Characterizing the relationship between personality traits and safety behavior among mine workers: The mediating role of occupational stress

Abstract

Background

Since the occurrence of unsafe behaviors is mostly influenced by personality traits and the impact of occupational stress on individuals varies. Therefore, examining the personality dimensions and occupational stress of workers can be used as predictive tools for safety behaviors.

Objective

This study evaluated the link between personality traits and safety behaviors in mine workers, considering occupational stress as a mediating factor.

Methods

This descriptive correlational study was conducted on 600 workers employed in the mining industries of eastern Iran. Data were collected by the safety behavior questionnaire, NEO-FFI personality traits, and Osipow occupational stress inventory. This study employed Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) techniques using SmartPLS 3 to analyze data.

Results

The results indicated that the personality traits of openness to experience (β = 0.095, p = 0.025) and conscientiousness (β = 0.110, p = 0.008) have positive and significant effects on safety compliance. The direct effects of extraversion (β = 0.136, p = 0.002) and openness (β = 0.149, p < 0.001) were also positive and significant on safety participation, while neuroticism showed a negative and significant effect on safety participation (β = -0.099, p = 0.035). The results also confirmed a mediating role of occupational stress in the relationship between individual traits and safety behaviors of the workers.

Conclusions

Mining managers should pay more attention to the personality traits of workers, and improving work conditions to reduce occupational stress can lead to increased safety behaviors among workers.

Keywords

personality safety compliance safety participation occupational stress mining workers

Introduction

Occupational accidents impose a substantial global burden, with significantly higher rates in developing countries compared to developed nations.¹ Mine workers face a broad spectrum of occupational hazards and risk factors due to the inherently complex and demanding nature of their work.² Although many countries have made substantial efforts to reduce workplace accidents and injuries in the mining sector, mining remains one of the most hazardous occupations globally.³ In Iran, mining plays a pivotal role in the national economy, serving as a major source of both investment and employment. Over the past two decades, the industry has undergone rapid expansion, driving significant economic and social transformations, bringing both opportunities and challenges.⁴ While the sector offers considerable societal benefits, it has also led to a concerning rise in the frequency and diversity of occupational accidents, placing miners at heightened risk of serious injury.⁵ Understanding occupational accidents and their causes is a starting point for achieving appropriate prevention strategies. Recent studies have shown that unsafe behaviors play a much more important role in the occurrence of occupational accidents and injuries than unsafe working conditions.⁶ In this regard, since the mid-twentieth century, the basis of accident control in developed countries has focused on unsafe behaviors.⁷ Various studies have also shown that the primary cause of occupational accidents is employees’ unsafe behaviors.^8,9 According to a report by the Iranian Social Security Organization in 2017, out of 18,523 recorded occupational accidents in the country, 12,500 cases or approximately 64% occurred due to workers’ unsafe behaviors.¹⁰

Safety behavior has attracted the attention of researchers in the field of psychology for extended periods.¹¹ Behavior arises from random factors, practical possibilities, and current issues and is evaluated as safe and unsafe behaviors. Unsafe behavior refers to actions that fall outside established and standardized system limits and can compromise the safety and health of the system.¹² In contrast, safe behavior represents a specific type of occupational conduct exhibited by an individual, which enhances the safety and health standards for employees, clients, the general public, and the environment, thereby leading to a reduction in accidents.¹³ Safety behaviors comprise two distinct dimensions: safety compliance and safety participation, which are jointly referred to in the present research. Safety compliance includes activities that individuals must perform to maintain and improve their personal safety and health. These behaviors include following standard work procedures, using personal protective equipment, and other similar measures. Safety participation, on the other hand, encompasses behaviors that do not directly play a role in ensuring an individual's safety but help create conditions that enhance the overall safety level and facilitate the achievement of safety goals and programs. These behaviors include participating in voluntary safety activities, assisting colleagues with safety-related issues, and attending safety meetings.^14,15 From a behavioral psychology perspective, all behaviors are a function of the environment in which they occur. Therefore, unsafe behavior at work is the result of three factors: the physical environment, the social environment, and the employees’ experience.¹⁶ Consequently, reducing incidents only occurs through the targeted control of unsafe behaviors, in the form of regular monitoring of safety-related behaviors, providing appropriate feedback aligned with goals, and training.¹⁷ Given that personality traits significantly influence the occurrence of unsafe behaviors, assessing individual personality dimensions can serve as a predictive tool for identifying such behaviors.

Jerabek and Muoio concluded that cultivating individuals’ personality traits can play a significant role in their individual and organizational behavior.¹⁸ Although all dimensions of personality traits have been examined in research related to safe/unsafe behaviors,¹⁹ extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness have received more attention and support. One of the most prominent personality models is the Big Five personality theory,²⁰ which includes the components of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Personality consists of the enduring characteristics through which an individual regulates their interaction and adaptation with others and the social environment.²¹ In fact, it is a set of psychological traits that stably influence an individual's behavior, and based on them, one can predict a person's behavior in various situations.²²

The findings of meta-analysis by Beus et al., demonstrated that workers’ safety behaviors are strongly influenced by their personality traits and are directly linked to the likelihood of occupational accidents.²³ This suggests that personality assessment could help identify individuals prone to unsafe behaviors; though such an approach first requires a clear understanding of how personality shapes safety-related actions.²⁴ Personality traits influence how individuals perceive risk and approach potentially hazardous situations.²⁵ Drawing on Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), scholars note that these traits shape psychological processes, including how people interpret and respond to their environment.²⁶ Importantly, personality does not directly cause stress; rather, it modulates how individuals appraise and react to workplace stressors. As a result, even when exposed to identical working conditions, workers may experience markedly different levels of occupational stress due to their unique personality profiles. Occupational stress, defined as stress stemming specifically from job-related demands,²⁷ is particularly prevalent in high-pressure sectors like mining. The competitive and demanding nature of this industry subjects workers to chronic stress, which can foster negative emotional states such as anxiety and depression.²⁸ According to Demerouti et al., sustained occupational stress can intensify burnout,²⁹ impair physical health, and ultimately contribute to unsafe behaviors.³⁰

A thorough understanding of the factors that drive unsafe behavior is crucial for the effective design and implementation of safety interventions in the mining industry. In the present study, the Big Five personality traits are examined as key predictors of safety behavior. Additionally, this study proposes a mediation model to investigate how personality traits affect safety behavior and whether this relationship is affected or altered when considering an individual's occupational stress.

