Sunding, L and Ekholm, A (2015) Applying social sciences to inspire behavioural change in the construction sector: An experimental study. Construction Management and Economics, 33(9), pp. 695-710. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
In several reports, the construction industry has been criticized for inefficiencies, errors and increasing costs. Although the industry’s critics and researchers implicitly call for a change in human behaviour, this is seldom explicitly problematized by any of them. It is rather seen as a natural consequence of the suggested measures for improvements. Researchers have begun to question if the influence of human psychology has not been underestimated in the present approach. After a review of different psychological theories an action research investigation of how psychological factors might contribute to the recurring problems in the construction sector and to the difficulties of changing it is carried out. An intervention method has been developed to counteract the tendency of various psychological functions that can distort information. It was found that the problems professionals are experiencing dramatically differ from those expressed in some critical reports. During the process, the professionals discovered their own role in the problem scenario. This shows a way to pay more attention to human/psychological issues in action design within the construction context, and what can happen when this is done.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | action research; human behaviour; information distortion; psychology |
| Index terms: | psychology, construction sector, experiment, human behaviour, action research, information distortion, construction industry, investigation, social science, behavioural change |
| Subjects: | health behaviours and lifestyles, data collection methods, theoretical framing, industry analysis, information science, behavioral psychology |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 CTEA |
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