The influence of dispositional mindfulness on safety behaviors: A dual process perspective
Abstract
Based on the dual process model of human cognition, this study investigated the influence of dispositional mindfulness on operators' safety behaviors and its boundary conditions. In a sample of 212 nuclear power plant control room operators, it was found that both safety compliance and safety participation behaviors were positively influenced by dispositional mindfulness as measured by the 14-item Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory. This effect was still positive after controlling for age, intelligence, work experience and conscientiousness. Moreover, two boundary conditions were identified: the impact of dispositional mindfulness of safety behaviors was stronger among operators who were either more experienced or more intelligent. Theoretically, the framework we used to understand the benefit of mindfulness on safety behaviors has been proved to be useful. Practically, it provides a new and valid criterion that could be used in operators' selection and training program to improve organizational safety.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The FMI is a 14-item validated measure of dispositional mindfulness that does not require meditation or Buddhist experience.
“The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory short form (FMI) is a 14–item assessment designed to assess dispositional mindfulness because it’s validity is not predicated upon prior meditative experience, does not require experience with Buddhism or meditation, and has been utilized as a validated measure of trait mindfulness [48; 75; 91].”
From Neural mechanisms supporting the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and pain (2018) · cites this paper as [91]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194 · see citing works
Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition.
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., Segal, Z. V., Abbey, S., Speca, M., Velting, D., et al. (2004) · Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice · doi:10.1093/clipsy.bph077 · Cited by 7,234 · see citing works
Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629 · Cited by 5,137 · see citing works
O’connor, B. P. (2000) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03200807 · Cited by 4,116 · see citing works
Measuring mindfulness—The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI)
Walach, H., Buchheld, N., Buttenmüller, V., Kleinknecht, N., & Schmidt, S. (2006) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.025 · Cited by 1,475 · cited 3× · see citing works
“In the first place, we found the single factor solution of mindfulness best fit the current data which is consistent with some previous research (Walach et al., 2006).”
MethodResultInfluentialHülsheger, U. R., Alberts, H. J. E. M., Feinholdt, A., & Lang, J. W. B. (2013) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0031313 · Cited by 1,433 · see citing works
Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/s0160-2896(97)90014-3 · Cited by 1,408 · see citing works
Chiesa, A., Calati, R., & Serretti, A. (2011) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.11.003 · Cited by 1,295 · see citing works
The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2008) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.392 · Cited by 1,224 · see citing works
Mrazek, M. D., Franklin, M. S., Phillips, D. T., Baird, B., & Schooler, J. W. (2013) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797612459659 · Cited by 1,063 · see citing works
Jha, A. P., Stanley, E. A., Kiyonaga, A., Wong, L., & Gelfand, L. (2010) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/a0018438 · Cited by 906 · see citing works
Mindfulness, Big Five personality, and affect: A meta-analysis
Giluk, T. L. (2009) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.026 · Cited by 593 · see citing works
Looking Up: Mindfulness Increases Positive Judgments and Reduces Negativity Bias
Kiken, L. G., & Shook, N. J. (2011) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550610396585 · Cited by 239 · see citing works
The relation between self-report mindfulness and performance on tasks of sustained attention
Schmertz, S. K., Anderson, P. L., & Robins, D. L. (2009) · Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment · doi:10.1007/s10862-008-9086-0 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Ostafin, B. D., Kassman, K. T., & Wessel, I. (2013) · Psychology of Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1037/a0032621 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mindfulness in organizations: a cross-level review
Sutcliffe, K. M., Vogus, T. J., & Dane, E. (2016) · Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062531 · Cited by 428 · see citing works
Neural mechanisms supporting the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and pain
Zeidan, F., Salomons, T., Farris, S. R., Emerson, N. M., Adler-Neal, A., Jung, Y., & Coghill, R. C. (2018) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001344 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Guerra, J., García-Gómez, M., Turanzas, J., Cordón, J. R., Suárez-Jurado, C., & Mestre, J. M. (2019) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph16081355 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
- Authors
- Zhang, J., & Wu, C.
- Affiliations
- Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
- State University of New York (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wu, Changxu
- Venue
- Accident Analysis & Prevention
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-09
- Volume
- 70
- Pages
- 24-32
- ISSN
- 0001-4575 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2095069512
- Cited by
- 90
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 14.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- erratum (2015-03-01)
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Accident Analysis & Prevention (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › Occupational Health and Safety Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Keywords
- trait mindfulness, safety behavior, dual-process models, nuclear power plant operators, safety compliance, safety participation, boundary conditions, operator experience, intelligence, conscientiousness, operator selection, operator training, organizational safety
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Cognition, Conscience, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Intelligence, Male, Models, Psychological, Psychological Tests, Regression Analysis, Safety, Health Behavior, Occupational Health, Nuclear Power Plants, Mindfulness
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
