Volume 8, Issue 1, January – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165

The Effect of Safety Attitudes and Safety Climate

on the Proactive Personality of Cabin Crew
Related to Safety Behavior in Indonesian
National Aviation Companies
Anton Octavianto, Ellen Seasafira, Suharto Abdul Majid, Eny Yuliawati, Evy Lindasari, Sandriana Marina, Atikah Indri Yati
Trisakti Institute of Transportation and Logistics, Jakarta, Indonesia

Abstract - Based on flight data in 2020, the large number that cause accidents, where data shows that the main cause
of aircraft accidents that occurred during the last five of accidents in Indonesia is due to human negligence, which
years was caused by human factors, so this is one of the in this study will be focused on the behavior of cabin crew.
basis of research. The study was conducted with a total
of 547 cabin crew from national aviation companies at In a previous study from (Ford et al., 2014),
Soekarno-Hatta International Airport Jakarta. The data researchers saw that information about the safety attitudes of
was collected through instruments on the questionnaire cabin crew was relatively unstudied, even though this is
whose results were changed based on the Likert scale very important to better understand whatever interactions
and tested first before data analysis was carried out occur in the cabin, both between passengers and also the
using the Partial Least Square-Structural Equation entire cabin crew and pilots who operate the aircraft. Cabin
Modeling (PLS-SEM) method. The results showed that crew with a poor safety attitude cannot really implement
safety attitudes mediate the relationship of proactive flight regulations related to safety compliance and safety
personality with safety behavior, which means that the participation, and they cannot pay attention to safety
safety attitude created by aviation companies indirectly practices. They will also not be able to handle their duties
has an impact on the relationship of proactive efficiently and effectively, which can lead to communication
personality to safety behavior. Then the safety climate is barriers between crews, the presence of service failures, and
able to moderate the relationship of proactive will pose other flight risks that will lead to reduced
personality with safety behavior negatively, this means customers (Gabbott et al., 2011).
that the safety climate negatively influences proactive
personality and safety behavior. Then researchers also want to know and analyze about
the safety climate in aviation companies. Where aviation
Keywords:- Safety Attitude, Proactive Personality, Safety companies need to pay attention to whether the safety
Behavior, Safety Climate. climate has been met and carried out optimally. For
example, management must emphasize safety as an
I.INTRODUCTION important part of the company's operations, training all
employees regularly to refresh and update knowledge, and
Currently, air or airplane transportation modes are one the maintenance of equipment in accordance with safety
of the transportation alternatives for people who want to standards. The term "safety climate" refers to the shared
travel long distances with relatively faster and more efficient perception of safety policies, procedures and practices in the
travel times. However, based on data compiled by the work environment (Zohar, 2003). The safety climate has a
National Committee for Transportation Safety (KNKT), profound impact on the safety attitudes, safety values, and
there are several cases of accidents in this mode of safety behaviors of all individuals in the organization.
transportation that occur in Indonesia and this is a disaster
that should be minimized and avoided. As actors and Furthermore, researchers also wanted to find out if the
managers of work in the aviation world, cabin crew have an entire cabin crew had a proactive personality, which is
important role in controlling safety and service levels in the considered a tendency for individuals to take action to
aviation world. So that the safety behavior of cabin crew change their external environment, rather than being limited
becomes very important for the overall safety performance by the power of the situation (Bateman & Crant, 1993).
of any airline (Kao et al., 2009). Proactive personality is indispensable to the aviation world
because cabin crew often face unexpected situations when a
Quoting an article from the Adisucipto Institute of safety-related incident occurs that requires immediate
Aerospace Technology entitled "Loss of Aircraft Control, solutions. People with a very proactive personality can
Causes of Aircraft Accidents", one of the factors that deliberately and instantly change their surroundings, in
contribute to the occurrence of aircraft accidents comes order to improve their safety behavior.
from pilots, namely improper decision making, failing to
recognize aerodynamic stalls or spins, failing to maintain Then, with regard to safety behavior, the researcher
airspeed, not complying with regulations, not following tried to analyze whether cabin crew had perceptions of
applicable procedures, inexperienced, using illegal drugs or individual safety behaviors which included behavior in the
under circumstances drunk. The following are the factors role (safety compliance) and extra-role behavior (safety

