Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 24, 2025

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
Published on: September 16, 2022
The Differences in Risk Perception between Practitioners in the Non-Coal-Mining Industry: Miners, Managers and
1School of Public Administration, Central South University, Changsha 410017, China.
Abstract:
Non-coal-mining accidents occur frequently in China, and individual unsafe behaviors are the direct cause. The cognitive diversity of practitioners in the non-coal-mining industry leads to various behaviors in work and hinders communication between groups. The aim of this study is to analyze the differences in risk perception (accidents and occupational diseases) between non-coal-mining practitioners (experts, miners, and managers) and to explore the contributing factors. The questionnaire survey method was used to collect the data on risk perception and influencing factors from 402 respondents working in non-coal mines and universities in China. Project analysis and exploratory factor analysis were used for preprocessing. A t-test and linear regression analysis were used to test the significance of the differences and assess the function of the factors, respectively. Regarding risk perception, two risks both have significant differences between the three groups. With the perceptions of accidents and occupational diseases ranked from high to low, the order of the practitioners is as follows: managers (3.88), experts (3.71), miners (3.55) and experts (4.14), miners (3.90), and managers (3.88). Regarding the influencing factors, risk attitude, risk communication, educational level, enterprise trust, and occupational satisfaction have great effects on the three groups. More precisely, three groups have different important predictors. Risk attitude has the greatest impact on miners (0.290) and experts (0.369), but sensibility preference has the greatest impact on managers (0.518). In summary, cognitive discrepancies are common among non-coal-mining practitioners, but the degree of deviation varies with the type and dimension of the risk. There are six factors that have a significant impact on all practitioners, but the effect is limited by specific risks and groups.
More Related Videos
13:04Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods
Published on: September 19, 2012
07:31Implementation of a Real-Time Psychosis Risk Detection and Alerting System Based on Electronic Health Records using CogStack
Published on: May 15, 2020
Related Concept Videos
The Availability Heuristic
Survey Safety
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Obedience
Relative Risk
Odds Ratio