The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0969-9988.htm

The effect of emotional Safety

behaviors of
intelligence, motivation and job construction
workers
burnout on safety behaviors of
construction workers: a case study
Parviz Ghoddousi and Ali Zamani Received 30 January 2023
Revised 19 June 2023
School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran 8 July 2023
Accepted 18 July 2023

Abstract
Purpose – Given the cruciality of construction workers’ safe behaviors, the possible influential factors on
workers’ behaviors should be studied, and one of these factors is characteristics. The authors identified
emotional intelligence (EI), motivation and job burnout as characteristics that might affect a worker’s safety
behavior, and the aim of this study is to investigate these possible relationships.
Design/methodology/approach – Workers’ EI, motivation and job burnout status were assessed by a
structured interview. Furthermore, workers’ safety behaviors were assessed by a checklist derived from
national codes, regulations and other research studies. Then, the researcher’s observations took place, and the
data were acquired.
Findings – EI and motivation of workers were able to predict safety behaviors, and the effect of job burnout
on safety behaviors was not significant. In addition, motivation’s influence on job burnout was not significant.
Therefore, in order to promote safety behaviors, the EI and motivation of workers need to be taken into
consideration.
Practical implications – The results indicate why construction managers should consider the workers’ EI
and motivation competencies and how this consideration could lead to safer and better performance in
construction projects.
Originality/value – The possible effects of EI, motivation and job burnout on the safety behaviors of
construction workers haven’t been paid enough attention. Moreover, the authors couldn’t find a study similar
to the present one that was conducted in Iran. Also, an original model was presented, and safety behaviors
were studied through fieldwork rather than using questionnaires.
Keywords EI, Safety behavior, Motivation, Job burnout, Workers
Paper type Case study

1. Introduction and background

To be ensured of project’s success, first and foremost, the risk factors should be identified
(Xiang et al., 2018). One of the most critical risks in the construction industry is accidents and
injuries, and it’s impossible to reduce injuries without giving special consideration to
behavioral factors (Birhane et al., 2022). According to Wang et al. (2016), there are two main
reasons for the construction industry’s accidents: unsafe behavior and unsafe condition. The
unsafe condition could be originated from misusing equipment or poor management. Safety
behavior factors could be internal (characteristics of a person) or external (living
circumstances). About 70% of the construction industry’s accidents are caused by unsafe
behaviors of workers (Haslam et al., 2005). Some of the elements which can shape the safe
behavior of a worker are as follows: personal attributes, work-related stress, job burnout and
organizational factors like safety culture and safety conditions (Seo et al., 2015).
Safety behavior consists of safety participation and safety compliance; safety
participation is defined as all the actions which take place by workers in order to promote
Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management
Funding: There was no funding associated with the work featured in this article. © Emerald Publishing Limited
0969-9988
Disclosure statement: The authors report there are no competing interests to declare. DOI 10.1108/ECAM-01-2023-0083
ECAM the safety program, help colleagues, enhance precaution and implement safety policies.
Safety compliance refers to acting according to the organization’s codes, sticking to safety
procedures and pursuing work-related activities safely (Neal et al., 2000; Seo et al., 2015; Li
et al., 2020).
Human behavior results from cognitive processes, and unsafe behavior results from
cognitive failure (Deng et al., 2022). A person’s attitude, subjective norms and perceived
behavior control affect their intention and behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Since one’s attitude gets
formed based on the evaluation of consequences, even in identical situations, attitudes and,
subsequently, behaviors could be different (Teo and Loosemore, 2001; Fang et al., 2016).
Therefore, in order to control and improve someone’s behavior, including safety behavior,
these factors must be considered.
Safety behavior and its influencing factors have been studied profoundly in published
literature (Ajayi et al., 2021; Ma et al., 2021; He et al., 2019; Xia et al., 2023). Nonetheless, the
impact of factors such as motivation, job burnout, and especially the EI of construction
workers on their safety behaviors haven’t received much attention. Accordingly, to fill this
research gap, the present study aims to investigate the effect of EI, motivation and job
burnout on workers’ safety behaviors as characteristics that might play a role in a worker’s
behavior. The outcomes of this research would lead to a broader comprehension of factors
affecting safety behavior and the industry’s safety in general. Also, it could be beneficial for
site managers to pay attention to workers’ traits before task allocation and selection of
training approaches (Gao et al., 2020). Even though this study was conducted in Tehran, the
capital of a developing country like Iran, the final results can be informing and alerting for
construction projects in other countries.
In the present study, first of all, a review of the literature about workers’ safety behaviors and
their effective factors took place. Then, research gaps, such as the potential effects that factors
like EI, motivation and job burnout could have on safety behaviors, were identified. Therefore, a
structured interview and field observations took place to evaluate workers’ EI, motivation, job
burnout and safety behaviors. After analyzing the collected data through structural
Equation Modeling), it was transpired that EI and motivation had considerable influences on
workers’ safety behaviors and the influence of job burnout on safety behaviors was negligible.