IJISRT23JAN1048 www.ijisrt.com 718

Volume 8, Issue 1, January – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
participation or proactive safety behavior). It can be seen assertiveness, quantity, and level of intensity of
whether they have complied with safety policies and interaction between individuals
regulations issued by aviation authorities and airlines which  Openess or intellect, which is a factor represented by
are a key element of the safety behaviour of the cabin crew flexibility regarding thoughts and individual tolerance,
role. Extra-role safety behaviors for cabin crew include sensitivity, openness of feelings, experiences, and new
promoting safety concepts and participating in their airline ideas
safety programs during off-hours (Chen and Chen, 2014).  Agreeableness, that is, a factor represented by loving
The goal is for them to maintain a high level of safety interpersonal recognition.
awareness and be able to assess and report potential hazards  Consencientiousness, that is, a factor that can influence
in a timely manner. In this way, it is hoped that some the procative attitude described by the level of
undesirable or unexpected events can be prevented or organization, perseverance, and motivation with behaviors
interrupted (Aase et al., 2005; Skjerve, 2008). that are in accordance with the objectives.
 Problem Formulation The indicators used to measure proactive personality
This study tries to answer the following questions: using the proactive personality scale that are included in the
 Is there any influence of proactive personality on cabin indicators according to Bateman and Crant (1993) in
crew safety behavior. (Mahardika, 2020) include:
 Is there any influence of safety attitudes on the safety  Ability to see opportunities
behavior of cabin crew.  Demonstrate initiative
 Is there a proactive personality influence on the safety  Take action
attitudes of cabin crew.  Persistent
 Whether safety attitudes mediate the relationship between
proactive personality and cabin crew safety behavior. Based on some of the definitions above, it can be
 Does the safety climate moderate the relationship between concluded that a proactive personality is an attitude that
proactive personality and cabin crew safety behavior. dares to make decisions in doing something to change the
environment. The dimensions on proactive personality used
II.LITERATURE REVIEW by researchers in this study are the ability to see
opportunities, show initiative, take action, and be persistent.
A. Proactive Personality
Proactive Personality is an attitude that tends to take B. Security Attitude
advantage of opportunities, dare to take action in deciding Safety attitudes reflect employee beliefs and feelings
things and be active in doing the work done (Suryani, 2020). about safety policies and actions (Henning et al., 2009). The
Proactive individuals are seen as leaders and act as agents of safety attitude consists of four parts, namely 1) hardware
change (Robbins & Judge, 2013). They are more easily safety and physical hazards, 2) software and safety concepts,
satisfied with the work and help others a lot with their 3) people and 4) risks (Cox and Cox, 1991). Safety attitudes
duties, because they enjoy building relationships with have a significant influence on the safety behavior of
others. Compared to passive personalities, people with employees, which in turn is very important in accident
proactive personalities will actively engage in changing prevention. Employees with a good safe attitude will reduce
unwanted environments, seizing opportunities, and taking the incidence of unsafe behavior, thus avoiding accidents
the initiative to achieve their goals (Crant, 2000; Seibert et that can be prevented and without the need for supervision
al., 1999). People with a very proactive personality can (Eid et al., 2012).
deliberately and instantly change their surroundings, in
order to improve their safety behavior. Indeed, a number of In the aviation industry, as frontline service
studies have shown that employees' proactive personalities employees, cabin crew play an important role in taking over
are strongly linked to their job performance (Bateman and the information passed on to flight deck crews, and in
Crant, 1993; Chan, 2006; Rank et al., 2007). shaping key customer outcomes (Chang and Chiu, 2009).

Chen and Kao (2014) found that proactive personality In the approach of social cognition, models such as the
has a positive impact on cabin crew service performance. Theory of Reasoned Action/Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 2005)
The relationship between proactive personality and service and the health belief model (Rosenstock, 1974) recognize
performance is also moderated by other social support and that personality traits can indirectly influence behavior by
service climates. In addition, the level of adequacy in work influencing behavioral or behavioral normative
and prejudice is also quite important when dealing with determinants. Evidence supporting the predictive value of
safety-related incidents. The proactive personality is these variables is found in several studies (Ulleberg and
considered as the tendency for individuals to take action to Rundmo, 2003; Ji et al., 2011, 2018a).
change their external environment, rather than being limited
by the power of the situation (Bateman and Crant, 1993). Based on some of the definitions above, it can be
There are several factors that influence proactive personality concluded that a safety attitude is an attitude that is as
according to opinion (Bateman and Crant, 1993) including: sincere as trying to avoid difficulties and trying to stay
 Neuroticism, that is, emotional instability as opposed to focused on their duties and responsibilities by upholding
adjustment. confidence in safety policies and actions.
 Extraversion, that is, a need for stimulus, activity,

IJISRT23JAN1048 www.ijisrt.com 719

Volume 8, Issue 1, January – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
C. Safety Climate Another opinion says that safety behavior is a
Law Number 1 of 2009 concerning Aviation article 314 systematic application of psychological research on human
states that every aviation service provider is obliged to behavior on safety issuesin the workplace. Safety behavior
make, implement, evaluate, and continuously improve the emphasizes more aspects of human behavior towards the
Safety Management Systemwith reference to the national occurrence of accidents in the workplace. (Syaaf, 2007)
aviation safety program. What is meant by "aviation service defines safety behavior as a behavior that is directly related
providers", among others: air transportation business to safety, for example wearing safety glasses, signing a risk
entities, airport business entities and airport operator units, assessment form before work or discussing safety issues
aviation navigation service providers, aircraft maintenance (Setiawan, 2012).
business entities, aviation education and training providers,
and business entities design and factory aircraft, aircraft Based on some of the definitions above, it can be
engines, aircraft propellers, and aircraft components. The concluded that safety behavior is a systematic application of
training that must be given to all cabin crew, namely: psychological research related to work behavior related to
Course Introduction, System Management Overview and safety as a work requirement to avoid accidents at work.
Fundamentals, Safety Culture, Safety Management System
Framework, Safety Policy and Objectives, Safety Risk III. METODE RESEARCH
Management, Safety Assurance, Safety Promotion, Safety
Management System, and SMS Regulation and Examination. In collecting data, researchers use a direct method,
namely field research by distributing questionnaires to a
As an organizational variable, the term "safety number of predetermined samples. Questionnaires are
climate" refers to the shared perception of organizational distributed to respondents online which are sent through the
safety policies, procedures, and practices, within the work Whatsapp application. All respondents filled out a
environment (Zohar, 2003). The safety climate has an questionnaire and completed a self-report measurement
important impact on a wide range of outcomes associated online. Self-report research is a type of survey,
with individual work, including in terms of safety questionnaire, or poll in which respondents read questions
performance, subjective attitudes, personal well-being, and and choose their own answers without interruption. Self-
safety-related outcomes (Burke et al., 1992; Nahrgang et al., report is any method that involves asking participants about
2011 ). feelings, attitudes, beliefs, and so on (Jupp, 2006).

According to (Neal & Griffin, 2002), the safety The population in this study was all cabin crew who
climate is the perception of employees on company policies, worked at Soekarno-Hatta International Airport Jakarta,
procedures, and the implementation of safety in the work Indonesia and came from several airline companies. Data
environment. Meanwhile, (Winarsunu, 2008) describes that was obtained as many as 710 respondents who participated
the safety climate is a perception of workers in management in the study. The selection of samples in this study used a
attitudes towards occupational safety and a perception of the non-probability sampling method. The non-probability
extent of the contribution of occupational safety in the sampling method is that respondents who meet certain
production process in general. Other sources mention that criteria have an equal chance of being selected as a sample.
the safety climate is a psychological aspect of safety culture And the technique chosen is purposive sampling. A total of
that explains the values, attitudes and perceptions of 547 respondents were obtained who were used as samples
individuals and groups towards the implementation of safety because they met the criteria predetermined by the previous
programs within the company (Cooper, 2000). And researchers. So that a sample value of 77.04% was obtained
according to (Guldenmund, 2010), the safety climate is the from the data received by the researcher.
employee's perception of safety policies, procedures,
practices, as well as all occupational safety interests and IV. RESULT
priorities. A. Characteristics of Respondents
Based on some of the understandings above, it can be Based on the following data recapitulation, it was seen
concluded that the safety climate is the perception and that respondents with female sex were 54.3% (n=297) and
psychological aspects of employees in company policies, men were 45.7% (n=250). Respondents with an age range of
procedures, and the implementation of safety in the work 20 – 23 years were the largest participants, namely 37.7%
environment. (n=210) and 24 – 27 years old by 24.5% (n=133). The
average length of service as a cabin crew is 1 – 2 years at
D. Safety Behavior 56.5% (n=309). The rest have a service life of more than 3
Safety behavior is behavior that supports safety practices years. When referring to the origin of the airline, the cabin
and activities at work, where both of these things must be crew who responded was Garuda Indonesia as much as
accepted by employees as work requirements to avoid 16.5% (n=90). Then lion air masakapai as much as 15.7%
accidents at work (Zin, et al 2012). Meanwhile, (Wardani, (n=86). Batik Air as much as 13.7% (n = 75). Air Asia
2013) describes that safety behavior is a work behavior that airlines as much as 12.2% (67) and Citilink airlines as much
is relevant to safety can be conceptualized in the same way as 11.9% (n=65). The rest are Sriwijaya, Malindo Airline,
as other work behaviors that shape work behavior. TransNusa and Airfast Indonesia.

