In: Food Supplies and Food Safety
Editor: Marion B. Walsch
ISBN 978-1-61668-858-5
© 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 6
HAVING A CONSCIENTIOUS PERSONALITY HELPS AN
ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE OF FOOD SAFETY
PREDICT FOOD SAFETY BEHAVIOR
Gary S. Nickell1 and Verlin B. Hinsz2
1
Minnesota State University Moorhead, USA
2
North Dakota State University, USA
ABSTRACT
Food safety is an essential function of workers involved in food manufacture,
preparation, and cooking. Several recent outbreaks of food-related illnesses and deaths
have brought heighten attention to the need for a safe food supply. Although there are
many individual and situational factors that play a role in food safety, this chapter
considers how an organizational climate of food safety and individual differences in trait
conscientiousness contribute to food safety behavior. A climate of food safety is a
specific aspect of the overall climate of a food-processing organization. A climate of food
safety is based on the individual’s perception of the policies, procedures, and practices
toward keeping food safe and uncontaminated in an organization. Trait conscientiousness
is one of the few personality traits shown to be a consistent predictor of job performance
across many occupations. This trait conscientiousness should be vital for food safety
behaviors. We show that both a positive organizational climate of food safety and greater
trait conscientiousness predicted enhanced self-reported food safety behavior. In addition,
a moderation effect was found such that individuals having higher trait conscientiousness
reported relatively more frequent food safety behaviors when they perceived a stronger
climate of food safety in the organization. This research also shows how notions of
organizational safety climate generalize beyond traditional views to include safety of the
products made by workers in the organization.
2
Gary S. Nickell and Verlin B. Hinsz
INTRODUCTION
As highlighted by several recent incidents, the safety of food products is an important
concern for organizations involved in food production. According to the U.S. Department of
Labor, in 2008 there were 706,000 workers involved in food processing or manufacturing, 2.9
million cooks, chefs, and food preparation workers, and 7.7 million food and beverage
serving workers. Food safety is an essential function of these jobs. Several recent outbreaks of
food-related illnesses and deaths have brought heighten attention to the need to keep our food
supply safe. The Center for Disease Control estimates that in the U.S. alone, foodborne
diseases account for approximately 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5000
death each year (Mead et al., 1999). Although there are many individual and situational
factors that play a role in food safety, this chapter considers how an organizational climate of
food safety and individual differences in trait conscientiousness contribute to food safety
behavior.
There are many approaches to understanding how individuals tend to engage in food
safety behaviors. The approach that we follow in the study reported in this chapter is that of
the prediction of behavior with individual traits and situational characteristics (Mischel &
Shoda, 1995). From this perspective, to understand behavior it is useful to focus on the
situational factors that facilitate or impede performance of the specific behavior as well as to
consider how the dispositions or traits of the individual also foster or hinder engaging in the
behavior. In the context of the behavior of food processing workers, we believe that engaging
in food safety behaviors involves a personality trait such as conscientiousness as well as how
the climate of the organization helps the employees to hold beliefs about the importance of
engaging in food safety behaviors. We provide a broader basis for this conceptualization next.
AN ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE OF FOOD SAFETY
Organizational climate refers to the common and shared perceptions among employees of
an organization regarding the policies, procedures, and practices of that organization
(Rentsch, 1990). Organizational climate has been found to influence a variety of behaviors in
organizations (Ashkanasy, Wilderom, & Peterson, 2000). Organization climate usually
includes employees’ perceptions of numerous aspects of their work environment, including
the physical environment, safety, supervision, management, and co-workers. Instead of
focusing on an overall measure of organizational climate, organizational researchers
frequently study a numbers of specific climates such as the climate of safety (e.g., Zohar,
2003), or the climate of customer service (Burke, Borucki, & Hurley, 1992). These specific
climates help in understanding issues and challenges relevant to certain types of industries
(e.g., fast food restaurants).
Modeled on the safety climate literature (Zohar, 2003), a climate of food safety is based
on the individual’s perception of the policies, procedures, and practices toward keeping food
safe and uncontaminated. A climate of food safety is a specific aspect of the overall climate
of organizations involved in food processing and manufacturing, food preparation, and food
service. A key factor in understanding organizational climate is climate strength. Climate
strength has been conceptualized by researchers in two main ways. Some have viewed
Having a Conscientious Personality Helps an Organizational Climate…
3
climate strength as the degree of agreement in individual employee’s perceptions of the
organization. This is similar to “crystallization” (Cialdini, Bator, & Guadagno, 1999) which is
the near unanimous agreement of the employees' with regard to their organizational
perceptions. A second view of climate strength is “intensity” in which there is a strong
average approval or disapproval for certain behaviors. In the current study, we adopt this
intensity view of climate strength. If a food production organization has a strong climate
supporting food safety then workers are more likely to engage in food safety behaviors.
Although organizations may promote food safety in formal policies and procedures, workers
exposed to weak climates supporting food safety are less likely to comply with food safety
regulations. However, even in a weak climate of food safety, certain workers will be diligent
in trying to keep the food products safe and clean.
To determine if an organizational climate of food safety influences workers tendencies to
engage in food safety behaviors, it is necessary to have a measure of the organizational
climate of food safety. Currently there are no published measures of a climate of food safety.
However, generalizing from the safety climate literature, there are a number of advantages of
using a reliable and valid measure of food safety climate (Seo, Torabi, Blair, & Ellis, 2004).
Food safety climate measures can provide data about food safety problems before they
develop into an actual food related outbreak (Lutness, 1987). A good measure of the
organizational climate of food safety could be used to compare a climate of food safety
between different departments and different organizations. In this way, preventative actions
can be taken to reduce food safety problems if a diagnosis of where problems might arise in
the organization is made. Thus, one of the purposes of this study was to develop a reliable and
valid measure of food safety climate that could be used to test hypotheses in this study as well
as future studies.
PERSONALITY AT WORK
As indicated above, individual factors have been long recognized as playing an important
role in predicting behavior. Rotter, Chance, and Phares (1972) suggests that behavior is a
function of the person and the situation. For much research on behavior, person factors have
been considered to reflect personality. Although there has historically been waxing and
waning in the view of the importance of personality on behavior (Bem & Allen, 1974;
Mischel, 1968; Mischel & Shoda, 1995), more recently there has been a resurgence in the
perception of personality’s impact on behavior. In particular, a number of meta-analyses have
shown that personality variables, if properly specified and assessed, can make important
contributions to the prediction of behavior (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001). For our
considerations of food processing workers, it is also important to recognize that personality
influence behaviors as work.
Recent conceptions of work behavior have had to include personality to reflect a
comprehensive view of the factors contributing to behavior at work (Barrick & Ryan, 2003;
Roberts & Hogan, 2001). Primarily arising from the emergence of the five factor model of
personality (McCrae & Costa, 2003), research has focused on identifying the underlying
personality factors that influence work behavior. In particular, research attempts to identify
the specific personality factors that influence work behaviors in general as well as work
4
Gary S. Nickell and Verlin B. Hinsz
involving specific types of tasks. Meta-analyses and research in this arena have demonstrated
that many of the five factors of personality influence work behavior for particular jobs. These
five personality factors include: extroversion, emotional stability, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, and openness to experience. A remarkable finding is that emotional
stability and conscientiousness are positively related to work behaviors (Barrick, Mount, &
Judge, 2001). In the case of food safety, in which detection and prevention is required,
conscientiousness is likely to be an important personal factor influencing food safety
behaviors.
CONSCIENTIOUSNESS AS A SPUR TO FOOD SAFETY BEHAVIORS
Trait conscientiousness is one of the few personality traits shown to be a consistent
predictor of job performance across many occupations (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
Conscientiousness in work behavior relates to such characteristics as reliability, planning, and
concentration. Individuals who are conscientious at work are organized, focused, ambitious,
methodical, perfectionistic, and driven. For many organizations, these characteristics of
workers having the underlying trait of conscientiousness contribute to task accomplishment
and organizational effectiveness. Although conscientiousness has been found to relate to
teamwork, training performance, and overall work performance (Barrick et al., 2001), little
research has focused on the relationship between conscientiousness and safety behavior
(Wallace & Chen, 2006). The studies examining this relationship have only found weak to
moderate relationships.
However, we expect that conscientiousness may be vital for food safety behaviors.
Food safety can be considered as a set of behaviors that protect the product and its
ultimate consumers. Consequently, food safety is related to product security and reflects
general behaviors of safety and security (Hinsz & Nickell, 2004). Conscientiousness on the
part of food processing workers should enhance food safety, particularly if food safety is seen
as a vital component of food production. Conscientiousness should relate to being alert to
possible contamination, a focus on the ways contamination could arise, methodical
performance of actions that insure clean food, and drive to keep the food clean. Our previous
research has shown that attention to potential contamination (Hinsz & Nickell, 2004),
following routine food safety behaviors methodically (Hinsz, Nickell, & Park, 2007), and the
drive or motivation to keep the food clean (Hinsz & Nickell, 2004) were found to relate to
food safety related behaviors. Consequently, we expect that conscientiousness should predict
reports of food safety behaviors.
THE JOINT INFLUENCES OF CONSCIENTIOUSNESS AND A CLIMATE OF
FOOD SAFETY
We propose that person variables such as conscientiousness and situational characteristics
such as an organizational climate for food safety can contribute to the prediction of food
safety behaviors in food production. Additionally, the person by situation perspective implies
that the person variable and the situational characteristic could combine to jointly influence
Having a Conscientious Personality Helps an Organizational Climate…
5
behavior. In particular, we recognize that an organizational climate of food safety has the
potential to affect all workers who would be receptive to those climate influences. Specific
individuals may be more receptive than others. In particular, individuals who come to the
situation already predisposed toward engaging in food safety behaviors could find the
organizational climate supportive of their own predilections. These individuals who are
highly predisposed toward food safety would then have an increased tendency to perform
food safety behaviors in conditions in which the situation is supportive. For our study, this
leads to our hypothesis of a moderating influence of conscientiousness on climate of safety
for food safety behaviors such that more conscientious individuals will respond with more
food safety behaviors when they perceive stronger climates of food safety. This moderating
pattern is predicted in addition to our hypothesis that both an organizational climate of food
safety and conscientiousness predict self-reported food safety behavior. In this fashion, we
predict that food safety behavior can be predicted by both person and situational factors as
well as unique combinations of these two factors.
METHOD
Participants
Employees (n = 260) at a fully-integrated turkey processing plant located in a small upper
Midwestern community were given the opportunity to participant in the study by completing
a survey designed by the researchers. Two hundred nine workers (86% of the workforce) took
this questionnaire which was made available to them by the plant’s human resource
department. Of these employees, 180 of the workers (84%) completed this survey at home,
returned it to the researchers several days later, and were paid $15 for completing it.
The average age of respondents was 41 years (range = 17 – 85 years), and the average
length of employment at the plant was 8.34 years (range = .02 – 30 years). The gender of the
respondents (37% women) was fairly representative of the plant’s workers (31%), Fisher’s
exact p = .21.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire began with a two-page introduction that provided information on the
purpose of the survey, the measures taken by the researchers to ensure confidentiality of
responses, the monetary compensation being offered, and detailed definitions of the phrases
that would be used throughout the survey (i.e., “clean and uncontaminated turkey products”
and “doing all that is needed to produce clean and uncontaminated turkey products”). For the
composite measures of interest, related items were interspersed within the survey.
General Self-reported Safety Behavior
It was not possible to measure actual worker food safety related behaviors in this plant
since employees were engaged in different activities in different departments throughout the
plant. In addition, the plant would not allow us to videotape the behaviors of the workers.
6
Gary S. Nickell and Verlin B. Hinsz
Therefore, general self-reported behaviors were used as a proxy for actual behavior. The five
item self-reported food safety behavior measure involved questions such as ‘How often do
you do all that is needed to produce clean and uncontaminated turkey products?’ (1=never to
7=always). These items had very good internal consistency, α=.86, so a composite selfreported behavior measure was constructed as the mean of these five items.
Trait Conscientiousness
The measure of trait conscientiousness was constructed from 19 items related to
conscientiousness identified in the International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg, et al.,
2006). Sample items include “I like order,” “I dislike imperfect work,” and “I follow a
schedule.” The workers responded “to indicate if how accurately this statement describes
you” to each of the 19 items on a seven point response scale from 1=inaccurate to 7=accurate.
These items had very good internal consistency, α=.93, so a composite conscientiousness
measure was constructed from an average of these responses.
Climate of Food Safety
A 40-item measure of food safety climate modeled on previous safety climate measures
was constructed (Seo, Torabi, Blair, & Ellis, 2004). The climate of food safety scale included
4 items for 10 different climate dimensions including: management, employee, supervisor,
competence, training, co-workers, equipment, procedures, cleanliness, and rewards and
punishments. Survey respondents responded to the 40 statements on seven point response
scales to indicate that they 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree with the statement.
Sample items included “Management considers food safety to be as important as
productivity,” “Cleanliness and order are stressed throughout the organization,” and “My
supervisor has a lot of expertise in food safety.” These items had very good internal
consistency, α=.97, so a composite climate measure was constructed as the mean of the 10
dimension scores.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The mean levels and standard deviations of the conscientiousness, perceived climate of
food safety, and self-report of food safety behaviors measures are presented in Table 1. It is
important to note that the workers at this plant reported high levels of food safety behaviors; a
mean of 6.08 on a seven point scale. Moreover, the workers perceived a moderately high level
of a climate for food safety at the plant (5.56 out of 7) and reported relatively high
conscientious (5.81 out of 7). Table 1 also includes the correlations among these primary
measures. Although there are indications that some respondents might have reached the
highest scores on the measures, the correlations among the variables were all substantial and
significant. The results of the regression analyses that test the predictions we offered above
are provided next.
We conducted regression analyses to determine if (a) a climate of food safety influenced
self-reported safety behaviors, (b) trait conscientiousness also related to self-reported safety
behaviors, and (c) trait conscientiousness moderated the relationship between the climate of
food safety and self-reported safety behaviors. Initially we found that the regression equation
Having a Conscientious Personality Helps an Organizational Climate…
7
was significant, F(3,176)=50.17, p<.001, R2 =.45, with both the climate of food safety, β=.40,
t(176) =6.05, p<.001, and conscientiousness, β=.34, t(176)=5.13, p<.001, making significant
contributions to the prediction of food safety behaviors. The moderating effect of
conscientiousness on food safety climate appeared as predicted, β=-.13, t(176)=-2.52, p<.02,
ΔR2 =.02. The results of these analyses indicate that self-reported food safety behaviors
increased with increases in both the supportive climate of food safety and trait
conscientiousness. Moreover, as predicted, individuals having higher trait conscientiousness
reported relatively higher food safety behaviors when they perceived a stronger climate of
food safety. The direct effects of conscientiousness and organizational climate along with this
moderation effect are depicted in Figure 1.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, internal consistency, and intercorrelations among
measures of Conscientiousness, Organizational Climate of Food Safety, and
Food Safety Behaviors
1. Trait
Conscientiousness
2. Organizational Climate
Mean
s.d.
5.81
5.56
2
.77
1
.93
.77
.54
.97
3
of Food Safety
3. Self-Reported Food
6.08
.80
.57
.59
.86
Safety Behaviors
Note. N = 180. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for each measure is provided in bold along the
diagonal. All correlations are significant at p < .01.
8
Gary S. Nickell and Verlin B. Hinsz
Figure 1. The Effects of Trait Conscientiousness and an Organizational Climate of Food Safety on SelfReported General Food Safety Behaviors.
The results of these analyses support our initial hypotheses regarding the role of an
organizational climate of food safety and conscientiousness on food safety behaviors. Both
food safety climate and workers’ conscientiousness contributed to the prediction of food
safety behaviors. Moreover, a personal trait of conscientiousness moderated this relationship,
showing how personal factors modify the impact of organizational forces on safety behaviors.
This research also shows how notions of organizational safety climate generalize beyond
traditional views to include safety of the products made by workers in the organization.
CONCLUSION
We propose that food safety behaviors of workers in food production facilities can be
viewed as a consequence of personal and situational factors. In this study, we examined
conscientiousness as a personal factor and an organizational climate of food safety as a
situational factor that combine to influence food safety actions on the part of food processing
workers. We found that both conscientiousness and food safety climate contributed
substantially to the prediction of workers reports of engaging in food safety behaviors.
Remarkably, with just measures of conscientiousness and the climate of food safety, 45% of
the variance in self-reported food safety behaviors could be accounted for.
This study expands existing perspectives of safety and security to include food safety as
another important product for which production requires a focus on security to insure the
product is safe for human use or consumption. Our approach in this research builds upon two
research traditions. The earlier research on safety climates in organizations was used to
Having a Conscientious Personality Helps an Organizational Climate…
9
develop the measure of an organizational climate of food safety. The analysis of this climate
measure indicated that the same dimensions found for safety climate also arose for food
safety, resulting in a highly reliable measure of the organizational climate of food safety.
Additionally, the person by situation approach we outlined earlier is clearly a useful
framework for considering the factors that influence food safety behaviors. In this study,
consistent with much earlier research, we found that a trait measure of conscientiousness
predicted food safety behaviors suggesting that the personality of workers is one place to look
for ways to improve food safety in organizations. Additionally, we found that an
organizational climate of food safety helped predict food safety behaviors. Managers and
other organizational change agents would be well advised that the protection of the food
processed in an organization will be facilitated to the degree the policies and practices of the
organization foster beliefs among employees that food safety is a critical part of their job and
an valued goal of the organization. By utilizing these person and situational characteristics
appropriately, organizations can enhance the food safety in their food processing.
AUTHORS’ NOTES
An earlier version of the chapter was presented at the 23rd annual conference of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA, April, 2008. This
research was supported by a grant from the USDA Cooperative State Research Education and
Extension Service.
Direct inquires to Gary S. Nickell, Psychology Department, 360 Bridges Hall, Minnesota
State University Moorhead, 1104 7th Ave S., Moorhead, MN 56563, e-mail:
nickellg@mnstate.edu
REFERENCES
Ashkanasy, N.M., Wilderom, C.P.M., & Peterson, M.F. (2000). Handbook of organizational
culture and climate. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63-105.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the
beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next?
International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 9, 9-30.
Barrick, M.R., & Ryan, A.M. (2003). Personality and work. New York: Psychology Press.
Bem, D. J., & Allen, A. (1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The
search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 506520.
Burke, M. J., Borucki, C. C., & Hurley, A. E. (1992). Reconceptualizing psychological
climate in a retail service environment: A multiple stakeholder perspective. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77, 717-729.
Cialdini, R. B., Bator, R. J., & Guadagno, R. E. (1999). Normative influences in
organizations. In L. L. Thompson, J. M. Levine, & D. M. Messick (Eds.), Shared
10
Gary S. Nickell and Verlin B. Hinsz
cognition in organization: The management of knowledge (pp. 195-211). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., &
Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of publicdomain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96.
Hinsz, V.B., & Nickell, G.S. (2004). A motivational model of product safety and security
behaviors. Paper presented at the 19th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Chicago.
Hinsz, V.B., Nickell, G.S., & Park, E.S. (2007). The role of work habits in the motivation of
food safety behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13, 105-114.
Lutness, J. (1987). Measuring up: Assessing safety with climate surveys. Occupational
Health and Safety, 56, 20-26.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five-factor theory
perspective. New York: Guilford.
Mead, P. S. et al. (1999). Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerging
Infectious Diseases, 3, 607-625.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality:
Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality
structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246-268.
Rentsch, J. R. (1990). Climate and culture: Interaction and qualitative differences in
organizational meanings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 668-681.
Roberts, B. W., & Hogan, R. (2001). Personality psychology in the workplace. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Rotter, J. B., Chance, J. E., & Phares, E. J. (1972). Applications of a social learning theory of
personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
Seo, D., Torabi, M. R., Blair, E. H., & Ellis, N. T. (2004). A cross-validation of safety climate
scale using confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Safety Research, 35(4),
427-445.
Wallace, C., & Chen, G. (2006). A multilevel integration of personality, climate, selfregulation, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 529-557.
Zohar, D. (2003). Safety climate: Conceptual and measurement issues. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.