Research hypotheses and conceptual model

Personality and safety behavior

Trait theory of personality holds the view that personality traits influence human behavior and remain relatively stable across different situations and over the lifespan.³¹ Some individuals seem to be more prone to risk-taking due to personality factors. Extraverts are social individuals, and extreme extraverts, characterized by high self-confidence, intolerance, and aggression, experience more unsafe behaviors due to risk-taking and careless behaviors. Introverts have more inherent control and are expected to be more alert in performance tasks. It is hypothesized that people who score high on extraversion are easily confused and this can lead to injury.³² Studies show that more unsafe behaviors are reported among those who score low on agreeableness.³³ Agreeableness is a combination of respect, helpfulness, and non-defensiveness. Therefore, it seems natural that this trait would be effective for safe performance.³⁴ Fallon et al.³⁵ found no statistically significant association between conscientiousness and occupational safety outcomes. People who exhibit neurotic behaviors are more likely to become anxious or angry when confronted with demanding job requirements. As a result, their cognitive engagement at work decrease and they become more prone to unsafe behaviors.³⁶ However, Cellar et al.³⁷ observed no significant link between neuroticism and accidents. Although various studies have examined the relationship between personality traits and safety behaviors, the findings remain inconsistent. This resolves the inconsistencies in previous studies that considered safety behavior as a unitary construct. Therefore, further research is necessary to clarify how personality traits influence the two distinct types of safety behaviors. In addition, recent studies highlight the role of organizational culture and job type as moderators of personality-safety relationships.^38,39 Our study extends this issue by examining these traits in dynamic work environments such as mining, where the effects of traits may diverge due to heightened stress or teamwork requirements. Based on this, it can be assumed that:

H1: Personality traits; neuroticism (H1a), extraversion (H1b), openness to experience, (H1c), agreeableness (H1d), and conscientiousness (H1e) demonstrate significant effects safety compliance.

H2: Personality traits; neuroticism (H2a), extraversion (H2b), openness to experience (H2c), agreeableness (H2d), and conscientiousness (H2e) demonstrate significant effects safety participation.

Personality and occupational stress

Occupational stress, as an adverse psychological reaction, emerges when workplace demands incongruently align with an employee's competencies, available resources, or personal requirements.⁴⁰ Actually, it occurs when workplace demands surpass an employee's capacity to manage them, resulting from the interplay between job conditions and the individual's personal characteristics.⁴¹ Ebstrup et al. identified a correlation between personality traits and occupational stress, whereas Popoola and Ilugbo findings revealed no significant relationship between occupational stress variables and personality traits.^42,43 According to previous studies, many factors influence occupational stress, one of the most often overlooked aspects is the role of personality traits in influencing how workers perceive and respond to work-related pressures.⁴⁴ Evidence shows that, depending on personality traits, occupational stress in individuals can either disrupt behavioral patterns and reduce self-awareness or protect individuals from these problems.⁴⁵ While prior meta-analyses^46,47 have found broad correlations between personality and occupational stress, these literatures have predominantly examined stress in healthcare/administrative settings. We extend this to mining settings where stress dynamics may differ due to work conditions. Therefore, the following hypothesis was proposed:

H3: Personality traits; neuroticism (H2a), extraversion (H2b), openness to experience (H2c), agreeableness (H2d), and conscientiousness (H2e) exert a significant effect on occupational stress.

Occupational stress and safety behavior

Cartwright and Cooper have divided the factors affecting occupational stress into three categories: job-related factors (job duties), individual-related factors (role conflict, role ambiguity, high workload), and organizational factors (work environment and work schedule such as job complexity, and organizational climate).⁴⁸ Previous studies have shown that occupational stressors significantly contribute the risk of unsafe behaviors in industrial settings through reduced cognitive impairments including reduced concentration, memory deficits, decision-making difficulties, task hesitation, and increased distractibility.⁴⁹ The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theory posits that job demands directly affect job mental health, with occupational stress constituting a critical dimension of these demands. Supporting this framework, Bronkhorst's revealed a significant negative association between workload and safety behaviors.⁵⁰ Zhang et al.⁵¹ similarly demonstrated a significant negative relationship between job role demands and safety behaviors. Existing literature acknowledge that occupational stress influences safety behaviors,⁵² which mainly consider safety behavior as an integrated construct or focus solely on safety compliance (mandatory adherence to rules). This study examines the differential effects of occupational stress on safety compliance and safety participation (voluntary, proactive behaviors), and seeks to understand how stress differentially affects mandatory versus voluntary safety actions. Building on this evidence base proposes the following hypotheses:

H4: Occupational stress significantly affects both safety compliance (H4a) and safety participation (H4b).

The mediating role of occupational stress

The impact of occupational stress varies among individuals, with personal perception playing a more significant role than the stressor itself. Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) explains this phenomenon through its triadic reciprocity model, emphasizing how environmental factors and cognitive appraisals jointly influence behavior while accounting for individual differences in stress perception.²⁶ The Conservation of Resources theory⁵³ further suggests that individuals with greater personal resources demonstrate enhanced resilience against resource depletion when confronting occupational stress. Supporting this view, Bakker⁵⁴ establishes that employees possessing stronger personal resources more effectively manage job demands. This collective evidence implies that workers with more resources are more likely to respond constructively to stress and avoid unsafe behaviors. While previous research has linked personality to safety behaviors,³⁹ the mediating role of occupational stress, particularly across all Big Five traits and distinct safety outcomes (compliance vs. participation) remains unexplored. This study addresses this issue by testing occupational stress as a mediator that may amplify trait effects. Based on this theoretical foundation, we propose:

H5: Occupational stress significantly mediates the relationships of safety compliance with neuroticism (H5a), extraversion (H5b), openness to experience (H5c), agreeableness (H5d), and conscientiousness (H5e).

H6: Occupational stress significantly mediates the relationships of safety participation with neuroticism (H6a), extraversion (H6b), openness to experience (H6c), agreeableness (H6d), and conscientiousness (H6e).

Based on the theoretical relationships discussed, we developed a conceptual model (Figure 1) depicting the proposed associations between these variables, along with corresponding hypotheses.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model and hypotheses between variables.

Methods

Participants and setting

This was a descriptive correlational study that was conducted as cross-sectional. The participants in the study were male workers employed in the mining industries of eastern Iran who were working in 2024. The selection of individuals was carried out using random sampling, and all workers who met the study's entry criteria were enrolled in the study. According to the Cochran formula, 600 people were selected as a sample and people who met the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to participate in the study.

The inclusion criteria for the study were: healthy participants, no history of mental illness according to the individual's medical history and no use of psychotropic drugs, work experience of more than one year, and the participants’ informed cooperation in the study. Participants who chose to discontinue their involvement during the study period were excluded from further participation.