IJISRT23JAN1048 www.ijisrt.com 720

Volume 8, Issue 1, January – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Characteristic
Frequency %
Age
20 – 23 years old 210 38.70%
24 – 27 years old 133 24.50%
28 – 31 years old 110 20.30%
> 31 years old 94 17.30%
Gender
Woman 297 54.30%
Man 250 45.70%
Length of Service
1 – 2 years 309 56.50%
3 – 4 years 121 22.10%
> 4 years 117 21.40%
Origin of the Airline
Garuda Indonesia 90 16.50%
Lion Air 86 15.70%
Batik Air 75 13.70%
Air Asia 67 12.20%
Citilink 65 11.90%
NAM Air 45 8.20%
Sriwijaya 43 7.90%
Malindo airlines 28 5.10%
TransNusa 25 4.60%
Airfast New Zealand 23 4.20%
Table 1: Characteristics of Respondents

Source: Primary Data processed 2020

B. Outer Model

Fig. 1: Outer Model Results

The criteria used in assessing the outer model are between the estimated item values (loading factor).
validity tests consisting of convergent validity and Furthermore, in the analysis convergent validity gives
discriminant validity as well as reliability tests with information about the reflection of indicators that are most
Composite Reliability. The convergent validity of the closely related to the research variables.
measurement model is assessed based on the correlation

IJISRT23JAN1048 www.ijisrt.com 721

Volume 8, Issue 1, January – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Variable Item Loading Factor AVE
IK1 0.863
IK2 0.902

Safety Climate IK3 0.859 0.743

IK4 0.834
IK5 0.850
KP1 0.829
KP2 0.905
Proactive Personality KP3 0.881 0.689
KP4 0.755
KP5 0.772
PK1 0.904
Safety Behavior PK2 0.920 0.841
PK3 0.926
SK1 0.830

SK2 0.876
Security Attitude 0.741
SK3 0.918
SK4 0.815
Table 2: Convergent Validity Test

Source: Primary Data processed 2020

Based on the results of convergent validity testing, it is strong indicator in explaining the proactive personality
proven that all indicators in this study are declared valid. variable because it has the largest loading factor of 0.905
This is because all indicators in each of the measured compared to other indicators in the proactive personality
variables produce a loading factor value greater than 0.70 variable. The third indicator reflects a strong indicator in
and an AVE value > 0.5. So it can be concluded that the explaining safety behavior variables because it has the
entire convergent validity test is met (valid). Furthermore, largest loading factor of 0.926 compared to other indicators
the second indicator reflects a strong indicator in explaining in safety behavior variables. Finally, the third indicator
the safety climate variable because it has the largest loading reflects a strong indicator in explaining the safety attitude
factor of 0.902 compared to other indicators in the safety variable because it has the largest loading factor of 0.918
climate variable. Furthermore, the second indicator reflects a compared to other indicators in the safety attitude variable.

Safety Climate Proactive Personality Safety Behavior Security Attitude

Safety Climate 0.862
Proactive Personality 0.595 0.830
Safety Behavior 0.641 0.730 0.917
Security Attitude 0.566 0.801 0.739 0.861
Table 3: Discriminant Validity Test - Fornell-Larcker Criterion

Source: Primary Data processed 2020

IJISRT23JAN1048 www.ijisrt.com 722

Volume 8, Issue 1, January – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Safety Climate Proactive Personality Safety Behavior Security Attitude
Safety Climate
Proactive Personality 0.622

Safety Behavior 0.658 0.799

Security Attitude 0.589 0.897 0.825
Table 4: Discriminant Validity Test – HTMT

Source: Primary Data processed 2020

The two tables above present the results of variables is less than 0.9 so that the validity of the
discriminant validity testing using the Fornell-Larcker and description with this method is also met.
HTMT criteria methods. The results proved that all
indicators in this study were declared valid. This is The next step after the questionnaire item is declared
evidenced from the AVE root value for each variable greater valid, reliability testing is carried out. Reliability testing
than the correlation of other variables. Furthermore, using refers to the value of Composite Reliability. Here are the
the HTMT Ratio method, the entire correlation between results:

Variable Composite Reliability

Safety Climate 0.935
Proactive Personality 0.917
Safety Behavior 0.941
Security Attitude 0.919
Table 5: Composite Reability Test

Source: Primary Data processed 2020

Based on the table above, it can be seen that all the that all indicators used in the questionnaire are declared
variables studied have a Composite Reliability value which reliable or consistent in measuring variables.
results in a value of > 0.7. Therefore, it can be concluded

C. INNER MODEL

Fig. 2: Hasil Full Model Research (Inner Model)

Testing of structural models or inner models aims to The structural model represents the relationship
determine the relationship between constructs, significance between the latent variables used in the study. The structural
values, R-square (R 2), Q-square predictive relevance (Q 2), model in this study involves one free latent variable, namely
and f-square effect size (f2) of the research model. Structural proactive personality, one mediation variable, namely safety
model analysis in this study used bootstrapping techniques attitudes, one moderation variable, namely the safety climate
in SmartPLS version 3.3 with a significance level of 0.05. and one bound variable, namely safety behavior. The
following are the results of algorithm calculations and
bootsrapping for each variable in the structural model.

