Safety communication among construction workers is fundamental to effective safety management. However, evidence suggests that poor safety communication is a common problem in construction workplaces. In fact, previous research has unveiled a number of systemic barriers to effective safety communication in the construction industry. When workers do not sufficiently communicate relevant safety hazards and appropriate injury prevention measures, unexpected injuries can follow. Therefore, research examining factors that promote or impede effective safety communication is necessary. Towards achieving this goal, the purpose of the current research was to evaluate the effect of safety climate and crew cohesion on the demonstrated safety communication levels. The goal was achieved by gathering empirical data from 57 construction workplaces in the United States. More specifically, the participating construction workplaces were visited, and data pertaining to the safety climate and crew-level cohesion were first collected using questionnaire surveys. Next, a safety communication survey instrument was administered, and the data necessary to compute network density—a social network metric that is indicative of safety communication levels was gathered. The analysis of the data suggested that a positive relationship exists between safety climate and safety communication levels. Likewise, construction crews that demonstrated higher levels of cohesion exhibited superior safety communication levels. Finally, evidence also suggested that a synergetic effect exists between safety climate and crew cohesion in improving safety communication levels.

Construction workers fail to recognize a large number of safety hazards. These unrecognized safety hazards can lead to unintended hazard exposure and tragic safety incidents. Unfortunately, traditional hazard recognition interventions (e.g., job hazard analyses and safety training) have been unable to tackle the industry-wide problem of poor hazard recognition levels. In fact, emerging evidence has demonstrated that traditional hazard recognition interventions have been designed without a proper understanding of the challenges workers experience during hazard recognition efforts. Interventions and industry-wide efforts designed based on a more thorough understanding of these challenges can yield substantial benefits—including superior hazard recognition levels and lower injury rates. Towards achieving this goal, the current investigation focused on identifying hazard categories that workers are more proficient in recognizing and others that they are less proficient in recognizing (i.e., hazard recognition patterns). For the purpose of the current study, hazards were classified on the basis of the energy source per Haddon’s energy release theory (e.g., gravity, motion, electrical, chemical, etc.). As part of the study, 287 workers representing 57 construction workplaces in the United States were engaged in a hazard recognition activity. Apart from confirming previous research findings that workers fail to recognize a disproportionate number of safety hazards, the results demonstrate that the workers are more proficient in recognizing certain hazard types. More specifically, the workers on average recognized roughly 47% of the safety hazards in the gravity, electrical, motion, and temperature hazard categories while only recognizing less than 10% of the hazards in the pressure, chemical, and radiation hazard categories. These findings can inform the development of more robust interventions and industry-wide initiatives to tackle the issue of poor hazard recognition levels in the construction industry.