In the present study, the personality traits questionnaire, safety behavior questionnaire, and Osipow occupational stress inventory were used. Participant demographics (age, marital status, work experience, and education level) were recorded from their official personnel files.The research method was such that the researcher visited the workers’ workplaces and collected information, and if the participants had any doubts, the researcher answered their questions. In accordance with ethical research standards, all participants provided written informed consent after receiving assurances of complete confidentiality. Following consent procedures, participants received and completed the study questionnaires. This research was conducted under approval from the Ethics Committee of Tarbiat Modares University.

Assessment of personality traits

In this study, Workers’ personality traits were assessed using the 60-item NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) developed by Costa and McCrae,⁵⁵ which measures the five major personality dimensions: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The instrument utilizes a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree), with selected items requiring reverse scoring. In previous validation studies conducted by the developers, the NEO-FFI demonstrated test-retest reliability coefficients ranging from 0.75 to 0.83 across a three-month interval in student populations. The validity and reliability of this test's scales have been well-established in various studies over the years. In Grossi-Farshi (2001) standardization study of the NEO test with student participants, inter-correlations among the five personality dimensions ranged from 0.56 to 0.87. The scale demonstrated the following internal consistency coefficients: neuroticism (α = 0.86), extraversion (α = 0.73), openness to experience (α = 0.56), agreeableness (α = 0.68), and conscientiousness (α = 0.87). Content validity was established through correlations between self-report (S) and observer-rated (R) forms, ranging from 0.45 (agreeableness) to 0.66 (extraversion).⁵⁶ In Haghshenas study,⁵⁷ the internal reliability of the neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness subscales was assessed, yielding Cronbach's alpha coefficients of 0.81, 0.71, 0.57, 0.71, and 0.83, respectively.

Safety behavior assessment

This study employed the 23-item safety behavior questionnaire developed by Mehdinia et al. (2016),⁵⁸ comprising 12 items for safety compliance and 11 items for safety participation. The questionnaire's reliability was assessed through test-retest reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC] = 0.752; Pearson's r = 0.619) and internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.90 overall, α = 0.86 for safety compliance, and α = 0.87 for safety participation), demonstrating excellent reliability. Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘never’ (1) to ‘always’ (5). Domain scores were calculated as the mean of item responses within each subscale, yielding possible scores between 1 and 5 for both safety compliance and safety participation. In the present study, the questionnaire's reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient, which was 0.87 for the entire scale, 0.83 for the safety compliance, and 0.86 for the safety participation.

Occupational stress inventory (OSI)

The Occupational Stress Inventory (OSI) developed by Osipow (1987),⁵⁹ is a 60-item questionnaire assessing work-related stress across six dimensions: role overload (RO), role insufficiency (RI), role ambiguity (RA), role boundary (RB), role responsibility (RR), and physical environment (PE). Each dimension comprises 10 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never to 5 = most of the time). Total scores range from 60 to 300, with higher scores reflecting greater stress levels. Stress severity is categorized as: low (50–99), low-to-moderate (100–149), moderate-to-severe (150–199), and severe (≥200). This questionnaire is currently used as a validated test for measuring occupational stress. The reliability of the Persian version of the questionnaire was examined by Sharifian et al. (2006) and using Cronbach's alpha was reported as 0.83,⁶⁰ and its content validity was confirmed to be satisfactory in the study by Khaghanizadeh et al.,.⁶¹ In the study by Sepahvand et al.,⁶² the questionnaire demonstrated strong reliability. The test-retest reliability was 0.85, and internal consistency measured by Cronbach's alpha, was 0.89.

Data analysis

This study utilizes Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) in SmartPLS 3 for data analysis. PLS-SEM is particularly appropriate for evaluating complex theoretical models, as it effectively integrates multifactorial constructs with empirical observations. The analytical procedure assessed the measurement model's reliability (internal consistency), convergent validity, and discriminant validity before testing the structural relationships to examine the research hypotheses.

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlation

In this study, the average work experience of the subjects was 57.6 ± 31.10 years. About 185 (30.4%) were between 20 and 30 years old, 261 (42.9%) were between 31 and 40 years old, and 154 (25.3%) were 41 years old and above. In terms of population distribution by level of education, 197 (32.3%) had a diploma, 247 (40.6%) had an associate's or bachelor's degree, and 156 (25.6%) had a master's degree or higher. About 451 (75.16%) of the participants were married, 121 (20.17%) single, and 28 (4.67%) divorced.

Prior to model estimation, bivariate relationships between study variables were examined using Pearson's correlation analyses (Table 1). Results revealed statistically significant associations among personality traits, occupational stress, and safety behavior measures, supporting preliminary investigation of their structural relationships in the PLS-SEM model.

Table 1.

Correlations among personality traits, occupational stress and safety behaviors.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. N	1
2. E	−0.437**	1
3. O	−0.248**	0.129**	1
4. A	−0.343**	0.280**	0.425**	1
5. C	−0.335**	0.468**	0.217**	0.270**	1
6. RO	0.387**	−0.312**	−0.243**	−0.265**	−0.249**	1
7. RI	0.359**	−0.233**	−0.288**	−0.281**	−0.222**	0.472**	1
8. RA	−0.078	0.148**	0.153**	0.145**	0.144**	0.127*	0.525**	1
9. RB	−0.035	0.109**	0.147**	0.152**	0.164**	0.246**	0.487**	0.737**	1
10. RR	0.408**	−0.248**	−0.232**	−0.234**	−0.191**	0.719**	0.624**	0.314**	0.259**	1
11. PE	0.374**	−0.172**	−0.178**	−0.135**	−0.091*	0.600**	0.228**	−0.027	0.284**	0.722**	1
12. OS	0.331**	−0.162**	−0.148**	−0.140**	−0.100*	0.726**	0.741**	0.589**	0.738**	0.900**	0.678**	1
13. SC	−0.203**	0.213**	0.199**	0.164**	0.224**	−0.200**	−0.147*	0.189**	0.159**	−0.205**	−0.257**	−0.115*	1
14. SP	−0.281**	0.263**	0.255**	0.221**	0.193**	−0.275**	−0.065	0.267**	0.209**	−0.193**	−0.231**	−0.071	0.639**	1

Note: N: neuroticism; E: extraversion; O: openness to experience; A: agreeableness; C: conscientiousness; OS: occupational stress; SC: safety compliance; SP: safety participation, *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01.

Model evaluation

Following Kline's recommendations for psychometric evaluation, we assessed the measurement model's reliability and validity using three key indicators: internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's α), composite reliability (CR), and convergent validity (average variance extracted, AVE). As presented in Table 2, all constructs demonstrated acceptable reliability (α = 0.721–0.791; CR = 0.718–0.819) and convergent validity (AVE > 0.50).^63,64 These results confirm the adequacy of the measurement model for subsequent structural analysis.

Table 2.

Reliability and validity assessment of the outer (measurement) model.

Abbr.	Cronbach's Alpha	C.R	AVE
Neuroticism	0.756	0.747	0.647
Extraversion	0.721	0.765	0.503
Openness to experience	0.725	0.726	0.571
Agreeableness	0.743	0.718	0.647
Conscientiousness	0.762	0.760	0.623
Occupational stress	0.791	0.819	0.524
Safety compliance	0.731	0.803	0.542
Safety participation	0.753	0.802	0.516

To assess the internal structure, following Chin (1998)⁶⁵ recommendation of R2 ≥ 0.10 for model adequacy, our analysis revealed satisfactory explanatory power for all endogenous constructs: occupational stress (R2 = 0.310), safety compliance (R2 = 0.122), and safety participation (R2 = 0.153). The model's predictive relevance was further confirmed by Stone-Geisser Q2 values (occupational stress = 0.130; safety compliance = 0.114; safety participation = 0.140), all exceeding the zero threshold.⁶⁶ Furthermore, goodness-of-fit indices (SRMR = 0.072; NFI = 0.635) met established benchmarks, supporting the model's overall adequacy (Table 3).

Table 3.

Structural model evaluation: predictive relevance (R2, Q2) and goodness-of-fit (SRMR, NFI).

Endogenous Latent Factors	(R2)	(Q2)
Occupational stress	0.310	0.130
Safety compliance	0.122	0.114
Safety participation	0.153	0.140
Model Fit indices	SRMR	NFI
Model Fit indices	0.072	0.635

Hypotheses testing

In the following, the conceptual research model was analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM) with SmartPLS 3 software. Then, the indicators related to the models of the general model were examined. Figure 2 shows the general model in the standardized state of the path coefficients.

Figure 2.

Diagram of the general model with standardized coefficients of path.

To test the proposed hypotheses of the study, the bootstrap method was implemented to estimate path coefficients (β) and evaluate their statistical significance (t-values) for both direct and mediated effects. The results from Smart PLS3 analyze the direct effects of the Big Five personality traits (extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness) on both safety behavior and job stress, as well as the direct effect of job stress on safety behavior. Table 4 presents the standardized estimates for these direct effects and the corresponding indirect (mediating) effects. In this regard, 27 hypotheses were proposed, of which 17 were direct hypotheses and 10 were indirect hypotheses. The results revealed that the direct effect of neuroticism on safety compliance is negative and insignificant (β = -0.006, p = 0.886); thus, hypothesis H1a was not supported. Similarly, the direct effects of extraversion (β = 0.076, p = 0.116) and agreeableness (β = 0.006, p = 0.885) on safety compliance were positive but insignificant, leading to the rejection of hypotheses H1b and H1d.

Table 4.

Hypothesis testing results for direct and mediated effects.

	Pathway	Beta (β)	(t-value)	P values	Results
H1a	Neuroticism → Safety compliance	−0.006	0.143	0.886	Not Confirmed
H1b	Extraversion → Safety compliance	0.076	1.576	0.116	Not Confirmed
H1c	Openness to experience → Safety compliance	0.095	2.250	0.025	Confirmed
H1d	Agreeableness → Safety compliance	0.006	0.144	0.885	Not Confirmed
H1e	Conscientiousness → Safety compliance	0.110	2.674	0.008	Confirmed
H2a	Neuroticism → Safety participation	−0.099	2.110	0.035	Confirmed
H2b	Extraversion → Safety participation	0.136	3.064	0.002	Confirmed
H2c	Openness to experience → Safety participation	0.149	3.636	0.000	Confirmed
H2d	Agreeableness → Safety participation	0.038	0.946	0.345	Not Confirmed
H2e	Conscientiousness → Safety participation	0.018	0.399	0.690	Not Confirmed
H3a	Neuroticism → Occupational stress	0.365	9.650	0.000	Confirmed
H3b	Extraversion → Occupational stress	−0.117	2.778	0.006	Confirmed
H3c	Openness to experience → Occupational stress	−0.181	4.596	0.000	Confirmed
H3d	Agreeableness → Occupational stress	−0.072	1.783	0.075	Not Confirmed
H3e	Conscientiousness → Occupational stress	−0.030	0.745	0.457	Not Confirmed
H4a	Occupational stress → Safety compliance	−0.203	4.346	0.000	Confirmed
H4b	Occupational stress → Safety participation	−0.136	2.873	0.004	Confirmed
H5a	Neuroticism → Occupational stress → Safety compliance	−0.074	3.808	0.000	Confirmed
H5b	Extraversion → Occupational stress → Safety compliance	0.024	2.149	0.032	Confirmed
H5c	Openness to experience → Occupational stress → Safety compliance	0.037	3.214	0.001	Confirmed
H5d	Agreeableness → Occupational stress → Safety compliance	0.015	1.548	0.122	Not Confirmed
H5e	Conscientiousness → Occupational stress → Safety compliance	0.006	0.702	0.483	Not Confirmed
H6a	Neuroticism → Occupational stress → Safety participation	−0.050	2.747	0.006	Confirmed
H6b	Extraversion → Occupational stress → Safety participation	0.016	1.848	0.065	Not Confirmed
H6c	Openness to experience → Occupational stress → Safety participation	0.025	2.419	0.016	Confirmed
H6d	Agreeableness → Occupational stress → Safety participation	0.010	1.394	0.164	Not Confirmed
H6e	Conscientiousness → Occupational stress → Safety participation	0.004	0.675	0.500	Not Confirmed

The results revealed significant direct effects of personality traits on safety outcomes. For safety compliance: Openness to experience showed a positive and significant effect (β = 0.095, t = 2.250, p = 0.025). Conscientiousness demonstrated a positive and significant effect (β = 0.110, t = 2.674, p = 0.008). As a result, hypotheses H1c and H1e were confirmed. Also, the direct effects of personality traits on safety participation showed that neuroticism have a negative and significant effect (β = -0.099, t = 2.110, p = 0.035), while extraversion (β = 0.136, t = 3.064, p = 0.002) and openness to experience (β = 0.149, t = 3.636, p < 0.001) showed positive and significant effects. Therefore, hypotheses H2a, H2b and H2c were confirmed (table 4).

Also, The SmartPLS analysis showed the direct effects of agreeableness (β = 0.038, p = 0.345) and conscientiousness (β = 0.018, p = 0.690) on safety participation is positive but statistically insignificant; therefore, hypotheses H2d and H2e were not supported. The results revealed significant relationships between personality traits and occupational stress: Neuroticism demonstrated a strong positive association with occupational stress (β = 0.365, t = 9.650, p < 0.001). Both extraversion (β = -0.117, t = 2.778, p = 0.008) and openness to experience (β = -0.181, t = 4.596, p < 0.001) showed significant negative associations. Hence, hypotheses H3a, H3b, H3c were confirmed.

