Next Article in Journal
Forgotten Forests and Corporate Climate Commitments: Scaling Sustainability with Nature-Based Solutions
Previous Article in Journal
Digital Transformation and Enterprise Operating Costs: Evidence from Chinese A-Share Listed Firms
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 18
Issue 9
10.3390/su18094199
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Promote or Inhibit? The Impact of Felt Accountability on Coal Miners’ Safety Citizenship Behavior for Sustainable Safety Management

by
Wenjing Qin
,
Jizu Li
and
Min Yu
*
School of Economics & Management, Taiyuan University of Technology, Taiyuan 030024, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2026, 18(9), 4199; https://doi.org/10.3390/su18094199
Submission received: 25 March 2026 / Revised: 15 April 2026 / Accepted: 22 April 2026 / Published: 23 April 2026
(This article belongs to the Topic Advances in Coal Mine Disaster Prevention Technology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

In the complex and high-risk underground environment of coal mining, ensuring occupational health and safety is a fundamental pillar of social sustainability. Traditional safety compliance is insufficient to prevent unpredictable accidents and sustain long-term enterprise resilience. Thus, fostering proactive safety citizenship behavior is essential for enhancing organizational resilience. Drawing on the cognitive appraisal theory of stress, this study constructs a double-edged sword model of felt accountability on miners’ safety citizenship behavior. A three-wave time-lagged survey was conducted among 375 frontline coal miners in China, with data analyzed using SPSS 26.0 and AMOS 24.0. The findings show that felt accountability can increase work engagement and promote employee safety citizenship behavior, while also enhancing psychological strain and inhibiting employee safety citizenship behavior. In addition, safety-specific transformational leadership amplifies the positive impact of felt accountability on work engagement and mitigates its effects on psychological strain. These findings enrich our understanding of the impact of felt accountability, and provide practical insights for coal enterprise managers to improve sustainable safety performance and foster a socially sustainable work environment.

1. Introduction

Coal mining has long served as a crucial pillar of China’s economic development. In recent years, enhanced mechanization and stricter safety management have significantly reduced coal mine accident rates in China. However, the fatality rate per million tons remains notably higher than in many developing countries [1]. This reality suggests that technological upgrades and environmental improvements alone cannot fully eradicate safety hazards. Numerous accident investigations and empirical studies demonstrate that the vast majority of major coal mine accidents stem from human factors, specifically unsafe behaviors [2]. In complex underground operating environments, traditional and passive safety compliance is no longer sufficient to prevent unpredictable risks. Therefore, fundamentally improving coal mine safety requires a shift in management perspective from passive constraint to proactive intervention. Consequently, there is an urgent need to cultivate miners’ safety citizenship behavior [3].
As a vital element for organizational safety performance, safety citizenship behavior (SCB) is typically defined as spontaneous employee behavior that exceeds formal safety compliance requirements [4]. Given its critical role in accident prevention, previous studies have extensively explored its antecedents across three primary dimensions: individual, leadership, and organizational factors. Specifically, individual factors focus on psychological capital [5], felt safety responsibility [6], safety motivation, and safety awareness [7]. Leadership factors encompass adaptive leadership [8], safety leadership [9], and mindful leadership [10]. At the organizational level, researchers frequently draw upon social exchange theory, and emphasize the importance of organizational identity [11], psychosocial safety climate [12], and organizational safety support [13] in promoting individuals’ SCB. However, the current literature predominantly focuses on the beneficial effects of positive resources on SCB. In high-risk industries, felt accountability serves as a ubiquitous and crucial mechanism for pressure and control. Yet, existing studies have overlooked the potential impact of felt accountability on employees’ proactive safety behaviors.
To systematically evaluate the impact of accountability on SCB, a critical conceptual distinction must first be made between objective accountability mechanisms and subjective felt accountability. While objective accountability refers to the formal implementation of safety regulations, evaluations, and punitive systems by the organization, it primarily serves as an external environmental stimulus [14]. In high-risk environments, these formal rules do not automatically translate into behavioral changes unless they are internalized by employees. Therefore, this study focuses on felt accountability, which is defined as a subjective psychological state in which individuals expect their behaviors to be evaluated by others, with corresponding rewards or sanctions to follow [15]. As modern coal mine management increasingly expects miners to go beyond basic compliance and exhibit proactive safety behaviors, understanding how they subjectively perceive these accountability pressures becomes paramount. However, there remains significant divergence in the academic community regarding the actual impacts of felt accountability. Some scholars have confirmed its positive effects, demonstrating that felt accountability can enhance innovative thinking [16], task-relevant information [17], and obsessive passion [18], thereby effectively improving in-role behavior. Conversely, other researchers have highlighted its potential negative consequences, such as inducing job tension [19], workplace bullying [20], and counterproductive work behavior [21]. Evidently, previous studies have predominantly focused on the unidirectional impacts of felt accountability on employees’ cognition, emotions, and in-role behavior. They have paid insufficient attention to safety citizenship behavior, an extra-role behavior highly beneficial to the long-term safety development of organizations. Existing research indicates that safety stressors are critical drivers determining whether employees engage in proactive safety behaviors [22]. Based on this, it is reasonable to infer that felt accountability will similarly exert a complex impact on miners’ SCB. Furthermore, from the perspectives of psychological defense and motivation arousal, felt accountability can be internalized as a driving force for self-improvement, or it can manifest as pressure to avoid risks [23]. This suggests that felt accountability is highly likely to exert a “double-edged sword” effect on SCB. Particularly in the coal mining industry, this double-edged nature is profoundly amplified. While strict accountability in such high-risk environments is necessary to enforce baseline safety compliance [24], such intense job stress can easily trigger emotional exhaustion, draining the cognitive resources required for proactive safety contributions [25]. However, few scholars have empirically analyzed these two opposing effects within a single theoretical framework. This fragmented perspective hinders a comprehensive evaluation of the management efficacy of accountability mechanisms in high-risk industries. Consequently, it is necessary to systematically explore the dual effects of felt accountability and comprehensively reveal its underlying mechanisms influencing SCB.
According to the cognitive appraisal theory of stress, when confronted with external stressors, individuals engage in subjective evaluations that trigger distinct psychological and behavioral responses, ultimately leading to differential outcomes [26]. In the daily management of coal mine enterprises, felt accountability is often accompanied by evaluative uncertainty and the threat of severe rewards or sanctions, undoubtedly constituting a typical potential stressor for individuals at work [27]. Accordingly, by focusing on miners’ positive and negative reactions to this stressor, this study elucidates the differential pathways through which felt accountability influences safety citizenship behavior. On the one hand, when miners make a positive challenge appraisal of felt accountability, they perceive it as a significant responsibility entrusted by the organization and an opportunity to earn management’s trust. This perception stimulates strong intrinsic motivation and significantly enhances their work engagement [28]. On the other hand, when miners make a negative hindrance appraisal of felt accountability, they focus excessively on the potential losses associated with failing to meet goals. This constant worry leads to the depletion of cognitive and emotional resources, triggering negative emotions such as anxiety and emotional exhaustion [29], and thus resulting in psychological strain.
Consistent with established practices in occupational health psychology, rather than directly measuring the abstract cognitive appraisal process, this study utilizes these immediate psychological states as proximal manifestations of these appraisals. Therefore, this study proposes that felt accountability affects SCB through two core transmission mechanisms: work engagement and psychological strain, which serve as direct proxies for challenge and hindrance appraisals, respectively. Furthermore, the cognitive appraisal theory of stress posits that external organizational contexts profoundly influence individuals’ cognitive appraisal processes and their subsequent responses to stressors [30]. Safety-specific transformational leadership (SSTL) represents the visionary inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration exhibited by leaders within the safety domain [31]. As a critical leadership resource, it can significantly intervene in employees’ perceptions of work stress and their coping strategies [32]. Therefore, this study further explores the moderating role of SSTL within these mechanisms.
This study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, it extends the investigation into the impact of felt accountability on coal miners’ SCB. This departs from the traditional focus on positive resource factors, thereby expanding the research perspective on the antecedents of SCB in high-risk industries. Second, drawing on the cognitive appraisal theory of stress, this study constructs a dual-mediation model incorporating work engagement and psychological strain. This model clearly elucidates the “double-edged sword” internal mechanism through which felt accountability influences proactive safety behaviors. Third, by verifying the moderating role of SSTL, this research clarifies the situational boundaries within which this double-edged sword effect operates. Ultimately, the findings of this study offer highly valuable empirical guidance for coal mine managers aiming to formulate scientific accountability strategies and stimulate miners’ proactive safety behaviors.