2. Literature review
2.1 Emotional intelligence, motivation and job burnout
It is next to impossible to improve performance and guarantee the successful completion of a
project in the construction industry without understanding humans (Dulaimi and Langford,
1999; Cacamis and El Asmar, 2014). Emotional intelligence (EI) is a personality trait that
indicates one’s ability to recognize and understand their own and others’ emotions and utilize
this information to control and manage these emotions (Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Goleman,
1998; PMI, 2021). Several definitions have been propounded concerning EI, yet all of these
definitions consist of four things: self-awareness (the ability to make a realistic self-
evaluation), self-management (SM) (the ability to control and manage troublesome thoughts
and avoiding hurried actions), social awareness (understanding and considering others’
feelings) and social skill (the ability to manage individuals in groups) (Goleman, 1998; PMI,
2021). Also, some research studies considered self-motivation as another component of EI
(Alsulami et al., 2021; Petrides, 2009).
According to the conservation of resources (COR) theory, people tend to conserve
resources (e.g. conditions, characteristics, energy) and prevent exhaustion of them. EI,
including self-motivation, as an internal resource, is correlated with emotional and
psychological exhaustion and job dissatisfaction of an individual, which could lead to job
burnout (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001; Wen et al., 2019). EI has a considerable influence on stress
management and makes people more resilient against stress and more tolerant of it (Kukah Safety
et al., 2022). Moreover, EI is consistent with the diminution of fatigue in workers and behaviors of
alleviates the negative consequences of burnout and also enhances performance (Sanchez-
Gomez and Breso, 2020). Higher EI leads to less stress at work and helps workers to achieve
construction
job satisfaction and avoid job burnout (Alsulami et al., 2021). workers
The effect of motivation on individual capacity augments dramatically in the presence of
EI variables (Alsulami et al., 2021). High EI in workers leads to the development of positive
thoughts and attitudes toward the job, which eventually leads to the enhancement of
motivation. EI has a direct or indirect effect on workers’ motivation through attitudes (Zhou
and George, 2003). High EI would also help to be heard more precisely and be able to motivate
other people (Cui, 2021).
A positive attitude has a grave impression on attenuating the job burnout of employees
(Poon et al., 2013). Tziner et al. (2020) stated that workers who don’t have high levels of EI and
are motivated in the workplace are more emotionally exhausted, leading to job burnout
among them. Moreover, workers with low EI are more likely to take work-related situations
easy; therefore, they won’t experience job burnout. Also, intrinsic motivation has a positive
influence on job satisfaction and a negative effect on job burnout of people (Tziner et al., 2020;
Bakaç et al., 2022). Therefore, we hypothesized the following.
H1. EI level of construction workers has a negative effect on job burnout among them.
H2. EI level of construction workers positively affects their motivation.
H3. Construction workers with a higher level of motivation are less likely to experience
burnout.

2.2 Emotional intelligence and safety behavior

The ultimate goal of an industry is its constant improvement which can’t be achieved unless
the main resource of the industry, meaning humans, is understood (Dulaimi and Langford,
1999). Human relationships are ingrained with emotions and failing to understand these
emotions leads to unpleasant consequences for organizations (Lundberg and Young, 2001).
High EI minimizes risks in the construction industry (Kukah et al., 2022). Workers who are
capable of understanding and regulating their emotions are less likely to engage in risky
behaviors (Gonz�alez-Recio et al., 2022).
Based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB), an individual’s safety behavior is under the
influence of attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control of that individual
(Ajzen, 1991). EI influences the worker’s attitude and response to incidents and stressful
occasions on the construction site. It helps workers to manage those situations with a positive
attitude and increases the chance of successful completion of the project (Rezvani et al., 2020).
Also, Low EI affects the team’s satisfaction and commitment and project success negatively
due to a lack of communication and motivation to reach goals (Rezvani et al., 2016). According
to Alsulami et al. (2021), the empathy and social skills of workers don’t have a significant
influence on their safety behavior; yet, self-awareness and self-regulation of them have a
remarkable effect on it. Given the above discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed.
H4. EI positively influences construction workers’ safety behaviors.

2.3 Job burnout and safety behavior

All construction injuries are caused by one or more of four possible factors, including
management commitment factors, psychological factors, behavioral factors and
demographic factors. So, job satisfaction, which is a component of psychological factors,
is critical in reducing construction injuries (Birhane et al., 2022).
ECAM The safety behaviors of workers are influenced by personal characteristics, job stress,
self-perceived fatigue, safety culture and safety climate (Seo et al., 2015). Also, being under
stress is disruptive to workers’ performance (Alsulami et al., 2021). It is recommended that
personnel of construction projects should be educated about how to control their stress in
order to avoid job burnout and improve safety performance (Enshassi et al., 2015).
Seo et al. (2015) stated that job burnout may and may not affect the safety performance of
construction workers. This relationship depends on workers’ contribution to project affairs
and the reliability of the work system. A mediator, like a good working relationship,
moderates the effect in a positive way and a mediator, like rivalry, negatively moderates the
effect. Thus, we hypothesized the following.
H5. Construction workers suffering from job burnout are more likely to behave unsafely.

2.4 Motivation and safety behavior

Safety climate is the key to safety performance and its impression on workers’ safety
behavior is mediated by knowledge and motivation (Griffin and Neal, 2000). Motivation is a
physiological cause of a certain behavior. In other words, motivation is the inner force that
determines how someone will behave. Moreover, a worker might have various motivations
leading to a motivational conflict. In this case, he or she might behave contrary to their safety
motivations to satisfy other motivations (Fang et al., 2016).
Safety habits and safety motivation influence the TPB constructs. So, in order to improve
the safety behavior of workers, these factors should be improved (Mohajeri et al., 2020).
According to Alsulami et al. (2021), the motivation of workers has a weak relationship with
their safety behaviors, but this relationship starts to thrive as the person’s EI increases.
Safety attitude, motivation and safety knowledge affect safety behavior at workplaces.
As traits like safety attitude, safety knowledge and motivation spread and work pressure
diminishes among employees, they tend to behave more and more in a safe manner
(Mohammadfam et al., 2017; Xia et al., 2023). Therefore, hypothesis 6 is proposed as follows.
H6. Highly motivated construction workers tend to behave in a safe manner more than
their peers.

3. Model and hypotheses

According to the literature review that took place by the researchers, the hypothesized model
shown in Figure 1 was presented. Based on the model, it is expected that EI influences the
motivation, job burnout and safety behavior of construction workers. Also, motivation and

Figure 1.
Hypothesized model
job burnout are expected to affect workers’ safety behavior and motivation is expected to Safety
affect job burnout. behaviors of
construction
4. Materials and methods workers
The required data for this research study was acquired in two stages: In the first stage, a set of
questions was developed for a structured interview to gather information about workers’ EI,
motivation and job burnout status; in the second stage, a checklist of safety behaviors in
construction projects was developed based on national codes and regulations. Finally, after
making sure of the validity, reliability and appropriateness of the data with SPSS Statistics, the
hypothesized model was tested with Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) Amos.