Furthermore, the results showed an insignificant direct effect of agreeableness (β = -0.072, p = 0.075) and conscientiousness (β = -0.030, p = 0.457) on occupational stress. Although these effects were negative, they were not statistically significant; therefore, hypotheses H3d and H3e are rejected. Occupational stress exhibited significant negative effects on safety compliance (β = -0.203, t = 4.346, p < 0.001) and safety participation (β = -0.136, t = 2.873, p = 0.004). Thereby confirming hypotheses H4a and H4b (Table 4).

In addition, the results of smart pls3 specific indirect effect for the mediating effects of occupational stress on the relationship between personality traits on safety behaviors are presented in table 4 (as seen in figure 3). The indirect effect of agreeableness and conscientiousness on safety compliance with occupational stress as a mediating variable is positive but statistically insignificant (β = 0.015, p = 0.122 and β = 0.006, p = 0.483, respectively). Consequently, the proposed relationships between these two personality traits and safety compliance lack significance, and hypotheses H5d and H5e are not supported.

Figure 3.

Structural model results showing standardized path coefficients with t-values: A: relationships between personality traits, occupational stress, and safety compliance. B: Relationships between personality traits, occupational stress, and safety participation.

The indirect effect between extraversion and safety participation is positive but negligible (β = 0.016, p = 0.065). Considering occupational stress as a mediator, the relationship between extraversion and safety participation is insignificant, which justifies the rejection of hypothesis H6b. Also, the indirect effect of agreeableness (β = 0.010, p = 0.164) and conscientiousness (β = 0.004, p = 0.50) on safety participation with occupational stress as a mediating variable is positive but statistically insignificant. Therefore, the relationships between these two personality traits and safety participation lack significance, and hypotheses H6d and H6e are not supported.

Analysis of specific indirect effects revealed distinct mediation patterns. Neuroticism and safety compliance (β = -0.074, t-value = 3.808, p < 0.001); neuroticism and safety participation (β = -0.050, t-value = 2.747, p = 0.006); extraversion and safety compliance (β = 0.024, t-value = 2.149, p = 0.032); openness to experience and safety compliance (β = 0.037, t-value = 3.214, p = 0.001); and openness to experience and safety participation (β = 0.025, t-value = 2.419, p = 0.016). These findings support the mediating role of occupational stress, confirming hypotheses H5a, H5b, H5c, H6a, and H6c.

Discussion

This study examined the direct influence of the Big Five personality traits on safety behaviors among mining workers, as well as the mediating role of occupational stress in these relationships. The findings revealed that all personality traits except neuroticism positively influenced safety compliance and participation. Specifically, openness to experience and conscientiousness had a significant positive impact on safety compliance (H1c & H1e). Similarly, the direct effects of extraversion and openness to experience on safety participation were also positive and significant (H2b & H2c). In contrast, neuroticism negatively and significantly affected both safety compliance and participation (H1a & H2a). Conversely, the results indicated that neuroticism was positively associated with occupational stress (H3a), whereas extraversion and openness to experience had a significant negative effect on occupational stress (H3b & H3c). In addition, occupational stress was found to negatively and significantly predict safety compliance and participation (H4a & H4b).

In explaining these findings, it can be stated that the general tendency toward negative emotions such as sadness, guilt, hatred, and anxiety is among the characteristics of the neuroticism factor, which is observable in depressed individuals. It appears that neuroticism is a fundamental and essential factor in personality that predisposes individuals to depression. Overall, this finding supports the hypothesis that emotional instability and maladjustment play a significant role in the development and persistence of negative mood, and individuals with high neuroticism tend to evaluate minor negative stimuli as equivalent to intense negative pressures.^28,44 Therefore, vulnerability to stress is one of the traits of neurotic individuals. Due to faulty cognitive appraisals, neurotic individuals do not allow themselves the opportunity to reflect on or review problems and fail to perceive situations accurately. As a result, they resort to ineffective coping strategies, such as emotion-focused coping, and it is evident that such individuals have a greater tendency toward depression.⁶⁷

On the other hand, it can be said that individuals with neuroticism tend to exhibit behaviors that compromise safety, such as disregarding rejection, displaying anger and dominance, neglecting the concerns of others, and avoiding safety measures like wearing seat belts or following precautionary guidelines. Since personality is a key predictor of behavior, these traits can negatively impact an individual's safety performance, increasing the risk of occupational accidents.²³ Highly neurotic individuals often struggle to adapt to their environment and respond poorly to stressors. When faced with high-pressure situations, excessive workloads, or stressful conditions, they are more likely to experience nervousness, aggression, confusion, or heightened stress. These reactions impair their performance, reduce accuracy, and diminish attention and concentration, and significantly increase the likelihood of errors.⁶⁸ This aligns with previous research, which has consistently linked neuroticism to poorer safety outcomes.^23,68 In contrast, individuals with low neuroticism tend to be emotionally stable and self-assured, allowing them to remain focused on safety-related tasks. Those with high neuroticism, however, are more easily distracted by external stressors, which can significantly undermine their adherence to safe practices.²³

Extraversion demonstrated a significant positive association with safety behaviors, a finding supported by prior research,^68,69 though inconsistent with some other studies.⁷⁰ This discrepancy may stem from the dual nature of extraversion's influence on workplace safety. On one hand, extroverts’ progress-oriented mindset promotes meticulous task execution, reducing their likelihood of occupational accidents. Moreover, their tendency toward positive emotions buffers against stress, enhancing decision-making accuracy and fostering greater safety compliance that defined as adherence to protocols that safeguard personal health and safety. On the other hand, highly extroverted individuals may exhibit risk-seeking and thrill-seeking tendencies, which can compromise safety. Overconfidence, impulsivity, and a desire for social attention may lead to rash decisions, disregard for safety procedures, and avoidance of protective equipment, ultimately increasing unsafe behaviors.^14,15 Thus, while moderate extraversion supports safety, extreme manifestations may introduce hazards.

Conscientiousness had a positive relationship with safety behaviors, which was specifically positive and significant with safety compliance, which confirms the results of previous studies.^68,71 In explaining this, it can be stated that conscientious people are obsessive about their work, they are careful people and do not become careless, and their hard work and striving for success cause them to do things carefully, correctly and completely and do not leave the work half-done. Therefore, it can be said that conscientious people are less involved in errors and unsafe behaviors due to the caution and accuracy they have in doing their work, and their caution and discipline cause them to use safety procedures, rules and equipment.

The trait of openness to experience was positively and significantly associated with safety behaviors in mine workers. This result was consistent with the studies of Xia et al.⁷⁰ and Terracciano et al.,⁷² however did not confirm the findings of the study of Beus et al..²³ Open people have a rich life experience, are curious and creative, and have many positive emotions compared to closed people. Individuals with low openness to experience tend to be conservative, preferring established routines and procedures that minimize uncertainty.⁷³ In contrast, those with high openness often exhibit lower risk perception, and it is possible that the traits of curiosity and emotional sensitivity in these people can be a good reason for their attraction to unsafe behaviors.^25,74

In this study, considering the results that showed that neuroticism has a high correlation with occupational stress, therefore, workers with high neuroticism are susceptible to occupational stress and should not work in high-stress areas. A review of the literature shows that the results of previous studies are consistent with the findings of the present study. For example, Ebstrup et al. found that there is a negative and significant relationship between stress and extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and flexibility, and a direct correlation between neuroticism and stress.⁴²

Previous research has shown that job demands and workload significantly negatively affect safety behaviors.^50,51 The current study aligns with these findings, showing that occupational stress negatively and significantly affects both safety compliance and safety participation among mine workers. Additionally, occupational stress was found to mediate the relationship between personality traits and safety behaviors. Specifically, neuroticism had a negative and significant indirect effect (H5a & H6a), while other traits exhibited positive effects. Extraversion and openness to experience showed positive and significant indirect effects on safety compliance (H5b & H5c), whereas openness to experience also had a positive and significant indirect effect on safety participation (H6c). Further analysis revealed that occupational stress fully mediated the relationship between neuroticism and safety behaviors. This indicates that neuroticism increases levels of occupational stress, which in turn leads to reduced safety behaviors.

Neuroticism is associated with increased stress sensitivity and reduced emotional resilience. Workers with high levels of neuroticism are more prone to distraction, anxiety, and poor decision-making when facing stressful situations such as work pressure or high-risk environments; factors that directly undermine safety behaviors.^24,75 Furthermore, findings from Kong et al. study indicate that high neuroticism levels are significantly correlated with lower job satisfaction. This association arises because neurotic individuals tend to perceive their work environment unfavorably and experience more negative emotional responses to workplace events.⁷⁶

According to the diathesis-stress model, individuals with high neuroticism are more susceptible to developing stress-related health problems when exposed to life stressors.⁷⁷ Research also emphasizes that individual differences in neuroticism can lead to distinct patterns of variability in emotional and behavioral states over time. This phenomenon, sometimes referred to as “consistency in inconsistency,” distinguishes individuals based on their differing responses to similar situations. Such differences suggest that individuals with high neuroticism, due to heightened emotional reactivity and the use of ineffective coping mechanisms, are more vulnerable to occupational stress.⁷⁸ Additionally, studies have shown that neuroticism is linked to reduced adherence to safety protocols, as neurotic individuals under stress tend to focus less on safety-related tasks. Since occupational stress can deplete or limit workers cognitive resources (such as attention, working memory, and decision-making abilities); therefore this may lead to safety errors or intentional/unintentional neglect of safety protocols.²⁴

Also in this study, indirect effects analysis showed that occupational stress partially mediates the relationship between extraversion and safety behavior, as well as the effects of openness to experience. According to Niazi,⁷⁹ extroverts may engage in impulsive actions due to their risk-taking tendencies, necessitating greater safety competence to maintain a secure work environment. The mediating role of occupational stress in the link between openness to experience and safety behavior, however, contrasts with Yang et al.'s³⁹ findings. They argued that individuals scoring high on this trait may resist conventional safety protocols due to their unconventional and skeptical nature.

Addressing these challenges through workplace mental health interventions, including mindfulness programs, can effectively mitigate the adverse effects of neuroticism on miners’ safety behaviors.⁸⁰ For instance, incorporating mindfulness practices into organizational settings can help enhance emotional regulation skills, reduce stress levels, and ultimately foster a healthier work environment. Workplaces should be designed and managed in ways that improve working conditions and create supportive spaces for workers with high levels of neuroticism. Instead of relying on counterproductive measures such as threats, strict surveillance, or punitive pressures, which may amplify fear and stress; organizations should focus on approaches that strengthen employees’ motivation, engagement, and sense of belonging. In this regard, strategies such as facilitating stakeholder contact, which has been shown to reduce the negative effects of neuroticism on work engagement, can be particularly effective. Developing support networks for workers to share experiences, reduce feelings of isolation, and build psychological resilience can not only alleviate occupational stress but also increase overall job satisfaction.⁷⁵ Moreover, fostering open communication channels for safety concerns, training supervisors in personality-aware leadership, and ensuring strict confidentiality in personality and occupational stress assessments will promote more effective and sustainable workplace safety outcomes.

This study was conducted on a sample of mine workers in private companies. Therefore, caution should be exercised in generalizing the results to similar workplaces. This study is also a cross-sectional study, and further (longitudinal) studies are needed to examine the extent to which our findings are generalizable to other high-risk industries. The data were collected using a standardized questionnaire, which may introduce several potential biases. Self-report measures are susceptible to response biases, such as social desirability bias (where participants provide answers they perceive as favorable rather than truthful) and acquiescence bias (a tendency to agree with statements regardless of content). Workers may over-report their safety compliance (due to fear of job-related consequences) or underestimate stress levels due to cognitive biases. To mitigate these reporting inaccuracies, implementing objective methods, such as direct observation of safety behaviors is recommended.

Cultural differences in stress perception and safety behavior may also exist. In eastern cultures, occupational stress may be perceived less as an individual threat, and safety behavior may be more strongly influenced by group norms. In contrast, in western cultures, neuroticism tends to be more closely associated with individually experienced stress. These cultural variations could modify the neuroticism-stress correlation in non-western settings. As this study was conducted exclusively in Iran, its findings cannot fully account for the broader influence of cultural factors, such as risk perception under stress on safety behavior. Furthermore, this study focused solely on the mediating role of occupational stress in the relationship between personality traits and safety behaviors, without exploring the influence of occupational stressors. Investigating these stressors could present a valuable direction for future research on this topic.For example, future studies could examine how workers’ personality traits interact with organizational climate, examining how individual differences are moderated by organizational factors (e.g., safety culture, leadership styles) to shape workplace safety and resilience to stress.

Conclusion

This study developed a structural model to investigate the direct influence of personality traits on mining workers’ safety behaviors, as well as the mediating role of occupational stress in these relationships. Our findings revealed that openness to experience, extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness positively influenced safety compliance and participation, whereas neuroticism had a significant negative effect. Conversely, neuroticism was associated with increased occupational stress, while openness to experience and extraversion were linked to reduced stress levels. The results suggest that enhancing work conditions to minimize occupational stress can improve workers’ safety behaviors. Additionally, by considering workers’ personality traits, mining industry managers can better identify individuals prone to stress and implement more effective strategies to mitigate occupational stress-related issues.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the mining industry managers and workers who cooperated in conducting the study.

