Cited by 1,231Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorTeam Dynamics and PerformanceOccupational Health and Safety Research

Psychological Safety: A Meta‐Analytic Review and Extension

Open access
Frazier, M. Lance, Fainshmidt, Stav, Klinger, Ryan L., Pezeshkan, Amir, Vracheva, Veselina·2017·Personnel Psychology

Abstract

Although psychological safety research has flourished in recent years, and despite the empirical support for the important role of psychological safety in the workplace, several critical questions remain. In order to address these questions, we aggregate theoretical and empirical works, and draw on 136 independent samples representing over 22,000 individuals and nearly 5,000 groups, to conduct a comprehensive meta‐analysis on the antecedents and outcomes of psychological safety. We not only present the nomological network of psychological safety but also extend this research in 4 important ways. First, we compare effect sizes to determine the relative effectiveness of antecedents to psychological safety. Second, we examine the extent to which psychological safety influences both task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors over and beyond related concepts such as positive leader relations and work engagement. Third, we examine whether research design characteristics and national culture alter validities within the nomological network, thus promoting a more accurate and contextualized understanding of psychological safety. Finally, we test the homology assumption by comparing the effect sizes of the antecedents and outcomes of psychological safety across individual and group levels of analysis. We conclude with a discussion of the areas in need of future examination.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/peps.12183

Cites

227 of 227 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V.
Affiliations
  • Creighton University (US)
  • Florida International University (US)
  • Old Dominion University (US)
  • University of Baltimore (US)
  • North Central College (US)
Corresponding author
Frazier, M. Lance
Venue
Personnel Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-10-14
Volume
70
Issue
1
Pages
113-165
ISSN
  • 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-6570
OpenAlex
W2495600728
Cited by
1,231
References
226
Citations by year
2026: 333 · 2025: 217 · 2024: 156 · 2023: 137 · 2022: 129 · 2021: 105 · 2020: 82 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 5
FWCI
45.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Personnel Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • ODU Digital Commons (Old Dominion University) (submittedVersion)
  • Creighton Digital Repository (CDR) (submittedVersion)
  • Maryland Shared Open Access Repository (USMAI Consortium) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Repository at the University of Maryland (University of Maryland College Park)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Radiological and Ultrasound Technology › Occupational Health and Safety Research
Keywords
psychological safety, workplace safety climate, task performance, organizational citizenship behavior, work engagement, national culture, nomological network, effect size comparison

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