Psychosocial hazards in residential and commercial construction: a mixed-methods comparison of demands, resources and distress
Nicholas Thompson, Ashlea Kellner, Adam Robertson, Amanda Biggs, Jemima Mason, Keith Townsend, Rebecca LoudounPurpose
This study compares psychosocial hazards across residential and commercial construction settings and examines whether sector context conditions the relationship between job demands and psychological distress.
Design/methodology/approach
A sequential mixed-methods design was used, integrating survey data from 1,450 construction workers with interviews from 30 workers across residential and commercial sites. Quantitative analyses examined sector differences in psychosocial demands and resources using MANOVA, and moderation analysis tested whether sector type altered the association between psychosocial demands and distress. Qualitative data were thematically analysed to interpret sector differences.
Findings
Sector differences were modest; only three psychosocial hazards differed significantly. Supervisor relationship conflict showed a sector-specific association with psychological distress, significant for commercial workers only. Qualitative findings indicate residential workers experienced conflict as brief/relational, whereas commercial workers described continuous, workflow-embedded supervision. Time pressure and external stressors related to finances and family were consistent across sectors. Overall, organisational structures shape how psychosocial hazards are experienced and how conflict translates into distress.
Research limitations/implications
Findings are based on an imbalanced sample, with a smaller residential cohort, and cross-sectional data, limiting generalisability and causal inference.
Practical implications
Psychosocial risk management should be tailored to sector context, focussed on supervisory practices and how conflict is structured/ experienced across environments.
Originality/value
This study provides one of the first direct quantitative comparisons of sector-specific psychosocial conditions in construction, offering mixed-methods evidence that demand–strain relationships may be context-dependent, particularly regarding supervisory dynamics.