4.1 Data collection

In the present study, the required data were collected from two construction sites located in
the capital of a developing country, i.e. Tehran, Iran. To that end, two of the biggest well-
functioning construction sites in the city were selected randomly. The data-gathering phase
lasted for 30 days, and in the meantime, each worker was observed by the researcher for a
period of 45 min, like those studied by Hung et al. (2011).
In order to assess the safety behaviors of construction workers, a checklist with over 100
items was composed according to common codes and regulations used across the country
provided by authorities. The main categories of the behaviors checklist are shown in Table 1
Adding to that, a unique set of questions was constructed based on the related research
studies (Goleman, 1998; Kristensen et al., 2005; Smerek and Peterson, 2007), containing 33
questions, including 5 questions about their age, marital status, years of work experience,
months of work experience in the project and level of education and 28 questions which
contain six variables, including self-awareness (SeA), self-management (SM), social
awareness (SoA), relationship management (RM), motivation (M) and job burnout (JB); EI
of each worker was calculated based on his score in self-awareness, self-management, social
awareness and RM sections. The answer scale in this study was a five-point Likert scale from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
The behaviors of workers were measured and calculated by Eq. (1), similar to Gunduz and
Laitinen (2018).

Total number of observed safe behaviors

%Safety behaviors ¼ * 100 (1)
Total number of observed behaviors

It is common for researchers to evaluate factors like EI, motivation and job burnout using
questionnaires (Alsulami et al., 2021; Seo et al., 2015; Rezvani et al., 2020). Since the
participants of this study are construction workers and the number of poorly educated
individuals among them is usually high (Mar�ın et al., 2019), it was decided to conduct a
structured interview to remove literacy barriers and also to make sure that they have
understood the questions correctly.
As it has been stated in previous studies, when it comes to assessing safety behaviors,
self-reporting questionnaires are likely to result in different types of bias toward the
conservative side (Taylor Moore et al., 2013). Nevertheless, a notable number of researchers
utilized this method to collect data on the safety behaviors of workers (He et al., 2020;
Man et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021). Observational-based research methods often don’t get
utilized in construction-related research due to the hazardous nature of construction
sites (Gao et al., 2017). However, since a notable portion of safety-related behaviors is
decided in a real-time situation, a questionnaire survey may not present reliable results
(Goh and Binte Sa’adon, 2015). So, in order to collect the required data regarding the safety
ECAM No. Item

1 Not using PPE (e.g. helmet, goggles, harness, respirator mask and hearing protector) or misusing it in
possible hazardous situations
2 Not using artificial light when needed
3 Using gloves while working with rotating machinery
4 Presence in dangerous zones (e.g. unstable ground, improper paths, loading zones)
5 Untidiness of workplace
6 Entering an enclosed space without prior investigation
7 Throwing materials or waste from heights
8 Erecting scaffoldings in the wrong way (e.g. using bricks as support, securing it to the building, using
appropriate and sound planks)
9 Misusing ladders (e.g. being used by more than one person at a time, not harnessing in from the top,
carrying loads while climbing up or down, improper angle of it, not using it facing forward, use of an
unstable ladder, bending over while using the ladder, placing it in an unsafe location, using it with dirty
shoes)
10 Working on roofs without protection or in bad weather conditions
11 Demolishing improperly (e.g. standing on top of the destruction area, not removing glasses before the
operation, demolishing from bottom to top)
12 Improper use of machinery (e.g. careless operating, not moving loads vertically, transferring workers
with load-lifting machines, not using guidance for blind spots, using load-lifting machines in windy
weather)
13 Bad working conditions (e.g. inaccessible tools or materials, being in the wrong spot while performing a
task, working while being sick, having a bad posture, moving fast while working, not lifting loads from
their upper parts, working with hands instead of hand tools and wheelbarrows, working over a barrel)
14 Misusing tools (e.g. holding loads for a long time, holding the tools with an improper wrist angle, using
uninsulated tools while working with electricity, abandoning tools on the floor, using defective tools)
15 Indiscretion with chemicals (e.g. working in areas without appropriate air conditioning, eating with
dirty hands, not having extinguishers nearby the workplace, keeping chemicals among other materials
in store, not cleaning clothes and shoes after work)
16 Indiscretion with incendiary materials (e.g. using agitators near flammable gases, not protecting
flammable liquids in safe places and safe containers)
17 Misusing heaters (e.g. using gas log heathers in areas without proper air conditioning, putting heaters
on unstable platforms)
18 Improper cutting or welding (e.g. welding or cutting near flammable materials, not protecting sparks
from contacting flammable materials, welding or cutting enclosed containers, not using a lighter or pilot
light to ignite a torch, harmed insulations in cutting and welding equipment or not using protective
grounding)
Table 1. 19 Misuse of high-pressure cylinders (e.g. not protecting cylinders from impacts or getting warmed up
Items of the workers’ while not being used, being nearby sparks, not being held vertically, heating the valves directly)
safety behaviors 20 Eating, drinking, or smoking while performing a task
checklist Source(s): Authors’ own work

behaviors of workers properly, it was decided to observe workers’ actions from a close point
of view.
The researcher was viewed by construction workers as a student who was learning about
workers’ personality traits and construction methods, but they were not aware that their
safety behaviors were being observed to avoid behavior bias. Similar to Hung et al. (2011) and
Mohajeri et al. (2021), the observer remained unobtrusive to make sure he wouldn’t influence
the worker’s behavior and actions. During interviews, workers have been assured that there
isn’t any kind of relationship between the researcher and site managers and their answers
will remain confidential, and they wouldn’t face any consequences because of their answers.
Workers’ informed consent was asked in person and they willingly agreed to participate in
the study.
 Interviews took place prior to the observations, and since it was necessary to match Safety
behavioral observations to the interview of each worker, a unique ID was needed for each one behaviors of
of them, so they were asked what their trade was, and also their names were obtained
through site managers available nearby the area.
construction
workers
4.2 Participants
The participants of this research consisted of workers from two construction projects in
Tehran. The number of workers on construction sites 1 and 2 were respectively 98 and 57
people. According to Cochran’s sample size formula (n ¼ e2pð1pð1− −pÞpÞ, n 5 sample size,
þ
z2 N

N 5 population size, e 5 acceptable sampling error, p 5 the population proportions and z 5 z

value at reliability level) (Cochran, 1977), with a 0.05 acceptable error, the 0.5 population
proportion suggested by (Kotrlik and Higgins, 2001) and a reliability level of 95% (z 5 1.96),
at least 79 and 50 participants were needed for data collection. Finally, 134 workers engaged
in two projects were interviewed. Out of these 134 workers, 82 (61.2%) and 52 (38.8%)
workers were selected from sites 1 and 2 consecutively. Similar to Williams et al. (2020),
in order to include workers from various work groups in the sample, a stratified random
sampling method was implemented using each company’s list of workers. Each worker was
interviewed one by one. All of the interviewees were men and comprised representatives
from various types of trades (e.g. structural steelworkers, masons, electricians, painters,
glaziers and laborers). 89.6% of the workers were younger than 40 years and 61.2% of them
had professional experience of fewer than five years. The demographic characteristics of
construction workers are shown in Table 2.

