IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/mgtdec/v47y2026i1p183-201.html

Tripartite Evolutionary Game Analysis of Near‐Miss Reporting Management Based on PT‐MA Theory: Insights From Coal Mines

Author

Listed:
  • Shuicheng Tian
  • Shiqiang Ning
  • Fangyuan Tian
  • Lei Chen
  • Zilong Pan
  • Hongxia Li

Abstract

Effective near‐miss reporting is important for achieving high reliability in safety management. To enhance the effectiveness of near‐miss reporting, this paper examines the dynamic evolution of stakeholders' decision‐making behaviors using coal mines as a case study. A tripartite evolutionary game model is developed, involving enterprises, management, and employees, based on prospect theory and mental accounting theory (PT‐MA theory). Stability analysis and simulations under varying parameters yield the following insights: (i) A higher initial probability of active decision‐making promotes positive strategy evolution, with sensitivity ranked as enterprise > management > employee. (ii) Near‐miss reporting is mainly driven by cost considerations, with stakeholders' sensitivity to cost changes ranked as employee > management > enterprise. Lowering the perceived cost of active strategies and raising that of passive strategies encourages active decisions. (iii) A combined reward–punishment strategy is more effective than either alone in motivating employees and management. (iv) The psychological stress experienced by management when the enterprise adopts passive strategies is greater than that employees feel in response to management's passive strategies. Reducing such stress facilitates active strategy evolution. (v) Modifying reference points for perceived benefits and costs, reducing risk preference, and increasing sensitivity to loss aversion can facilitate active strategy evolution. This research offers practical implications for improving near‐miss reporting management in the coal mine industry, including optimizing incentive mechanisms, implementing role‐specific psychological interventions, and adjusting cost–benefit perceptions. These insights may also be applicable to other high‐risk industries facing similar challenges, contributing to more effective and sustainable safety management practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Shuicheng Tian & Shiqiang Ning & Fangyuan Tian & Lei Chen & Zilong Pan & Hongxia Li, 2026. "Tripartite Evolutionary Game Analysis of Near‐Miss Reporting Management Based on PT‐MA Theory: Insights From Coal Mines," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 47(1), pages 183-201, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:mgtdec:v:47:y:2026:i:1:p:183-201
    DOI: 10.1002/mde.70032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.70032
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/mde.70032?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James R. Phimister & Ulku Oktem & Paul R. Kleindorfer & Howard Kunreuther, 2003. "Near‐Miss Incident Management in the Chemical Process Industry," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(3), pages 445-459, June.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Xinhua Wang & Rongwu Lu & Hao Yu & Dan Li, 2019. "Stability of the Evolutionary Game System and Control Strategies of Behavior Instability in Coal Mine Safety Management," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-14, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Seow Eng Ong & Davin Wang & Calvin Chua, 2023. "Disruptive Innovation and Real Estate Agency: The Disruptee Strikes Back," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 287-317, August.
    2. Christiane Goodfellow & Dirk Schiereck & Steffen Wippler, 2013. "Are behavioural finance equity funds a superior investment? A note on fund performance and market efficiency," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 14(2), pages 111-119, April.
    3. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Shuang Yao & Donghua Yu & Yan Song & Hao Yao & Yuzhen Hu & Benhai Guo, 2018. "Dry Bulk Carrier Investment Selection through a Dual Group Decision Fusing Mechanism in the Green Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, November.
    5. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    6. Pieter Nel & Renee van Eyden, 2026. "From News to Noise: Does Media Sentiment Drive Stock Market Volatility?," Working Papers 202605, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    7. Christoph Engel & Michael Kurschilgen, 2011. "Fairness Ex Ante and Ex Post: Experimentally Testing Ex Post Judicial Intervention into Blockbuster Deals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 682-708, December.
    8. Christina Leuker & Thorsten Pachur & Ralph Hertwig & Timothy J. Pleskac, 2019. "Do people exploit risk–reward structures to simplify information processing in risky choice?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 76-94, August.
    9. Singal, Vijay & Xu, Zhaojin, 2011. "Selling winners, holding losers: Effect on fund flows and survival of disposition-prone mutual funds," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 2704-2718, October.
    10. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    11. Alex Cukierman & Anton Muscatelli, 2001. "Do Central Banks have Precautionary Demands for Expansions and for Price Stability?," Working Papers 2002_4, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow, revised Mar 2002.
    12. Dash, Saumya Ranjan & Maitra, Debasish, 2018. "Does sentiment matter for stock returns? Evidence from Indian stock market using wavelet approach," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 32-39.
    13. José F. Tudón M., 2019. "Perception, utility, and evolution," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(2), pages 191-208, December.
    14. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    15. Lepone, Grace & Tian, Gary, 2020. "Usage of conditional orders and the disposition effect in the stock market," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    16. Shunda, Nicholas, 2009. "Auctions with a buy price: The case of reference-dependent preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 645-664, November.
    17. Castilla, Carolina & Haab, Timothy C., 2010. "Asymmetric Search and Loss Aversion: Choice Experiment on Consumer Willingness to Search in the Gasoline Retail Market," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61672, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Javed, Arslan & Onculer, Ayse, 2026. "Self-other discrepancy: the role of decision transparency in risky choices," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    19. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2007-059 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Freeman, Steven F., 1997. "Good decisions : reconciling human rationality, evolution, and ethics," Working papers WP 3962-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    21. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:mgtdec:v:47:y:2026:i:1:p:183-201. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/7976 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.