IJISRT23JAN1048 www.ijisrt.com 723

Volume 8, Issue 1, January – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
The stages of testing the structural model (inner model) are carried out with the following steps:

R Square
Safety Behavior 0.652

Security Attitude 0.642

Table 6: R-Square Values

Source: Primary Data processed 2020

Based on the results presented in the table above, it strong categories. Furthermore, the R-Square value of safety
can be seen that the R-Square value of safety behavior is attitude is 0.642. That is, proactive personality variability
0.652. This means that proactive personality variability and explains 64.2% of safety attitudes with a strong category.
safety attitudes explain 65.2% of safety behaviors with

SSO SSE Q² (=1-SSE/SSO)

Safety Behavior 1641 755.133 0.540
Security Attitude 2188 1155.141 0.472
Total Q2= 1 - (1-R21) × (1-R22) = 0.757
Tabel 7: Predictive Relevance (Q2)

Source: Primary Data processed 2020

A value of Q2 greater than 0 (zero) indicates that the In conclusion, the entire model produces a value of Q2 -
model has a good predictive relevance value. A value of Q2 predictive-relevance (0.747) > 0 so that the overall model
on a safety behavior model yields a value of 0.540 > 0. Then has a good predictive relevance value.
on the safety attitude model produces a value of 0.472 > 0.

Path F-Square Effect Size

Proactive Personality -> Safety Attitude 1.790 Strong
Proactive Personality -> Safety Behaviors 0.072
Safety Attitudes -> Safety Behavior 0.117 Weak
Table 8: F-Square Results

Source: Primary Data processed 2020

The F-square value is used to determine the magnitude attitudes on safety behavior has a weak effect at the
of the influence of exogenous variables on endogenous structural model level and proactive personality on safety
variables. Evaluation of the size of the value of f2 follows behavior has a weak effect at the structural model level.
the rules below
 The value of f2 of 0.02 – 0.14 is categorized as the weak V. HYPOTHESIS TESTING
influence of exogenous variables on the structural level,
The value of estimating path relationships in structural
 The value of f2 of 0.15 – 0.34 is categorized as a moderate
models using the bootsraping method. Looking at the
influence of exogenous variables at the structural level,
significance on the hypothesis by referring to the value of
 The value of f2 of > 0.35 is categorized as a strong the parameter coefficient and the value of the significance of
influence of exogenous variables on the structural level. the T-statistic in the bootstrapping report. To find out
Based on the calculation results, it can be seen that the whether it is significant or insignificant, it is seen from the
influence of proactive personality on safety attitudes has a p-value ort-value at alpha 5% (1.65 one-tailed). The results
very strong effect. Meanwhile, the influence of safety of statistical estimates are described as follows:

IJISRT23JAN1048 www.ijisrt.com 724

Volume 8, Issue 1, January – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Coeff Std STDEV T Stats P Values Decision
Proactive Personality → Safety Behaviors 0.276 0.050 5.504 0.000 Accepted
Safety Attitudes → Safety Behaviors 0.345 0.049 7.107 0.000 Accepted

Proactive Personality → Safety Attitude 0.801 0.015 52.163 0.000 Accepted

Proactive Personality → Safety Attitude → Safety Behavior 0.276 0.040 6.910 0.000 Accepted
KP × IK → Safety Behavior -0.094 0.033 2.870 0.002 Accepted
Table 9: Hypothesis Test Results

Source: Primary Data processed 2020

Hypothesis 1 tested is the influence of proactive is accepted. That is, safety attitudes dictate the relationship
personality on safety behavior. Based on the processing of proactive personality to safety behavior.
results as presented in the hypothesis test results table, it can
be seen that the coefficient of proactive personality towards The hypothesis 5 tested is the role of the safety climate
safety behavior is 0.276 with a positive direction. as a moderation variable between proactive personalities and
Subsequently, the t-stat values were 5.504 > 1.65 and Sig. safety behaviors. Based on the processing results as
0.000 < 0.05, so the first hypothesis was accepted. That is, presented in the hypothesis testing table, you can see the
proactive personality has a positive and significant effect on path coefficient of moderation results of \u20120.094 in a
safety behavior. negative direction. Furthermore, the t-value is 2.870 > 1.65
and Sig. 0.003 < 0.05, so the fifth hypothesis is accepted.
Hypothesis 2 tested is the influence of safety attitudes That is, the safety climate weakens the relationship of
on safety behavior. Based on the processing results as proactive personality to safety behavior significantly, which
presented in the hypothesis test results table, it can be seen initially has a positive influence between the two variables
that the coefficient of safety attitude towards safety behavior
is 0.345 with a positive direction. Furthermore, the t-stat For the evaluation of the effect of moderation in this
values are 7.107 > 1.65 and Sig. 0.000 < 0.05, so the second study, a simple slope analysis (Simple Slope Analysis) was
hypothesis is also accepted. That is, safety attitudes have a used to better understand the results of the moderator
positive and significant effect on safety behavior. analysis. Simple Slope is recommended because graphs can
visualize the effects of two-way interactions on the plot or
The hypothesis 3 tested is the influence of proactive flow that follows.
personality on safety attitudes. Based on the processing
results as presented in the hypothesis test results table, it can The three lines shown in the figure below represent the
be seen that the coefficient of proactive personality towards relationship between proactive personality (X-axis) and
safety attitudes is 0.801 with a positive direction. safety behavior (Y-axis). The midline represents the
Furthermore, the t-stat values are 52,163 > 1.65 and Sig. relationship to the average level of the safety climate
0.000 < 0.05, so hypothesis three is also accepted. That is, moderator variable. The other two lines represent the
proactive personality has a positive and significant effect on relationship between proactive personality and safety
safety attitudes. behavior to a higher degree (i.e., an average value of safety
climate plus one unit of standard deviation) and lower (i.e.,
Hypothesis 4 tested is the mediating role of safety an average value of safety climate minus one unit of
attitudes from the relationship of proactive personality to standard deviation) than the safety climate moderator
safety behavior. Based on the counter, the specific indirect variable. As seen in the following figure, the relationship
effects value as presented in the hypothesis testing table, can between proactive personality and safety behavior is
be seen the estimated value of the mediation path coefficient positive for all three lines as indicated by its positive slope.
of 0.276 in a positive direction. Furthermore, the t-value is Therefore, higher levels of proactive personality go hand in
6.910 > 1.65 and Sig. 0.000 < 0.05, so the fourth hypothesis hand with higher levels of safety behavior.

IJISRT23JAN1048 www.ijisrt.com 725

Volume 8, Issue 1, January – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165

Fig. 3: Simple Slope Analysis

Next, analyze the slope of the moderation effect in  The influence of safety attitudes on safety behavior
more detail. The top line, which represents a high level of Based on the results of hypothesis testing, there is a
construction moderator safety climate has a flatter slope, positive and significant influence between safety
while the bottom line, which represents a low level of the attitudes and safety behaviors. This means that the
organizational climate moderator construction, has a steeper higher the safety attitude of the cabin crew will have an
slope. This is because the interaction effect is negative. As a impact on improving safety behavior. Practically
rule of thumb and approximately, the high-level slope of the speaking, the positive attitude on the safety that cabin
safety climate moderator construct is a simple effect (i.e., crew have will have an impact on the safety of the
0.276) plus an interaction effect (−0.094), while a low-level aircraft during the flight. Cabin crew are also required
slope of the safety climate moderator construct is a simple to be responsive and concerned about symptoms that
effect (i.e., 0.276) minus the interaction effect (−0.094). occur during the flight as a form of flight safety
Therefore, a simple slope plot favors negative interactions: behavior.
A lower level of safety climate requires a high relationship
between proactive personality and safety behavior, while a  The influence of proactive personality on safety
higher level of safety climate leads to a weaker relationship attitudes
between proactive personality and safety behavior. Based on the results of hypothesis testing, there is a
positive and significant influence between proactive
VI. DISCUSSION personalities on safety attitudes. This means that the
higher the proactive personality of the cabin crew will
This study has successfully answered the entire have an impact on improving safety attitudes.
research hypothesis. This means that there is a positive Practically speaking, the proactive personality of cabin
influence between proactive personality and safety attitude crew also has an impact on safety attitudes. The cabin
towards safety behavior, as well as a positive proactive crew's personality will reflect the attitude when bad
personality influence on safety attitude. Furthermore, the symptoms occur during the flight. Therefore, it is
indirect influence of proactive personality on safety important for cabin crew to have a proactive personality
behavior through safety attitudes. Finally, the safety climate so that all passengers feel comfortable and safe during
negatively moderates the relationship of proactive the flight.
personality to safety behavior.
 Safety attitudes mediate the relationship of proactive
 The influence of proactive personality on safety personality with safety behaviors
behaviors Based on the results of hypothesis testing, safety
Based on the results of hypothesis testing, it was found attitudes mediate the relationship of proactive
that there was a positive and significant influence personality with safety behavior significantly. That is,
between proactive personalities on safety behavior. This the safety attitudes that airlines create indirectly have an
means that the higher the proactive personality of the impact on the relationship of proactive personality to
cabin crew will have an impact on improving safety safety behavior. In other words, when you want to build
behavior. Practically speaking, the cabin crew's the safety behavior of cabin crew with a proactive
proactive personality on the symptoms that occur on personality as a predictor, it requires the creation of a
board the aircraft during the flight will reduce unwanted good safety attitude from the airline..
things and have an impact on the safety of the entire
cabin crew and passengers.

IJISRT23JAN1048 www.ijisrt.com 726

Volume 8, Issue 1, January – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
 The safety climate moderates the relationship of IX. IMPLICATION
proactive personality to safety behaviors
Based on the results of hypothesis testing, the safety Based on the conclusions of the research results and
climate moderates the relationship of proactive the recommendations outlined above, the implication is a
personality to safety behavior negatively and maximum proactive personality, and also a safety attitude
significantly. That is, the presence of a safety climate is must synergize with safety behavior so as to reduce
able to weaken the relationship of proactive personality unwanted things and have an impact on the safety of all
with safety behaviors that initially have a positive cabin crew and passengers. In addition, airline companies
relationship. In other words, a safety climate must be must be able to create a safety climate so that companies are
created in each airline and must be implemented able to get rewards in the form of a better level of public
separately from the relationship of proactive personality trust. The roles of all layers of cabin crew are also needed so
to safety behavior because statistically if the climate that the operations of the airline company can run in
moderates, it weakens the relationship of proactive accordance with the company's goal of being a leading
personality to safety behavior. company and upholding safety values

VII. CONCLUSION REFERENCES

Based on the results of the study and the analysis as a whole, [1.] Aase, K., Skjerve, A.B., Rosness, R. (2005). Why
the following conclusions can be drawn: good luck has a reason: mindful practices in offshore
 Proactive personality has a positive and significant effect oil and gas drilling. In: Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D.
on cabin crew safety behavior. (Eds.), The Passion for Learning and Knowing.
 Safety attitudes have a positive and significant effect on Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on
cabin crew safety behavior. Organizational Learning and Knowledge. University
 Proactive personality has a positive and significant effect of Trento, Trento.
on the safety attitude of cabin crew. [2.] Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, Personality and
 Safety attitudes are able to mediate the relationship of Behaviour. Milton Keynes: Open University.
[3.] Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive
proactive personality with the safety behavior of cabin
component of organizational behavior: A measure
crew.
and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
 The safety climate negatively moderates between the
14(2), 103-118.
relationship of proactive personality to safety behavior.
[4.] Burke, M. J., Borucki, C. C., & Hurley, A. E. (1992).
VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS Reconceptualizing psychological climate in a retail
service environment: A multiple-stakeholder
Based on the conclusions that have been described above, perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5),
the recommendations that can be given are as follows: 717-729.
 To improve and maintain the safety climate during the [5.] Chan, D. (2006). Interactive effects of situational
flight, airline management needs to increase the judgment effectiveness and proactive personality on
commitment of management, safety communication, work perceptions and work outcomes. Journal of
safety training, maintenance, equipment to the cabin crew Applied Psychology, 91(2), 475.
so that the airline does not suffer losses or margin [6.] Chang, C. P., & Ju-Mei, C. H. I. U. (2009). Flight
reductions resulting from the weakening of the cabin attendants’ emotional labor and exhaustion in the
crew's proactive personality and cabin crew safety Taiwanese airline industry. Journal of Service
behavior. Science and Management, 2(04), 305-311.
 The need for a review of the relationship between age, [7.] Chen, C. F., & Chen, S. C. (2014). Investigating the
gender and length of service and the behavior of cabin effects of job demands and job resources on cabin
crew to what safety performance is lacking even makes crew safety behaviors. Tourism Management, 41, 45-
the proactive personality and safety behavior of cabin 52.
crew that has been implemented by airlines in Indonesia. [8.] Chen, C. F., & Kao, Y. L. (2011). The antecedents
Therefore, airlines need to optimize the safety climate and consequences of job stress of flight attendants–
such as management's commitment to the importance of a Evidence from Taiwan. Journal of Air Transport
safety management system, as well as periodically Management, 17(4), 253-255.
evaluate the implementation of cabin crew's proactive [9.] Chen, C. F., & Kao, Y. L. (2014). Investigating the
personality, safety attitudes and cabin crew behavior so moderating effects of service climate on personality,
that airlines can work optimally and as expected. motivation, social support, and performance among
 To other researchers who will conduct research on flight attendants. Tourism Management, 44(2), 58-66.
proactive personality, safety attitudes, safety climate and [10.] Cooper, M.D. (2000). Towards a model of safety
safety behaviors, it is advisable to examine other variables culture. Safety Science, 36(2), 111-136.
that also have a significant influence. So it is hoped that [11.] Cox, S., & Cox, T. (1991). The structure of employee
these researches can be useful in providing input and attitudes to safety: A European example. Work &
recommendations to companies and the academic world. Stress, 5(2), 93-106.
[12.] Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in
organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435-

IJISRT23JAN1048 www.ijisrt.com 727

Volume 8, Issue 1, January – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
462. Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416.
[13.] Eid, J., Mearns, K., Larsson, G., Laberg, J. C., & [29.] Setiawan, Mohammada Agus and Tri Siwi Agustina,
Johnsen, B. H. (2012). Leadership, psychological 2015. The Effect of Safety Climate on Work
capital and safety research: Conceptual issues and Accidents with Safety Behavior as an Intervening
future research questions. Safety Science, 50(1), 55- Variable in PT. PANCA WANA INDONESIA, S1
61. Management Study Program, Faculty
[14.] Ford, J., Henderson, R., & O'Hare, D. (2014). The [30.] Economics and Business Universitas Airlangga, 124.
effects of Crew Resource Management (CRM) [31.] Skjerve, A. B. (2008). The use of mindful safety
training on flight attendants’ safety attitudes. Journal practices at Norwegian petroleum installations. Safety
of Safety Research, 48, 49-56. Science, 46(6), 1002-1015.
[15.] Gabbott, M., Tsarenko, Y., & Mok, W. H. (2011). [32.] Suryani, I. (2020). The Influence of Proactive
Emotional intelligence as a moderator of coping Personality on Performance Mediated by Work
strategies and service outcomes in circumstances of Involvement in Teachers at SMA 10 Fajar Harapan
service failure. Journal of Service Research, 14(2), Banda Aceh. 5(1), 152–166.
234-248. [33.] Syaaf, Ridwan. 2007. Occupational Health And
[16.] Guldenmund. (2010). Understanding and Exploring Safety Behaviour. Jakarta: Universitas Indonesia.
Safety Culture. Uitgeverji BoxPress, Delfi. [34.] Ulleberg, P., & Rundmo, T. (2003). Personality,
[17.] Henning, J. B., Stufft, C. J., Payne, S. C., Bergman, attitudes and risk perception as predictors of risky
M. E., Mannan, M. S., & Keren, N. (2009). The driving behaviour among young drivers. Safety
influence of individual differences on organizational Science, 41(5), 427-443.
safety attitudes. Safety Science, 47(3), 337-345. [35.] Wardani, Dwi, Kusuma. 2013. Effect of Occupational
[18.] Ji, M., You, X., Lan, J., & Yang, S. (2011). The Safety Knowledge Attitude and Occupational Safety
impact of risk tolerance, risk perception and Climate on Safety Behavior in Employees of
hazardous attitude on safety operation among airline Kroduksi PT. Semen Indonesia (Persero) tbk. Faculty
pilots in China. Safety Science, 49(10), 1412-1420. of Psychology Education. State University of Malang
[19.] Ji, M., Yang, C., Li, Y., Xu, Q., & He, R. (2018a). [36.] Winarsunu, Sincere. (2008). Occupational Safety
The influence of trait mindfulness on incident Psychology. Yogyakarta : UMM Press
involvement among Chinese airline pilots: the role of [37.] Zin, Sulastre Mat; Ismail, Faridah;. (2012).
risk perception and flight experience. Journal of Employers' Behavioral Safety Compliance Factors
Safety Research, 66, 161-168. toward Occupational, Safety and Heaslth
[20.] Jupp, V. (2006). The SAGE Dictionary of Social Improvement in the Construction Industry. Procedia -
Research Methods. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 742 - 751.
[21.] Kao, L. H., Stewart, M., & Lee, K. H. (2009). Using [38.] Zohar, D., 2003. Safety climate: conceptual and
structural equation modeling to predict cabin safety measurement issues. In: Tetrick, J.C.Q.L.E. (Ed.),
outcomes among Taiwanese airlines. Transportation Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology.
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation American Psychological Association, Washington,
Review, 45(2), 357-365. DC, pp. 123-134.
[22.] Muhammad Diar Mahardika, A. K. (2020). The
influence of proactive personality on career success
through career adaptability. 22(2), 185–195.
[23.] Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A.
(2011). Safety at work: a meta-analytic investigation
of the link between job demands, job resources,
burnout, engagement, and safety outcomes. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 71-94.
[24.] Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). A study of the
lagged relationships among safety climate, safety
motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the
individual and group levels. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(4), 946.
[25.] Rank, J., Carsten, J. M., Unger, J. M., & Spector, P.
E. (2007). Proactive customer service performance:
Relationships with individual, task, and leadership
variables. Human Performance, 20(4), 363-390.
[26.] Robbins, Stephen P. and Judge, Timothy A. 2013.
Organizational Behavior. Pearson.
[27.] Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). Historical origins of the
health belief model. Health Education Monographs,
2(4), 328-335.
[28.] Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999).
Proactive personality and career success. Journal of

IJISRT23JAN1048 www.ijisrt.com 728