4.3 Data analysis

To analyze the required data, in the first step, descriptive statistics and correlation analysis
were conducted. The correlation status between studied factors was figured using SPSS

Characteristics Items Frequency Percentage

Age < 25 80 59.7

25–29 18 13.4
30–39 22 16.4
40–49 10 7.5
≥50 4 3
Marital Status Married 61 45.5
Single 73 54.5
Level of Education Diploma or higher 26 19.4
Secondary school 48 35.8
Primary school 25 18.7
None 35 26.1
Total Relevant Work Experience (Year) <5 82 61.2
5–9 17 12.7
10–14 17 12.7
15–19 8 6
≥20 10 7.5
Work Experience in Project (Month) <6 42 31.3
6–12 43 32.1
13–23 10 7.5 Table 2.
≥24 39 29.1 Demographic
Note(s): n 5 134 characteristics of
Source(s): Authors’ own work construction workers
ECAM version 26.0 software. Afterward, in order to test the hypothesized model shown in Figure 1,
structural equation modeling (SEM) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted
using AMOS version 24.0 software. SEM is a widely used statistical technique for the
investigation of the strength of the relationships among the theoretical constructs, especially
in construction safety research (Iacobucci, 2010; Man et al., 2021; He et al., 2020).
The reliability and validity of under-study variables, including EI and its components,
motivation (M) and job burnout (JB), were tested with CFA. After the reliability and validity
of the variables were certified, SEM was utilized to test the proposed hypothesis. SEM uses
�
indicators such as chi-square (X 2 ; p > 0:05), chi-square/degrees of freedom (X 2 df < 3), the
goodness of fit index (GFI > 0:90), comparative fit index (CFI > 0:90), normed fit index
(NFI > 0:90), increment fit index (IFI > 0:90) and root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA < 0:08) (Seo et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2016; Mohajeri et al., 2021) as the
measurements of model validity.

5. Results
In order to identify the normality of data, skewness and kurtosis statistics were performed;
the acceptable range for both of them was (�2, þ2) (Mohajeri et al., 2021), and according to
the calculations, the data fitted the normal distribution.
Based on the normality of the data, the correlation between variables was obtained with
the Pearson correlation coefficient. The details of correlations are shown in Table 3.

5.1 Measurement model results

Since all of the variables except safety behavior were explained by a couple of items, the
reliability of variables should have been tested (Wang et al., 2016); in order to test the
reliability, Cronbach’s alpha was used. The acceptable value for Cronbach’s alpha was
considered to be above 0.7 (Rezvani et al., 2020; Alsulami et al., 2021). All of the results
regarding Cronbach’s alpha values were satisfying. The results are shown in Table 4.
Based on the obtained results, all of the variables had a satisfactory level of reliability
above 0.7. Also, to test the convergence of variables, factor loading and composite reliability
(CR) were utilized. The acceptable value for factor loading was considered to be above 0.4,
and the acceptable value for CR was above 0.7 (Hair et al., 2010). The results of factor loading
and CR for each of the items are shown in Table 4, and both factor loadings and CR values
were satisfactory.
The value of average variance extracted (AVE) should be above 0.5, but since values of
CR were adequate, convergent validity was not an issue (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

5.2 Structural model results

�
To test the proposed model’s goodness of fit, indicators such as X 2 df , Goodness of Fit Index
(GFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), Increment Fit Index (IFI) and
Root Mean Square Error of Approxmation (RMSEA) were used. As shown in Table 5, the
results of the goodness of fit test were satisfactory.
As illustrated in Figure 1, this research investigated the validation of six hypotheses. The
testing results of these hypotheses are shown in Figure 2 and described in the following
paragraphs.
According to the standardized results of the SEM, H1, proposing EI level of construction
workers has a negative effect on job burnout among them, was supported (b 5 �0.228,
p < 0.01). H2 proposed that the EI level of construction workers positively affects their
motivations, which is supported by the SEM results (b 5 0.279, p < 0.01). H3 posited that
construction workers with a higher level of motivation are less likely to experience burnout.
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. SeA 3.43 0.71 1

2. SM 3.26 0.80 – 1
3. SoA 3.61 0.60 – – 1
4. RM 3.19 0.58 – – – 1
** **
5. EI 3.38 0.41 0.623 0.640 0.676** 0.504** 1
* * *
6. M 2.85 0.88 0.185 0.179 0.185 0.133 0.279** 1
7. JB 2.47 0.75 �0.156 �0.135 �0.272** �0.087 �0.262** �0.185* 1
8. SB 62.43 17.58 0.325** 0.240** 0.327** 0.170* 0.434** 0.395** �0.190* 1
Note(s): n 5 134; *p < 0.05; and **p < 0.01 (two-tailed test)
SeA: self-awareness; SM: self-management; SoA: social awareness; RM: relationship management
EI: emotional intelligence; M: motivation; JB: job burnout; OB: safety behaviors
Source(s): Authors’ own work
Descriptive statistics

construction
behaviors of
and correlations

workers
Table 3.

Safety
ECAM Factor
Construct scales AVE loading CR α
SeA Self-Awareness 0.48 – 0.82 0.70
SeA-1 During the day, I feel edgy or upset without a cause – 0.66 – –
SeA-2 I become anxious If one of the administrators speaks to me – 0.78 – –
harshly
SeA-3 I get irritated if one of the administrators says:” you don’t – 0.69 – –
do anything right”
SeA-4 I may do something out of impulse – 0.77 – –
SeA-5 I can express my feelings easily – 0.50 – –
SM Self-Management 0.48 – 0.82 0.72
SM-1 How I talk to my peers depends on how they talk to me – 0.60 – –
SM-2 Happiness or sadness may affect my behavior toward – 0.74 – –
others
SM-3 My coworkers can tell if I’m stressed – 0.72 – –
SM-4 Work-related tensions affect my performance – 0.72 – –
SM-5 While performing a task, I think of the possibility of doing – 0.68 – –
it wrong
SoA Social-Awareness 0.47 – 0.81 0.71
SoA-1 I sense my coworkers’ feelings through their behavior – 0.76 – –
SoA-2 My coworkers are comfortable with me – 0.75 – –
SoA-3 Working beside new workers is pleasant to me – 0.68 – –
SoA-4 If one of my coworkers acts carelessly or doesn’t use PPE, I – 0.60 – –
would admonish him
SoA-5 I can get along with people with different personalities – 0.62 – –
from mine
RM Relationship Management 0.46 – 0.81 0.70
RM-1 When my coworker performs a task nicely, I encourage – 0.75 – –
him
RM-2 I communicate with others easily – 0.79 – –
RM-3 People around me know my feelings about various affairs – 0.54 – –
RM-4 If someone doesn’t feel well, I can make him feel better – 0.66 – –
RM-5 I can solve conflicts between myself and others easily – 0.64 – –
EI Emotional Intelligence – – – 0.75
M Motivation 0.56 – 0.84 0.73
M-1 I know exactly what I want in life – 0.82 – –
M-2 I believe construction managers should express – 0.80 – –
appreciation for my work
M-3 My colleagues’ reaction to my work affects my motivation – 0.69 – –
M-4 I believe my salary is fair compared to the tasks I perform – 0.67 – –
JB Job Burnout 0.54 – 0.82 0.71
JB-1 I feel exhausted at the beginning of the workday – 0.79 – –
Table 4.
Interview items, factor JB-2 I think I’m working too much – 0.74 – –
loadings, composite JB-3 I’m satisfied with my job – 0.77 – –
reliability and internal JB-4 I believe I can deal with work-related issues easily – 0.62 – –
consistency Source(s): Authors’ own work

�
X 2 df GFI CFI NFI IFI RMSEA
Table 5.
The goodness of fit 1.158 0.991 0.995 0.964 0.995 0.035
results Source(s): Authors’ own work
 Safety
behaviors of
construction
workers

Figure 2.
Final model

The results indicated the rejection of this hypothesis (b 5 �0.121, p > 0.05). H4 proposed that
EI positively influences construction workers’ safety behaviors, which was supported by the
results (b 5 0.341, p < 0.01). H5 posited that construction workers suffering from job burnout
are more likely to behave safely. This hypothesis was rejected by the SEM results (b 5 �
0.047, p > 0.05). Finally, H6 posited that highly motivated construction workers tend to
behave in a safe manner more than their peers, which was supported by the results
(b 5 0.291, p < 0.01).
In contemplation of achieving a better perception of statistics, workers’ statistics are
shown in Figure 3. As can be seen, the largest discrepancy among features belongs to
workers’ safety behaviors, while there are no significant differences in other features.

6. Discussion
The results indicated that the EI of workers has a significant and positive impact on the
safety behaviors of workers. Also, all components of EI were correlated with safety behavior.
Previous research supported the findings on the relationship between EI and safety
behaviors in this research. Alsulami et al. (2021) noted that EI is consistent with the safety
compliance of construction workers. In addition to that, although social skills and empathy
had the highest scores among EI components, they did not have a significant effect on safety
behaviors; but in this research, self-awareness and social awareness, which had the highest
scores among workers, also had the most significant influence on safety behaviors, on the
other hand, self-management and RM which had the lowest scores among four EI
components also had an impression on safety behaviors. Similar to the findings of this
research, Cacamis and El Asmar (2014) mentioned that EI affects a project’s performance
through behaviors and interpersonal skills and affects destructive behaviors. Moreover,
Zhang et al. (2016) posited that the psychological conditions of workers affect safety
behaviors. According to the obtained results, it could be said that people with high EI tend to
behave more logically and avoid impetuous actions; therefore, they make fewer mistakes in
the workplace. Also, since they generally show more empathy than the others, they would
guide and support their coworkers and lead them toward safe behaviors.
ECAM

Figure 3.
The statistics of under-
study variables

EI of workers had a strong negative impression on job burnout among them. In addition,
among EI components, only social awareness had a significant negative effect on job
burnout, and the three other components were not related to the job burnout of the workers.
Preceding research also mentioned the negative influence of EI on job burnout (Rezvani et al.,
2016, 2020; Tziner et al., 2020). Alsulami et al. (2021) discussed that people who have strong
EIs are more immune to stress than others. Also, Sanchez-Gomez and Breso (2020) noted that
workers with higher levels of EI get much less affected by consequences of job burnout, such
as cynicism, demotivation, turnover intentions, etc. It could be said that once a worker is
unable to manage his or her disruptive emotions, these emotions could make them feel bad
about themselves and their jobs. So, it makes sense for workers to experience job burnout
when they are incapable of managing the work-related stress.
According to the final model of this research, motivation doesn’t have a significant effect
on job burnout which is unlike a few other research (Tziner et al., 2020; Bakaç et al., 2022).
Poon et al. (2013) posited that having a positive attitude plays a crucial role in attenuating the
job burnout effect. Motivation does not necessarily have an influence on job burnout. Being
motivated doesn’t guarantee that an individual doesn’t get affected by job stressors, and they
might still experience burnout for a period of time. In other words, it is possible that a highly
motivated worker experience job burnout too.
In the present study, it was obtained that the motivation of workers had a significant
impression on their safety behaviors, and this result is aligned with a number of previous
studies (Mohajeri et al., 2020; Mohammadfam et al., 2017; Goh and Binte Sa’adon, 2015).
In addition to that, Alsulami et al. (2021) stated that motivation does not have much of an
influence on workers’ safety behaviors, but this influence increases as EI augments. It is
reasonable that motivated workers show positive attitudes toward safety measures and
value life and health higher than others do. So, it is expected that workers with high levels of
motivation look after themselves better than others.
 The effect of job burnout on safety behaviors was not significant. This outcome does not Safety
comply with the results represented by a few previous research (Alsulami et al., 2021; Seo behaviors of
et al., 2015). Poon et al. (2013) noted that job burnout may or may not affect the safety
behaviors of workers, and its impression depends upon the involvement of workers and the
construction
reliability of the work system. Aligned with the results of this research, Enshassi et al. workers
(2015) posited that according to the Pearson correlation coefficient, job burnout was
correlated with safety behaviors but based on regression results, there was no firm
connection between these items. Struggling with job burnout doesn’t mean that a worker
values health and safety less than their coworkers. Even though job burnout makes it
harder for a worker to have a good performance at work, their safety behaviors don’t get
influenced by job burnout.

