Commuting and Mental Health: What the Latest Research Reveals

• Commuting may offer a beneficial transitional period for mental recovery, helping to maintain work-life balance and reduce stress.
• A recent study found no significant association between commuting distance and psychological distress.
• The same study found greater commuting distance significantly increased the negative effect of long work hours on psychological distress, but also that greater commuting distance significantly decreased the negative effect of work-to-family conflict on distress.

Introduction

Commuting: A necessary evil or a chance for mental recovery?

This is the question probed by a new study by Shirin Montazer and Marisa Young of Wayne State University. Published in Socius, a top open-source social science research journal, their study attempts to untangle the varying positive and negative effects associated with commuting and the distance traveled during commutes.

Read on to learn more about their research into commuting, its varying positive and negative effects, and what you can do to alleviate the negative effects and amplify the positive effects of your own commute.

Background

Extensive research has examined the impact of commuting on individuals’ lives, particularly their mental health. To date, research shows that the extent to which commuting affects mental health depends on various factors, including the individual’s gender, parental status, and the nature of their commute. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for developing policies and interventions that effectively address the mental health needs of commuters.

Several studies have uncovered negative effects associated with commuting and sought to explain these effects:

• Commuting has been characterized as a “boundary-spanning demand” that not only consumes time but also bridges work and family life, often leading to conflict and mental health issues.
• According to the “resource drain theory,” time is a limited resource, and more time spent commuting means less time for other activities, including essential family interactions and self-care. This theory suggests that parents, particularly those with young children, may experience heightened stress and psychological distress as commuting distances increase.
• Various studies support this theory, indicating that longer commutes can detract from both professional productivity and personal well-being, exacerbating mental health problems such as anxiety and depression.

However, some studies have found inconclusive results:

• Research findings on the direct relationship between commuting and mental health are mixed. Some studies have found no significant link between commuting and mental health issues, while others have identified negative impacts, especially for women and those who commute by car or public transit rather than walking or biking.
• Longer commutes are generally seen as more problematic, with issues such as traffic congestion and adverse weather conditions potentially contributing to the stress associated with commuting.

Other studies have even identified some positive aspects of commuting:

• “Border theory” posits that clear boundaries between work and family roles can be beneficial. Commuting may help maintain these boundaries, allowing for mental transitions that reduce stress and aid in psychological recovery.
• Consistent with this theory, some employees report higher work-family balance and satisfaction with their commutes.
• Furthermore, during the COVID-19 pandemic, some workers missed their commute, finding it offered a necessary separation between work and home life.
• Commuting, in other words, can provide a “liminal space” where individuals can transition between roles, relax, and prepare mentally for their next set of responsibilities.

Research suggests the effects of commuting can differ significantly between men and women:

• Commuting may be more stressful for women, especially mothers, due to additional responsibilities such as household chores and childcare, even if both partners are employed. This added burden can lead to greater mental health issues for women.
• However, commuting might also offer a buffer against stress for mothers by providing transition time that allows them to switch gears mentally before engaging with family responsibilities.

Montazer and Young are interested in studying the effect(s) of commuting distance on mental health. The mixed results of the literature lead them to propose two competing hypotheses regarding commuting and mental health:

1. Commuting Stressor Hypothesis: Greater commuting distance is associated with increased psychological distress.
2. Commuting Resource Hypothesis: Greater commuting distance is associated with decreased psychological distress.

Montazer and Young are also interested in the effects of commuting upon other stressors, such as long work hours and work-to-family conflict. This is because long work hours and work-to-family conflict are associated with worse mental health. Therefore, long commutes might indirectly worsen mental health by operating through these two variables. As above, two competing hypotheses are proposed:

3. Augmentation Hypothesis 1: Commuting distance increases the negative effect of long work hours on psychological distress, particularly for mothers.
4. Augmentation Hypothesis 2: Commuting distance increases the negative effect of work-to-family conflict on psychological distress, particularly for mothers.
5. Buffering Hypothesis 1: Commuting distance decreases the negative effect of long work hours on psychological distress, particularly for mothers.
6. Buffering Hypothesis 2: Commuting distance decreases the negative effect of work-to-family conflict on psychological distress, particularly for mothers.

Note that Montazer and Young are expecting mothers to experience more extreme effects (either for good or for bad) in their hypotheses.

Methods

Montazer and Young use data from the 2011 Neighbourhood Effects on Health and Well-Being (NEHW) study:

• The NEHW study collected individual-level data using a cross-sectional, multilevel design across 47 neighborhoods in the Greater Toronto Area.
• From 2009 to 2011, face-to-face interviews were conducted with approximately 20 to 30 respondents in 87 census tracts across city-defined neighborhoods in Toronto. The final data set includes responses from 2,412 individuals.
• Participants in the NEHW study were aged 25 to 64 years, fluent in English, and had resided at their current address for at least six months at the time of the interview. The overall response rate exceeded 80 percent.

Montazer and Young further narrowed down the sample size to meet their study’s needs:

• Montazer and Young focused on parents with at least one child under 18 years old in the household.
• They further required these parents to have a calculated commuting distance greater than zero between their home and workplace.
• This resulted in a final sample size of 299 respondents, including 161 mothers.

The study authors measured the main variables of interest as follows:

• Montazer and Young measured commuting distance based on the latitude and longitude of the provided postal codes. The median commuting distance among their respondents was 6.31 km, with an interquartile range of 3.61 to 12.05 km.
• They assessed psychological distress using a composite scale derived from 16 items related to well-known scales such as the CES-D depression scale and the Spielberger Anxiety Scale. Participants rated their symptoms on a scale from “none of the time” (1) to “all of the time” (5). Higher scores indicated greater distress, and the reliability of the scale was high (α = .92).
• Work-to-family conflict was measured using four items adapted from the National Study of the Changing Workforce. Respondents rated their experiences on a scale from “never” (1) to “very often” (5). The responses were averaged and standardized, with higher scores reflecting greater conflict (α = .90).
• Long work hours were assessed by recording the total number of hours respondents worked in a typical week.

In addition, they included several control variables based on previous research:

• Income: Continuous measure presented in thousands of Canadian dollars.
• Presence of a Partner: Whether the respondent was married or in a common-law relationship.
• Number of Minor Children: The number of children under 18 in the household.
• Household Labor: Average weekly hours spent on domestic tasks, including housework and childcare.
• Demographic Characteristics: Gender (coded 1 for mothers and 0 for fathers), age, foreign-born status, racial/ethnic minority status (coded 1 for minority and 0 for White/Caucasian), and neighborhood traffic concerns.
• Transportation and Traffic Concerns: Availability of public transportation and neighborhood traffic severity, rated on scales where higher values indicated greater availability or more severe traffic concerns.

To address the clustering of respondents within neighborhoods, the authors used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). This method accounts for the correlation of error terms among respondents in the same neighborhood and separates the variance in outcomes across neighborhoods (Level 2) from the total variance in each outcome (Level 1). All variables were grand-mean centered to make the intercept interpretable at the mean value of the predictor variables and to reduce collinearity among predictors.

About 9 percent of their sample (26 participants) had incomplete data on key variables. Montazer and Young applied multiple imputation methods to estimate missing values, creating five data sets. The outcomes from these imputed data sets were then aggregated for their analyses.

To ensure their sample was representative, they applied sampling weights based on factors like nativity, gender, age, household composition, and income, following the methodology outlined by the NEHW. This helped to address potential underrepresentation due to the study’s inclusion criteria.

The authors do note several limitations to their study:

• Cross-Sectional Data: The study’s design limits causal interpretations.
• Commuting Measures: Lack of detailed measures on commuting time and mode of transport.
• Sample Specificity: Results are specific to parents in Toronto and may not generalize broadly.

Findings

Montazer and Young found several significant differences between men and women in their study:

• Hours Worked Per Week: Fathers worked more hours per week (41.43) compared to mothers (35.33).
• Household Labor: Mothers reported significantly more household labor hours (25.54) compared to fathers (13.09).
• Marital Status: A higher proportion of fathers were married or in common-law relationships (0.98) compared to mothers (0.70).

However, when it came to some of the most important variables, the results were not statistically significant by gender:

• Psychological Distress: Fathers averaged 24.31, while mothers averaged 25.88, indicating slightly higher distress in mothers.
• Work-to-Family Conflict: Fathers had an average score of 9.55, and mothers scored 9.09, indicating slightly higher conflict for fathers.
• Commuting Distance: On average, fathers commuted slightly further (8.09 km) compared to mothers (7.51 km).

Additional analyses found no significant three-way interaction between commuting distance, work hours, and gender, nor between commuting distance, work-to-family conflict, and gender. This indicates that the moderation effects of commuting distance on distress do not differ between mothers and fathers.

Unsurprisingly, work-to-family conflict significantly impacted psychological distress. But when controlling for all relevant variables, the study found no significant association between commuting distance and psychological distress.

When the authors introduced commuting distance into their models, they found mixed results:

• Greater commuting distance significantly increased the negative effect of long work hours on psychological distress.
• However, they also found that greater commuting distance significantly decreased the negative effect of work-to-family conflict on distress.
• Montazer and Young argue that this suggests the nature of the stressor (time-based vs. strain-based) influences how commuting affects psychological distress.

In sum, traditional views suggest that longer commutes increase stress by reducing time for family and personal activities, leading to higher psychological distress. However, the study did not find a direct significant effect of commuting distance on distress.

Other theories propose that commuting time offers a beneficial transitional period for psychological recovery. The study supports this view, showing that commuting can reduce the negative impact of work-to-family conflict on distress.

What Can You Do?

To mitigate the mental health impacts of commuting, especially for working parents, several actionable strategies can be implemented at both individual and organizational levels. Here are practical steps to consider:

1. Implement Flexible Work Arrangements: Encourage employers to offer flexible working hours and remote work options. This flexibility can help employees manage their commuting time better and reduce stress associated with rigid schedules.
2. Promote Active Commuting: Encourage walking or biking to work where possible. Active commuting can improve physical health and reduce stress, providing a healthier start and end to the workday.
3. Enhance Public Transportation: Advocate for improvements in public transit systems to make commuting more efficient and less stressful. Reliable and comfortable public transportation options can alleviate the mental strain associated with long commutes.
4. Support Affordable Childcare: Governments and organizations should work towards providing affordable and accessible childcare options. This support can help reduce the pressure on working parents, allowing them to balance work and family responsibilities more effectively.
5. Develop Stress Management Programs: Implement workplace wellness programs that focus on stress management techniques such as mindfulness, meditation, and time management. These programs can help employees cope better with the demands of commuting.
6. Create Commute-Friendly Policies: Organizations can introduce policies that account for commuting challenges, such as allowing employees to start their workday later if they have a long commute or offering staggered shifts to avoid peak traffic times.
7. Facilitate Carpooling and Ride-Sharing: Encourage and organize carpooling or ride-sharing programs within the workplace. This can reduce the number of cars on the road, alleviate traffic congestion, and provide a social support network for employees during their commute.
8. Encourage Use of Technology: Utilize technology to reduce the need for commuting. Video conferencing and virtual collaboration tools can minimize the necessity of physical presence, especially for meetings that can be conducted remotely.
9. Designate “Quiet Commute” Zones: Public transportation systems can designate certain areas as quiet zones to allow commuters to relax and mentally prepare for their workday or unwind after work.
10. Promote Work-Life Balance: Encourage a healthy work-life balance by promoting policies that limit work-related communications outside of office hours. This can help employees fully disengage from work during their personal time, reducing overall stress levels.

By leveraging the positive effects of commuting and implementing the solutions above to mitigate the negative effects, we can move toward a society in which commuting is largely a force for good and not a contributor to psychological or social distress.

How has commuting affected your mental health? What strategies have you found helpful? Share your experiences in the comments.

Stay informed and inspired! Subscribe to our newsletter, “Society This Week,” and get a free copy of our exclusive report, “Peaceful, Powerful: 225 Nonviolent Tactics for Impactful Activism!”