Differences in Risk Perception Between the Construction and Agriculture Sectors: An Exploratory Study with a Focus on Carcinogenic Risk
Keywords:
Occupational Risk, Personality traits, Carcinogen exposure, Risk perceptionAbstract
Background: Risk perception is crucial in occupational health and safety, particularly in high-risk sectors like agriculture and construction. This study investigates the influence of personality traits, emotional states, and socio-demographic variables on perceived risks, explicitly focusing on carcinogenic exposure. The aim is to identify key factors shaping risk perception to inform safety interventions. Methods: Using a correlational research design, 91 Italian workers (49 from construction and 42 from agriculture) completed a comprehensive questionnaire assessing personality (Big Five model), emotional state, self-perceived safety knowledge, and risk perception across 14 dimensions. Statistical analyses included correlations, ANOVA, and regression models to explore relationships between variables. Results: Open-mindedness, emotional stability and extraversion were inversely related to perceived risk levels, while conscientiousness and friendliness correlated positively. Workers in agriculture reported higher awareness of carcinogenic risks than construction workers, though no significant differences emerged in perceived risk levels. Negative emotional states predicted higher risk perception, while self-perceived safety knowledge had only minor correlations with specific risk dimensions. Gender, age, and service length did not significantly influence risk perception. Conclusion: Personality traits, particularly openness and emotional stability, strongly influence risk perception, highlighting the importance of considering individual psychological profiles in occupational safety interventions. Although emotional state plays a notable role, self-perceived safety knowledge showed limited impact, suggesting a need for targeted education.
References
1. Sjöberg L. Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal. 2000;20(1):1-11. Doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.00001
2. Cox T, Griffiths A. Work-related stress: A theoretical perspective. In: Leka S, Houdmont J, eds. Oc-cupational Health Psychology. Wiley Blackwell; 2010:31-56.
3. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal. 2002;20(5):713-720. Doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.205064
4. Matthews G, Deary IJ. Personality Traits. Cambridge University Press; 1998.
5. Jenkins SC, Lachlan RF, Osman M. An integrative framework for mapping the psychological land-scape of risk perception. Sci Rep. 2024;14:10989. Doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-59189-y
6. Louzado-Feliciano P, Santiago KM, Paule L, et al. Perceptions of occupational cancer risk and pre-vention among Dominican Republic firefighters: A qualitative study. J Occup Environ Med. 2022;64(3):e131-e135. Doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000002466
7. Zare Sakhvidi MJ, Mirzaei Aliabadi M, Sakhvidi FZ, et al. Occupational cancer risk perception in Ira-nian workers. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2014;69(3):167-171. Doi: 10.1080/19338244.2013.763759
8. Grandahl K, Ibler KS, Laier GH, Mortensen OS. Skin cancer risk perception and sun protection be-haviour at work, at leisure, and on sun holidays: A survey for Danish outdoor and indoor workers. Environ Health Prev Med. 2018;23:47. Doi: 10.1186/s12199-018-0736-x
9. Boholm A. Comparative studies of risk perception: A review of twenty years of research. J Risk Res. 1998;1(2):135-163. Doi: 10.1080/136698798377231
10. Oehler A, Wedlich F. The relationship of extraversion and neuroticism with risk attitude, risk per-ception, and return expectations. J Neurosci Psychol Econ. 2018;11(2):63-92. Doi: 10.1037/npe0000088
11. Brown VJ. Risk perception: It's personal. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122(10):276-279. Doi: 10.1289/ehp.122-A276
12. Slovic P. The Perception of Risk. Earthscan; 2000.
13. Deitinger P, Nardella C, Ronchetti M, Bonafede M, Grandi C. Life styles, anxiety, expertise: The per-ception of risk from electromagnetic fields. G Ital Med Lav Ergon. 2011;33(3 Suppl B):14-20.
14. McCrae RR, Costa PT. A five-factor theory of personality. In: Pervin LA, John OP, eds. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. 2nd ed. Guilford; 1999:139-153.
15. Doraty K, Bourassa M, Berdahl L, Fried J, Bell S. Support, opposition, emotion and contentious issue risk perception. Int J Public Sect Manag. 2016;29(2):201-216. Doi: 10.1108/IJPSM-10-2015-0172
16. Wang X, Pan Y, Zhang K, et al. Emotional experience and personality traits influence individual and joint risk-based decision making. Soc Behav Pers. 2017;45(6):881-892. Doi: 10.2224/sbp.6541
17. Slovic P, Peter E. Risk perception and affect. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2006;15(6):322-325.