Ethical approval

The study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of Tarbiat Modares University (IR.MODARES.REC.1403.114).

Informed consent

At the beginning of the study, informed consent was taken from workers.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was part of a PhD thesis and was supported by Tarbiat Modares University.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Gholamheidar Teimori-Boghsani

Behzad Fouladi-Dehaghi

References

Takala

Hämäläinen

Sauni

, et al. Global-, regional-and country-level estimates of the work-related burden of diseases and accidents in 2019. Scand J Work Environ Health 2024; 50: 73.

Aram

. Managing occupational health among goldminers in Ghana: modelling the likelihood of experiencing occupational related health problems. Plos one 2021; 16: e0254449.

Cruz-Ausejo

Cama-Ttito

Solano

, et al. Occupational accidents in mining workers: scoping review of studies published in the last 13 years. BMJ open 2024; 14: e080572.

Halvani

Fallah

Barkhordari

, et al. A survey of causes of occupational accidents at working place under protection of Yazd social security organization in 2005. Iran Occupational Health 2010; 7: 22–29.

Haynes

May

Lambert

, et al. An examination of the effects of personal and workplace variables on correctional staff perceptions of safety. Am J Crim Justice 2020; 45: 145–165.

Tong

Yang

Parker

, et al. Exploration of relationships between safety performance and unsafe behavior in the Chinese oil industry. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2020; 66: 104167.

Zare

Rad

Dehghani

, et al. Assessment and analysis of studies related human error in Iran: A systematic review. J Health Saf Work 2017; 7: 267–278.

Gong

Liu

, et al. Analyzing the impact of group norms on workers’ safety behaviors in a construction team. In: International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2018, Springer.

Rasmussen

Glasscock

Hansen

, et al. Worker participation in change processes in a danish industrial setting. Am J Ind Med 2006; 49: 767–779.

10.

Izadi

Aminian

Esmaeili

. Occupational accidents in Iran: risk factors and long term trend (2007–2016). J Res Health Sci 2019; 19: e00448.

11.

Wang

, et al. Attentional bias toward safety predicts safety behaviors. Accid Anal Prev 2014; 71: 144–153.

12.

Mullen

. Investigating factors that influence individual safety behavior at work. J Saf Res 2004; 35: 275–285.

13.

DeArmond

Chen

. Occupational safety: the role of workplace sleepiness. Accid Anal Prev 2009; 41: 976–984.

14.

Long

Yang

, et al. Research on psychophysiological characteristics of construction workers during consciously unsafe behaviors. Heliyon 2023; 9: e20484.

15.

Derdowski

Mathisen

. Psychosocial factors and safety in high-risk industries: a systematic literature review. Saf Sci 2023; 157: 105948.

16.

Seo

D-C

. An explicative model of unsafe work behavior. Saf Sci 2005; 43: 187–211.

17.

Hess

. Enhancing innovation processes through the application of emotional intelligence skills. Review Pub Administration Manag 2014; 2: 2.

18.

Jerabek

Muoio

. The stress profile: The influence of personal characteristics on response to occupational trauma. Occupational Stress: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice: IGI Global; p. 264–305. 2020.

19.

Ghasemi

Abedinlou

Alimohammadi

, et al. The relationship between emotional intelligence, personality traits and safety behaviors in metal industries workers: confirmatory factor analysis. Work 2021; 70: 909–915.

20.

John

Robins

Pervin

. Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York: Guilford Press, 2010.

21.

Lim

. Big five personality traits: the 5-factor model of personality. Simply Psychol, https://www.simplypsychology.org/big-five-personality.html (2023, accessed 12 October 2023)..

22.

Longlong

. Retracted: personality traits that associate with sustainable behaviors perceived by individuals. Brain Behav 2023; 13: e3147.

23.

Beus

Dhanani

McCord

. A meta-analysis of personality and workplace safety: addressing unanswered questions. Journal of Applied Psychology 2015; 100: 481.

24.

Doerr

. When and how personality predicts workplace safety: evaluating a moderated mediation model. J Saf Res 2020; 75: 275–283.

25.

Pourmazaherian

Baqutayan

SMS

Idrus

. The role of the big five personality factors on accident: a case of accidents in construction industries. Journal of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy 2021; 7: 34–43.

26.

Bandura

. Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu Rev Psychol 2001; 52: 1–26.

27.

Yao

, et al. Development of construction workers job stress scale to study and the relationship between job stress and safety behavior: an empirical study in Beijing. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15: 2409.

28.

Pizarro

Fuenzalida

. Mental health in mine workers: a literature review. Ind Health 2021; 59: 343–370.

29.

Demerouti

Bakker

Nachreiner

, et al. The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology 2001; 86: 499.

30.

Tong

Wang

, et al. A dual perspective on work stress and its effect on unsafe behaviors: the mediating role of fatigue and the moderating role of safety climate. Process Saf Environ Prot 2022; 165: 929–940.

31.

Chopik

Kitayama

. Personality change across the life span: insights from a cross-cultural, longitudinal study. J Pers 2018; 86: 508–521.

32.

Morgan

. Personality traits as risk factors for occupational injury in health care workers. 2007.

33.

Wang

Hartl

Laursen

, et al. The high costs of low agreeableness: low agreeableness exacerbates interpersonal consequences of rejection sensitivity in US and Chinese adolescents. J Res Pers 2017; 67: 36–43.

34.

Bradley

Baur

Banford

, et al. Team players and collective performance: how agreeableness affects team performance over time. Small Group Research 2013; 44: 680–711.

35.

Fallon

Avis

Kudisch

, et al. Conscientiousness as a predictor of productive and counterproductive behaviors. J Bus Psychol 2000; 15: 339–349.

36.

Dong

Liu

Jiang

, et al. Neuroticism and aggressive behavior among left-behind children: the mediating roles of interpersonal sensitivity and bullying victimization. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19: 11072.

37.

Cellar

Nelson

Yorke

, et al. The five-factor model and safety in the workplace: investigating the relationships between personality and accident involvement. J Prev Interv Community 2001; 22: 43–52.

38.

Hong

Kim

M-J

Sohn

. The relationship between job insecurity and safety behavior: the buffering role of leadership ethics. Sustainability 2023; 15: 13910.

39.

Yang

Bashiru Danwana

Issahaku

F-l

, et al. Investigating the effects of personality on the safety behavior of gold mine workers: a moderated mediation approach. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19: 16054.

40.

Khandan

Koohpaei

Mobinizadeh

. The relationship between emotional intelligence with general health and safety behavior among workers of a manufacturing industry in 2014–15. Journal of Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences 2017; 24: 63–70.

41.

