Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2003) 213–222

www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

Noise, psychosocial stress and their interaction in the workplace

Phil Leather*, Diane Beale, Lucy Sullivan
Institute of Work, Health and Organizations, University of Nottingham, Business School, Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK
Received 6 September 2002; accepted 16 September 2002

Abstract

Occupational noise exposure has been linked with a range of negative health effects, with recent research emphasizing the need to
understand the full context of sound events in explaining these relationships. An emerging theme within environmental psychology
argues that physical features of the environment might work both directly on outcomes and interactively with either psychosocial
work elements. In the present study, the interaction of noise with psychosocial job stress was explored for 128 office workers
employed by a government agency in a city in the Midlands region of the UK. The results showed no direct effect of ambient noise
levels upon job satisfaction, well-being or organizational commitment. However, lower levels of ambient noise were found to buffer
the negative impact of psychosocial job stress upon these same three outcomes. Psychosocial job stress is, therefore, seen as a
valuable heuristic in operationazing the context of sound events at work.
r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction two sources: telephones ringing and piped-in back-

Exposure to occupational noise, that is, unwanted
sound, has been linked with variety of adverse effects
upon well-being over and above its obvious relationship
with hearing loss (Kryter, 1970, 1994). In industrial
settings, for example, noise exposure has been found to
be associated with a range of indicators of physical
health, including cardiac problems (Jansen, 1961;
Cuesdan et al., 1977); sickness-related absenteeism
(Cohen,1973); and self-reported fatigue (Carlestam,
Karlslon, & Levi, 1973). Similarly, McDonald (1989)
reported a dose-response relationship among blue collar
workers between occupational noise exposure and
symptoms of psychological distress. That noise has a
negative impact upon job satisfaction is well documen-
ted (Langdon, 1966; Nemecek & Grandjean, 1973;
Boyce, 1974). Office workers, in particular, consistently
report ‘‘the ability to concentrate without noise and
other distractions’’ to be one of the most important
aspects of the work environment (Louis Harris &
Associates, 1978, 1980). In a survey of office renova-
tions, Sundstrom, Town, Rice, Osborn, and Brill (1994)
found declining job satisfaction amongst those office
workers who experienced an increase in noise from
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-115-84-66638.
E-mail address: phil.leather@nottingham.ac.uk (P. Leather).
ground music. In this same study, environmental
satisfaction, but not overall job satisfaction, was also
found to be inversely related to the amount of noise
deriving from people talking on the telephone and from
typewriters.
Importantly, many studies have also demonstrated
that these various negative effects of exposure to
occupational noise are often contingent upon either
the characteristics of the task at hand, or features of the
broader work context. Nurminen and Kurppa (1989),
for example, reported that pregnancy complications in
women working under very noisy conditions were
exacerbated when they were also subjected to the
additional demands of shiftwork. Indeed, the interactive
effect of occupational noise exposure and shiftwork
upon various health indices is a consistently reported
theme in the literature (see, for example, Cesana et al.,
1982; Ottman, Rutenfranz, Neidhart, & Boucsein,
(1987).
Carter and Beh (1989) and Mosskov and Ettema
(1977) both report that the usual rapid habituation in
elevated cardiovascular responses to acute noise ex-
posure is blocked when people are simultaneously
performing demanding cognitive tasks. A similar inter-
active effect of noise and task demands was reported by
Welch (1979) who found, in a study of Russian
manufacturing plant, elevated cardiovascular functioning

0272-4944/03/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 7 2 - 4 9 4 4 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 8 2 - 8
214 P. Leather et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2003) 213–222
only amongst those workers exposed to both louder
noise and higher levels of workload demands. Likewise,
Cottington, Matthews, Talbott and Kuller (1983)
reported a significant interaction between noise and
job stress on diastolic blood pressure levels in a further
sample of manufacturing workers. Lercher, Hortnagl,
and Kofler (1993) found that a small positive association
between noise exposure and diastolic blood pressure was
amplified among those workers who also reported low
levels of social support on the job.
As with its effects upon health outcomes, so the
influence of occupational noise exposure upon perfor-
mance has been found to be contingent upon a number
of factors, including the nature of the noise and the type
of task involved. Essentially, two summary conclusions
can be drawn from the many laboratory investigations
of the negative effects of noise upon performance. First,
that the effects of unpredictable noise are more severe
than are those of predictable noise. Second, that any
negative effect of noise increases with task complexity.
Thus, it is the interaction of unpredictable noise and
high task complexity which has been found to result in
increased errors in calculation, tracking and monitoring
tasks, slower learning of new material and poorer recall
and memorization (Sundstrom, 1986).
The overall conclusion to be drawn from the research
investigating the effects of occupational noise upon both
well-being and performance is that the full context of the
situation needs to be taken into account when trying to
understand those effects. Further evidence for this
conclusion comes from the fact that technical noise
measures explain only part of the inter-individual
variance reported in noise annoyance (Kjellberg, Land-
strom, Tesarz, Soderberg, & Akerlund, 1996). As
Kjellberg et al. (1996) point out; nonphysical noise
characteristics and other situational and individual
characteristics are also of great importance in determin-
ing subjective responses to noise. There is, they argue, a
fundamental need to understand the full context of
sound events when researching the possible effects of
noise. The potential for noise to interact with task
constraints and other situational variables represents a
major feature of this context.
Evans and Lepore (1992) and Evans, Johansson, and
Carrere (1994) offer a conceptual and methodological
framework that provides a valuable way of investigating
the context of sound events in the workplace. Any
feature of the physical environment, they argue, might
work both directly on outcomes and/or interactively
with either (a) psychosocial work elements or (b) other
physical elements. It is with the first of these possible
interactions that the present paper is concerned.
Specifically, the idea to be explored here is that the
effect of noise upon work outcomes might be either
direct or indirect in nature. In suggesting a possible
indirect influencing mechanism, an interaction is being
hypothesized between noise and a particular psychoso-
cial factor, i.e. job stress.
Stress is operationalized in terms of Karasek’s model
of job strain (karasek, 1979; Karasek & Theorell, 1990),
wherein strain results from the interaction of high job
demands and low decision latitude. If noise does interact
with job stress, then any negative impact should be
greatest under conditions of both high stress and higher
noise levels. Put another way, lower levels of noise might
serve to buffer any negative effect of job strain More-
over, this pattern of results should hold across a range of
negative outcomes commonly associated with occupa-
tional stress, such as reduced job satisfaction, impaired
health and well-being, and increased psychological
withdrawal (Cox, 1978, 1985; Cooper, 1985; Beehr,
1995).
As reviewed above, there are several lines of evidence
in the research literature that implicitly or explicitly
support this noise  job stress interaction hypothesis.
Laboratory studies, for example, have shown significant,
increases in cardiovascular and neuroendocrine func-
tioning to occur when individuals are exposed to noise
during demanding mental tasks (Tafalla, Evan, &
Cohen, 1988). Shift workers are similarly at greater risk
of health complaints when working in noisy occupa-
tional settings as compared to relatively quiet ambient
conditions (Manninen, 1990). Matthews, Cottington,
Talbott, Kuller, and Siegel (1987) found a parallel
interaction between noise and job satisfaction, such that
noise heightened job dissatisfaction only amongst those
workers who were also unhappy with their jobs.
Leather, Pyrgas, Beale, and Lawrence (1998) explored
as similar interaction between windows in the workplace
and job stress as that now being investigated between
noise and job stress. Postulating multiple influencing
mechanisms by which windows might impact upon work
outcomes, they found that sunlight penetration had a
direct effect on job satisfaction, intention to quit and
general well-being. Access to a view of nature, on the
other hand, was found to buffer the negative impact of
job stress on intention to quit and to have a similar,
marginal, effect on general well-being.
In light of the growing recognition of the importance
of possible interactions between physical and psychoso-
cial work elements, two specific hypotheses are tested in
this paper with respect to the impact of occupational
noise exposure:
Hypothesis 1. Higher noise levels will be associated with
lower job satisfaction, lower organizational commit-
ment and poorer well-being (main effects).
Hypothesis 2. Noise exposure and job stress will interact
such that lower levels of noise will buffer any negative
effect of job strain, organizational commitment and
well-being (moderator effect).
 P. Leather et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2003) 213–222
It should also be recognized that a direct effect of job
strain upon job satisfaction, organizational commitment
and well-being is tested in this moderator model (Baron
& Kenny, 1986; Evans & Lepore, 1992; Evans et al.,
1994). However, since the focus of this paper is upon the
impact of noise with job strain being used as a means of
operationalizing the importance of context, such direct
effects will only be commented upon in passing.
2. Method
2.1. Location and subjects
The study was carried out within the offices of a local
government finance department situated in a city center
location in the Midlands area of the UK. The employees
sampled worked in two separated buildings located on
either side of a narrow street. Both buildings were air-
conditioned and had windows that gave access entirely
to similar urban views.
All employees working in the two buildings were
given a questionnaire. A total of 143 questionnaires
were distributed and 128 were returned, giving a
response rate 90%. Subjects varied in age from 21 to
76 years, with a mean age of 35 years. Forty-four
percent of the respondents were male and 56% were
female. The majority of the subjects (88%) were
employed in clerical work while the remainder (12%)
were employed in a variety of leadership or supervisory
roles. The mean length of service with organization was
7 years 8 months, with a mean tenure in the current job
of 4 years. No significant differences were found
between employees working in the two buildings with
respect to the kind of work done (operationalized as
frequencies of job categories) (w2=1.14, n.s.), tenure
within the current department (t=1.48, df=122, n.s.),
gender composition (w2=1.14, n.s.), or age composition
(t=1.56, df=125, n.s.). The employees sampled in each
building could, therefore, be taken as equivalent in
terms of their demographic characteristics.
2.2. Procedure
A series of semi-structured interview was initially
conducted with a representative sample of employees in
each building, in order to reveal any particular issues of
concern regarding the physical environment of their
workplace. A draft questionnaire was then designed and
piloted amongst a small number of office employees,
primarily with a view to establishing its face validity.
Following several familiarization visits to each building,
during which one of the investigators spent a short
amount of time explaining the purpose of the study to
each employee, the final questionnaire was distributed
by hand to all 143 employees. They were asked to
215
complete the questionnaire within office hours and to
post it, in the envelope provided, into sealed cardboard
post-boxes located in each building.
Physical noise measurements were taken at each
employee’s workstation. To help ensure confidentiality,
each subject was given a unique code number, known
only to the research team. This number was entered on
each questionnaire and was used to match questionnaire
responses to noise measurements. Seating plans were
drawn for all work stations within the two buildings.
Each workstation was then allocated two numbers, one
for the desk number and the other for the coded
identification number for the person sitting there. This
allowed identification and compilation of the various
objective and subjective measures on a subject by subject
basis.
The front cover of the questionnaire provided details
as to how it should be returned, descriptive information
about the aims and purposes of the study, and an
assurance of confidentiality. When the questionnaires
were collected, subjects were debriefed at length about
the exact hypotheses being tested in the study and what
would happen to the data collected.
2.3. Questionnaire
In full, the questionnaire comprised eight sections that
measured various features of the physical work envir-
onment, job design characteristics, attitudes to work and
the workplace, and self-reported health and well-being.
Each section comprised either an established, or
adapted, scale, or a bespoke series of questions tailored
to the needs of the overall investigation. The present
paper is concerned only with a specific subset of the
derived variables, namely those measures relating to the
impact of job strain and noise upon job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and self-reported health
and well-being.
2.4. Measures
Subjective noise: Employees were asked to give a
subjective rating of how noisy they considered their
work environment to be, indicating this response on a 7-
point Likert scale where 1=‘‘not at all noisy’’ and
7=‘‘extremely noisy’’. Five pre-determined sources of
noise were each rated in terms of the frequency with
which they disturbed work concentration. These five
sources were: air conditioning, telephones, office ma-
chines, people talking and noise from the street. In each
case, a 7-point rating scale was used, where 1=‘‘never
disturbs’’ and 7=‘‘continuously disturbs’’.
Objective noise: General levels of sound were mea-
sured objectively using a portable Bruel . and Kjaer
sound level meter (type 2205). Ambient noise readings
were taken at each workstation on four separate
216 P. Leather et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2003) 213–222
occasions during the 2 week data gathering period.
On each occasion, readings were taken over a 20
interval. For each 20 interval, the highest and lowest
reading were noted and the average calculated. Readings
were taken in the morning (between 10.00 and 12.00)
and in the afternoon (between 14.15 and 16.15) on two
separate days of similar weather conditions (cold and
overcast). On the second day, the order of taking the
readings was reversed. An overall average noise level per
workstation was computed from the four readings
taken.
Job strain: Job strain was measured using Krasek’s
(1979) scales of job demand and decision latitude, which
utilize a 5-point response format. The 6-item scale of job
demand (range: 6–30) focused on time pressure and
workload, whereas the 7-item scale of job decision
latitude (range: 7–35) comprised both control and
decision making at work. For each scale, a higher score
denoted a greater amount of that characteristic.
Following Karasek (1979) and Leather et al. (1998),
job strain was calculated as ‘‘relative excess’’ interaction
between mean job demand and mean decision latitude.
This basic formula, that is mean demand minus mean
decision latitude, was then mathematically transformed
to remove negative values (by squaring) and preserve
scale range (by taking the square root). The precise
formula used to calculate job strain was therefore Job
strain=? (demand mean item score—decision latitude
mean item score)2. In this way, job stress is represented
as any imbalance between demands and decision
latitude, that is as either overload or underload (Cox,
1978).
Job satisfaction: Job satisfaction was assessed using
Warr, Cook, and Wall (1979) 15-item scale, each item of
which measures a different element of intrinsic or
extrinsic satisfaction. Each item uses a 7-point response
format (range: 15–105) with higher scores denoting
greater job satisfaction.
Health and well-being: Subjects’ self-reported health
and general well-being were measured using Ferguson’s
(Ferguson, 1992; Ferguson & Cox, 1994) symptoms
of infection diseases (SID) scale. This measure lists 17
common symptoms of sub-optimum health, with
respondents being asked to rate the frequency
with which they have experienced each symptom
‘‘over the last six months’’. Ratings are given on a
6-point scale where 0=‘‘never’’ and 5=‘‘every day’’.
Example items include: ‘‘Felt feverish’’, ‘‘Had aches and
pains in my muscles and joints’’, ‘‘Had a sore throat’’,
‘‘Felt chilled and shivery’’ and ‘‘Had a reduced
appetite’’.
Organizational commitment: Organizational commit-
ment was measured using Cook and Wall’s (1980)
9-item scale. This measure taps the three core elements
of organizational commitment: identification, involve-
ment and loyalty. Each item is made up of a statement
expressing positive or negative commitment, to which
respondents are asked to rate their agreement on a
7-point scale where 1=‘‘strongly disagree’’ and
7=‘‘strongly agree’’. Negative items are reverse scored
such that high scores indicate high commitment (range
9–63).
3. Results
3.1. Reliability analyses
As Table 1 shows, all the measures displayed
satisfactory reliability, having Cronbach’s alpha relia-
bility coefficients in excess of the minimum recom-
mended value of 0.7 (Nunally, 1978), with the exception
of Karasek’s decision latitude scale. The decision
latitude scale was, therefore, subjected to exploratory
factor analysis, the results of which are detailed in Table
2. The 5-item single factor solution that resulted was
used in the subsequent calculation of job strain, in
preference to the original 7-item scale. With a coefficient
alpha of 0.72, this reduced length scale displayed
adequate reliability.
3.2. Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics for the study sample as a whole
are provided in Table 3 (objective sound levels and
subjective noise ratings) and Table 4 (psychometric
scales).
From Table 3, it can be seen that a range of objective
noise levels were experienced by employees in the two
buildings, although all levels fell well below the UK and
US legal limits of 90 decibels (Bell, Fisher, Baum, and
Greene, 1990; Occupational Safety & Health Adminis-
tration, 1994; Health & Safety Executive, 1999). Inter-
estingly, subjective appraisals of these ambient noise
levels varied widely, from ‘‘not at all noisy’’ to
‘‘extremely noisy’’. However, the overall mean rating
of 4.48 was broadly in accord with the mean objective
sound level of 55.08 DB, which is neither quiet nor
unduly noisy.
From Table 4, it can be seen that, whereas the mean
level of decision latitude was close to the scale midpoint,
the average level of job demand was almost six scale
points above the midpoint. Transformed to a mean item
score, the ratio of job demand to decision latitude was
3.94:3.11 (i.e. 1.27:1), from which it can plausibly be
concluded that low to moderate levels of job strain
prevailed. Notwithstanding this likelihood, mean levels
of job satisfaction and organizational commitment were
both within three scale points of their respective
midpoints. Noticeably, however, the frequency with
which common ill-health symptoms were reported was
considerably above the scale mean.
 P. Leather et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2003) 213–222 217

Table 1 3.3. Sources and levels of noise

Scale reliabilities for job strain and outcome variables

Variable Coefficient a In order to identify the relative weighting of the

possible contributors to ambient noise levels, a multiple
Job strain variables
linear regression was performed with objective noise
Job demand 0.84
Decision latitude 0.39 levels as the dependent variable and the ratings of noise
Outcome variables disturbance from air conditioning, telephones, office
Job satisfaction 0.81 machines, people talking and street noise as the
Organizational commitment 0.79 predictors. Table 5 shows that, taken together, the
Symptoms of infectious diseases 0.78
predictors accounted for nearly 46% of the variance in
ambient noise level. However, only air conditioning
made a significant independent prediction (b=0.67,
t=9.42, po0.001), the size of the b weight indicating a
Table 2 moderate to strong relationship between ratings of the
Item-factor loadings and summary statistics for principal components noise disturbance it caused and objectively assessed
analysis of Karasek’s decision latitude scale (Varimax rotation with
Kaiser 1 rule of extraction)
ambient noise levels.
A second multiple linear regression analysis was
Item Factor loading performed utilizing the same predictors, but with the
Does your job require creativity? 0.804 single item rating of perceived office noise as the
Is a high level of skill required by your job? 0.741 dependent variable. Table 6 shows that, taken together,
Does your job involve nonrepetitive work?: 0.640 the predicators accounted for 38% of the variance in
Does your job require you to learn new things? 0.635
Do you have any say over what happens at work? 0.620
noise ratings. As with the prediction of objectively
measured ambient noise levels, the disturbance caused
Eigen value=2.39 by air conditioning made the greatest independent
Percentage of variance accounted for=47.87 contribution to noise ratings (b=0.52, t=6.88,
Note: Kaiser–Mayer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy=0.76; po0.001), although street noise now made an additional
Bartlett’s test of sphericity=116.714, N=128, po0.001; subject: significant contribution (b=0.18, t=2.41, po0.05).
variable ratio=18.29:1. Two Karasek items were discarded due to These various data demonstrate that the two build-
cross loading on initial factor solution (‘‘Do you have the freedom to ings housed similar employees (in terms of age, gender
work the way you want?’’ and ‘‘Does your job allow you to make a lot
of decisions?’’); final solution yielded a single factor so could not be
rotated.
Table 5
Multiple regression results using noise disturbance ratings as
predictors of objective ambient noise levels
Table 3 Predictors R R2 F b T
Minimum and maximum values, means and standard deviations for nnn
objectively and subjectively assessed ambient noise levels Air conditioning 0.68 0.46 19.95 0.67 9.42nnn
Telephones 0.09 1.21
Ambient noise levels Office machines 0.12 1.59
People talking 0.07 0.91
Variable Minimum Maximum Mean s.d. Street noise 0.01 0.11
Objective level of noise (dB) 45.75 62.50 55.08 4.36
n
Subjective noise rating 1 7 4.48 1.36 Po0.05.
nn
Po0.01.
nnn
Po0.001.

Table 6
Table 4 Multiple regression results using noise disturbance ratings as
Means, standard deviations and scale range for job strain and outcome predictors of subjective ambient noise ratings
variables
Predictors R R2 F b T
Variable Mean s.d. Scale range nnn
Air conditioning 0.61 0.38 14.27 0.52 6.88nnn
Job strain variables Telephones 0.01 0.06
Job demand 23.63 3.83 6–30 Office machines 0.07 0.86
Decision latitude 15.53 3.40 5–25 People talking 0.10 1.18
Outcome variables Street noise 0.18 2.41n
Job satisfaction 58.13 13.12 15–105 n
Po0.05.
Organizational commitment 39.08 9.5 9–63 nn
Po0.01.
Symptoms of infectious diseases 51.62 23.83 0–85 nnn
Po0.001.
218 P. Leather et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2003) 213–222
composition and tenure) doing similar work, under a
range of objectively measured and subjectively perceived
noise levels. However, ambient noise levels were
significantly higher in one building than in the other.
This effect was consistent for both objectively measured
noise levels (t= 24.23, df=126, po0.001) and the
subjective ratings of noise given by their inhabitants
(t= 4.86, df=126, po0.001). Despite this difference
between buildings in terms of mean noise levels, there
was significant overlap of individually experienced noise
levels across the two buildings. Accordingly, the
manipulation of noise in the following moderation
analyses was done via a median split for the aggregated
sample rather than according to building.
3.4. Moderation analyses
Following Baron and Kenny (1986), the possible main
(direct) and interaction (indirect) effects of job strain
and noise on job satisfaction, organizational commit-
ment, and self-reported health and well-being were
investigated by means of three two-way between groups
analyses of variance. The independent variables, job
strain and noise, were each converted into dichotomous
variables by means of a median split technique
(‘‘low’’=below the median, ‘‘high’’=above the median).
Only the objectively measured noise levels were used in
these analyses, in order to avoid any common method
variance bias that might have been introduced by the use
of subjectively rated noise levels. Within an ANOVA
model, a moderator or buffering effect is indicated by
the presence of a significant statistical interaction (Baron
& Kenny, 1986; Evans & Lepore, 1992; Evans et al.,
1994). Such an interaction indicates that the effect of
predictor variable (e.g. job strain) on an outcome
variable (e.g. job satisfaction) differ as a function of
the moderator variable (e.g. noise) (hypothesis 2).
Although greater statistical power might have been
achieved by maintaining the continuous nature of the
variables and subjecting them to hierarchichal regres-
sion analyses, a two-way between subjects ANOVA was
preferred in order to facilitate graphical representation
of the interaction effect. Baron and Kenny (1986) clearly
state that either regression or ANOVA analyses are
suitable in illustrating moderation effects.
Table 7 summarizes the results of the two-way
between subjects analyses of variance for the three
outcome measures: job satisfaction, organizational
commitment and self-reported health. From Table 7, a
consistent pattern of results can be discerned. First, job
strain showed a significant negative relationship with
each of the outcome measures, such that increased strain
was associated with decreased job satisfaction
(F(1,124)=26.03, po0.001), decreased organizational
commitment (F(1,124)=9.07, po0.01) and increased
symptoms of ill health (F(1,124) = 8.498, po0.01).
Table 7
Analysis of variance results for job strain and ambient noise level upon
outcome variables
Source F value
Job satisfaction Organizational Symptoms of
df(1,124) commitment infectious
df(1,124) diseases df(1,124)
Job strain 26.03nnn 9.07nnn 8.50nn
Noise (dB) 0.42 1.48 2.16
Job strain 20.33nnn 5.69n 4.20n
x noise
(dB)
n
Po0.05.
nn
Po0.01.
nnn
Po0.001.
Second, objective noise levels showed no direct effect
upon any of the dependent measures. There was,
however, a significant interaction between job strain
and noise for job satisfaction (F(1,124)=20.33,
po0.001), organizational commitment (F(1,124)=5.68,
po0.05) and symptoms of ill-health (F(1,124)=4.20,
po0.05).
Fig. 1 illustrates the nature of the interaction between
job strain and objective level of noise on job satisfaction,
and shows that lower noise levels helped to buffer the
negative impact of job strain on job satisfaction.
Detailed exploration of this interaction effect using
Tukey’s HSD test showed that job satisfaction remained
relatively constant under conditions of low noise,
irrespective of level of job strain. Job satisfaction fell
significantly, however, under conditions of high strain
and high noise compared to high strain and low noise
(po0.05).
Fig. 2 illustrates the nature of the interaction between
job strain and noise on organizational commitment and
shows a similar pattern of results to that found for job
satisfaction. Post hoc comparisons using Tukey’s HSD
test again showed that while organizational commitment
remained relatively stable under conditions of low noise,
it varied significantly under high noise conditions
(po0.05). It should perhaps be noted, at this point,
that while Fig. 1 and 2 suggest the possibility of there
being a sizeable improvement in job satisfaction scores
under conditions of low job strain and high noise,
compared to the combination of low strain and low
noise, Tukey’s HSD test revealed these differences to be
nonsignificant.
Fig. 3 illustrates the two-way interaction between job
strain and noise level on the symptoms of infectious
diseases measure. In keeping with the two previous
buffering effects, Fig. 3 shows how lower noise levels
and moderate the negative impact of job strain upon the
frequency of reported symptoms. Specifically, post hoc
comparisons with Tukey’s HSD test showed the
frequency of reported symptoms to be significantly
 P. Leather et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2003) 213–222
Fig. 1. The effects of job strain and ambient noise on job satisfaction.
Fig. 2. The effects of job strain and ambient on organizational
commitment.
Fig. 3. The effects of job strain and ambient noise on symptoms of
infectious diseases.
219
different between the high strain, high noise condition
and both the low strain, low noise and low strain, high
noise conditions (po0.05). As with job satisfaction and
organizational commitment, the frequency of reported
ill-health symptoms remains largely constant when
ambient noise levels are low.
4. Discussion
With respect to the impact of noise, the pattern of
results reported in this paper is consistent across the
three dependent measures used. Specifically, ambient
noise level was found to have no direct effect upon job
satisfaction, organizational commitment or self-reported
symptoms of ill-health. Hypothesis 1 is therefore not
supported by the data. Ambient noise level did,
however, interact with job strain to produce a significant
effect upon all three outcomes. Hypothesis 2 is therefore
supported by the data.
That noise did not have any direct effect upon job
satisfaction, organizational commitment or self-reported
ill-health symptoms runs counter to the many research
studies reporting precisely such negative effects of
exposure to occupational noise (e.g. Nemecek & Grand-
jean, 1973; Miller, 1974; Hedge, 1982; McDonal, 1989;
Sundstrom et al., 1994). A possible reason why noise
may not have had any direct effects in the present study
concerns the actual levels of ambient noise to which
employees were exposed. As reported in Table 3,
ambient noise levels varied between 45.75 and 62.5 dB,
with a mean level of 55.08dB. Such levels are well below
both the 90 dB level at which damage to hearing usually
occurs (Bell et al., 1990) and the 55–70 dB range
reported by Beranek (1956, 1957) as acceptable for office
work.
As reported in Table 7, and illustrated in Figs. 1–3,
the nature of the interaction between ambient noise and
job strain is such that lower levels of noise help to
moderate, or buffer, the significant negative impact of
job strain upon job satisfaction, organizational commit-
ment and self-reported symptoms of ill-health. In
passing, it can be noted that the significant main effect
reported for job strain on all three dependent measures
offers continuing support for the validity of Karasek’s
job strain model (Karasek, 1979; Karasek & Theorell,
1990), albeit with a modified version of his decision
latitude scale.
This moderating effect of lower noise is in keeping
with Ulrich’s (1991) theory of supportive design. The
basic argument underpinning this theory is that the
concept of stress provides a useful heuristic by which to
explain how characteristics of the built environment
can affect human health and well-being (Evans &
McCoy, 1998). Evans (2000), in a detailed exposition
of this overall framework, suggests that the physical
220 P. Leather et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2003) 213–222
environment might be conceptualized either as a source
of stress or as a source of coping resources. Given that
physical and psychosocial elements frequently interact
in their effect upon well-being (Evans & Lepore, 1992;
Evans et al., 1994; Leather et al., 1998), this opens up
the possibility that while the physical characteristics of
an environment might not be stressful in themselves,
they nevertheless might act to exacerbate or attenuate
the negative impact of some co-occurring psychosocial
stress.
Applied to the current findings, this is to suggest that
while the existing ambient noise levels might not have
been loud enough to be stressful in themselves, they
could, nevertheless, constitute an important backdrop to
attempts to cope with simultaneously occurring job
strain. Thus, where both noise and job strain are at their
highest, so coping resources are likely to be most
severely taxed and depleted. Hence, it is here that the
negative impact on job satisfaction, organizational
commitment and self-reported health is found to be
greatest.
A noisy physical environment, in effect, affords little
by way of assistance in coping with any co-occurring job
strain. Conversely, where ambient noise levels are
markedly lower, the negative impact of job strain is
minimized, perhaps because fewer coping resources are
needed to adapt to the demands of the physical
environment. A greater percentage of coping resources
are therefore left to address any stress which might be
present in the psychosocial work environment.
This explanation is in keeping with the conclusion
drawn by Kjellberg et al. (1996); that the full context of
the situation must be taken into account when trying to
understand the effects of occupational noise exposure. It
also helps to integrate the current results with previously
demonstrated contingent relationship between occupa-
tional noise exposure and shiftwork (Cesana et al., 1982;
Ottmann et al., 1987; Nurminen & Kurppa, 1989);
Workload (Welch, 1979) and task demands (Mosskov &
Ettema, 1977; Carter & Beh, 1989). It is only by paying
due attention to important characteristics of both work
content and context that the true effects of occupational
noise exposure can be determined.
It is perhaps the lack of attention to this context
which most seriously weakens the validity of laboratory
investigations of noise exposure (Sundstrom 1986). As
Evans (2000) remarks, the removal of any potential
environmental stress or from its natural context is likely
to distort the ecological validity of any stressor–health
relationship found. In the present study, the concept of
stress, operationalized as job strain, provides a valuable
means of operationalizing a key feature of the occupa-
tional context in which noise occurs. It thereby helps to
ensure the ecological validity of the results.
This conclusion must, however, be tempered with
caution. By virtue of its cross-sectional design, the
current study cannot establish cause and effect relation-
ships. Rather than job strain determining job satisfac-
tion, well-being, and organizational commitment, for
example, it may be that job strain is adversely affected
by being uncommitted, unwell and dissatisfied with the
job. The exact direction of the posited relationships can
only be determined through longitudinal designs. It is
equally plausible, for example, that it is levels of job
strain which moderate the negative impact of occupa-
tional noise exposure. In effect, an additional cost of
coping with job stress could be reduced tolerance for
negative physical parameters in the work setting, e.g.
noise. To some degree, however, specifying which
variable, physical or psychosocial, is the independent
variable and which is the moderator, is less important
than recognizing that interactively they contribute to the
total stress equation. Moreover, while this paper has
argued that low noise moderates the impact of job
strain, conversely, the data could equally be interpreted
as evidence of the amplification of job strain effects by
noise. Furthermore, a plausible hypothesis not empiri-
cally accounted for in this study, is that arousal may
serve as the explanatory variable linking noise and job
strain with negative well-being and work attitudes. It
might be speculated that it is the combination of high
strain and high noise levels that leads to heightened
levels of arousal which are in turn responsible for
decreased well-being and negative work attitudes. The
impact of arousal is a subject worthy of investigation in
future research.
A second reason for caution in interpreting the results
of the current study derives from the absence, here, of
any measure of individual differences in noise sensitiv-
ity. Research indicates substantial individual variation
in both sensitivity to noise (Broadbent, 1979), and the
extent to which exposure leads to negative outcomes
(Hiroto, 1974; Halpern 1995). Future studies should
therefore seek to include relevant individual difference
variables in their research designs.
A third potential limitation of the study is its reliance
upon a rather crude measure of noise exposure.
Taking the average of the highest and lowest reading
cannot adequately capture the overall amount of
energy exposure. While daily or even hourly Leq
would provide a far more accurate estimate of noise
exposure; The four 20 sampling windows utilized
in the study was the best that could be achieved
without unduly disrupting the ongoing activities
within the organization. other characteristics of noise
have also been found to be important; E.g. its frequency,
periodicity; duration, and predictability, And the extent
to which subjects have personal control over its source
(Keighley, 1970; Glass & Singer 1972; Jones; 1983;
Sundstrom 1986; Smith, 1991). Future studies might
usefully include a range of noise assessment procedures
in order to help determine which characteristics of the
 P. Leather et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2003) 213–222
sound itself are important (Sundstrom, 1986; Kjellberg
et al., 1996)
Conversely, however, the very fact that the data
reported here demonstrate such a consistent moderating
effect for average noise intensity alone challenges certain
conclusions in the literature. It has been suggested, for
example, that since the noise made by office machines
and ventilation equipment carries little information, so
its impact upon well-being and performance is likely to
be minimal (Boyce, 1974). This conclusion is clearly
refuted by the present data set.
A final limitation to acknowledge in the present study
is the fact that all three outcome measures reply
exclusively upon self-report procedures. It should be
noted here, however, that objective noise readings, not
subjective, were used in the moderation analyses
precisely to prevent common method variance inflating
any relationship between independent and dependent
variables.
Notwithstanding these and any other limitations
which the study might have, the results have a number
of important implications both for the design of the
workplace and for occupational stress research. In terms
of their practical relevance, they point to the potential
benefits of acoustical treatments and any other aspects
of office design which minimize levels of noise, even at
relatively low ambient levels. Advances in noise abate-
ment in the workplace are likely to yield continuing
benefits to employee health and well-being (MacKenzie,
1975).
With respect to occupational stress research, the
data point to the need for a fuller integration of
physical elements of workplace design with the usual
job and organization-related psychosocial factors
studied e.g. workload; task demands; role relationships.
Perhaps most important of all, the present study adds
further weight both to the call for noise exposure
research to be better contextualized (Kjellberg et al.,
1996) and to the need for more empirical research
on the possible interactions between physical and
psychosocial factors in the workplace (Carlopio &
Gardner, 1992; Evans & Lepore, 1992; Evans et al.,
1994; Leather et al., 1998). Without such research,
understanding of both the impact of the physical
environment and of the stress process is likely to remain
partial and incomplete.
References
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Beehr, T. A. (1995). Psychological stress in the workplace. London:
Routledge.
221
Bell, P. A., Fisher, J. D., Baum, A., & Greene, T. E. (1990).
Environmental psychology. Fort Worth, TA: Holt, Rineholt &
Winston.
Beranek, L. L. (1956). Criteria for office quieting based on
questionnaire rating studies. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 28, 833–850.
Beranek, L. L. (1957). Revised criteria for noise in buildings. Noise
Control, 3, 19–26.
Boyce, P. R. (1974). User’s assessments of a landscaped office. Journal
of Architectural Research, 3, 44–62.
Broadbent, D. E. (1979). Human performance and noise. In C. H.
Harris, (Ed.), Handbook of noise control (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Carlestam, G., Karlsson, C., & Levi, L. (1973). Stress and disease in
response to exposure to noise: a review. In W. Ward (Ed.),
Proceedings of the second international congress on noise as a public
health problem. Report 550/9-73-008 (pp. 479–486). Washington,
DC: EPA.
Carlopio, J. R., & Gardner, D. (1992). Direct and interactive effects of
the physical work environment on attitudes. Environment &
Behavior, 24(5), 579–601.
Carter, N. L., & Beh, H. C. (1989). The effect of intermittent noise on
cardiovascular functioning during vigilance task performance.
Psychophysiology, 26, 548–559.
Cesana, G. C., Ferrario, M., Curti, R., Zanettini, R., Grieco, A., Sega,
R., Palermo, A., Mara, G., Libretti, A., & Alegri, S. (1982). Work
stress and urinary catecholamines excretion in shift workers
exposed to noise I: Epinepherine (E) and notepinepherine (NE).
La Medicana del Lavoro, 2, 99–109.
Cohen, A. (1973). Industrial noise and medical, absence, and
accident record data on exposed workers. In W. Ward (Ed.),
Proceedings of the second International Congress on noise as public
health problem, Report 550/9-73-008. (pp 451-454). Washington,
DC: EPA.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. D. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust,
organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfilment.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39–52.
Cooper, C. L. (1985). The stress of work: an overview. Aviation, Space
and Environmental Medicine, July, 627-632.
Cottington, E. M., Matthews, K. A., Talbott, E., & Kuller, L. (1983).
Occupational stress and diastolic pressure in a blue-collar popula-
tion: The Pittsburgh noise-hypertension project. Annual meeting for
the society for epidemiology, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Cox, T. (1978). Stress.. London: Macmillan.
Cox, T. (1985). The nature and management of stress. Ergonomics, 28,
1155–1163.
Cuesdan, L., Teganeanu, S., Tutu, C., Raiciu, M., Carp, C., & Coatu,
S. (1977). Study of cardiovascular and auditory pathophysiological
implications in a group of operatives working in noisy industrial
settings. Psychophysiologi, 14, 53–61.
Evans, G. W. (2000). Environmental stress and health. In A. Baum, T.
Revenson & J. E. Singer, (Eds.), Handbook of health psychology.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Evans, G. W., Johansson, G., & Carrere, S. (1994). Psychosocial
factors and the physical environment: inter-relations in the
workplace. In: C. L. Cooper, I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International
review of industrial and organisational psychology, Vol. 9, (pp. 1-29).
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Evans, G. W., & Lepore, S. J. (1992). Conceptual and analytic issues in
crowding research. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12,
163–173.
Evans, G. W., & McCoy, J. M. (1998). When buildings don’t work: the
role of architecture in human health. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 18, 85–94.
Ferguson, E. (1992). Stress, personality and health. Unpublished Ph.D.
thesis, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom.
222 P. Leather et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2003) 213–222
Ferguson, E., & Cox, T. (1994). Development and validity of the
symptoms of infectious disease (SID) scale. Proceedings of the
British Psychological Society, 2, 23.
Glass, D. C., & Singer, J. E. (1972). Urban stress.. New York:
Academic Press.
Halpern, D. (1995). Mental health and the built environment.. London:
Taylor & Francis.
Health & Safety Executive (1999). Introducing the noise at work
regulations. INDG75(rev) C150 11/99. Sudbury, Suffolk: HSE
Books.
Hedge, A. (1982). The open-plan office: A systematic investigation of
employee reactions to their work environment. Environment &
Behavior, 14(5), 519–542.
Hiroto, D. (1974). Locus of control and learned helplessness. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 102, 187–193.
Jansen, G. (1961). Adverse effects of noise on iron and steel workers.
Stahl Eisen, 81, 217–220 (Cited in K. Kryter (1994). The handbook
of hearing and the effects of noise. New York: Academic press.
Jones, D. M. (1983). Noise. In G. R. J. Hockev, (Ed.), Stress and
Fatigue in human performance. Chichester: Wiley.
Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude and mental
strain: Implications for job re-deign. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 24, 285–308.
Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity
and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books.
Keighley, E. C. (1970). Acceptability criteria for noise in large offices.
Journal of Sound Vibration, 11(1), 83–93.
Kjellberg, A., Landstrom, U., Tesarz, M., Soderberg, L., & Akerlund,
E. (1996). The effects of nonphysical noise characteristics; ongoing
task and noise sensitivity on annoyance and distraction due to
noise at work. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 123–136.
Kryter, K. (1970). The effects of noise on man. New York: Academic
Press.
Kryter, K. (1994). The handbook of hearing and the effects of noise.
New York: Academic Press.
Langdon, F. J. (1966). Modern offices: A user survey. National
Building Research Paper No. 41. London: Her Majesty’s Station-
ery Office.
Leather, P., Pyrgas, M., Beale, D., & Lawrence, C. (1998). Windows in
the workplace: Sunlight, view and occupational stress. Environment
& Behavior, 30(6), 739–762.
Lercher, P., Hortnagl, J., & Kofler, W. W. (1993). Work, noise
annoyance and blood pressure: Combined effects with stressful
working conditions. International Archives of Occupational and
Environmental Health, 65, 23–28.
Louis Harris & Associates, Inc. (1978). The steelcase national study of
office environments: Do they work? Grand Rapids, MI: Steelcase
Inc.
Louis Harris & Associates, Inc. (1980). The steelcase national study of
office environments, no. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Steelcase Inc.
MacKenzie, S. T. (1975). Noise and office work: Employee and
employer concerns. Ithaca, NY: New York State School of
Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University.
Manninen, O. (1990). Interaction studies on environmental factors:
recent findings. In B. Berglund & T. Lindvall, (Eds.), Proceedings of
the fifth international congress on noise as a public health problem,
Vol. 5 (pp. 209–232). Stockholm: Swedish Council for Building
Research.
Matthews, K., Cottington, E., Talbott, E., Kuller, L., & Siegel, J.
(1987). Stressful work conditions and diastolic blood pressure
among blue collar factory workers. American Journal of Epidemiol-
ogy, 126, 280–291.
McDonald, N. (1989). Jobs and their environment: The psychological
impact of work in noise. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 10, 33–50.
Miller, J. D. (1974). Effects of noise on people. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 56, 729–764.
Mosskov, J. I., & Ettema, J. H. (1977). II. Extra-auditory effects
in short-term exposure to aircraft and traffic noise.
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health,
40, 165–173.
Nemecek, J., & Grandjean, E. (1973). Results of an ergonomic
investigation of large-space offices. Human Factors, 15(2), 111–124.
Nunally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nurminen, T., & Kurppa, K. (1989). Occupational noise exposure and
course of pregnancy. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environ-
mental Health, 15, 117–124.
Occupational safety & Health Administration (1994). OSHA summary
sheet—Noise/hearing conservation. Washington, DC: Department
of Labor, OSHA.
Ottman, W., Rutenfranz, J., Neidhart, B., & Boucsein, W. (1987).
Combining effects of shiftwork and noise on catecholamine
excretion and electrodermal activity. In A. Oginski, J. Pokorski,
& J. Rutenfranz (Eds.), Contemporary advances in shiftwork
research (pp. 64–75). Krakow, Poland: Medical Academy.
Smith, A. (1991). A review of the non-auditory effects of noise on
health. Work & Stress, 5, 49–62.
Sundstrom, E. (1986). Work places: The psychology of the physical
environment in offices and factories. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Sundstrom, E., Town, J. P., Rice, R. W., Osborn, D. P., & Brill, M.
(1994). Office noise, satisfaction and performance. Environment &
Behavior, 26(2), 195–222.
Tafalla, R., Evans, G. W., & Cohen, A. (1988). Noise and human
performance: the potential role of effort. In: B. Berglund, U.
Bergland, J. Karlsson, T. Lindvall (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth
international congress on noise as a public health problem, Vol. 3,
(pp. 95–100). Stockholm: Swedish Council for Building Research.
Ulrich, R. S. (1991). Effects of interior design on wellness: Theory and
recent scientific research. Journal of Health Care Interior Design, 3,
97–109.
Warr, P. B., Cook, J., & Wall, T. D. (1979). Scales for the
measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological
well-being. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 129–148.
Welch, B. L. (1979). Extra-auditory health effects of industrial noise:
Survey of foreign literature. AHRL-TR-79-41. Wright Patterson
Air Force Base: Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.