2. Theory and Hypothesis

2.1. Felt Accountability and Safety Citizenship Behavior

As previously noted, felt accountability is a subjective psychological state in which individuals expect their behaviors or decisions to be evaluated by a salient audience, with corresponding rewards or sanctions contingent upon this evaluation [15]. To prevent accidents, coal mine enterprises typically establish stringent safety accountability systems. However, objective accountability mechanisms can only effectively influence employees’ behavioral choices when they are internalized and utilized to adjust their self-cognition [23]. In this study, felt accountability refers to the degree of psychological constraint experienced by miners who subjectively perceive that the organization monitors, evaluates, and applies potential rewards or sanctions to their behaviors to ensure safe production. This psychological constraint not only compels employees to strictly adhere to the baseline of zero violations, but also subtly reshapes their safety attitudes and work methods.
Safety citizenship behavior (SCB) refers to voluntary, positive extra-role behaviors exhibited by employees that are not governed by formal reward, but contribute to enhancing the organization’s safety performance [4]. Existing research indicates that situational stress and individual psychological states are critical drivers determining whether employees exhibit proactive safety behaviors [3]. In the current context of smart mine development, high-standard safety management places elevated expectations on miners’ proactive prevention awareness; simultaneously, miners face more stringent constraints and stress within complex operational environments [33]. Consequently, this study posits that felt accountability, as a typical and intense potential stressor in the coal mining industry, is highly likely to exert a complex impact on miners’ SCB.
According to the cognitive appraisal theory of stress, if the stressor is perceived as offering potential growth benefits, individuals tend to make a challenge appraisal; conversely, if it is perceived as potentially causing harm, they tend to make a hindrance appraisal. Although challenge and hindrance appraisals exert independent and contrasting effects on employees’ work attitudes and behavioral outcomes, they are not mutually exclusive in their psychological mechanisms [34]. The theory posits that individuals can simultaneously appraise a specific work situation as both a challenge and a hindrance [26]. In the coal mining industry, this appraisal is uniquely shaped by extreme physical danger and high task interdependence. Unlike other occupations, miners rely on SCBs—such as mutual risk reminders—as a collective survival necessity rather than a mere discretionary extra. Consequently, accountability in this high-risk setting is perceived through the lens of mutual responsibility and the physical stakes of underground operations. This differentiated categorization of cognitive appraisals is precisely what leads to distinct psychological reactions and behavioral outcomes when individuals confront the same stressor.
On the positive side, when employees perceive felt accountability as a challenge stressor, they engage in a positive cognitive appraisal. They view rigorous evaluations and accountability as significant responsibilities entrusted by the organization, as well as vital avenues for demonstrating their professional competence, earning management’s trust, and securing career advancement opportunities. This positive appraisal stimulates employees’ work enthusiasm and cognitive effort, compelling them to process information more thoroughly and proactively when confronting complex operations [35]. To better navigate these evaluations and meet organizational expectations, they not only strictly adhere to safety regulations but also voluntarily increase their involvement in task-relevant extra-role activities [17], thereby significantly enhancing the likelihood of exhibiting SCB.
On the negative side, the threat of severe sanctions accompanying felt accountability, such as financial penalties, public criticism, or even dismissal, imposes a substantial psychological burden and a sense of uncertainty on miners. Under these circumstances, miners focus excessively on the potential losses associated with accountability, thereby making a hindrance appraisal. This negative evaluation triggers a strong defensive mentality, acting as a cognitive burden that rapidly depletes individuals’ emotional resources and drives withdrawal behaviors [21]. Furthermore, high-stakes accountability demands can trigger an emotional backlash, such as anxiety and stress, which narrows attentional capacity and makes employees feel a loss of control [36]. To conserve their remaining psychological resources and avoid the risk of incurring penalties through unintended errors in extra-role activities, miners tend to restrict their limited energy solely to maintaining minimum safety compliance. Consequently, they reduce their engagement in proactive safety activities, such as safety voice and mutual assistance, which ultimately inhibits the emergence of SCB. In summary, felt accountability exerts a double-edged sword effect on miners’ SCB.

2.2. Mediating Role of Work Engagement

Work engagement refers to a positive, fulfilling, and persistent affective-cognitive state of mind characterized by three dimensions: vigor, dedication, and absorption [37]. A high level of work engagement serves as the foundation for individuals to cross formal role boundaries and engage in safety citizenship behavior [5]. According to the cognitive appraisal theory of stress, felt accountability as a prevalent stressor, effectively stimulates individuals’ work engagement when appraised as a challenge stressor [38]. On the one hand, when individuals view felt accountability as a challenge, they realize that taking responsibility for their behaviors is not merely fulfilling basic duties, but rather a crucial avenue for demonstrating professional skills, establishing a positive occupational image, and earning the trust of management and coworkers [17]. As such, they perceive it as a vital opportunity to enhance self-worth and maintain sound workplace relationships, thereby voluntarily dedicating themselves wholeheartedly to their work and willingly making extra contributions to the team’s development [39]. On the other hand, a clear accountability mechanism also implies explicit management expectations. When individuals anticipate that meeting the organization’s high standard safety requirements can yield potential internal approval and external rewards, this goal oriented intrinsic motivation compels them to exert more energy [23]. Furthermore, the challenge appraisal of accountability pressure brings positive cognitive and emotional experiences to individuals, enabling them to maintain abundant vigor even when facing high intensity tasks, thereby significantly elevating their overall level of work engagement [28].
As a positive work state, work engagement can stimulate individuals’ SCB. First, highly engaged individuals often possess a more active emotional state and a broader cognitive scope [40]. They can more acutely perceive potential hazards in their surrounding work environment, thereby more easily triggering proactive prevention awareness and generating SCBs that benefit the organization’s long-term development. Second, individuals with high work engagement possess higher psychological resilience and a stronger sense of responsibility [41]. They can overcome the energy depletion caused by extra efforts and proactively assume extra-role safety responsibilities. For instance, they are more proactive in providing a safety voice for the team, and take the initiative to remind and assist coworkers in avoiding risks during critical moments, thus exhibiting a higher frequency of SCBs. Based on the above logic, work engagement acts as a crucial psychological bridge transmitting the positive challenge appraisal of felt accountability into proactive safety behaviors. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
H1. 
Work engagement mediates the relationship between felt accountability and safety citizenship behavior.