6.1 Theoretical contribution

The theoretical contribution of the present study falls into four categories: First, in this paper,
unlike a notable portion of previous studies, the safety behaviors of workers were appraised
by direct observation rather than a questionnaire survey which helps to collect reality-
congruent data. It was mentioned in previous studies that self-reporting questionnaires are
likely to result in bias (Taylor Moore et al., 2013; Goh and Binte Sa’adon, 2015). Second, there
are papers that measured construction managers’ EI levels, but when it comes to
construction workers, it is obvious that not enough attention is given to workers’ EI
compared to the managers’, even though workers are performing the major part of the tasks
(Clarke, 2010). So, in the current study, it was decided to study the workers’ EI. It was
concluded that the EI of construction workers has a significant impression on their
motivation, job burnout and safety behaviors. Third, a considerable number of studies have
not considered the influence of individual characteristics on safety behaviors; especially, the
impression of EI on safety behaviors has not been noticed enough. In the present study, it was
found that both EI and motivation have a strong influence on workers’ safety behaviors.
Fourth, according to the researchers’ knowledge, a new model including three possible
factors that could be influential in the safety behaviors of workers was proposed, and after
testing the model, four out of six initial hypotheses were supported.

6.2 Practical implications

According to the presented results of this research, first, it was found that the safety behavior
of a worker could be predicted by the status of EI and motivation of workers, and both of
these factors’ influences on safety behaviors were quite strong, and by enhancing the
workers’ EI and motivation, the behavior of worker complies more and more with safety
regulations. Also, it was concluded that EI has a significant negative impression on job
burnout of workers, therefore, as was stated by Cacamis and El Asmar (2014), understanding
humans and their traits helps to complete a construction project successfully. Similar to the
findings of Kukah et al. (2022), this paper suggests that construction managers should check
the workers’ EI levels and their motivation and hold training courses for their personnel if
necessary. Therefore future expenses in case of accidents could be reduced (Rezvani et al.,
2020). Second, based on the statistics of under-study variables shown in Figure 3, although
there were no significant differences in EI, motivation and job burnout at the two
construction sites, there was a remarkable difference between the safety behaviors of these
sites. Therefore, it would be logical to say that EI and motivation of workers can not alter
workers’ safety behaviors single-handedly. And various factors represented by other
research such as job stress, safety culture, safety climate, safety attitude, perceived behavior
control, safety habits, subjective norms and safety knowledge (Seo et al., 2015; Mohajeri et al.,
2021), should be considered in enhancement the safety behaviors.
ECAM 6.3 Limitations and future research recommendations
Like many other studies, this one had a few limitations which should be addressed in the
future. First, in the present research, only building construction sites were studied, and since
there are different types of construction projects, in order to provide a better understanding
of the relationship between workers’ EI, motivation, job burnout and safety behaviors, it
would be useful that future research concentrates on other types of projects, for instance,
infrastructure and environmental projects. Second, construction projects often are in
progress for quite some time, yet in this study, all required data were collected within a
month. Therefore, not all phases of a construction project (e.g. foundation excavation and
foundation erection) were studied. This flaw also should be noticed in future studies because
each phase has its own unique circumstances and considering different construction phases
could affect the results. Third, in this research, workers’ behaviors were assessed by one of
the researchers with the help of a checklist of safety codes, yet in order to eliminate any
possible error in acquired data, a safety checklist was developed, and safety data were
collected according to the checklist. Future research should put effort into improving the
accuracy of the collected data. For instance, multiple observers could collect safety-related
data, and cameras could be used for observations.

7. Conclusions
One of the main causes of construction accidents is the dangerous behaviors of workers,
which depends upon one’s characteristics. In the present study, the possible effects of a
worker’s EI, motivation and job burnout on safety behaviors were examined. This study
provides four noteworthy contributions to the existing literature. According to the obtained
results and the final model, (1) the EI of a worker has an indispensable influence on that
worker’s job burnout, motivation and safety behaviors; (2) even though job burnout of a
worker is related to safety behaviors of that person, in the presented model job burnout was
unable to predict the worker’s safety behaviors; (3) worker’s motivation has a remarkable
effect on his safety behaviors, and there is a significant relationship between them; (4)
motivation of a worker is related to that person’s job burnout, nevertheless in the final model
it had no significant influence on job burnout.
The findings of the present research connote that EI has both direct and indirect effects on
workers’ safety behaviors. Moreover, construction managers should understand the workers’
EI skills in order to manage them better or hold some didactic sessions to meliorate them.