18. Togawa K, Leon M, Lebailly P, et al. Cancer incidence in agricultural workers: Findings from an in-ternational consortium of agricultural cohort studies (AGRICOH). Environ Int. 2021;157:106825. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2021.106825
19. Mills P, Yang RC. Agricultural exposures and gastric cancer risk in Hispanic farm workers in Cali-fornia. Environ Res. 2007;104(2):282-289. Doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2006.11.008
20. Lacourt A, Pintos J, Lavoué J, Richardson L, Siemiatycki J. Lung cancer risk among workers in the construction industry: Results from two case-control studies in Montreal. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:941. Doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2237-9
21. Filetti V, Vitale E, Broggi G, et al. Update of in vitro, in vivo and ex vivo fluoro-edenite effects on ma-lignant mesothelioma: A systematic review. Biomed Rep. 2020;13(6):60. Doi: 10.3892/br.2020.1367
22. Calvert GM, Luckhaupt S, Lee SJ, et al. Lung cancer risk among construction workers in California, 1988-2007. Am J Ind Med. 2012;55(5):412-422. Doi: 10.1002/ajim.22010
23. Wang CM, Xu BB, Zhang SJ, Chen YQ. Influence of personality and risk propensity on risk perception of Chinese construction project managers. Int J Proj Manag. 2016;34(7):1294-1304. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.07.004
24. Yilmaz H. Perceived risk, risk reduction methods and personality. Int Rev Bus Econ Stud. 2014;1(1):1-18.
25. Booth-Kewley S, Vickers RR. Associations between major domains of personality and health be-haviour. J Pers. 1994;62(3):281-298. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00298.x
26. Chauvin B, Hermand D, Mullet E. Risk perception and personality facets. Risk Anal. 2007;27(1):171-185. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00867.x
27. Chang CH, Xu J, Song DP. Impact of different factors on the risk perceptions of employees in con-tainer shipping companies: A case study of Taiwan. Int J Shipp Transp Logist. 2016;8(4):361-368. Doi: 10.1504/IJSTL.2016.077306
28. Cafagna D, Barattucci M. Percezione dei rischi e personalità: una ricerca nel settore dei trasporti. G Ital Med Lav Ergon. 2019;41(3):211-220.
29. Tagini S, Brugnera A, Ferrucci R, et al. Attachment, personality and locus of control: Psychological determinants of risk perception and preventive behaviours for COVID-19. Front Psychol. 2021;12:634012. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.634012
30. Savadori L, Rumiati R, Bonini N, Pedon A. Perception of risk: Experts vs. non-experts. Arch Psychol Neurol Psychiatry. 1998;59:387-405.
31. Guido G, Peluso AM, Capestro M, Miglietta M. An Italian version of the 10-item Big Five Inventory: An application to hedonic and utilitarian shopping values. Personal Individ Dif. 2015;76:135-140.
32. Terraciano A, McCrae RR, Costa PT Jr. Factorial and construct validity of the Italian positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). Eur J Psychol Assess. 2003;19(2):131-141. Doi: 10.1027//1015-5759.19.2.131
33. Bowling NA, Hammond GD. A meta-analytic examination of the construct validity of the Michigan organisational assessment questionnaire job satisfaction subscale. J Vocat Behav. 2008;73(1):63-77. Doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2008.01.004
34. Rzeszutek M, Szyszka A, Okoń S. Personality and risk-perception profiles with regard to subjective wellbeing and company management: Corporate managers during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Psy-chol. 2023;157(5):297-317. Doi: 10.1080/00223980.2023.2198687
35. Hosseini B, Olsson A, Bouaoun L, et al. Lung cancer risk in relation to jobs held in a nationwide case-control study in Iran. Occup Environ Med. 2022;79(12):831-838. Doi: 10.1136/oemed-2022-108463
36. Macfarlane E, Chapman A, Benke G, et al. Training and other predictors of personal protective equipment use in Australian grain farmers using pesticides. Occup Environ Med. 2007;65(2):141-146. Doi: 10.1136/oem.2007.034843
37. Ahmad MS, Barattucci M, Ramayah T, Ramaci T, Khalid N. Organizational support and perceived en-vironment impact on quality of care and job satisfaction: a study with Pakistani nurses. Int J Work-place Health Manag. 2022;15(6):675-690. Doi: 10.1108/IJWHM-01-2022-0014
38. Trillo-Cabello A, Carrillo-Castrillo J, Rubio-Romero J. Perception of risk in construction: Exploring the factors that influence experts in occupational health and safety. Saf Sci. 2021;133:104990. Doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104990
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Massimiliano Barattucci, Tiziana Ramaci, Serena Matera, Francesca Vella, Valentino Gallina, Ermanno Vitale
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All Journal's articles are Open Access papers distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reproductions with commercial intent will require written permission and payment of royalties.
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