2.3. Mediating Role of Psychological Strain

Psychological strain refers to a state of emotional distress, tension, and exhaustion exhibited by individuals when they perceive threats to their well-being and experience excessive depletion of emotional and psychological resources [42]. It serves as a typical negative reaction to workplace stressors. According to the cognitive appraisal theory of stress, when individuals appraise felt accountability as a hindrance stressor, it triggers a series of negative psychological experiences and resource depletion, subsequently leading to psychological strain. On the one hand, accountability mechanisms heighten employees’ awareness that their behaviors are subject to continuous external surveillance. This high-pressure environment undermines their need for job autonomy and exacerbates feelings of psychological suppression [18]. Apprehension regarding potential severe sanctions directly triggers employees’ hindrance appraisals. Such sanctions include fines for safety violations, work suspensions, or even dismissal. This fosters a defensive and pessimistic attitude toward their external environment, inducing negative emotions and depleting internal emotional resources [43]. On the other hand, within the complex underground operational management system, miners are often embedded in an accountability network comprising team leaders, safety inspectors, and coworkers. This process is intensified by the industry’s rigid hierarchical safety structures and “zero-tolerance” punitive policies. Compared to lower-risk industries, the threat of severe sanctions for safety violations in coal mines amplifies hindrance appraisals, making miners more prone to intense psychological strain [44].
As a negative psychological state characterized by resource exhaustion, psychological strain significantly inhibits employees’ SCB. Drawing upon Hobfoll’s conservation of resources (COR) theory [45], individuals possess a limited reservoir of valued resources and are inherently motivated to protect them from further loss. In this study, psychological strain represents a manifestation of actual resource depletion caused by punitive and threatening accountability. According to the resource-preservation principle of COR theory, when miners perceive that their internal resources are being overextended, they instinctively adopt defensive strategies to shield their remaining reserves and accelerate recovery from exhaustion. First, SCBs demand substantial extra time and energy. They also entail certain social risks, such as offending coworkers or incurring joint liability for unwarranted interventions. Therefore, employees under psychological strain will deliberately avoid participating in these risky extra-role activities. Instead, they allocate their limited energy solely to maintaining minimum safety compliance [46]. Second, engaging in SCB requires employees to possess a high degree of safety motivation and positive emotional arousal [9]. However, miners mired in psychological distress are frequently overwhelmed by negative emotions, which precipitates attentional narrowing and a tendency to mechanically adhere to rigid operational procedures [47]. This state of psychological defense severely impairs their capacity to acutely perceive potential workplace hazards and make discretionary contributions beyond their formal duties, fundamentally stifling the emergence of SCBs [48]. Based on the above analysis, the following hypothesis is established in the present study:
H2. 
Psychological strain mediates the relationship between felt accountability and safety citizenship behavior.

2.4. Moderating Role of SSTL

SSTL refers to a leadership style that significantly shapes employees’ safety attitudes and behaviors by articulating a compelling safety vision, establishing safety role models, stimulating intellectual thinking on safety issues, and providing individualized safety consideration [31]. Studies indicate that SSTL serving as a crucial situational and socio-psychological resource, can effectively intervene in individuals’ cognitive appraisals and emotional responses to stressful situations [26]. Consequently, the “double-edged sword” effect of felt accountability may exhibit significant differences depending on the level of SSTL.
High levels of SSTL psychologically empower employees in complex settings by catalyzing their intrinsic safety motivation, a process that deeply satisfies their need for professional competence and capability [49]. Drawing on the resource gain spiral principle of COR theory, high SSTL acts as a resource amplifier in the challenge-engagement pathway. In the traditionally authoritarian culture of coal mines, such supportive leadership is exceptionally salient, providing miners with the psychological permission to view accountability as an opportunity for growth rather than a mere constraint. The visionary inspiration and intellectual stimulation provided by such leaders serve as catalytic resources that synergize with the positive internal motivation triggered by felt accountability. This psychological readiness enables them to actively interpret the evaluative and disciplinary cues brought by felt accountability. Moreover, high SSTL leaders excel at sensemaking, helping miners align stringent organizational accountability demands with their personal safety values [50]. By reframing accountability as developmental feedback rather than a punitive tool, leaders cultivate a strong sense of psychological ownership over safety. This encourages miners to perceive accountability as a challenge stressor that allows them to demonstrate their professional skills, thereby generating more positive experiences and enhancing their interest and engagement in safety-related work [51]. Conversely, under low levels of SSTL, employees lack clear visionary guidance and intellectual support when facing demands from multiple accountable parties. They tend to hold negative anticipatory appraisals toward high-standard accountability requirements and are more susceptible to the interference of external surveillance and resource loss threats [22]. Therefore, when perceiving high-pressure accountability, miners struggle to mobilize their intrinsic motivation, which in turn reduces their dedication and work engagement.
Furthermore, high levels of SSTL provide employees with strong emotional support through individualized consideration and idealized influence, enabling them to continuously accumulate psychological and social resources during their work process [52]. In the hindrance-strain pathway, SSTL functions as a resource buffer rather than an amplifier. These leadership-provided resources act as a psychological safety net that cushions the threat of potential resource loss inherent in punitive accountability. Consequently, miners with a rich reservoir of resources are less sensitive to the demanding requirements and resource threats posed by felt accountability, thus reducing their hindrance appraisals. Additionally, leaders exhibiting high SSTL foster a climate of psychological safety, where accountability is practiced with empathy and an equitable just culture rather than rigid blame [53]. This supportive environment fundamentally alters the threat perception of external surveillance, assuring miners that they have a reliable psychological safety net when facing complex tasks. Meanwhile, this resource replenishment from leadership also boosts miners’ confidence in coping with stress, alleviates psychological burdens, and relieves anxiety, thereby effectively mitigating the onset of psychological strain [54]. On the contrary, low levels of SSTL fail to provide miners with adequate resource support and psychological buffering. When faced with the external stimuli of severe accountability, employees will experience intense anxiety and panic, exacerbating their hindrance appraisals. They tend to believe that such accountability will cause a severe drain on their limited energy, extending this negative appraisal into subsequent coping responses and drastically intensifying psychological strain out of fear of resource loss [55]. Based on the above analysis, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
H3. 
SSTL moderates the positive effect of felt accountability on work engagement, such that this effect is stronger when SSTL is high.
H4. 
SSTL moderates the positive effect of felt accountability on psychological strain, such that this effect is weaker when SSTL is high.
Integrating the moderation and mediation mechanisms discussed above, this study further proposes the moderating role of SSTL on the mediating effects of work engagement and psychological strain. Specifically, miners under high SSTL possess abundant socio-psychological resources and are more inclined to view felt accountability as a challenge. They believe they have sufficient capabilities and leadership support to meet safety expectations and obtain development opportunities, thereby significantly increasing work engagement. This positive shift in their work state subsequently stimulates their motivation to take proactive responsibility, promoting a higher frequency of SCBs [56]. Conversely, miners under low SSTL perceive heightened environmental pressure and a lack of support, making them more likely to view felt accountability as a hindrance and threat. This passive stress coping response leads to a series of negative emotions, triggering profound psychological strain. Consequently, in a defensive state of resource exhaustion, they reduce their active safety participation and engagement in work, ultimately lowering the likelihood of performing extra-role behavior [57]. Therefore, SSTL not only shapes the initial cognitive appraisal of accountability but also determines its downstream behavioral consequences. Thus, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
H5. 
SSTL moderates the indirect effect of felt accountability on safety citizenship behavior through work engagement.
H6. 
SSTL moderates the indirect effect of felt accountability on safety citizenship behavior through psychological strain.
The proposed framework and hypotheses of this study are shown in Figure 1.

3. Methods

3.1. Participants and Procedure

Data were collected by distributing electronic questionnaires to frontline coal miners in China. Specifically, participants were recruited from 10 large-scale, state-owned coal mines located in Shanxi Province. Given the high-risk nature of the industry and strict access controls to underground facilities, a convenience sampling approach was utilized to select frontline miners whose daily tasks directly involved extraction and safety operations. As these state-owned enterprises operate under standardized national safety regulations and represent the backbone of China’s coal industry, the selected sample is highly representative of the formal coal mining community. Prior to the questionnaire survey, the researcher informed the participants that their responses were anonymous, and the data would only be used for academic research.
To rigorously test the mediation effects and establish temporal precedence, we conducted a three-wave time-lagged design from May to July 2025, with a one-month interval between each wave. This duration was selected to minimize common method bias and memory effects while effectively capturing the psychological transition from felt accountability to behavioral outcomes. At Time 1 (T1), participants were invited to complete scales on demographic information, felt accountability, and SSTL. After a one-month interval, at Time 2 (T2), the same participants were asked to complete scales evaluating work engagement and psychological strain. Following another one-month interval, at Time 3 (T3), the participants were invited to assess their safety citizenship behavior. Finally, based on the last four digits of the mobile phone numbers provided by the participants, the data from the three stages were matched, resulting in 432 successfully matched questionnaires. After excluding invalid questionnaires, 375 valid questionnaires were retained, with an effective response rate of 86.81%. The demographic composition of the final sample was as follows: 26.3% of the miners were under the age of 30, 41.9% were between 30 and 40, and 31.8% were older than 40. Regarding education, 42.7% had a junior middle school or below degree, 33.5% had senior high school degree, and 23.8% had junior college or above degree. Concerning length of service, 28.7% had less than 5 years of experience, 37.2% had 5 to 10 years, and 34.1% had more than 10 years.

3.2. Measures

Because the original scales were developed in English, we followed a rigorous translation and back-translation procedure based on Brislin (1980) [58]. Two bilingual researchers translated the items into Chinese, and another independent bilingual expert translated them back into English to ensure semantic equivalence. To ensure the scales were appropriate for the Chinese coal mining context, a panel consisting of two organizational behavior scholars and a senior mine safety manager reviewed the items. Minor contextual adaptations were made; for example, general terms such as ‘the organization’ or ‘my supervisor’ were modified to ‘the coal mine enterprise’ or ‘my shift leader’. All items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

3.2.1. Felt Accountability (WE)

Felt accountability was measured using the 8-item scale developed by Hochwarter, Ferris, Gavin, Perrewé, Hall and Frink [19]. Sample items for this scale include “The jobs of many people at work depend on my success or failures” and “I am held very accountable for my actions at work”. The Cronbach’s α of the scale in this paper was 0.91.

3.2.2. Work Engagement (WE)

To assess work engagement, this study employed a 9-item scale developed by Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova [37]. Sample items for this scale include “At my job, I feel strong and vigorous” and “I am proud of the work that I do”. The Cronbach’s α of the scale in this paper was 0.88.

3.2.3. Psychological Strain (PS)

The 7-item Chinese version of General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-7) created by Wong and O’Driscoll [59] was used to assess psychological strain. Sample items for this scale include “In the past three months, I have been suffering from insomnia due to concerns” and “I have been feeling unhappy for the past three months”. The Cronbach’s α of the scale in this paper was 0.92.

3.2.4. Safety-Specific Transformational Leadership (SSTL)

To assess SSTL, this study employed a 10-item scale developed by Kelloway et al. [60]. Sample items for this scale include “Encourages me to express my ideas and opinion about safety at work” and “Spends time showing me the safest way to do things at work”. The Cronbach’s α of the scale in this paper was 0.85.

3.2.5. Safety Citizenship Behavior (SCB)

Safety citizenship behavior was assessed by adapting a 12-item scale from Meng et al. [61]. Sample items for this scale include “When your co-workers are working in dangerous situations, you will stop them” and “You will pay more attention to your own personal safety if the superior is concerned about you”. The Cronbach’s α of the scale in this paper was 0.93.

3.2.6. Control Variables

Previous studies have shown that age, education, and length of service may affect an individual’s safety citizenship behavior, which may confuse the research results [62]. Therefore, these variables were controlled in the data analysis.

3.3. Data Analysis

This study used SPSS 26.0, AMOS 24.0, and Process 4.0 for data analysis. Firstly, Harman single-factor test and the unmeasured latent method factor technique were used to test for common method bias. Secondly, AMOS 24.0 software was used for confirmatory factor analysis of the research variables. In addition, descriptive statistics and correlation analysis were conducted using SPSS 26.0. Finally, moderated mediation analysis was conducted using SPSS Process 4.0 to test the proposed hypotheses. It is important to clarify our choice of analytical modeling. First, while latent growth modeling (LGM) is valuable for tracking long-term developmental trajectories, it is theoretically misaligned with our objective of testing a specific mediation mechanism. Second, although AMOS was utilized to rigorously validate the measurement model (CFA), PROCESS was explicitly chosen over a full structural equation model (Full SEM) for structural path testing. Modeling latent interaction terms in Full SEM is notoriously complex and prone to severe convergence issues, whereas the PROCESS macro provides superior robustness and mathematical accuracy in estimating complex conditional indirect effects (moderated mediation).

4. Results

4.1. Common Method Bias Test

Self-report surveys were used to collect data from individual subjects, which may lead to common method bias. Harman’s single-factor analysis was used to test for common method bias (CMV). The results showed that the first factor load was 35.87%, which was less than the critical value requirement of 40%. To further ensure the robustness of our data and quantify the potential inflation effect, we introduced an unmeasured latent method factor into the baseline five-factor measurement model. Comparisons demonstrated negligible differences in the primary fit indices between the original confirmatory factor analysis model and the modified model incorporating the method factor (∆CFI = 0.009, ∆TLI = 0.007, ∆RMSEA = 0.005). Because incorporating this latent factor failed to yield a substantial improvement in the overall model fit, these diagnostic results collectively confirm that the inflation effect caused by CMV is minimal and does not pose a serious threat to the validity of our findings.

4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the discriminant validity of the measurement model using Amos 24.0. As shown in Table 1, the results revealed that the 5-factor model fitted the data well (χ2/df = 1.588 < 3, CFI = 0.935 > 0.9, TLI = 0.921 > 0.9, RMSEA = 0.033 < 0.08, SRMR = 0.026 < 0.05), indicating that five variables had a high discriminant validity.

4.3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis

The results of the correlations, means and standard deviations were presented in Table 2. The results showed that felt accountability was positively correlated with work engagement (r = 0.353, p < 0.01), psychological strain (r = 0.187, p < 0.01) and safety citizenship behavior (r = 0.416, p < 0.01). Work engagement was negatively correlated with psychological strain (r = −0.166, p < 0.05), and positively correlated with safety citizenship behavior (r = 0.295, p < 0.01). In addition, psychological strain was negatively correlated with safety citizenship behavior (r = −0.327, p < 0.01), while SSTL was positively correlated with safety citizenship behavior (r = 0.259, p < 0.01). The correlation analysis results provide preliminary support for the hypotheses.

4.4. Hypothesis Test

4.4.1. Direct Effect and Mediation Effect Test

Prior to testing the specific hypotheses, multicollinearity diagnostics were conducted. The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values for all core independent variables and control variables were evaluated. The highest VIF value observed was 2.17, which is well below the conservative threshold of 3.0. This indicates that multicollinearity does not pose a threat to our structural model estimations. Hypotheses were tested using Hayes’ PROCESS 4.0. Specifically, Model 4 was used for parallel mediation testing, and Model 7 was employed to examine the integrated moderated mediation framework. All analyses utilized 5000 bootstrap resamples with 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs). This simultaneous estimation approach allows for the calculation of conditional indirect effects and the Index of Moderated Mediation, ensuring a more robust test of the integrated model compared to separate regression analyses. The results were shown in Table 3 and Table 4. In Table 3, Model 2 shows that after controlling for the relevant variables, felt accountability has a significant positive impact on employee work engagement (B = 0.571, p < 0.001). Model 6 shows that after controlling for the relevant variables, work engagement had a significant positive impact on safety citizenship behavior (B = 0.329, p < 0.001). Table 4 shows that the indirect effect of felt accountability on safety citizenship behavior via work engagement was significant (B = 0.115, 95% CI = [0.037, 0.189]). Therefore, H1 was verified.
In Table 3, Model 4 shows that after controlling for relevant variables, felt accountability has a significant positive impact on psychological strain (B = 0.283, p < 0.001). Model 6 shows that after controlling for the relevant variables, psychological strain had a significant negative impact on safety citizenship behavior (B = −0.143, p < 0.01). Table 4 shows that the indirect effect of felt accountability on safety citizenship behavior via psychological strain was significant (B = −0.093, 95% CI = [−0.218, −0.034]). Thus, H2 was supported.