References
Ajayi, S., Adegbenro, O., Alaka, H., Oyegoke, A. and Manu, P. (2021), “Addressing behavioural safety
concerns on Qatari Mega projects”, Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 41, 102398, doi: 10.
1016/j.jobe.2021.102398.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211, doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t.
Alsulami, H., Serbaya, S.H., Rizwan, A., Saleem, M., Maleh, Y. and Alamgir, Z. (2021), “Impact of
emotional intelligence on the stress and safety of construction workers’ in Saudi Arabia”,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 1365-1378, doi: 10.
1108/ecam-06-2021-0481.
Bakaç, C., Chen, Y., Zyberaj, J., Kehr, H.M. and Quirin, M. (2022), “Perceived intrinsic motivation
mediates the effect of motive incongruence on job burnout and job satisfaction”, The Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 156 No. 1, pp. 12-32, doi: 10.1080/00223980.2021.1980758.
Birhane, G.E., Yang, L., Geng, J. and Zhu, J. (2022), “Causes of construction injuries: a review”,
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 343-353, doi: 10.
1080/10803548.2020.1761678.
Cacamis, M.E. and El Asmar, M. (2014), “Improving project performance through partnering and Safety
emotional intelligence”, Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 50-56, doi: 10.1061/(asce)sc.1943-5576.0000180. behaviors of
Clarke, N. (2010), “Emotional intelligence abilities and their relationships with team processes”, Team
construction
Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16 Nos 1/2, pp. 6-32, doi: 10.1108/ workers
13527591011028906.
Cochran, W.G. (1977), Sampling Techniques, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Cui, Y. (2021), “The role of emotional intelligence in workplace transparency and open
communication”, Aggression and Violent Behavior, 101602, doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2021.101602.
Deng, S., Peng, R. and Pan, Y. (2022), “A cognitive failure model of construction Workers’ Unsafe
behavior”, Advances in Civil Engineering, Vol. 2022, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1155/2022/2576600.
Dulaimi, M.F. and Langford, D. (1999), “Job behavior of construction project managers: determinants
and assessment”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 125 No. 4,
pp. 256-264, doi: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(1999)125:4(256).
Enshassi, A., El-Rayyes, Y. and Alkilani, S. (2015), “Job stress, job burnout and safety performance in
the Palestinian construction industry”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and
Construction, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 170-187, doi: 10.1108/jfmpc-01-2015-0004.
Fang, D., Zhao, C. and Zhang, M. (2016), “A cognitive model of construction workers’ unsafe
behaviors”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 142 No. 9, 04016039,
doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001118.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50, doi: 10.2307/3151312.
Gao, Y., Gonz�alez, V.A. and Yiu, T.W. (2017), “Serious games vs. traditional tools in construction
safety training: a review”, LC3, Vol. 1, pp. 4-7.
Gao, Y., Gonz�alez, V.A. and Yiu, T.W. (2020), “Exploring the relationship between construction
workers’ personality traits and safety behavior”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 146 No. 3, 04019111, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001763.
Goh, Y.M. and Binte Sa’adon, N.F. (2015), “Cognitive factors influencing safety behavior at height: a
multimethod exploratory study”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 141 No. 6, 04015003, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000972.
Goleman, D. (1998), Working with Emotional Intelligence, Bantam Books, New York.
Gonz�alez-Recio, S., Boada-Cuerva, M., Serrano-Fern�andez, M.-J., Assens-Serra, J., Araya-Castillo, L.
and Boada-Grau, J. (2022), “Personality and impulsivity as antecedents of occupational health
in the construction industry”, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics,
Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 2403-2410, doi: 10.1080/10803548.2021.1992946.
Griffin, M.A. and Neal, A. (2000), “Perceptions of safety at work: a framework for linking safety
climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation”, Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 347-358, doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.5.3.347.
Gunduz, M. and Laitinen, H. (2018), “Observation based safety performance indexing method for
construction industry–validation with SMEs”, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 440-446, doi: 10.1007/s12205-017-1589-3.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Babin, B.J. and Black, W.C. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, Vol. 7, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Haslam, R.A., Hide, S.A., Gibb, A.G., Gyi, D.E., Pavitt, T., Atkinson, S. and Duff, A.R. (2005),
“Contributing factors in construction accidents”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp. 401-415, doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2004.12.002.
He, C., Jia, G., McCabe, B., Chen, Y. and Sun, J. (2019), “Impact of psychological capital on construction
worker safety behavior: communication competence as a mediator”, Journal of Safety Research,
Vol. 71, pp. 231-241, doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2019.09.007.
ECAM He, C., McCabe, B., Jia, G. and Sun, J. (2020), “Effects of safety climate and safety behavior on safety
outcomes between supervisors and construction workers”, Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, Vol. 146 No. 1, 04019092, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001735.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989), “Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 513-524, doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.44.3.513.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2001), “The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process:
advancing conservation of resources theory”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 337-421,
doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00062.
Hung, Y.H., Smith-Jackson, T. and Winchester, W. (2011), “Use of attitude congruence to identify
safety interventions for small residential builders”, Construction Management and Economics,
Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 113-130, doi: 10.1080/01446193.2010.521758.
Iacobucci, D. (2010), “Structural equations modeling: fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 90-98, doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.003.
Kotrlik, J. and Higgins, C. (2001), “Organizational research: determining appropriate sample size in
survey research appropriate sample size in survey research”, Information Technology,
Learning, and Performance Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, p. 43.
Kristensen, T.S., Borritz, M., Villadsen, E. and Christensen, K.B. (2005), “The Copenhagen burnout
inventory: a new tool for the assessment of burnout”, Work and Stress, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 192-207, doi: 10.1080/02678370500297720.
Kukah, A.S.K., Owusu-Manu, D.-G. and Edwards, D. (2022), “Critical review of emotional intelligence
research studies in the construction industry”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology.
doi: 10.1108/jedt-08-2021-0432.
Li, S., Wu, X., Wang, X. and Hu, S. (2020), “Relationship between social capital, safety competency,
and safety behaviors of construction workers”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 146 No. 6, 04020059, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001838.
Lundberg, C.C. and Young, C.A. (2001), “A note on emotions and consultancy”, Journal of Organizational
Change Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 530-538, doi: 10.1108/eum0000000006141.
Ma, L., Guo, H. and Fang, Y. (2021), “Analysis of construction workers’ safety behavior based on
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Personality Test in a bridge construction project”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 147 No. 1, 04020149, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.
1943-7862.0001958.
Man, S.S., Chan, A.H.S., Alabdulkarim, S. and Zhang, T. (2021), “The effect of personal and
organizational factors on the risk-taking behavior of Hong Kong construction workers”, Safety
Science, Vol. 136, 105155, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105155.
Mar�ın, L.S., Lipscomb, H., Cifuentes, M. and Punnett, L. (2019), “Perceptions of safety climate across
construction personnel: associations with injury rates”, Safety Science, Vol. 118, pp. 487-496,
doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.05.056.
Mohajeri, M., Ardeshir, A., Banki, M. and Malekitabar, H. (2020), “Discovering causality patterns of
unsafe behavior leading to fall hazards on construction sites”, International Journal of
Construction Management, Vol. 22 No. 15, pp. 1-11, doi: 10.1080/15623599.2020.1839704.
Mohajeri, M., Ardeshir, A., Malekitabar, H. and Rowlinson, S. (2021), “Structural model of internal
factors influencing the safety behavior of construction workers”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 147 No. 11, 04021156, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.
0002182.
Mohammadfam, I., Ghasemi, F., Kalatpour, O. and Moghimbeigi, A. (2017), “Constructing a Bayesian
network model for improving safety behavior of employees at workplaces”, Applied
Ergonomics, Vol. 58, pp. 35-47, doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2016.05.006.
Neal, A., Griffin, M.A. and Hart, P.M. (2000), “The impact of organizational climate on safety climate
and individual behavior”, Safety Science, Vol. 34 Nos 1-3, pp. 99-109, doi: 10.1016/s0925-
7535(00)00008-4.
Petrides, K.V. (2009), “Psychometric properties of the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire Safety
(TEIQue)”, in Assessing Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Research, and Applications, Springer,
pp. 85-101. behaviors of
PMI (2021), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), 7th ed., Project
construction
Management Institute, Pennsylvania. workers
Poon, S., Rowlinson, S., Koh, T. and Deng, Y. (2013), “Job burnout and safety performance in the Hong
Kong construction industry”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 69-78, doi: 10.1080/15623599.2013.10773206.
Rezvani, A., Chang, A., Wiewiora, A., Ashkanasy, N.M., Jordan, P.J. and Zolin, R. (2016), “Manager
emotional intelligence and project success: the mediating role of job satisfaction and trust”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 1112-1122, doi: 10.1016/j.
ijproman.2016.05.012.
Rezvani, A., Ashkanasy, N. and Khosravi, P. (2020), “Key attitudes: unlocking the relationships
between emotional intelligence and performance in construction projects”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 146 No. 4, 04020025, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.
1943-7862.0001803.
Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990), “Emotional intelligence”, Imagination, Cognition and Personality,
Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 185-211, doi: 10.2190/dugg-p24e-52wk-6cdg.
Sanchez-Gomez, M. and Breso, E. (2020), “In pursuit of work performance: testing the contribution of
emotional intelligence and burnout”, International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, Vol. 17 No. 15, p. 5373, doi: 10.3390/ijerph17155373.
Seo, H.-C., Lee, Y.-S., Kim, J.-J. and Jee, N.-Y. (2015), “Analyzing safety behaviors of temporary
construction workers using structural equation modeling”, Safety Science, Vol. 77, pp. 160-168,
doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.03.010.
Smerek, R.E. and Peterson, M. (2007), “Examining Herzberg’s theory: improving job satisfaction
among non-academic employees at a university”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 48 No. 2,
pp. 229-250, doi: 10.1007/s11162-006-9042-3.
Taylor Moore, J., Cigularov, K.P., Sampson, J.M., Rosecrance, J.C. and Chen, P.Y. (2013), “Construction
workers’ reasons for not reporting work-related injuries: an exploratory study”, International
Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 97-105, doi: 10.1080/
10803548.2013.11076969.
Teo, M. and Loosemore, M. (2001), “A theory of waste behaviour in the construction industry”, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 741-751, doi: 10.1080/01446190110067037.
Tziner, A., Fein, E.C., Kim, S.-K., Vasiliu, C. and Shkoler, O. (2020), “Combining associations between
emotional intelligence, work motivation, and organizational justice with counterproductive
work behavior: a profile analysis via multidimensional scaling (PAMS) approach”, Frontiers in
Psychology, Vol. 11, p. 851, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00851.
Wang, J., Zou, P.X. and Li, P.P. (2016), “Critical factors and paths influencing construction workers’
safety risk tolerances”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 93, pp. 267-279, doi: 10.1016/j.
aap.2015.11.027.
Wen, J., Huang, S.S. and Hou, P. (2019), “Emotional intelligence, emotional labor, perceived
organizational support, and job satisfaction: a moderated mediation model”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 81, pp. 120-130, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.01.009.
Williams, J., Fugar, F. and Adinyira, E. (2020), “Assessment of health and safety culture maturity in
the construction industry in developing economies: a case of Ghanaian construction industry”,
Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 865-881, doi: 10.1108/jedt-06-
2019-0151.
Xia, N., Griffin, M.A., Xie, Q. and Hu, X. (2023), “Antecedents of workplace safety behavior: meta-
analysis in the construction industry”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 149 No. 4, 04023009, doi: 10.1061/jcemd4.coeng-12492.
ECAM Xiang, P., Jia, F. and Li, X. (2018), “Critical behavioral risk factors among principal participants in the
Chinese construction industry”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 9, p. 3158, doi: 10.3390/su10093158.
Yu, X., Mehmood, K., Paulsen, N., Ma, Z. and Kwan, H.K. (2021), “Why safety knowledge cannot be
transferred directly to expected safety outcomes in construction workers: the moderating effect
of physiological perceived control and mediating effect of safety behavior”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 147 No. 1, 04020152, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.
1943-7862.0001965.
Zhang, L., Liu, Q., Wu, X. and Skibniewski, M.J. (2016), “Perceiving interactions on construction
safety behaviors: workers’ perspective”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 5,
04016012, doi: 10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000454.
Zhou, J. and George, J.M. (2003), “Awakening employee creativity: the role of leader emotional
intelligence”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 Nos 4-5, pp. 545-568, doi: 10.1016/s1048-
9843(03)00051-1.