Cannizzaro

Ramaci

Cirrincione

, et al. Work-related stress, physio-pathological mechanisms, and the influence of environmental genetic factors. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019; 16: 4031.

42.

Ebstrup

Eplov

Pisinger

, et al.

Association between the five factor personality traits and perceived stress: is the effect mediated by general self-efficacy?

Anxiety, Stress & Coping 2011; 24: 407–419.

43.

Popoola

Ilugbo

. Personality traits as predictors of stress among female teachers in Osun state teaching service. Edo Journal of Counselling 2010; 3: 173–188.

44.

Tabassum

Akshaya

. The Impact of Personality Traits on Occupational Stress and Quality of Life among Higher Secondary School Teachers. International Journal of Indian Psychȯlogy 2024; 12: 1153–1176.

45.

Kheirkhah

Shayegan

Haghani

, et al. The relationship between job stress, personality traits and the emotional intelligence of midwives working in health centers of lorestan university of medical sciences in 2017. J Med Life 2018; 11: 365.

46.

Banfi

Randall

. A meta-analysis of trait mindfulness: relationships with the big five personality traits, intelligence, and anxiety. J Res Pers 2022; 101: 104307.

47.

Zhao

Jin

. A meta-analysis of the relationship between personality traits and cyberbullying. Aggress Violent Behav 2024; 79: 101992.

48.

Cartwright

Cooper

. Managing workplace stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997.

49.

Othman

Abas

Ishak

. The moderating role of spiritual intelligence on the relationship between job stress and job performance of employees in a banking sector. Journal of Islamic Management Studies 2017; 1: 89–103.

50.

Bronkhorst

. Behaving safely under pressure: the effects of job demands, resources, and safety climate on employee physical and psychosocial safety behavior. J Saf Res 2015; 55: 63–72.

51.

Zhang

Chen

Gong

, et al. Dual hierarchical modelling for the influence of job role demands on psychosocial safety behavior: evidence from coal industry. Int J Ind Ergon 2022; 89: 103291.

52.

Wang

Xia

. How safety-related stress affects workers’ safety behavior: the moderating role of psychological capital. Saf Sci 2018; 103: 247–259.

53.

Hobfoll

Halbesleben

Neveu

J-P

, et al. Conservation of resources in the organizational context: the reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 2018; 5: 103–128.

54.

Bakker

Demerouti

. Job demands–resources theory: taking stock and looking forward. J Occup Health Psychol 2017; 22: 273.

55.

Costa

Jr McCrae

. Neo Personality Inventory: American Psychological Association. 2000.

56.

Garousi-Farshi

Mehriyar

Ghazi-Tabatabaie

. The application of the new neo personality test (neo) and analytical examination of its characteristics and factor structure among Iranian university students. Human Sciences (Al-Zahra University) 2001; 11: 173–198.

57.

Haghshenas

. Persian Version and standardizljtion of NED personality inventory-revised. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology 1999; 4: 38–48.

58.

Mahdinia

Arsang

Sadeghi

, et al. Development and validation of a questionnaire for safety behavior assessment. Iran Occupational Health Journal 2016; 13: 92–102.

59.

Osipow

. Occupational stress inventory, revised edition (OSI-R) . Columbus, OH: Psychological Assessment Resources, Incorporated, 1998.

60.

Sharifian

Aminian

Kiyani

, et al. The evaluation of the degree of occupational stress and factors influencing it in forensic physicians working in legal medicine organization in Tehran-autumn of 2005. 2006.

61.

Khaghanizadeh

Ebadi

Sirati

, et al. The study of relationship between job stress and quality of work life of nurses in military hospitals. 2008.

62.

Sepahvand

Javadi

Mokhtari

, et al. Assessment of job stress and its relationship with demographic and recruitment parameters in Iranian navy personnel. Journal of Marine Medicine 2019; 1: 141–148.

63.

Kline

. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling: Guilford publications. 2023.

64.

Hair Jr

Hult

GTM

Ringle

, et al. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: a workbook. Cham: Springer Nature, 2021.

65.

Chin

. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides

(ed.) Methodology for business and management. Modern methods for business research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1998, pp.295–336.

66.

Henseler

Ringle

Sinkovics

. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In: Sinkovics

Ghauri

(eds) Advances in international marketing. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2009, pp.277–320.

67.

Tugade

Fredrickson

. Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. J Pers Soc Psychol 2004; 86: 320.

68.

Parizadeh

Samavatyan

Nouri

, et al. Pathology of unsafe behaviors and investigating their relationship with personality characteristics and locus of control in employees of the executive projects of khuzestan province gas company. J Saf Promot Inj Prev 2018; 6: 99–112.

69.

Mahmoudi

Fam

Afsartala

, et al. Evaluation of relationship between the rate of unsafe behaviors and personality trait case study: construction project in a car manufacturing company. Journal of Health and Safety at Work 2014; 3: 51–58.

70.

Xia

Tang

, et al. Safety behavior among construction workers: influences of personality and leadership. J Constr Eng Manag 2021; 147: 04021019.

71.

Foster

. How personality influences safety related work behavior. The Online Newsletter for Personality Science 2010; 5: 1–3.

72.

Terracciano

Löckenhoff

Crum

, et al. Five-Factor model personality profiles of drug users. BMC psychiatry 2008; 8: 22.

73.

Abu Raya

Ogunyemi

Broder

, et al. The neurobiology of openness as a personality trait. Front Neurol 2023; 14: 1235345.

74.

Ken

Alan

. Influence of personality and safety climate on risk perception of Hong Kong construction workers. In: 26th International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists (IMECS 2018), 2018; Newswood Limited.

75.

Yan

Zhang

, et al. The chain mediating role of psychological resilience and neuroticism between intolerance of uncertainty and perceived stress among medical university students in southwest China. BMC psychiatry 2023; 23: 861.

76.

Kong

Yang

Zhang

, et al. Mediating role of occupational stress and job satisfaction on the relationship between neuroticism and quality of life among Chinese civil servants: a structural equation model. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2020; 18: 34.

77.

Colodro-Conde

Couvy-Duchesne

Zhu

, et al.A direct test of the diathesis–stress model for depression. Mol Psychiatry 2018; 23: 1590–1596.

78.

Sosnowska

De Fruyt

Hofmans

. Relating neuroticism to emotional exhaustion: a dynamic approach to personality. Front Psychol 2019; 10: 2264.

79.

Niazi

. Personality traits as predictor of self-esteem of university students: moderating role of openness to experience. Journal of Behavioural Sciences 2017; 27: 102–119.

80.

Tian

Cheng

. Effects of four-week mindfulness training on job pressure, burnout, and coping strategies in sports coaches: a randomised controlled trial. WORK 2025; 81: 2631–2639.