4.4.2. Moderation Effect Test

In Table 5, Model 9 shows that the interaction between felt accountability and SSTL had a significant positive impact on work engagement (B = 0.427, p < 0.001). We plotted this interaction in Figure 2. Specifically, simple slope analysis confirms this moderation: at high levels of SSTL (+1 SD), felt accountability has a positive impact on work engagement (slope = 0.463, t = 5.133, p < 0.001), whereas this effect was significantly weaker and statistically non-significant at low levels of SSTL (−1 SD) (slope = 0.187, t = 0.855, p > 0.05). Therefore, H3 was verified.
In Table 5, Model 12 shows that the interaction between felt accountability and SSTL had a significant negative impact on psychological strain (B = −0.186, p < 0.001). As illustrated in Figure 3, simple slope analysis confirms this moderation: at low levels of SSTL (−1 SD), felt accountability has a strong positive impact on psychological strain (slope = 0.157, t = 3.782, p < 0.001); however, at high levels of SSTL (+1 SD), this positive impact was significantly weakened and became non-significant (slope = 0.062, t = 0.658, p > 0.05). Consequently, H4 was supported.
Finally, the moderated models explain 26.1% of the variance in work engagement (R2 = 0.261) and 21.1% of the variance in psychological strain (R2 = 0.211). Although these R2 values were relatively modest, they were consistent with typical findings in organizational behavior research. To further evaluate the practical meaningfulness of these results, we calculated Cohen’s f2 to measure the effect sizes of the structural paths. The f2 values for the impact of felt accountability on work engagement and psychological strain were 0.13 and 0.08, respectively. According to Cohen’s [63] guidelines, these values exceed the 0.02 threshold, representing small-to-medium effect sizes. This confirms that the observed relationships possess not only statistical significance but also practical relevance for coal mine safety management.

4.4.3. Moderated Mediation Effect Test

The moderated mediation effect was tested, and the results were shown in Table 6. The data showed that when the SSTL was high, the mediating effect of work engagement was significant (B = 0.091, 95% CI = [0.018, 0.157]). When the SSTL was low, the mediating effect was also significant (B = 0.034, 95% CI = [0.012, 0.075]). In addition, the Index of Moderated Mediation 1 (IMM1 = 0.057, 95% CI = [0.013, 0.098]) confirmed a significant difference in the indirect relationship chain (FA → WE → SCB) across different levels of SSTL, as the confidence interval did not include zero. Therefore, H5 was supported.
Similarly, when the SSTL was high, the mediating effect of psychological strain was significant (B = −0.036, 95% CI = [−0.054, −0.021]). When the SSTL was low, the mediating effect was also significant (B = −0.152, 95% CI = [−0.255, −0.073]). The Index of Moderated Mediation 2 for this path was also significant (IMM2 = 0.116, 95% CI = [0.038, 0.217]), indicating that SSTL significantly moderated the indirect impact of felt accountability on SCB via psychological strain. Thus, H6 was supported. Overall, the combination of significant path coefficients, supportive moderated mediation indices, and meaningful effect sizes (f2) provides robust evidence for the “double-edged sword” model. These findings demonstrate that the impact of felt accountability on miners’ SCB is practically substantial, suggesting that managerial interventions focused on felt accountability and SSTL can yield tangible improvements in proactive safety behaviors in high-risk environments.

4.5. Alternative Model Test

Despite the temporal separation established by our three-wave time-lagged design, we further empirically addressed the potential concern of reverse causality by testing an alternative structural model using AMOS 24.0. In this reverse model, the directionality was inverted: the dependent variable (safety citizenship behavior) was specified to predict the felt accountability via the mediators (work engagement and psychological strain). The fit indices for this reverse causality model were as follows: χ2/df = 6.315, CFI = 0.758, TLI = 0.628, RMSEA = 0.127, SRMR = 0.073. Overall, these indices fail to meet the acceptable thresholds and demonstrate a significantly poorer fit to the data compared to our hypothesized model. Consequently, this empirical comparison provides robust statistical evidence supporting the assumed directionality of our theoretical framework.

5. Discussion

The main purpose of this study is to examine a “double-edged sword” model that investigates felt accountability, work engagement, psychological strain, and SSTL in relation to safety citizenship behavior among Chinese frontline coal miners. The results identified that felt accountability exerts a dual indirect effect on safety citizenship behavior: a promoting effect through work engagement and an inhibiting effect through psychological strain. In addition, SSTL was found to strengthen the positive effect of felt accountability on work engagement and mitigate its resource-depleting effect on psychological strain, thereby moderating the downstream behavioral consequences. All the proposed hypotheses were verified, providing robust theoretical and practical support for accountability mechanisms and proactive safety management in the coal mining industry.

5.1. Theoretical Contributions

First, this study makes a critical contextual extension by applying the “double-edged sword” framework of felt accountability to frontline coal miners. While the nature of this stressor has been documented in general research [15,18], its impact in high-risk industries carries exceptionally severe stakes, making it a uniquely intense stressor. While existing literature has predominantly focused on positive resource factors [7,12], it has largely overlooked the psychological constraints originating from accountability mechanisms. Although recent research has begun to explore SCB through the lens of general role stressors [22], the specific and potentially destructive impact of felt accountability on proactive safety behavior remains theoretically under-explored. By explicitly linking this intense stressor to SCB rather than general task performance, this research provides a vital contextualized understanding of how accountability functions in extreme environments. Thus, while not a paradigm shift in general accountability theory, this study provides a necessary empirical application and extension for high-reliability organizations.
Second, this study integrates work engagement and psychological strain to uncover the simultaneous, competing psychological processes triggered by accountability pressure. Drawing upon cognitive appraisal theory, our model demonstrates how a single, high-stakes stressor can concurrently activate both challenge and hindrance appraisals, thereby driving two completely different behavioral outcomes [64]. This dual-pathway perspective aligns with recent research emphasizing that structural stressors can impair safety performance by triggering individual emotional exhaustion [65]. The theoretical contribution of this integration lies not in discovering new mediators, but in providing a comprehensive mechanistic explanation for why felt accountability can simultaneously ignite proactive responsibility-taking and cause defensive avoidance through resource depletion.
Finally, this study elucidates the critical role of specific organizational context factors in shaping the stressor appraisal process. While previous research has investigated the moderating role of general or transformational leadership in accountability-outcome relations [17] and safety behavior [66], we demonstrate that managing high-stakes safety accountability requires domain-specific interventions. Unlike prior interventions focusing predominantly on general organizational support or job autonomy [23], this study confirms that SSTL serves as a pivotal boundary condition. Crucially, our findings provide robust indirect evidence for the core process posited by cognitive appraisal theory: SSTL acts as a “resource amplifier” that reconfigures safety motivation to enhance work engagement [51], while simultaneously acting as a “psychological safety buffer” to offset the fear of resource loss associated with stringent accountability [53]. This targeted domain-specific support precisely neutralizes the hindrance appraisal, deepening our understanding of the dynamic interplay between domain-specific leadership and formal accountability mechanisms.

5.2. Practical Implications

First, coal mine managers should adopt a dialectical perspective to optimize safety accountability mechanisms, effectively balancing the “double-edged sword” effect of felt accountability. On the one hand, within the high-risk and complex underground operational environment characterized by “one-vote veto” safety policies, managers should explicitly define the safety objectives and responsibility boundaries for each position to minimize miners’ perceived uncertainty regarding accountability. Simultaneously, the focus of accountability should be integrated with miners’ professional skill enhancement and standardized operational procedures. This helps employees recognize that stringent safety requirements are not merely institutional constraints, but rather the cornerstone of personal development and preventing catastrophic mine accidents. On the other hand, while holding miners accountable for fundamental safety bottom lines, managers should exhibit a degree of tolerance for unintentional human errors during long-shift underground work. Shifting from purely punitive financial sanctions to constructive no-blame safety process reviews can effectively alleviate miners’ fear of severe punishment.
Second, managers must provide adequate organizational resources and psychological care to precisely intervene in miners’ coping pathways to stressors. To address the psychological strain induced by felt accountability, coal enterprises should regularly conduct psychological health assessments and establish accessible channels for emotional counseling specifically for frontline underground workers, who often suffer from isolation and chronic fatigue. When miners are confronted with multiple safety responsibility demands, timely stress-relief interventions should be provided to help them recover quickly from anxiety and emotional exhaustion, thereby curbing the escalation of the strain path. To foster the positive pathway of work engagement, organizations should grant miners sufficient resource support and job autonomy. By cultivating an open climate for safety communication, managers can encourage independent thinking among miners and establish incentive mechanisms for safety voice [67].
Finally, enterprises should vigorously cultivate the SSTL of shift leaders and safety supervisors, fully leverage its buffering and facilitating roles as a boundary condition. Coal mine managers must not act merely as supervisors who enforce accountability; rather, they should serve as pioneers of safety values. In daily underground operations and pre-shift safety meetings, leaders should articulate a compelling safety vision to help miners profoundly understand the life-saving value behind stringent accountability, thereby reconfiguring their safety motivation. Concurrently, when employees experience intense accountability pressure, managers should proactively understand their immediate concerns and needs. Through active listening and constructive feedback, leaders can exercise a resource-sheltering function, providing targeted psychological guidance to miners. Such leadership intervention, grounded in individualized consideration, fosters a strong sense of psychological safety among miners. In dynamic safety management practices, this maximizes the functional benefits of felt accountability and inspires miners to spontaneously exhibit safety citizenship behaviors.

5.3. Limitations and Future Research

As with all empirical research, this study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, although we employed both Harman’s single-factor test and the unmeasured latent method factor technique to confirm that common method variance did not severely confound our results, reliance on self-reported data may still artificially inflate the observed relationships. This is primarily due to consistency motifs and social desirability bias, particularly for behavioral outcomes like SCB. Future research should consider utilizing multi-source data. For example, incorporating objective neuro-engineering methods in experimental settings could provide robust assessments of miners’ psychological strain and cognitive stress appraisals, thereby validating the causal relationships more rigorously.
Second, the data for this study were collected exclusively from frontline coal miners in a single province in China. This specific geographical and occupational sample limits the generalizability of the findings to other regions, industrial contexts, or cultural environments. Future research should utilize multi-regional or cross-national samples to verify the external validity of our conclusions. Additionally, future studies should conduct sampling surveys in other high-risk industries, such as construction, chemical manufacturing, and aviation. Such cross-industry validations of our double-edged sword model are necessary to further expand the external validity of our findings.
Third, this study confirmed the mediating roles of work engagement and psychological strain between felt accountability and safety citizenship behavior. However, other potential pathways may exist for this impact. Future research could explore alternative cognitive or emotional mediators, such as job burnout, negative emotion, safety passion, and psychological empowerment [68,69].
Fourth, although our three-wave time-lagged design and the inclusion of theoretically relevant control variables help mitigate potential confounding factors, field survey research is inherently susceptible to endogeneity issues, particularly omitted variable bias. Unobserved individual differences or unmeasured organizational factors might simultaneously influence both felt accountability and safety outcomes. Future research could consider experimental designs or employ instrumental variable (IV) techniques to rigorously isolate the true causal effects of felt accountability.
Finally, while our study is grounded in cognitive appraisal theory and successfully utilized the moderating role of SSTL to indirectly infer the underlying appraisal mechanisms, we did not incorporate direct psychometric measurements of challenge and hindrance appraisals. Future research should include specific appraisal scales to directly capture how miners psychologically categorize safety accountability.

6. Conclusions

To summarize, the present research elucidates the “double-edged sword” mechanism through which felt accountability influences coal miners’ safety citizenship behavior, while underscoring the critical boundary role of SSTL. Yielding significant theoretical and practical implications, our findings emphasize the necessity for mining enterprises to carefully calibrate accountability pressures and cultivate targeted leadership styles to stimulate proactive safety actions. Through the application of these managerial insights, organizations can optimize their safety management systems, mitigate employee psychological strain, and thereby sustain higher levels of organizational safety performance. Ultimately, this research not only broadens the scholarly conversation surrounding stress appraisal and proactive safety management, but also equips industry leaders with empirical guidelines to build an empowered, resilient, and safety-conscious frontline miners’ workforce.

Author Contributions

Formal analysis, W.Q. and J.L.; investigation, W.Q. and J.L.; writing—review and editing, W.Q., J.L. and M.Y.; funding acquisition, J.L. and M.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Youth Project of Shanxi Basic Research Program (Grant number 202403021222045), and Ministry of Education of Humanities and Social Science project (Grant number 23YJA630054, 22YJC630194).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to anonymity of data as well as omission of any sensitive personal information, which is in accordance with the Article 32 “Measures for Ethical Review of Life Science and Medical Research Involving Human Beings” issued by the National Health Commission, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Science and Technology and Bureau of Traditional Chinese Medicine.