Further reading
Angelini, G. (2023), “Big five model personality traits and job burnout: a systematic literature review”,
BMC Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-35, doi: 10.1186/s40359-023-01056-y.
Corr, P.J., DeYoung, C.G. and McNaughton, N. (2013), “Motivation and personality: a neuropsychological
perspective”, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 158-175, doi: 10.1111/
spc3.12016.
Jiang, Z., Fang, D. and Zhang, M. (2015), “Understanding the causation of construction workers’
unsafe behaviors based on system dynamics modeling”, Journal of Management in
Engineering, Vol. 31 No. 6, 04014099, doi: 10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000350.
Lindebaum, D. and Cassell, C. (2012), “A contradiction in terms? Making sense of emotional
intelligence in a construction management environment”, British Journal of Management,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 65-79.
Loosemore, M. and Galea, N. (2008), “Genderlect and conflict in the Australian construction industry”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 125-135, doi: 10.1080/
01446190701798810.
Troth, A.C., Jordan, P.J., Lawrence, S.A. and Tse, H.H. (2012), “A multilevel model of emotional skills,
communication performance, and task performance in teams”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 700-722, doi: 10.1002/job.785.
Van der Linden, D., Pekaar, K.A., Bakker, A.B., Schermer, J.A., Vernon, P.A., Dunkel, C.S. and
Petrides, K. (2017), “Overlap between the general factor of personality and emotional
intelligence: a meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 143 No. 1, pp. 36-52, doi: 10.1037/
bul0000078.

Corresponding author
Parviz Ghoddousi can be contacted at: Ghoddousi@iust.ac.ir

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com