Impact of challenge and hindrance job stressors on informal safety communication of construction workers in China: The moderating role of co-worker relationship

Cong, W; Zhang, S; Liang, H and Xiang, Q (2024) Impact of challenge and hindrance job stressors on informal safety communication of construction workers in China: The moderating role of co-worker relationship. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 31(5), pp. 2011-2033. ISSN 0969-9988

Abstract

Purpose: Job stressors have a considerable influence on workplace safety behaviors. However, the findings from previous studies regarding the effect of different types of job stressors have been contradictory. This is attributable to, among other factors, the effectiveness of job stressors varying with occupations and contexts. This study examines the effects of challenge and hindrance stressors on construction workers' informal safety communication at different levels of coworker relationships. Design/methodology/approach: A three-dimensional framework of informal safety communication is adopted, including self-needed, citizenship and participatory safety communication. Stepwise regression analysis is then performed using questionnaire survey data collected from 293 construction workers in the Chinese construction industry. Findings: The results demonstrate that both challenge and hindrance stressors are negatively associated with self-needed and citizenship safety communication, whereas their relationships with participatory safety communication are not significant. Meanwhile, the mitigation effects of the coworker relationship (represented by trustworthiness and accessibility) on the above negative impacts vary with the communication forms. Higher trustworthiness and accessibility enable workers faced with challenge stressors to actively manage these challenges and engage in self-needed safety communication. Similarly, trustworthiness promotes workers' involvement in self-needed and citizenship safety communication in the face of hindrance stressors, but accessibility is only effective in facilitating self-needed safety communication. Originality/value: By introducing the job demands-resources theory and distinguishing informal safety communication into three categories, this study explains the negative effects of challenge and hindrance job stressors in complex and variable construction contexts and provides additional clues to the current inconsistent findings regarding this framework. The diverse roles of challenge and hindrance job stressors also present strong evidence for the need to differentiate between the types of informal safe communication.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: accessibility; challenge-hindrance stressors; informal safety communication; regression; trustworthiness
Index terms: effectiveness, regression analysis, job demand, construction worker, construction industry, accessibility, questionnaire, evidence, mitigation, methodology, China, stressors, workplace safety, survey, face, occupation
Subjects: evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, practitioner, psychology, research methods, inclusive design, performance management, management, financial risk, Geography, health conditions and diseases, sociology, statistical analysis, occupational health, industry analysis
Topics: Roles and Professions, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Cost Management, Organizational Design, Human Resources, Quality Management, Design Practice
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here