Informed Consent Statement

This study was conducted with the informed consent of all coal miners’ participants.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the participating coal miners.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Xu, G.; Wang, X.; Wang, R.; Yano, G.; Zou, R. Anti-corruption, safety compliance and coal mine deaths: Evidence from China. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2021, 188, 458–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Tong, R.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, Y.; Jia, Q.; Ma, X.; Shao, G. Evaluating targeted intervention on coal miners’ unsafe behavior. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dodoo, J.E.; Surienty, L.; Zahidah, S. Safety citizenship behaviour of miners in Ghana: The effect of hardiness personality disposition and psychological safety. Saf. Sci. 2021, 143, 105404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Curcuruto, M.; Conchie, S.M.; Mariani, M.; Violante, F. The role of prosocial and proactive safety behaviors in predicting safety performance. Saf. Sci. 2015, 80, 317–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Qin, K.; Jia, Z.; Lu, T.; Liu, S.; Lan, J.; You, X.; Li, Y. The role of work engagement in the association between psychological capital and safety citizenship behavior in coal miners: A mediation analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ning, X.; Zhai, F.; Xia, N.; Hu, X. Protecting the ego: Anticipated image risk as a psychological deterrent to construction workers’ safety citizenship behavior. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2024, 150, 4023146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wibawanti, A.B.; Sanny, L.; Siahaan, D.; Djati, S.P. How Safety Awareness Affects Safety Citizenship Behavior: The Safety Motivation Mediation Perspective. Dinasti Int. J. Econ. Financ. Account. 2025, 5, 5937–5945. [Google Scholar]
  8. Khan, H.S.U.D.; Chughtai, M.S.; Ma, Z.; Li, M.; He, D. Adaptive leadership and safety citizenship behaviors in Pakistan: The roles of readiness to change, psychosocial safety climate, and proactive personality. Front. Public Health 2024, 11, 1298428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Omidi, L.; Karimi, H.; Pilbeam, C.; Mousavi, S.; Moradi, G. Safety leadership and safety citizenship behavior: The mediating roles of safety knowledge, safety motivation, and psychological contract of safety. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 2025, 26, 66–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Meng, Q.; Liu, W.; Li, Z.; Chong, H.-Y.; Li, K. Mindful Leadership and Construction Workers’ Safety Citizenship Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model of Team Psychological Safety, Participative Safety Self-Efficacy, and Leader–Member Exchange. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2026, 152, 04025244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, D.; Huang, R.; Qiao, Y.; Sheng, Z.; Li, K.; Zhao, L. How perceived leader–member exchange differentiation affects construction workers’ safety citizenship behavior: Organizational identity and felt safety responsibility as mediators. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2023, 149, 04023110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yu, M.; Su, Q.; Li, J.; Qin, W. The impact of psychosocial safety climate on construction workers’ safety citizenship behavior: A multilevel chain mediating model. Work 2024, 10519815251408492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Liu, W.; Meng, Q.; Li, Z.; Chong, H.-Y.; Li, K. Linking organizational safety support to safety citizenship behavior among construction workers via self-efficacy: The moderating role of trust. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2025, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Frink, D.D.; Klimoski, R.J. Advancing accountability theory and practice: Introduction to the human resource management review special edition. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2004, 14, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hochwarter, W.A.; Perrewé, P.L.; Hall, A.T.; Ferris, G.R. Negative affectivity as a moderator of the form and magnitude of the relationship between felt accountability and job tension. J. Organ. Behav. 2005, 26, 517–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Orakcı, Ş.; Dilekli, Y.; Erdağ, C. The structural relationship between accountability felt and responsible teaching in Turkish teachers: The mediating effect of innovative thinking. Think. Ski. Creat. 2020, 36, 100662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kuo, C.-C.; Ni, Y.-L.; Wu, C.-H.; Duh, R.-R.; Chen, M.-Y.; Chang, C. When can felt accountability promote innovative work behavior? The role of transformational leadership. Pers. Rev. 2022, 51, 1807–1822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, Y.; Liu, W.; Yu, G. Dancing in shackles: The double-edged sword effect of felt accountability on work outcomes and individual wellbeing. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 904946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hochwarter, W.A.; Ferris, G.R.; Gavin, M.B.; Perrewé, P.L.; Hall, A.T.; Frink, D.D. Political skill as neutralizer of felt accountability—Job tension effects on job performance ratings: A longitudinal investigation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2007, 102, 226–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mackey, J.D.; Brees, J.R.; McAllister, C.P.; Zorn, M.L.; Martinko, M.J.; Harvey, P. Victim and culprit? The effects of entitlement and felt accountability on perceptions of abusive supervision and perpetration of workplace bullying. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 153, 659–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shankar, U.; Kaul, V.; Gupta, V.; Mishra, N.K. Workplace ostracism and counterproductive work behaviour: Parallel mediation of felt accountability and emotional exhaustion. J. Manag. Dev. 2024, 43, 849–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wang, D.; Sheng, Z.; Wang, X.; Griffin, M.A.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Z. How team safety stressors affect proactive and prosocial safety behaviors: Felt safety responsibility and affective commitment as mediators. Saf. Sci. 2022, 147, 105625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hall, A.T.; Frink, D.D.; Buckley, M.R. An accountability account: A review and synthesis of the theoretical and empirical research on felt accountability. J. Organ. Behav. 2017, 38, 204–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Prinsloo, H.; Hofmeyr, K. Organisational culture, frontline supervisory engagement and accountability, as drivers of safety behaviour in a platinum mining organisation. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2022, 20, a1705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yi, T.; Dong, Y.; Li, J. Influence of job insecurity on coal miners’ safety performance: The role of emotional exhaustion. Chin. Manag. Stud. 2022, 16, 1254–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lazarus, R.S.; Folkman, S. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hall, A.T.; Royle, M.T.; Brymer, R.A.; Perrewé, P.L.; Ferris, G.R.; Hochwarter, W.A. Relationships between felt accountability as a stressor and strain reactions: The neutralizing role of autonomy across two studies. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2006, 11, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Al Hajj, R.; Vongas, J.G.; Jamal, M.; ElMelegy, A.R. The essential impact of stress appraisals on work engagement. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0291676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wu, H.; Qiu, S.; Dooley, L.M.; Ma, C. The relationship between challenge and hindrance stressors and emotional exhaustion: The moderating role of perceived servant leadership. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Neves, P.; Mesdaghinia, S.; Eisenberger, R.; Wickham, R.E. Timesizing proximity and perceived organizational support: Contributions to employee well-being and extra-role performance. J. Change Manag. 2018, 18, 70–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Barling, J.; Loughlin, C.; Kelloway, E.K. Development and test of a model linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gill, A.S.; Flaschner, A.B.; Shachar, M. Mitigating stress and burnout by implementing transformational-leadership. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2006, 18, 469–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wang, X.; Zhang, C.; Deng, J.; Su, C.; Gao, Z. Analysis of factors influencing miners’ unsafe behaviors in intelligent mines using a novel hybrid MCDM model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Webster, J.R.; Beehr, T.A.; Love, K. Extending the challenge-hindrance model of occupational stress: The role of appraisal. J. Vocat. Behav. 2011, 79, 505–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tuan, D.A. The Effect of Felt Accountability on User Satisfaction with Accounting Information. Emerg. Sci. J. 2024, 8, 732–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Overman, S.; Neo, S.; Hall, A.T. The emotional backlash of public accountability. Public Perform. Manag. Rev. 2025, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Schaufeli, W.B.; Bakker, A.B.; Salanova, M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2006, 66, 701–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kubicek, B.; Uhlig, L.; Hülsheger, U.R.; Korunka, C.; Prem, R. Are all challenge stressors beneficial for learning? A meta-analytical assessment of differential effects of workload and cognitive demands. Work Stress 2023, 37, 269–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zheng, X.; Keltner, H.C.; Zhao, Z.; Hochwarter, W. Mitigating abusive supervision’s negative effect on employee outcomes: The role of felt accountability. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2026, 47, 535–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hakanen, J.J.; Kaltiainen, J. Work Engagement: Feeling Happy, Motivated, and Resilient at Work. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2026, 13, 23–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. De Clercq, D.; Pereira, R. How resilient employees can prevent family ostracism from escalating into diminished work engagement and change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior. Int. Stud. Manag. Organ. 2024, 54, 25–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lee, R.T.; Ashforth, B.E. A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. J. Appl. Psychol. 