Purpose Risk-taking behaviour is a prevalent unsafe act in construction crews and may spread through onsite interactions, undermining safety performance. This study develops a modified susceptible–infectious–recovered–susceptible (SIRS) model to simulate the occurrence, propagation, mitigation, and recurrence of risk-taking behaviour at the crew level. Design/methodology/approach Behaviour-specific influencing factors are linked to analyse risk-taking transmission. Influencing factors were elicited using grounded theory and operationalized as indicators associated with five transition rates (transmission, recovery, awakening, forgetting, and control). A survey was used to calibrate model parameters via entropy-weighted aggregation. The model was implemented and examined in a real project case with a relatively stable crew, and controlled-variable simulations were conducted to assess parameter effects and structural sensitivity. Findings Risk-taking propagation exhibits rapid early diffusion followed by mitigation and convergence, with recurrence possible under relapse. Transmission (β), awakening (γ), and forgetting (δ) dominate the propagation tendency: higher β accelerates diffusion and increases peak prevalence, higher γ provides the strongest suppression and speeds convergence to a low-risk regime, and higher δ sustains long-run risk through relapse. Recovery (α) and control (κ) show incremental effects. Interaction intensity also amplifies propagation risk, whereas sparse connectivity bounds the peak by the initial infected proportion. Originality/value This study extends construction safety research by modelling risk-taking behaviour as a dynamic and recurrent propagation process. The framework links field-derived behavioural indicators with SIRS transition rates, providing quantitative evidence for prioritizing prevention to reduce recurrence on construction sites.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: