quantitative research. In each stage of the information
sharing process, the information obtained is always less than or equal to
the information in the last stage, so the value of the information con­
version rate is within the closed interval [0,1]. From this, the following
formal mathematical expression of the safety information loss can be
obtained:
L = 1 − η × T1 × T2 × P × μ × C
where η is the correction coefficient for the information characteristics,
which is related to information characteristics such as the complexity,
specific sharing process, and methods of safety information; this
parameter has a value of 1 when there is no correction. μ is the adaptive
correction coefficient for the cognitive stage of the information subject,
which is related to the adaptive information correction ability of the
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 67 (2020) 104223
safety information subject.
4.3. Case application
There was an especially serious gas explosion accident at the Jilin
Babao Coal Industry Company, China, in 2013. The accident investiga­
tion report showed that, less than one day before the incident, three gas
explosion accidents had occurred in the mine without causing any ca­
sualties, and so construction continued. The fourth gas explosion
occurred in confinement, resulting in numerous casualties. Leading up
to this, six hermetic workers refused to take risks because of their feel­
ings regarding the previous three gas explosions. This formation of
cognitive information allowed them to avoid injury. For the perception
and cognitive processes of these six employees, the values of P, C, and μ
in Eq. (2) can be taken as 1, whereas for other employees, these values
are taken to be less than 1.
On April 1, 2013, the managers of the mining company ordered
workers to enter the underground area to deal with a fire without being
completely clear about where the fire actually was. As a result, 17 people
were killed in another gas explosion. Imperfect monitoring information
meant that the area of the fire was unknown, resulting in information
loss and further casualties. Therefore, according to the formal mathe­
matical model shown in Eq. (2), there were different levels of informa­
tion loss in each stage of the dynamic information flow process in the
underground area, especially under the influence of the poor psycho­
logical and emotional state of the managers, and there was serious safety
information loss in the cognitive stage. The information loss in each
stage affected that in subsequent stages, resulting in the cognitive result
that the safety information had seriously deviated from the dynamic
information in the fire area. The managers of the mining company made
judgments based on severely distorted safety information, and mis­
judged the safety of underground mines. Under the influence of certain
risk-taking and luck-related factors, the unauthorized sending of
personnel into the underground area to deal with the fire eventually
caused a fatal gas explosion accident.
The above analysis of a typical accident case verifies the rationality
and practicability of the ladder hierarchical model and the formal model
of safety information flow loss. Thus, the formal expression method has
strong practical significance.
(1) 5. Influencing factors of safety information loss
At present, most of the related researches on the sharing process of
safety information sharing explore the influencing factors from the in­
formation itself, the information environment, and the information
subject, which is consistent with “source-channel (information
environment)-information subject” event process chain. On the basis of
related research, this paper used a step-by-layer method to analyze the
development stages of the safety information sharing and sharing pro­
cess, and gradually analyzed the specific sharing process and event
development chain of safety information, as shown in Table 1
(1) Safety information environment. The flow of safety information
sharing is affected by the environment factors such as the severity
of signal noise, channel capacity, etc. When the safety informa­
tion environment restricts the flow of safety information, making
safety information ineffective or unable to complete the flow,
(2) safety information loss will occur. The safety information envi­
ronment significantly affects the processes of transformation and
transmission of safety information. Therefore, enterprises should
optimize the working environment and maintain a good infor­
mation transmission environment. In addition, simplify the safety
information transmission link and set up dedicated personnel to
handle the safety information to minimize the loss of information
flow.
5
L. Cheng et al.
Table 1
Hierarchical analysis of safety information sharing process.
Development level and stage External level
transformation transmission
Event development chain Safety information transformation Safety information transmission
Critical factor Safety information environment
Safety information characteristics
(2) Safety information capabilities. Safety information capability is a
subjective condition that the information agent must possess. The
lack of information capability of safety information agents mainly
affects the perception and cognition process of safety informa­
tion, resulting in the loss of safety information flow. Safety in­
formation capabilities mainly include the ability to identify,
acquire, understand, accept, and organize storage of safety in­
formation. So, the information agent’s ability to acquire, accept,
and store information is the main factor affecting information
transmission. Enterprises can improve employees’ safety infor­
mation knowledge and skills through professional training, and
enhance the ability training and experience accumulation of in­
formation transmission agents.
(3) Safety information quality. The cognition of information by
safety information subjects is a comprehensive overall cognition,
often showing “limited rationality” and “selectivity”, which af­
fects the safety information cognition process and leads to the loss
of safety information cognition. The factors affecting the overall
cognitive process of the information subject are collectively
referred to as safety information literacy. The safety information
quality involved in the information flow mainly includes safety
information awareness, safety information-related knowledge
and skills and safety information emotions. Thus, enterprises
should strengthen the safety information training of employees,
improve employees’ cognitive ability to the safety information
and judge the sensitivity of information, and maintain a rational
state as always as possible at work to ensure the stability and
effectiveness of the information processing.
(4) Safety information characteristics. Safety information character­
istics include the basic attributes and the quality characteristics of
safety information. Analyzing the information sharing process of
safety information sharing and combining related research, it is
believed that variability and timeliness are the main basic attri­
butes affecting the safety information sharing, and the quality
characteristics are mainly reflected in the interactivity and stan­
dardization of information. Thence, enterprises should formulate
safety information transmission standards based on the actual
work requirements, standardize information, and unify semantics
as much as possible. At the same time, increase information
acquisition channels to ensure the timeliness and standardization
of safety information.
In summary, in the external flow stage of safety information sharing,
the safety information environment, such as channel capacity and signal
noise severity, affects the transformation and transmission of safety in­
formation. And during the internal flow stage of safety information
sharing, the safety information ability and quality of information subject
affect the perception and cognition process. In addition, the timeliness
and normative characteristics of safety information affect the whole
safety information sharing process. The above factors may cause the loss
of safety information flow.
6. Conclusion
Based on the actual characteristics of the process of safety informa­
tion flow, this paper has discussed the problem of information loss and
6
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 67 (2020) 104223
Internal level
perception cognition
Safety information perception Safety information cognition
Safety information capabilities,
Safety information quality
proposed corresponding methods of expressing these losses.
(1) The safety information sharing process was analyzed, and a
simplified model of the safety information sharing process was
constructed. According to the relevant analysis and simplified
model, the safety information sharing process can be divided into
external and internal phases, and can be further divided into four
basic processes of transformation, transmission, perception, and
cognition.
(2) The information loss in each stage of the safety information
sharing process was analyzed, and a loss model of safety infor­
mation flow was constructed. The loss of safety information is
caused by the failure and errors of certain information flows. The
loss of safety information at each stage affects that in subsequent
stages. Through analysis, it was found that the safety information
subject is an adaptive agent. In the process of information
cognition, the cognitive result of safety information can be
adjusted appropriately by the information subject.
(3) The degree of safety information loss affects the safety risk level.
To evaluate the degree of information loss in the process of safety
information flow, a ladder hierarchical model and a formal
mathematical model of safety information flow losses were con­
structed. In addition, safety information environment, capabil­
ities, quality and characteristics four key factors that affect the
multilevel information loss of the safety information sharing
process.
Author statement
I have made substantial contributions to the conception or design of
the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the
work;
I have drafted the work or revised it critically for important intel­
lectual content;
I have approved the final version to be published;
I agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that
questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are
appropriately investigated and resolved.
All persons who have made substantial contributions to the work
reported in the manuscript, including those who provided editing and
writing assistance but who are not authors, are named in the Ac­
knowledgments section of the manuscript and have given their written
permission to be named. If the manuscript does not include Acknowl­
edgments, it is because the authors have not received substantial con­
tributions from nonauthors.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This work was financially supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (51974238). We thank Stuart Jenkinson, PhD, from
L. Cheng et al.
Liwen Bianji, Edanz Editing China (www.liwenbianji.cn/ac), for editing
the English text of a draft of this manuscript.
References
Anderson, R.J., 2016. Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. Duffield: People’s Posts
and Telecommunications Press, pp. 1–18.
Cen, Y.H., Wang, X.S., Wang, Q., et al., 2016. An empirical study on the mechanisms of
individual cognitive processing and attitude development. Chinese Journal of
Management 13 (6), 880–887.
Chaxel, A.S., Russo, J.E., 2016. Wiggins C. A goal-priming approach to cognitive
consistency: applications to judgment. J. Behav. Decis. Making 29 (1), 37–51.
Cheng, L.H., 2015. Research on the Evolution Mechanism of Safety System in Coal Mine
Enterprise. Xi’an University of Science and Technology, 2015.
Cheng, L.H., Guo, H.M., 2017. The operational mechanism of enterprise safety system
based on CAS theory. J. Wuhan Univ. Technol. (Inf. Manag. Eng.) 39 (5), 507-510+
520.
Cheng, L.H., Wang, C.H., Li, S.G., et al., 2019. Analysis of the influential factors of the
sharing process for the safety information within the enterprise system itself. J. Saf.
Environ. 19 (1), 65–70.
Clark, J.K., 2015. Antecedents of message processing in persuasion: traditional and
emergent perspectives. Social & Personality Psychology Compass 8 (10), 595–607.
He, S.H., Fang, Q.H., 2006. Cognition and technical analysis of information loss in
information flow. Inf. Stud.: Theory & Application 29 (6), 764–766.
Huang, C.F., 2015. A formal model for dynamic risk analysis in natural disasters. Journal
of Catastrophology 30 (3), 1–9.
Huang, R.D., Liu, Q.Q., Wu, C., et al., 2015. Study on core principles of safety
information. World SCI-Tech R&D 37 (6), 646–649.
Huang, L., Wu, C., Wang, B., 2018. Individual behavioral safety mechanism and its
influence factors based on information cognition. J. Intell. 37 (8), 121–127.
Kanheman, D., 2003. Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics.
Am. Econ. Rev. 93 (5), 1449–1475.
Lei, Y., Wu, C., Feng, Y.X., et al., 2019. Optimization of Multi-Level Safety Information
Cognition (SIC): A New Approach to Reducing the Systematic Safety Risk. Reliability
Engineering and System Safety.
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 67 (2020) 104223
Li, Y.H., Chen, G.H., 2007. The foundation of safety management information system
discipline and its connotation and extension. China Saf. Sci. J. 17 (6), 129–134.
Li, S.X., Wu, C., Wang, B., 2017. Study on model for accident resulting from multilevel
safety information asymmetry. China Saf. Sci. J. 27 (7), 18–23.
Li, H.X., Huang, Y.X., Tian, S.C., et al., 2018. Miner fatigue monitoring and control
system based on cerebella model articulation controller neutral network. J. Xi’an
Univ. Sci. Technol. 38 (3), 443–451.
Liaw, H.J., 2019. Deficiencies frequently encountered in the management of process
safety information. Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 132, 226–230.
Luo, T.Y., Wu, C., 2017. Construction and empirical analysis of accident cause model
under SIC thinking. China Saf. Sci. J. 27 (10), 1–6.
Luo, T.Y., Wu, C., 2018. Basic issues of safety information science. Sci. Technol. Rev. 36
(6), 65–76.
Luo, T.Y., Wu, C., 2019. Safety information cognition: a new methodology of safety
science in urgent need to be established. J. Clean. Prod. 209, 1182–1194.
Miao, D.S., 2010. Essentials of Systems Science, third ed. China Renmin University Press,
Beijing, pp. 34–36.
Neisser, U., 1977. Cognitive psychology. (Book reviews: cognition and reality. Principles
and implications of cognitive psychology). Science 198, 816–817.
Rasmussen, J., 1986. Information Processing and Human-Machine Interaction. North-
Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 137–185.
Sun, D.G., Hu, G.X., 2014. Safety Information Management. Shanghai Jiao Tong
University Press, China, pp. 34–38.
Underwood, P., Waterson, P., 2013. Systemic accident analysis: examining the gap
between research and practice. Accid. Anal. Prev. 55 (2), 154–164.
Wang, B., Wu, C., 2017. An outline of the research of system safety science under the
guidance of safety information. J. Intell. 36 (10), 48–55.
Wang, B., Wu, C., 2019. Safety informatics as a new, promising and sustainable area of
safety science in the information age. J. Clean. Prod.
Wu, C., 2017. Construction of universal model on safety information cognition and its
enlightenment. Journal of Safety Science and Technology 13 (3), 5–11.
Wu, C., Huang, L., 2019. A new accident causation model based on information flow and
its application in Tianjin Port fire and explosion accident. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 182,
73–85.
Zhao, C.F., Zhou, X.H., 2012. Preliminary Study on theory of accident-causing based on
safety information missing. World SCI-Tech R&D 34 (1), 6–9.