1996, 81, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mazzola, J.J.; Disselhorst, R. Should we be “challenging” employees?: A critical review and meta-analysis of the challenge-hindrance model of stress. J. Organ. Behav. 2019, 40, 949–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. The job demands-resources model: State of the art. J. Manag. Psychol. 2007, 22, 309–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hobfoll, S.E. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am. Psychol. 1989, 44, 513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Wong, K.C.; Chan, A.K. Work antecedents, psychological strain and safety behaviours among Chinese hotel employees. Saf. Sci. 2020, 129, 104825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bowers, J.; Lo, J.; Miller, P.; Mawren, D.; Jones, B. Psychological distress in remote mining and construction workers in Australia. Med. J. Aust. 2018, 208, 391–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nahrgang, J.D.; Morgeson, F.P.; Hofmann, D.A. Safety at work: A meta-analytic investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Shi, H.; Mohamed Zainal, S.R. The influence of safety-specific transformational leadership and safety management practices on mindful safety practices through safety motivation: A study in the Chinese petroleum industry. J. Appl. Secur. Res. 2022, 17, 352–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Conchie, S.M.; Taylor, P.J.; Donald, I.J. Promoting safety voice with safety-specific transformational leadership: The mediating role of two dimensions of trust. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2012, 17, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Smith, T.D.; DeJoy, D.M.; Dyal, M.-A. Safety specific transformational leadership, safety motivation and personal protective equipment use among firefighters. Saf. Sci. 2020, 131, 104930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Irshad, M.; Majeed, M.; Khattak, S.A. The combined effect of safety specific transformational leadership and safety consciousness on psychological well-being of healthcare workers. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 688463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ali, M.; Iyiola, K.; Alzubi, A.; Aljuhmani, H.Y. Using safety-specific transformational leadership to improve safety behavior among construction workers: Exploring the role of knowledge sharing and psychological safety. Buildings 2025, 15, 3340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Grill, M.; Samuelsson, A.U.; Matton, E.; Norderfeldt, E.; Rapp-Ricciardi, M.; Räisänen, C.; Larsman, P. Individualized behavior-based safety-leadership training: A randomized controlled trial. J. Saf. Res. 2023, 87, 332–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ye, G.; Xiang, Q.; Yang, L.; Yang, J.; Xia, N.; Liu, Y.; He, T. Safety stressors and construction workers’ safety performance: The mediating role of ego depletion and self-efficacy. Front. Psychol. 2022, 12, 818955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Clarke, S. Safety leadership: A meta-analytic review of transformational and transactional leadership styles as antecedents of safety behaviours. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2013, 86, 22–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cong, W.; Zhang, S.; Liang, H.; Xiang, Q. Impact of challenge and hindrance job stressors on informal safety communication of construction workers in China: The moderating role of co-worker relationship. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2024, 31, 2011–2033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Brislin, R.W. Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. Methodology 1980, 389–444. [Google Scholar]
  59. Wong, K.C.; O’Driscoll, M.P. Psychometric properties of the general health questionnaire-12 in a sample of Hong Kong employees. Psychol. Health Med. 2016, 21, 975–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kelloway, E.K.; Mullen, J.; Francis, L. Divergent effects of transformational and passive leadership on employee safety. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2006, 11, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Meng, X.; Zhai, H.; Chan, A.H. Development of scales to measure and analyse the relationship of safety consciousness and safety citizenship behaviour of construction workers: An empirical study in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Meng, X.; Chan, A.H. Demographic influences on safety consciousness and safety citizenship behavior of construction workers. Saf. Sci. 2020, 129, 104835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  64. Qiang, W.; Li, F. Work stressors and aggressive driving: The mediating roles of stress appraisals. Saf. Sci. 2025, 181, 106656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Wang, X.; Zhang, Z.; Liang, S.; Yang, Z.; Su, C. Faultlines and Miners’ Safety Behaviour: Role of Emotional Exhaustion and Safety Self-Efficacy. Small Group Res. 2026, 10464964261422472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mo, J.; Cui, L.; Wang, R.; Cui, X. Proactive personality and construction worker safety behavior: Safety self-efficacy and team member exchange as mediators and safety-specific transformational leadership as moderators. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ye, X.; Jiang, J.; Wang, Z.; Cai, S. The impact of exploitative leadership on safety voice: A moderated mediation model. Saf. Sci. 2026, 194, 107043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yang, J.; Ye, G.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, X.; Liu, Y. Linking construction noise to worker safety behavior: The role of negative emotion and regulatory focus. Saf. Sci. 2023, 162, 106093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Shuang, Q.; Shuai, X.; Liang, H.; Bai, J. How work-family conflict affects highway construction professionals’ safety citizenship behaviors: A moderated mediation model. Saf. Sci. 2025, 191, 106976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 18 04199 g001
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 18 04199 g001
Sustainability 18 04199 g002
Figure 2. Moderator of SSTL on FA-WE relationship.
Figure 2. Moderator of SSTL on FA-WE relationship.
Sustainability 18 04199 g002
Sustainability 18 04199 g003
Figure 3. Moderator of SSTL on FA-PS relationship.
Figure 3. Moderator of SSTL on FA-PS relationship.
Sustainability 18 04199 g003
Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis (N = 375).
Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis (N = 375).
Modelsχ2/dfCFITLIRMSEASRMR
1-factor model (FA + WE + PS + SSTL + SCB)2.8230.7430.7750.1360.171
2-factor model (FA + WE + PS+ SSTL, SCB)3.5560.7800.6530.1520.090
3-factor model (FA + WE, PS+ SSTL, SCB)2.7120.8570.7680.0910.125
4-factor model (FA, WE + PS, SSTL, SCB)1.9630.9170.8630.0530.089
5-factor model (FA, WE, PS, SSTL, SCB)1.5880.9350.9210.0330.026
Note: FA = Felt accountability, WE = Work engagement, PS = Psychological strain, SSTL = Safety-specific transformational leadership, SCB = Safety citizenship behavior.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis (N = 375).
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis (N = 375).
VariablesMeanSD12345678
1. Age1.9340.5741
2. Education2.2560.7190.1231
3. LS1.8720.6200.0940.052 *1
4. FA2.3010.7750.0550.1270.0681
5. WE2.5280.653−0.0820.0320.1320.353 **1
6. PS2.8370.8210.1170.0930.0460.187 **−0.166 *1
7. SSTL3.1200.5980.0360.060−0.0310.273 **0.247 **0.1361
8. SCB3.0760.7360.1730.1480.0700.416 **0.295 **−0.327 **0.259 **1
Note: LS = Length of service; Age: 1 = 18–29 years, 2 = 30–40 years, 3 = 41 years and over; Education: 1 = Junior middle school or below, 2 = Senior high school, 3 = Junior college or above; Length of service: 1 = 1–4 years, 2 = 5–10 years, 3 = 11 years and over; FA = Felt accountability; WE = Work engagement; PS = Psychological strain; SSTL = Safety-specific transformational leadership; SCB = Safety citizenship behavior; ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Table 3. Regression analysis of mediating effects.
Table 3. Regression analysis of mediating effects.
VariablesWEPSSCB
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5Model 6
Age−0.128−0.1170.1830.1780.2070.184
Education0.0540.0350.0960.0920.1570.142
LS0.1230.1050.0560.0470.0770.051
FA 0.571 *** 0.283 ** 0.217 *
WE 0.329 ***
PS −0.143 ***
R20.0590.2940.0170.3780.0260.472
ΔR20.0590.2770.0170.3620.0260.433
F2.1867.8650.82210.5861.6799.571
Note. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 4. Results of mediation effect tests.
Table 4. Results of mediation effect tests.
PathTotal EffectDirect EffectIndirect EffectS.E.Boot 95% CI
LowerUpper
FA → WE → SCB0.3720.2570.1150.0410.0370.189
FA → PS → SCB−1.526−1.433−0.0930.035−0.218−0.034
Table 5. Moderating effect test results.
Table 5. Moderating effect test results.
VariablesWEPS
Model 7Model 8Model 9Model 10Model 11Model 12
Age−0.175−0.122−0.0970.1970.1530.132
Education0.0730.0510.0470.1320.1050.090
LS0.1370.0890.0530.0620.0420.037
SSTL 0.3010.385 ** −0.297 **−0.233 **
FA × SSTL 0.427 *** −0.186 ***
R20.0730.1780.2610.0350.1370.211
ΔR20.0730.2750.0830.0350.1230.074
F1.3552.9733.1780.5811.5861.963
Note: ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 6. Results of the moderated mediation test.
Table 6. Results of the moderated mediation test.
PathSSTLEstimateS.E.Boot 95% CI
LowerUpper
FA → WE → SCBHigh0.0910.0300.0180.157
Low0.0340.0460.0120.075
IMM10.0570.0330.0130.098
FA → PS → SCBHigh−0.0360.041−0.054−0.021
Low−0.1520.039−0.255−0.073
IMM20.1160.0350.0380.217
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Qin, W.; Li, J.; Yu, M. Promote or Inhibit? The Impact of Felt Accountability on Coal Miners’ Safety Citizenship Behavior for Sustainable Safety Management. Sustainability 2026, 18, 4199. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18094199

AMA Style

Qin W, Li J, Yu M. Promote or Inhibit? The Impact of Felt Accountability on Coal Miners’ Safety Citizenship Behavior for Sustainable Safety Management. Sustainability. 2026; 18(9):4199. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18094199

Chicago/Turabian Style

Qin, Wenjing, Jizu Li, and Min Yu. 2026. "Promote or Inhibit? The Impact of Felt Accountability on Coal Miners’ Safety Citizenship Behavior for Sustainable Safety Management" Sustainability 18, no. 9: 4199. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18094199

APA Style

Qin, W., Li, J., & Yu, M. (2026). Promote or Inhibit? The Impact of Felt Accountability on Coal Miners’ Safety Citizenship Behavior for Sustainable Safety Management. Sustainability, 18(9), 4199. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18094199

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop