Stress in Organisations

First publ. in: Comprehensive handbook of psychology, Volume 12: Industrial and organizational psychology / W. C. Borman, D. R.
Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (eds.). - Hoboken: Wiley, 2003, pp. 453-491
CHAPTER 18
Stress in Organizations
SABINE SONNENTAG AND MICHAEL FRESE
THE STRESS CONCEPT 454 Stress and Performance 471

Overview of Conceptualizations of Stress 454 Stress and Other Aspects of Organizational Behavior 473
Stressors 454 STRESS INTERVENTIONS 474
Stress Reactions 456 Stressor Reduction 475
THEORIES ON ORGANIZATIONAL STRESS 457 Increase in Resources 475
Theoretical Models Focusing on the Stress Process 457 Combination of Stressor Reduction and Increase
Theoretical Models on the Relationship Between Stressful in Resources 476
Situations and Strains 458 Strain Reduction 476
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE 460 Lifestyle Changes 478
Main Effects of Stressful Situations on Individual Conclusion on Stress Interventions 478
Well-Being and Health 460 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS 479
The Role of Resources 467 REFERENCES 481
Stress in organizations is a widespread phenomenon with Elkin & Rosch, 1990). Absenteeism costs organizations
far-reaching practical and economic consequences. A report billions of dollars per year (Cox, Griffiths, & Rial-Gonzáles,
published by the National Institute for Occupational Safety 2000). In the long run, stress might lead to disabilities. Data
and Health (1999) in the United States summarized findings from the Netherlands show that 30% of all cases of disability
from various surveys on organizational stress and found pensions are due to stress-related disorders (Van der Hek &
that between 26 and 40% of all surveyed workers experi- Plomp, 1997), and similar findings exist for other countries.
enced their work as very stressful. Similarly, 28% of the Moreover, mortality rates were found to be related to occupa-
workers in the European Union reported that their work tional groups—that is, to work-specific stressors (Fletcher,
causes stress (Levi & Lunde-Jensen, 1996). In Japan, the 1991).
percentage is even higher than either of these (Harnois & Because of this practical relevance of workplace stress,
Gabriel, 2000). there is an enormous and still ongoing research activity
Experiencing organizational stress is related to health within the field of organizational stress (Beehr, 1995). Find-
problems and their associated costs. A study based on more ings from past research have been summarized in previous
than 46,000 U.S. employees showed that health care costs review chapters and journal articles (Beehr & Newman,
were 46% higher for workers who experienced high levels of 1978; Danna & Griffin, 1999; Ganster & Schaubroeck,
stress (Goetzel et al., 1998). Moreover, organizational stress 1991; Kahn & Byosiere, 1992; McGrath, 1976; Sullivan &
is assumed to be related to increased absenteeism. For exam- Bhagat, 1992). Many researchers criticized organizational
ple, estimates from the U.S. and England suggest that about stress studies for methodological weaknesses (Frese & Zapf,
the half of all lost days within organizations are related to 1988; Kasl, 1978). Their main concerns referred to the fol-
workplace stress (Cooper, Liukkonen, & Cartwright, 1996; lowing issues: The overwhelming majority of the empirical
studies are cross-sectional in nature and do not allow infer-
ences on causality. In many studies the independent and de-
We are grateful to Paul Spector and Doris Fay for their helpful pendent measures share common method variance and
comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this chapter. overlap in content. Most studies focus on bivariate, linear
453
Konstanzer Online-Publikations-System (KOPS)

URN: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-opus-122752
URL: http://kops.ub.uni-konstanz.de/volltexte/2010/12275/
454 Stress in Organizations
relationships and neglect possible moderator and nonlinear THE STRESS CONCEPT
effects.
Nevertheless, over the years researchers witnessed meth- Overview of Conceptualizations of Stress
odological improvements in organizational stress studies
(Beehr, 1998; Kahn & Byosiere, 1992), particularly during On the most general level, one can differentiate between four
the past 10 years; the improvements include (a) a better stress concepts: (a) the stimulus concept, (b) the response
operationalization of basic concepts that allow a better test concept, (c) the transactional concept, and (d) the discrep-
of theoretical models (e.g., Edwards & Harrison, 1993; Wall, ancy concept. The stimulus concept focuses on situational
Jackson, Mullarkey, & Parker, 1996); (b) an increasing num- conditions or events. Within this conceptualization, certain
ber of studies that use objective measures of stressors stimuli are stressful—for example, high time pressure, inter-
(Greiner, Ragland, Krause, Syme, & Fisher, 1997; Melamed, personal conflict at work, or accidents. However, the stimu-
Ben-Avi, Luz, & Green, 1995); (c) a steady increase in lon- lus concept is problematic because not all individuals react in
gitudinal studies, with many of them using a structural equa- a uniform manner to the same stressor. Nearly every situa-
tion modeling approach for data analysis (e.g., Bakker, tional condition or every event may evoke strain in some in-
Schaufeli, Sixma, Bosveld, & van Dierendonck, 2000; Dor- dividuals. Although the stimulus conceptualization leads to
mann & Zapf, 1999; Schonfeld, 1992); (d) exploration of conceptual problems, many researchers agree that there are
curvilinear effects (e.g., de Jonge & Schaufeli, 1998; Dol- subsets of stimuli that evoke strain in most individuals (Brief
lard, Winefield, Winefield, & de Jonge, 2000; Warr, 1990); & George, 1995; Kahn & Byosiere, 1992).
and (e) use of innovative approaches such as multilevel de- The reaction concept focuses on physiological reactions
signs (e.g., Jex & Bliese, 1999) and growth curve models as the crucial constituent of stress—that is, stress exists if an
(e.g., Barnett & Brennan, 1997; Garst, Frese, & Molenaar, individual shows a specific reaction pattern regardless of sit-
2000). uational characteristics (Selye, 1956). However, this concep-
This chapter reviews research on stress in organizations tualization also has its shortcomings. It does not take into
and its practical implications. It aims at an extension of previ- account that very different situations can result in the same
ous reviews by focusing more strongly on methodologically physiological responses and that an individual’s coping ef-
sound—although not perfect—studies. This gives us the op- forts may have an effect on that individual’s reactions, thus
portunity to examine more deeply the processes and conse- altering the stress response.
quences associated with organizational stress. Specifically, we Another class of concepts refers both to the situation and to
address the question of whether methodologically improved the person when defining stress. The transactional concept
studies contribute to a better understanding of organizational brought forward by Lazarus (1966) assumes that stress results
stress. Most of the more recent review chapters and articles from a transaction between the individual and the environment,
have exclusively looked at health and well-being conse- including the individual’s perceptions, expectations, interpre-
quences of organizational stress (Danna & Griffin, 1999; tations, and coping responses. In terms of operationalization
Ganster & Schaubroeck, 1991; Kahn & Byosiere, 1992). We and measuring stress in empirical studies, this concept has not
broaden the view by including performance and other organi- yet fully developed its potential. Often, proponents of the trans-
zational behavior issues (e.g., organizational commitment and actional concept actually rely in their research practice exclu-
absenteeism). sively on verbal responses or physiological measures of strain
In the first section of this chapter, we describe the stress as indicators of stress. By doing so, they implicitly apply the re-
concept and give an overview of stressors and stress reac- action concept. The discrepancy concept describes stress as an
tions. In the second section, we present theories of organiza- incongruity between an individual’s desires and the environ-
tional stress. The third section is devoted to empirical ment (Edwards, 1992); in operationalizing such a discrepancy,
findings in organizational stress research. We describe the however, researchers face great difficulties.
empirical evidence of main and moderator effects on the re- Thus, stress is a broad term that conveys a variety of
lationship between stressors and individual health and well- meanings. To avoid ambiguity, we refer to stressors and
being. We summarize research findings on the relationship stress reactions or strain throughout this chapter. We use the
between stress and performance. In addition, we refer to the terms strains and stress reactions synonymously.
effects of stress on other aspects of organizational behavior.
Stressors
In the fourth section, we describe stress management inter-
ventions. In conclusion, we suggest a few research questions Stressors are conditions and events that evoke strain (Kahn &
for the future. Byosiere, 1992). Stressors can be single events such as critical
borm_ch18.qxd 9/26/02 3:39 PM Page 455
The Stress Concept 455
TABLE 18.1 Overview of Stressors in may result in other stressors such as job insecurity, overtime,
Organizational Life
and conflicts.
Physical stressors These categories make sense intuitively but largely lack an
Task-related job stressors
Role stressors
explicit theoretical foundation. There are only a few theoreti-
Social stressors cally derived taxonomies of stressors. These taxonomies
Work-schedule-related stressors cover parts of potential stressors. Probably the most prominent
Career-related stressors
taxonomy is the delineation of role stressors from role theory
Traumatic events
Stressful change processes (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Role stressors comprise role overload,
role conflict, and role ambiguity. Role overload occurs when
individuals have to do too much or too complicated work, role
life events or traumatic experiences, and they can also be conflict refers to situations with conflicting role expectations,
chronic problems that continue over a longer period of time. and role ambiguity refers to situations with unclear role
The latter often are microstressors, so-called daily hassles expectations. Many studies have been conducted on this suc-
(Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1981)—for example, cessful model. Jackson and Schuler (1985) and Tubbs and
daily difficulties with finishing one’s work in time or daily Collins (2000) meta-analyzed findings from these studies
problems in dealing with difficult clients. and showed clear relationships between role stressors and
Stressors can be grouped into the categories physical stres- impaired well-being.
sors, task-related job stressors, role stressors, social stressors, Semmer (1984) and Leitner, Volpert, Greiner, Weber, and
work-schedule-related stressors, career-related stressors, Hennes (1987) proposed a taxonomy of stressors based on ac-
traumatic events, and stressful change processes (Table 18.1). tion theory (cf. Frese & Zapf, 1994; Hacker, 1998). This tax-
Physical stressors refer to aversive physical working con- onomy clusters stressors on the basis of how they disturb the
ditions, including noise, dirt, heat, vibrations, chemical, or regulation of goal-oriented action. Specifically, this taxonomy
toxic substances. They also include poor ergonomic condi- differentiates between regulation obstacles, regulation uncer-
tions at the workplace and accidents. Physical stressors have tainty, and overtaxing regulations. Regulation obstacles such
psychological effects (Seeber & Iregren, 1992). Task-related as interruptions or organizational constraints make action reg-
job stressors appear while the employee is doing a task; these ulation more difficult—if not impossible. Regulation uncer-
stressors include high time pressure and work overload, high tainty refers to uncertainties about how to reach the goal and
complexity at work, monotonous work, and disruptions (e.g., includes stressors such as lack of appropriate feedback, role
caused by an unexpected computer shutdown). Role stres- conflicts, and role ambiguity. In the case of overtaxing regula-
sors fall into role ambiguity and role conflict. Social stres- tion, the speed and intensity of the regulation is the major
sors express themselves in poor social interactions with problem. Typical examples are time pressure and requirement
direct supervisors, coworkers, and others. These stressors in- to concentrate. This taxonomy has been successfully used in
clude interpersonal conflicts at the workplace, (sexual) ha- some studies (e.g., Frese, 1985; Greiner et al., 1997; Leitner,
rassment, and mobbing or bullying (Zapf, Knorz, & Kulla, 1993).
1996). Additionally, having to deal with extremely difficult There is a long and ongoing debate on objective versus
customers can also be conceptualized as social stressor. subjective approaches to the study of work stress (Frese &
Work-schedule-related stressors stem from working time Zapf, 1988; Frese & Zapf, 1999; Kasl, 1998; Perrewé &
arrangements. The most prominent and well-researched Zellars, 1999; Schaubroeck, 1999). Often, subjective ap-
stressors in this category are night and shift work. Addi- proaches have been linked to the use of self-report measures,
tionally, long working hours and overtime belong to this whereas measures not using self-report were labeled objec-
category (Sparks, Cooper, Fried, & Shirom, 1997). Career- tive. However, the distinction between objective and subjec-
related stressors include job insecurity and poor career op- tive approaches is not such a simple one. Frese and Zapf
portunities. Traumatic stressors are single events such as the (1988) suggested another distinction: Objective approaches
exposure to disasters, major accidents, or extremely danger- focus on events, processes, and workplace characteristics that
ous activities. Soldiers, police personnel, and firefighters are are not related to the job holder’s perceptions and that exist
assumed to be particularly prone to the exposure of traumatic regardless of the individual’s cognitive and emotional reac-
stressors (Corneil, Beaton, Murphy, Johnson, & Pike, 1999). tions. Subjective approaches in contrast refer to events,
Organizational change can also be regarded as a stressor. processes, and workplace characteristics as perceived and ap-
Examples include mergers, downsizing, or the implementa- praised by the job holder. This debate is particularly impor-
tion of new technologies. They are stressful because they tant with respect to practical implications: It makes sense to
redesign jobs when strains can be attributed to objective 1978; Melin, Lundberg, Soederlund, & Granqvist, 1999). With
stressors and not only to appraisal processes. increasing work demands, the excretion of cortisol increases
(Aronsson & Rissler, 1998). This increase in cortisol is most
Stress Reactions prominent when stress becomes chronic (Schulz, Kirschbaum,
Prüssner, & Hellhammer, 1998). These physiological reac-
Stress in organizations affects both the individual and the tions—particularly the excretion of catecholamines and ef-
organization (e.g., increased turnover rates). Individuals can fects on the cardiac system—help in mobilizing additional
be affected at the physiological, affective, and behavioral effort for completing work assignments and upholding perfor-
level, and in their leisure time and family life. Stressors affect mance (Lundberg & Frankenhaeuser, 1978). However, when
individuals and organizations within different time frames; experienced repeatedly and over a longer period of time, these
stress reactions can occur immediately (short-term reactions) physiological reactions may contribute to the development of
or may take longer time to develop (long-term reactions). illnesses, including coronary heart diseases.
Table 18.2 gives an overview of stress reactions. Stress also has an effect on the immune functioning
With respect to physiological responses, stress has an effect (Herbert & Sheldon, 1993). Experiencing high levels of
on the cardiac system. For example, individuals in so-called stress is detrimental to an individual’s immune system. Al-
high-strain jobs (i.e., job with high demands and low job con- though the exact underlying processes are still unclear, stress
trol, cf. Karasek, 1979) show blood pressure higher than that is associated with an increased risk of physical illnesses in
of individuals in other types of jobs (Schwartz, Pickering, & the long run. Individuals experiencing high work stress are
Landsbergis, 1996). Furthermore, the heart rate increases in more likely to develop cardiovascular problems (Schnall,
stress situations (Frankenhaeuser & Johansson, 1976). More- Landsbergis, & Baker, 1994) or musculoskeletal diseases
over, experiencing a stressful work situation is associated with (Bongers, de Winter, Kompier, & Hildebrandt, 1993). The
increased levels of cholesterol and other metabolic and hemo- experience of stress is associated with affective reactions. In
static risk factors for cardiovascular disease (Vrijkotte, van the short term, mood disturbances can occur (Zohar, 1999).
Doornen, & de Geus, 1999). Such affective reactions seem to result mainly from specific
The cardiac system is partly affected by hormones. Stress aversive events and stressful achievement settings (Pekrun &
affects the excretion of hormones such as catecholamines Frese, 1992; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). In the long run,
and corticosteroids (e.g., cortisol). With respect to cate- well-being and mental health can suffer. Evidence from longi-
cholamines, it is well documented that the excretion of epi- tudinal studies suggests that stressful work situations are asso-
nephrine (adrenaline) and norepinephrine (noradrenaline) ciated with an increased level of depressive symptoms
increases as stress increases (Aronsson & Rissler, 1998; (Schonfeld, 1992), psychosomatic complaints (Frese, 1985;
Frankenhaueser, 1979; Frankenhaeuser & Johansson, 1976). Parkes, Menham, & Rabenau, 1994) and other distress symp-
The excretion of catecholamines seems to increase most when toms (Leitner, 1993). Burnout is another long-term stress
stressful working conditions are combined with inflexible reaction. It is characterized by emotional exhaustion, deper-
working arrangements (Johansson, Aronsson, & Lindström, sonalization (cynicism), and reduced personal accomplish-
ment (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). Burnout has been largely
TABLE 18.2 Overview of Stress Reactions
studied in human service and educational occupations, but
Short-Term Reactions Long-Term Reactions
there is increasing evidence that often members of other occu-
Experienced by the individual pational groups also react with burnout symptoms to stressful
Physical Physiological reactions Physical illness
Affective Disturbed mood Poor well-being
work situations (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001).
Behavioral Cognitive reactions and mental health Stressors can also have negative effects on the behavioral
Increased effort problems level. For example, in stressful situations attention is nar-
Performance decreasea
rowed and working memory capacity is reduced. Moreover,
Accidents
reduced performance accuracy can be observed (Searle,
Experienced by larger organizational units
Interpersonal conflicts Increased turnover Bright, & Bochner, 1999). When confronted with a stressor,
Absence rates individuals often increase their effort (Hockey, 1997). As a
Experienced outside work consequence, overall performance does not necessarily suffer
Slow unwinding Poor well-being
Spillover of disturbed in other life from stressful situations (Tafalla & Evans, 1997). Moreover,
mood to private life domains it has been observed that stressors in the work situation are
Physical illness related to violence such as sabotage, interpersonal aggres-
a
Performance decrease was mainly found in laboratory but not in field studies. sion, and hostility (Chen & Spector, 1992).
Theories on Organizational Stress 457
Stressors encountered at work are also related to other as- transactional stress model (Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus & Folkman,
pects of organizational behavior. There is clear evidence that 1984) and (other) cybernetic models (Edwards, 1992).
individuals who experience stressors are less committed to
the organization (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Stressors are asso- The Transactional Stress Model
ciated with turnover intentions (Chen & Spector, 1992) and
actual turnover. One the most prominent stress models is the transactional
Stress experienced at work can also become obvious out- model by Lazarus (1966; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Lazarus
side the work situation. Mood disturbances associated with and Folkman define psychological stress as “a particular rela-
stressful working situations generalize to the individual’s pri- tionship between the person and the environment that is
vate life (Doby & Caplan, 1995; Repetti, 1993; Totterdell, appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her
Spelten, Smith, Barton, & Folkard, 1995). There is increasing resources and endangering his or her well-being” (p. 19). Thus,
evidence from time sampling studies that mood experienced Lazarus and Folkman assume that cognitive appraisals play a
in one domain (e.g., work) spills over to another domain crucial role in the stress process. Appraisal processes refer to
(e.g., family; e.g., Williams & Alliger, 1994). an individual’s categorization and evaluation of an encounter
Moreover, experiencing a stressful work situation has ef- with respect to this individual’s well-being. Specifically,
fects on unwinding processes. For example, Frankenhaeuser primary and secondary appraisal can be differentiated. By pri-
(1981) examined adrenaline excretion rates during periods of mary appraisal, encounters are categorized as irrelevant,
high workload and showed that adrenaline excretion rates re- benign-positive, or stressful. Stress appraisals comprise harm-
mained elevated during leisure time in the evening. This high loss, threat, and challenge. By secondary appraisals, individu-
level of adrenaline excretion during the evening makes it als evaluate what can be done in the face of the stressful
difficult for individuals to unwind and recover from their encounter—that is, they tax their coping options. On the basis
stressul work situations (cf. also Meijman, Mulder, & Van of primary and secondary appraisals, individuals start their
Dormolen, 1992, for similar findings). coping processes that can stimulate reappraisal processes.
Additionally, stress reactions might not be limited to the To arrive at a better understanding of the stress process and
person who him- or herself is exposed to the stressful situation. how it develops over time, Lazarus (1991) suggested putting
For example, an observational study showed that mothers’ be- more emphasis on an intra-individual analysis of the stress
havior towards their preschool children differed between phenomenon—for example, by studying the same persons in
stressful and unstressful workdays (Repetti & Wood, 1997). different contexts over time. A few studies followed such an
approach (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, &
Gruen, 1986); the majority of empirical studies in the area of
THEORIES ON ORGANIZATIONAL STRESS
organizational stress, however, did not adopt such a process
perspective, but rather treated stressful situations and individ-
Theories can be differentiated in models that describe the
uals’reactions to the situations as stable. Moreover, it has been
stress process itself and models that explain stress reactions—
questioned whether a focus on individual processes offers
that is, the relationship between stressors and strains. The first
much to the understanding of workplace stress (Brief &
type of model describes what happens when an individual is
George, 1995).
exposed to a stressor, whereas the second type of model speci-
fies configurations of stressors that are associated with strains.
Typically, this second type of model neglects process aspects. Cybernetic Model
It is beyond the scope of this chapter to provide an ex-
Edwards (1992) proposed a cybernetic model of organiza-
haustive presentation of all theories and models. Instead, we
tional stress (for a related model, cf. Cummings & Cooper,
concentrate on those models that have been influential in past
1979, 1998). Edwards summarized earlier approaches to
theorizing and empirical research and on those that offer
stress that implicitly assumed cybernetic principles (e.g.,
promising prospects for future research and practice. Inter-
Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964; McGrath,
ested readers may refer to Cooper (1998) and Kahn and
1976) and explicitly built on Carver and Scheier’s (1982)
Byosiere (1992) for descriptions of more models.
work on cybernetics as a general theory of human behavior.
Crucial components in Carver and Scheier’s model are an
Theoretical Models Focusing on the Stress Process
input function, a reference value, a comparator, and an output
These models aim at a detailed description of what happens function. The input function refers to perceptions of one’s
during the stress process. Major models in the area are the own state or of situational features in the environment. The
reference value comprises the individual’s desires, values, or environment (for an overview, cf. Edwards, 1998; Harrison,
goals. The comparator compares the input function with the 1978). Thus, it is neither the person nor the situation alone
reference value. The output function refers to behavior that is that causes stress experiences and strains. There are two types
activated when a discrepancy between the input function and of incongruity between an individual and the environment.
the reference value is detected. The first type refers to the fit between the demands of the en-
Edwards (1992) defines stress as “a discrepancy between an vironment and the abilities and competencies of the persons.
employee’s perceived state and desired state, provided that the The second type refers to the fit between the needs of the
presense of this discrepancy is considered important by person and supplies from the environment.
the employee” (p. 245). Thus, stress occurs when the com- At the conceptual level, P-E fit theory differentiates
parison between an individual’s perception and his or her between the objective and the subjective person as well as
desire results in a discrepancy. The perception is assumed to be between the objective and the subjective environment
influenced by the physical and social environment, personal (Harrison, 1978). Objective person and objective environ-
characteristics of the individual, the individual’s cognitive ment refer to the individual needs, abilities, and competen-
construction of reality, and social information. The discrep- cies and to environmental supplies and demands as they
ancy between perception and desires (i.e., stress), affects two actually exist—that is, independent of the person’s percep-
outcomes: the individual’s well-being and his or her coping ef- tions. Subjective person and subjective environment refer to
forts. Additionally, reciprocal effects between well-being and the individual’s perceptions. Therefore, fit can refer to the
coping are assumed. Moreover, coping may have an effect on congruence between (a) objective environment and objective
the person and the situation, the individual’s desires, and the person, (b) subjective environment and subjective person,
duration of the stressful situation and the importance attached (c) subjective and objective environment (i.e., contact with
to it. The effects of the discrepancy on well-being and coping reality) and (d) subjective and objective person (i.e., accuracy
efforts are moderated by additional factors such as the impor- of self-assessment).
tance of the discrepancy and its duration. The theory argues that the objective person and environ-
Although there is empirical research on isolated aspects of ment affect the subjective person and environment and that
the cybernetic model (e.g., on the effects of discrepancies be- incongruity between the subjective environment and the sub-
tween perceptions and desires on well-being (cf. Edwards, jective person produces strain. Strain increases as demands
1991), to our knowledge, no study on organizational stress has exceed abilities and as needs exceed supplies. When abilities
yet examined the cybernetic framework as a whole. One reason exceed demands, strain may increase, decrease, or remain
is that it is difficult to examine the crucial assumptions of this stable. Similarly, when supplies exceed needs, strain may in-
model in one single study. Such a study must include separate crease, decrease, or remain stable. The exact picture of the re-
measures of perceptions, desires, importance, duration, well- lationships depends of the content and importance of the
being, and coping. The greatest challenge will be to design dimension in question.
nonconfounded measures of individual perception, objective In a classic study, French, Caplan, and Harrison (1982) ex-
characteristics of the environment, the individual’s cognitive plicitly tested P-E fit theory. Indeed, P-E misfit was associated
construction of reality, and social information processes. with psychological, physical, and biological strains. Subse-
quent studies on P-E fit resulted in similar findings and iden-
tified a needs-supplies incongruity as the strongest predictor
Theoretical Models on the Relationship Between
of strain (Edwards, 1991). However, many of these studies
Stressful Situations and Strains
have been criticized for methodological shortcomings, partic-
These models specify the configuration of workplace factors ularly the operationalization of P-E fit as a difference score
that are associated with strains—that is, stress reactions. (Edwards, 1995). More recent studies—most of them pub-
Major models include the person-environment fit theory lished after 1990—overcame these problems by examining
(Harrison, 1978), job demand-job control model (Karasek, three-dimensional relationships of the person and environ-
1979), the vitamin model (Warr, 1987) and the effort-reward ment with strain measures. These studies partially confirmed
imbalance model (Siegrist, 1996). the basic assumption of P-E fit theory—that is, that strain in-
creases as fit between the person and his or her work environ-
ment decreases (Edwards, 1996; Edwards & Harrison, 1993).
Person-Environment Fit Theory
These studies also pointed to complex patterns including
Person-environment (P-E) fit theory assumes that stress oc- curvilinear relationships; taken together, the studies do pro-
curs because of an incongruity between the individual and the vide some empirical support for the P-E fit model. However,
Theories on Organizational Stress 459
longitudinal studies are still missing. Therefore, a final con- of people’s well-being. Second, other work features have a
clusion about this model would be premature. curvilinear relationship between the level of this work charac-
teristic and well-being. Warr likens these to the vitamin D,
which is positive to a certain dose, but then every further in-
Job Demand-Job Control Model
crease has a negative effect. Examples of these work features
The job demand-job control model differentiates between two are job autonomy, social support, and skill utilization. For ex-
basic dimensions of work place factors—namely, job demands ample, a low degree of job autonomy is detrimental to well-
and job decision latitude (Karasek, 1979). Job demands are the being. Therefore, up to a certain level, job autonomy increases
workload demands put on the individual. Job decision latitude well-being. If job autonomy is further increased, job autonomy
refers to the employee’s decision authority and his or her skill becomes negative because people are overwhelmed with the
discretion. Karasek combined the two dimensions of job de- responsibilities that job autonomy implies.
mands and job decision latitude in a two-by-two matrix of jobs: In terms of stress, this model implies that a specific amount
jobs low on demands and low on decision latitude (passive of job autonomy, job demands, social support, skill utilization,
jobs), jobs low on demands and high on decision latitude (low- skill variety, and task feedback is beneficial for the individual,
strain jobs), jobs high on demands and low on decision latitude but a very high level of these job characteristics creates a
(high-strain jobs) and jobs high on demands and high on stressful situation. In contrast, high levels of salary, safety, and
decision latitude (active jobs). task significance do not show this detrimental effect.
With respect to stress reactions, Karasek (1979) states that Empirical studies on the vitamin model are still rare, and
the combination of high demands and low decision latitude in support for the curvilinear relationships between workplace
the high-strain jobs is most detrimental for people’s health factors and strain variables is mixed. Some studies did not find
and well-being. The combination of high demands and high any significant curvilinear relationship (e.g., Parkes, 1991),
decision latitude in the active jobs, however, are assumed to whereas others gave support to the vitamin model (e.g., de
produce little harm for the individual. Stated differently, the Jonge & Schaufeli, 1998; Warr, 1990). Warr found curvilinear
model basically assumes that high decision latitude attenu- relationships between job demands and several strain mea-
ates the negative effects of high demands. sures such as job-related anxiety, job-related depression,
During the past two decades, the job demand-job control and low job satisfaction; a curvilinear relationship was also
model stimulated a large amount of empirical research. There found between autonomy and job satisfaction. De Jonge and
is substantial (although not unequivocal) support for the Schaufeli (1998) found evidence for curvilinear relationships
model. We discuss findings from this research in more detail between job demands, job autonomy, and social support on
later in this chapter. A theoretical critique is given by Kasl the one hand and employee well-being on the other hand.
(1996).
Effort-Reward Imbalance Model
Vitamin Model
A variant of a P-E fit model is Siegrist’s (1996) effort-reward
Warr (1987) proposed a vitamin model to specify the relation- imbalance model. Basically, the effort-reward imbalance
ships between stressors and employee health and well-being. model assumes that a lack of reciprocity between costs and re-
The vitamin model claims nonlinear relationships develop wards are experienced as stressful and result in strains. More
between work characteristics and individual outcomes. Draw- specifically, the model states that the degree to which an indi-
ing an analogy to the effects of vitamins on the human body, vidual’s efforts at work are rewarded or not is crucial for that
Warr assumes that there are two types of work characteristics. person’s health and well-being. Effort may be the response to
First, some features of the work situation have a constant effect both extrinsic and intrinsic demands. Extrinsic demands refer
on the individual—that is, they have an effect that increases up to obligations and demands inherent in the situation. Intrinsic
to a certain point, but then any added increase of the level of this demands result from a high need for control or approval.
work characteristic does not have any further effects (neither Rewards comprise money, esteem, and status control, such as
beneficial nor detrimental effects). Warr likens these effects to job stability, status consistency, and career advancement. In
characteristics to vitamin C. Examples are salary, safety, and essence, the model assumes that situations in which high
task significance. For example, people need the vitamin of efforts do not correspond to high rewards result in emotional
salary up to a certain point. Therefore, people’s well-being in- distress situations—particularly high autonomic arousal.
creases with having more income; at a certain level, however, A number of studies showed that a combination of high
any additional salary increase will not have any further increase effort and low reward predicted self-reported health
complaints, cardiovascular risk factors, and manifestations of in the long run, whereas healthier individuals are promoted
coronary heart disease (Bosma, Peter, Siegrist, & Marmot, into better—that is, less stressful—jobs (Frese, 1985). Health
1998; de Jonge, Bosma, Peter, & Siegrist, 2000; Peter, Geissler, and well-being might also affect the perception of stressors
& Siegrist, 1998; for a summary cf. Siegrist, 1998). Most inter- because individuals with poor health overestimate the stress-
esting is that a longitudinal study with blue-collar workers fulness of their jobs (Zapf, 1989). Additionally, same-source
showed that experiencing an effort-reward imbalance was as- measures often used in organizational stress research share
sociated with 6.15 times the risk of developing coronary heart common method variance and therefore may result in an
disease 6.5 years later (Siegrist, Peter, Junge, Cremer, & Seidel, overestimation of true relationships.
1990; cf. also the similar results by Bosma et al., 1998).
Evidence From Studies With Objective Measures
Comparison of Models of Stressors
Unfortunately, there are few empirical studies that directly To examine whether the relationship between stressors and
compare different models; this is unfortunate because only a strains can be primarily explained by the use of self-report
direct comparison can tell which theories are superior. More- measures and the associated methodological problems, stud-
over, modern analysis methods—like structural equation ies are needed in which stressors are assessed by non-self-
analysis—allow and encourage such comparisons. For ex- report measures. There is an increasing number of such
ample, Elsass and Veiga (1997) tested the job demand-job studies. In some of these studies, researchers inferred objec-
control model and the P-E fit model with the same sample. tive stressors from occupational titles and similar information.
Their data supported the P-E fit model, but not the job Analyses revealed significant relationships between stressful
demand-job control model. Similarly, de Jonge et al. (2000) jobs and poor health and well-being. For example, Tsutsumi,
compared the job demand-job control model and the effort- Theorell, Hallqvist, Reuterwall, and de Faire (1999) reported
reward imbalance model. These authors also reported better increased odd ratios of plasma fibrinogen concentrations—a
fit indexes for the effort-reward imbalance model than for physiological indicator assumed to be associated with coro-
the job demand-job control model. This might suggest that nary heart disease—in study participants working in highly
the P-E fit and the effort-reward imbalance models are supe- demanding jobs.
rior to the job demand-job control model in explaining em- Other researchers assessed objective stressors by means of
ployee well-being. In the future, more such analyses are observations. These studies also showed association between
needed. objective stressors and impaired health and well-being. For ex-
ample, Frese (1985) found correlations of r .18 and r .19
between observer ratings of psychological stressors and psy-
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
chosomatic complaints. Melamed et al. (1995) measured mo-
notony with observational ratings and found that short-cycle
Main Effects of Stressful Situations on Individual
and medium–cycle repetitive work was significantly associ-
Well-Being and Health
ated with psychological distress, particularly in women.
There is consistent evidence that perceived stressors at work Greiner et al. (1997) reported increased odd ratios of psycho-
are related to indicators of poor health and well-being (for somatic complaints in observed high-stress jobs.
meta-analyses, cf. Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Lee & Ashforth, In summary, these findings show that stressors at work are
1996). However, most of these studies are cross-sectional in related to poor health and well-being—even when objective
nature and based on same-source self-report measures. Many measures of stressors are used. Often the correlations be-
researchers criticized these predominant features of organi- tween objective stressor measures and strains are smaller in
zational stress research (Frese & Zapf, 1988; Kasl, 1978; size than are the correlations between self-report measures of
Zapf, Dormann, & Frese, 1996). Cross-sectional designs stressors and strains (cf. Frese, 1985), but they do not break
allow no inference about causality, empirical relationships down completely; this suggests that common method
between stressors and strains might be due to third variables variance inflates the relationships between self-reported
such as social class or negative affectivity, and strains may stressors and self-reported strains, but it does not fully ex-
affect stressors—for example, in the sense of the drift hy- plain the empirical relationship between organizational stres-
pothesis. A drift hypothesis implies that individuals with sors and strains. For methodological reasons, the correlations
poor health are unable to retain favorable working conditions found between objective stressors and self-reported strains
Empirical Evidence 461
present the lower boundary of the stressor-illness relation- There was no systematic pattern of stressor-strain relation-
ships (Frese, 1993). ships for which concurrent effects were found.
Studies that addressed lagged effects of stressful work situ-
ations examined both psychological and physical strain symp-
Evidence From Longitudinal Studies
toms. Psychological symptoms included strains such as
To arrive at a clearer picture about the causal processes be- distress, anxiety, depressive symptoms, and exhaustion. Physi-
tween stressors and strains, longitudinal studies are needed. cal symptoms included mainly (psycho)somatic health com-
Although they do not solve all the methodological prob- plaints, cardiovascular disease, and other illnesses. Lagged
lems (Zapf, Dormann, et al., 1996), they at least allow re- effects of stressors on psychological strain symptoms appeared
searchers to rule out some of the alternative interpretations. in more than half of the studies, at least for some of the stressors
Table 18.3 gives an overview over longitudinal studies or strains tested. Significant effects were more often found
published between 1981 and 2000 that meet the following when stressors such as high demands and high workload were
criteria: (a) data collection on work-related stressors and examined (as opposed to social stressors), when the time lag
strains and (b) control for initial level of strains in the was relatively short (not longer than 12 months), and when no
analyses. concurrent effects were tested simultaneously.
Table 18.3 shows the number of time lags, the time interval There is rather strong evidence that stressors at work have
between the various measurement points, sample size, type of a lagged effect on physical strain symptoms, particularly (psy-
stressors assessed, type of strains assessed, results with re- cho)somatic health complaints (Carayon, 1993; Frese, 1985;
spect to lagged effects, concurrent effects, reverse effects (i.e., Leitner, 1993; Parkes et al., 1994; for an exception, cf. Mauno
effects of strains on stressors), and nonsignificant findings. & Kinnunen, 1999). Stressors have lagged effects on cardio-
Most of the studies assessed data at two measurement points. vascular disease, particularly in men (Hibbard & Pope, 1993;
Time lags ranged between 1 month and 180 months, with Karasek, Baker, Marxner, Ahlbom, & Theorell, 1981). How-
most studies using time lags of 12 months or less. A wide ever, stressors seems to have none or only a minor lagged
range of stressors were assessed, including workload, social effect on other illnesses such as cancer (Hibbard & Pope,
stressors, and job insecurity. Also strain measured covered a 1993). Taken together, these longitudinal studies suggest that
large variety of indicators, including physiological measures, there are lagged effects of stressors on strains, particularly if
distress symptoms, depression, psychosomatic complaints, the time lag between two measurement points does not exceed
and physical illnesses. Most researchers analyzed their data 12 months.
with variants of cross-lagged panel correlations (CLPC), mul- Most of the studies tested either concurrent or lagged ef-
tiple regression analyses, or structural equation approaches fects. The majority of these studies found evidence for an
(e.g., LISREL). effect of stressors on strains, at least for some of the stressor
We discuss the study findings separately for concurrent, or strain indicators. There are only a few studies that ana-
lagged, and reverse effects. Concurrent effects refer to syn- lyzed both lagged and concurrent effects within the same data
chronous effects of stressors (Time 2) on strain (Time 2) with set (Glickman, Tanaka, & Chan, 1991; Kohn & Schooler,
controlling for strain (Time 1). Lagged effects imply effects 1982; Moyle, 1998; Roy & Steptoe, 1994; Schonfeld, 1992;
of stressors (Time 1) on strain (Time 2) when controlling for Wolpin, Burke, & Greenglass, 1991). All these studies found
strain (Time 1). Reverse effects refer to effects of strains concurrent effects (at least for some of the indicators). How-
(Time 1) on stressors (Time 2) with controlling for stressors ever, half of the studies failed to find lagged effects when
(Time 1; drift hypothesis). concurrent effects were present. Only Wolpin et al. (1991),
Most studies that examined concurrent effects focused on Schonfeld (1992), and Moyle (1998) reported lagged effects
psychological strains (exceptions: Howard, Cunningham, & in the presence of concurrent effects. These findings indicate
Rechniter, 1986; Spector, Chen, & O’Connell, 2000, which that individuals develop distress reactions to stressful situa-
looked at physiological strain). About half of the studies tions rather quickly; this implies that having experienced
found concurrent effects of all measured stressors on strains. stressful work situations in the past may have little effect on
The other half of the studies found support for relationships one’s psychological well-being unless the stressful situation
between some combinations of stressors and strains. Stressors continues into the present. We assume, however, that the
with concurrent effects on strains included workload, role situation is different for physical symptoms. More studies on
conflicts, and role ambiguity. Strains affected were depressive physical indicators are needed that examine concurrent and
symptoms, burnout, and fatigue spillover into leisure time. lagged effects simultaneously.
borm_ch18.qxd
TABLE 18.3 Longitudinal Studies on Stressors, Well-Being, and Health
Number of Time Sample Statistical Third Lagged Main Concurrent Effects Tested
Study Waves Lags Size Procedure Stressors Strains Variables Effects Main Effects Reverse Effects But Not Found
9/26/02
Bakker, 2 60 207 LISREL Patient Burnout — Not tested Patient demands Depersonalization —
Schaufeli, demands emotional patient demands
Sixma, exhaustion;
Bosveld, effects on other
3:39 PM
& van burnout
Dierendonck components are
(2000) mediated by
emotional
Page 462
exhaustion
Begley & 2 3 82 Multiple Experienced Job Age, gender, Not tested Experienced Not tested —
Czajka regression stressfulness displeasure marital status, stressfulness
(1993) of education, job displeasure
organizational organizational
change tenure, NA,
organizational
commitment
Bromet, Dew, 2 12 322–325 Multiple Job demands Affective Age, coworker Job demands Not tested Not tested No effect of job
Parkinson, & regression, disorders, support, affective demands on
Schulberg Logistic alcohol- friendship disorders; alcohol-related
(1988) regression related support Job demands problems
462
problems, distress
distress symptoms
symptoms (p .10)
Carayon 2 12 122 CRPC Workload Daily life Not tested in Workload Not tested No reverse No lagged effect
(1993) stress, CLPC physical health effects of workload on
physical complaints daily life stress
health
complaints
Chapman, 3 36 24 2,634 Multiple Quantitative Systolic Age, Young women: ** chronicity Not tested No effects on
Mandryk, regression demands, blood education, Quantitative scores: mixture systolic blood
Frommer, qualitative pressure, weight, fitness, demands of lagged and pressure; no
Edye, & demands, diastolic alcohol diastolic blood concurrent effects for
Ferguson outside blood consumption, pressure effects men; no effects
(1990) stress pressure family history, for all women
etc. together
Daniels & 2 1 244 Multiple Various Well-being No Not tested Stressors Not tested
Guppy (1994) regression stressors well-being
Dormann & 3 48 202 LISREL Social Depressive — No effect of Not tested Not tested No effect of
Zapf (1999) stressors symptoms social stressors social stressors
Frese (1985) 2 16 53–79 CLPC Psychological Psychosomatic Not tested in Psychological Not tested No reverse No effect when
stressors complaints CLPC stressors effects observational
psychosomatic measure of
complaints stressors was
used
borm_ch18.qxd
Garst, 6 4, 10, 448 Growth Job Depression, Not in growth Uncertainty Stressors Strains No lagged
Frese, & 12, curve insecurity, psychosomatic curve model depression, strains Stressors effects of job
9/26/02
Molenaar 12, 24 model time complaints, psychosomatic insecurity
(2000) pressure, irritation, complaints,
organizational worrying irritation,
problems, worrying; social
social stressors
3:39 PM
stressors, psychosomatic
uncertainty complaints,
worrying
Glickman, 2 17 2,506 LISREL Work load Distress Age, life No lagged effect Workload and Distress No lagged effect
Page 463
Tanaka, & and economic events of workload and economic strain workload and of workload and
Chan (1991) strain economic strain distress economic economic strain
on distress strain (lagged) on distress
Hibbard & 2 180 2,157 Prospective Work stress Ischiamic Age, Men: work stress Not tested Not applicable No effects for
Pope (1993) design heart disease education, IHD women; no
(IHD), self-reported effects on
malignancy, health, marital malignancy,
stroke, death and parental stroke, or death
roles
Howard, 2 24 217 Multiple Role Systolic blood Hardiness Type A No effects for
Cunningham, regression ambiguity pressure, individuals: Type B
& Rechniter diastolic blood change in role individuals;
(1986) pressure, ambiguity no effects on
463
cholesterol, systolic blood cholesterol and

triglycerides, pressure, uric acids
uric acids diastolic blood
pressure,
triglycerides
Karasek, 2 72 1,461 Logistic Job demands Cardiovascular Age, Job demands Not tested Not applicable —
Baker, regression disease intelligence cardiovascular
Marxner, discretion, disease
Ahlbom, & personal
Theorell schedule
(1981) freedom,
education,
smoking,
overweight
Kohn & 2 120 687 LISREL Time Distress — No lagged Dirtiness Distress time No effects of
Schooler pressure, effects on distress; pressure time pressure
(1982) heaviness, distress hours of work (concurrent); and heaviness on
dirtiness, distress distress distress; no lagged
hours of heaviness effects of dirtiness
work (lagged) and hours of work
on distress
(Continued)
borm_ch18.qxd
TABLE 18.3 (Continued)
9/26/02
Lee & 2 8 169 LISREL Role stress Emotional No Lagged effects Role stress Not tested
Ashforth exhaustion not testable emotional
3:39 PM
(1993) (EE); exhaustion;
depersonalization, effect of role
personal stress on
accomplishment depersonalization
Page 464
and personal
accomplishment
mediated by EE
Leitner (1993) 3 12 12 222 CLPC Barriers in Psychosomatic — Barriers Not tested No reverse No effect on
work complaints, psychosomatic effect anxiety or illness
process irritation, strain, complaints,
depression, irritation, strain,
anxiety, somatic depression,
symptoms somatic symp-
toms, illness
Mauno & 2 12 219 LISREL Job Exhaustion, No Women: Not tested No reverse No effects for
Kinnunen insecurity somatic job insecurity effects men; no effects
464
(1999) symptoms, exhaustion; on somatic

spillover into job insecurity symptoms
parenthood spillover
Mohr (2000) 2 84 62–65 Partial Job Irascibility, — Not tested Job insecurity Not tested No effects on
correlations insecurity anxiety, anxiety; irascibility and
psychosomatic job insecurity depression
complaints, psychosomatic
depression complaints
Moyle (1998) 3 75 148 LISREL Demands Distress Neuroticism Demands Demands Distress
(GHQ) distress distress demands
Moyle & 3 2.5 6 85 Multiple Demands Distress Not entered Not tested Demands Not tested Relocation per se
Parkes (1999) regression relocation (GHQ) into regression distress does not affect
equation before distress
other variables
Muntaner, 2 12 11,789 Prospective Psychological Psychotic — Physical Not tested Not applicable/ No effects on
Tien, Eaton, & demands, disorders demands not tested psychotic-affective
Garrison physical (delusions, delusions, disorders, no effect
(1991) demands schizophrenia, psychological of psychological
psychotic demands demands on
affective) schizophrenia delusions, effect of
physical demands
on schizophrenia
marginally
significant ()
borm_ch18.qxd
Nelson & 3 63 91 Multiple Chronic Distress Coping Chronic stressors Not tested Not tested —
Sutton (1990) regression stressors symptoms distress
9/26/02
symptoms
(3-month time lag)
Newton & 2 24 247 Multiple Role conflict, Job dissatis- — Not tested role conflict Not tested Quantitative
Keenan (1990) regression role faction, job dissatisfac- high load has no
3:39 PM
ambiguity, anxiety, tion, anxiety, effect on
quantitative anger, anger, frustra- frustration or
high load, frustration, tion, hostility; hostility;
qualitative hostility role ambiguity qualitative low
low load job dissatis- load has no
Page 465
faction, anxiety, effect on anger
anger, frustration,
hostility;
quantitative
high load
anxiety;
quantitative
high load job
dissatisfaction,
anger;
qualitative low
load job
dissatisfaction,
anger, frustra-
465
tion, hostility
Noor (1995) 2 8 180 Multiple Role GHQ scores, Age, NA Not tested Role overload Not tested No effect on
regression overload happiness GHQ scores happiness
Parkes (1991) 2 4 147 Multiple Demands Anxiety Age, gender, Demands Not tested Not tested —
regression (i.e., time discretion, anxiety
pressure) locus of control,
social
dysfunctioning
Parkes, 2 2 180 Multiple Demands Somatic Gender, age, Demands Not tested Not tested —
Menham, & regression symptoms neuroticism somatic
von Rabenau symptoms
(1994)
Revicki, 3 12 12 369 (1st Multiple (low) Role Depressive Age, gender, No effects Not tested Not tested No effects
Whitley, time lag); regression clarity symptoms marital status,
Gallary, & 192 (2nd other strain
Allison (1993) time lag) symptoms
Roy & Steptoe 4 33 48 Multiple Daily Depression NA, social No lagged Daily stressors No reverse No lagged
(1994) 3 regression stressors support effects depression for effects effects
all three time
lags
(Continued)
borm_ch18.qxd
TABLE 18.3 (Continued)
9/26/02
Rydstedt, 2 18 52 Multiple Workload Perceived Gender Not tested Delta-workload Not tested
Johansson, & regression effort, fatigue perceived
Evans (1998) spillover, efforts, fatigue
intake of spillover
3:39 PM
stress-related
drugs
Schonfeld 2 Approx. 255 LISREL Episodic and Depressive No control Stressors Stressors No reverse effects
Page 466
(1992) 6 chronic symptoms variables in depressive depressive
stressors LISREL symptoms symptoms;
models concurrent
models fits the
data better than
lagged model
Shirom, 2 24–36 665 Multiple Overload Cholesterol Age, body Women; Not tested No effects in
Westman, regression triglycerides mass index, Overload men; no
Shamai, & emotional cholesterol effect on
Carel (1997) reactivity, triglycerides
burnout,
fatigue
Siegrist, Peter, 2 66 263 Logistic Status Ischiamic Age, body Status Not tested Not applicable —
466
Junge, Cremer, regression inconsistency, heart disease mass index, inconsistency

& Seidel job insecurity, (IHD) blood pressure, IHD, job
(1990) work cholesterol, insecurity IHD,
pressure coping work pressure
IHD
Spector, Chen, 2 Approx. 110 Partial Interpersonal Anxiety, NA Not tested All stressors Not tested No effect on
& O’Connell 12 Korr conflict frustration, anxiety and physical
(2000) constraints, job frustration, symptoms
role ambiguity, satisfaction, role ambiguity
role conflict, physical and role conflict
workload symptoms satisfaction
Tang & 2 6 60 Multiple Stressors in Illness Hardiness Stressors Not tested Not tested —
Hammontree regression police jobs illness
(1992)
Wolpin, 2 12 262 Multiple Various Burnout, — Stressors job Stressors job Not tested No lagged
Burke, & regression stressors job satisfaction satisfaction, effects on
Greenglass satisfaction stressors burnout
(1991) burnout
Zapf & Frese, 2 16 89 CLPC Social Psychosomatic Not in CLPC No lagged Not tested No reverse effects No lagged
(1991) stressors complaints, effects effects
irritation,
strain, anxiety,
depression
Note. Time lags refer to months. CLPC cross-lagged panel correlation. NA negative affectivity.
A growing number of studies have tested reverse effect. highly relevant to establish whether these resources buffer
These studies addressed the question of whether strains lead (i.e., moderate) the effects of stressors on strains.
to an increase in stressors as suggested in the drift hypothesis Resources at work most often studied were control at
(cf. Zapf, Dormannn, et al., 1996). In 9 out of 12 studies, no work and social support. Individual resources are coping
such reverse effects were found (Carayon, 1993; Frese, 1985; styles, locus of control, self-efficacy, and competence. Addi-
Garst et al., 2000; Leitner, 1993; Mauno & Kinnunen, 1999; tionally, we shall briefly refer to other factors such as Type A
Moyle, 1998; Roy & Steptoe, 1994; Schonfeld, 1992; Zapf & behavior pattern, hardiness, and sense of coherence.
Frese, 1991). Three studies reported reverse effects for (some
of the) strain symptoms on (some of the) stressors (Bakker Control at Work
et al., 2000; Glickman et al., 1991; Kohn & Schooler, 1982). It
is interesting to note that in most of the studies that found such Control at work refers to an individual’s opportunity to influ-
reverse effects, both types of effects were present—effects of ence one’s activities in relation to a higher-order goal (Frese,
stressors on strains and effects of strains on stressors. This 1989). P. R. Jackson, Wall, Martin, and Davids (1993) differ-
suggests that—at least for some individuals—experiencing entiated between control over timing and methods to do the
organizational stress may be linked to a negative spiral: Stres- work. Many studies addressed the question of whether high
sors increase strain, which in turn increases stressors. Moyle control at work buffers the negative effects of a stressful work
(1998) and Garst et al. (2000), however, found an effect oppo- situation on an individual’s health and well-being. Most of
site to the drift hypotheses (a sort of refuge model). People with these studies have been conducted within the framework
high strain eventually received workplaces that had fewer of Karasek’s (1979) job demand-job control model.
demands and stressors. Epidemiological studies on cardiovascular diseases an as
In summary, there is good and increasing evidence that outcome variable tended to confirm the major assumptions of
stressors at work have a causal effect on health and well- Karasek’s model (for reviews, cf. Kristensen, 1995; Schnall
being. The support for concurrent effects is stronger than for et al., 1994; Theorell & Karasek, 1996). Individuals in high-
lagged effects, at least for psychological strains. Consistent strain jobs often suffered from cardiovascular illnesses.
lagged effects were mainly found for physical strain symp- Moreover, in about half of the studies, high-strain jobs were
toms. This implies that an individual’s present work situation associated with cardiovascular risk factors such as high blood
seems to be more relevant for developing psychological dis- pressure and smoking (Schnall et al., 1994).
turbances, whereas an individual’s past work situation may With respect to other outcomes including psychological
also have long-term effects on his or her physical health and well-being and mental health, the findings are less conclu-
well-being. Clearly more research is needed that examines sive. Several reasons for these inconsistent findings can be
concurrent versus lagged effects more systematically. More- mentioned. First, there are many studies that did not explic-
over, more attention should be paid to the time intervals at itly test the interaction effect but that compared high
which data are gathered (cf. Dormann & Zapf, 1999). Differ- demands-low control subgroups (i.e., high-strain jobs) with
ential effects of different stressors and different models of high demands-high control subgroups (i.e., active jobs). This
stressor-strain relationships should be examined (Frese & comparison often revealed significant differences in health
Zapf, 1988; Garst et al., 2000). and well-being between high-strain jobs and active jobs
(e.g., Eriksen & Ursin, 1999; Landsbergis, 1988). Theorell
and Karasek (1996) have recently suggested that this proce-
The Role of Resources
dure be used in general (for a critique, cf. Kasl, 1996).
Stressors do not necessarily have a negative effect on the in- In a qualitative review of empirical studies on the job
dividual. The degree to which a stressful work situation af- demand-job control model published between 1979 and 1997,
fects the individual might be contingent on the availability of Van der Doef and Maes (1999) examined whether individuals
resources. Hobfoll (1998) defines resources as “objects, con- in high-strain jobs experience poorer psychological well-
ditions, personal characteristics, and energies that are either being than do individuals in other jobs. Their review revealed
themselves valued for survival, directly or indirectly, or that that in 28 of the 41 studies with general psychological well-
serve as a means of achieving these ends” (p. 54). With re- being as dependent variable, individuals in high-strain jobs
spect to organizational stress, resources refer to conditions indeed showed the lowest well-being scores. For job-related
within the work situation and to individual characteristics well-being such as job satisfaction, burnout, and job-related
that can be used to attain goals. Both with respect to the ad- mood as dependent variables, a similar picture emerged.
vancement of stress theory and practical implications, it is Strictly speaking, such a comparison between high-strain jobs
and other jobs examines the main effects of job demands and a summary, cf. Van der Doef & Maes, 1999). Some authors
job control—not the hypothesized interaction effect. When even reported findings that cast doubt on the predictions of the
testing the interaction effect with the more appropriate mod- demands-control-support model (Landsbergis, Schnall, Deitz,
erated regression analysis, the job demand-job control model Friedman, & Pckering, 1992; Schaubroeck & Fink, 1998).
was supported less frequently. Some researchers reported Recent research suggests even more complex interactions and
support for the model (Fox, Dwyer, & Ganster, 1993; Sargent stresses the importance of coping (Daniels, 1999).
& Terry, 1998), whereas others did not (Landsbergis, 1988; Fourth, Warr (1987) and Frese (1989) have argued that at
Schaubroeck & Fink, 1998). work it should be very difficult to find interaction effects of
In the aforementioned review by Van der Doef and Maes stressors and control: Control implies that people can do some-
(1999), 8 of 31 studies showed (partial) evidence for the inter- thing about the stressors. If people are bothered by stressors,
action effect. An additional seven studies confirmed the inter- they reduce the stressors; but they can only reduce stressors
action effect for subgroups of individuals, dependent on their if they have control. If stressors continue to exist, it may be be-
personality, type of organization, and hierarchical position. A cause they are noncontrollable by definition. Because non-
more recent study found support for the postulated interaction controllability and stressors are intertwined, it is difficult to
effect when using a multilevel analysis approach (VanYperen show an interaction effect. It should be much easier to find an
& Snijders, 2000). It is noteworthy that significant interaction interaction effect if people are confronted with a new situation,
effects were also found in longitudinal studies (Parkes et al., such as in an experiment.
1994; Sargent & Terry, 1998). Fifth, experimental research tends to support the job
A second reason for failing to find the postulated interac- demand-job control model. In such experiments, interaction
tion effect between demands and control may lie in the oper- effects of perceived demands and perceived control on
ationalization of the core variables. For example, Wall et al. dependent measures such as anxiety, task satisfaction, and
(1996) argued that Karasek’s (1979) measure of decision subjective task performance were found (Jimmieson & Terry,
latitude (used in many studies) is a conglomerate of many as- 1997; Perrewé & Ganster, 1989), although there is also dis-
pects of control such as decision over working methods, confirming evidence (Perrewé & Ganster, 1989; Searle et al.,
decision over scheduling of one’s tasks, aspects of skill use, 1999). There is a large body of literature on the learned help-
and task variety. Probably only proper job control attenuates lessness paradigm (Seligman, 1975), which also posits an
the negative effects of high demands, whereas skill use and interaction effect of stressors and control. Experimental re-
task variety do not. Wall et al. (1996) tested this assumption search in this tradition has repeatedly replicated the interac-
explicitly and found the hypothesized interaction effect for a tion effects of bad events and noncontrol on reduction in
relatively narrow job control measure but not for the broader well-being (Peterson, Maier, & Seligman, 1993).
decision latitude measure (for similar findings, cf. De Croon, In summary, there is strong empirical evidence for the ad-
Van der Beek, Blonk, & Frings-Dresen, 2000; Sargent & ditive main effect of job demands and job control. Individu-
Terry, 1998). als in high-strain jobs show the lowest well-being scores and
A third reason for the inconsistent findings on the job suffer most from illnesses. However, the interaction effect
demand-job control model lies in the effects of additional vari- has received far less support. Adequate operationalization of
ables such as social support or self-efficacy. For example, job control may be crucial for finding significant interaction
Johnson and Hall (1988) incorporated social support into the effects. Experimental findings tended to support the helpless-
model. This extended demand-control-support model showed ness concept with its interaction effects of stressors and non-
social support to buffer the negative effects of the combination control. In all, Karasek’s (1979) model has contributed to a
of high demands and low control. Stated differently, the detri- fair amount of empirical controversy that has been fruitful.
mental effects of a high-strain job unfolded only when social Given the previous arguments and the experimental findings,
support was low but not when social support was high. Thus, a the fact that noncontrol and stressors produce at least additive
three-way interaction was found. effects and that a number of field studies find an interaction
Van der Doef and Maes (1999) suggested that field studies effect after all, we tend to think that Karasek’s model has not
that tested the hypothesized three-way interaction—and that done that badly.
controlled for main effects and two-way interactions—
resulted in inconclusive findings. For example, Parkes et al. Social Support and Work Group Factors
(1994) reported support for the demand-control-support
model. Most studies found no evidence for a three-way inter- Social support is important for protecting an individual’s health
action between demands, control, and support (Dollard et al., and well-being. It can be characterized as resources provided
2000; Furda et al., 1994; Melamed, Kushnir, & Meir, 1991; for by others (Cohen & Syme, 1985) and comprises emotional,
informational, and instrumental (i.e., tangible) support (House, Heinbokel, & Stolte, 1994; for an overview, cf. Sonnentag,
1981). In general, the literature assumes that the beneficial 1996). Third, work group factors such as psychologi-
effect of social support works both via main and interaction cal safety (Edmondson, 1999) or collective efficacy
effects.Arecent meta-analysis based on a total of 68 effect sizes (Schaubroeck, Lam, & Xie, 2000) might buffer the negative
addressed the main effect and has shown that social support is effects of stressors. However, empirical studies are still rare
negatively associated with strains (Viswesvaran, Sanchez, & (for a related recent study, cf. Bliese & Britt, 2001). Forth,
Fisher, 1999). We find it interesting that social support was also there is increasing evidence that emotional contagion occurs
negatively related to stressors at work. in work groups (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2000; Totterdell,
With respect to the interaction effect, Cohen and Wills Kellett, Techmann, & Briner, 1998). Emotional contagion
(1985) pointed out that social support functions only as a refers to processes by which an individual’s mood is trans-
buffer in the stressor-strain relationship if the available sup- mitted to other persons—for example, other team members.
port matches “the specific need elicited by a stressful event” On the one hand, this phenomenon implies that a stressful
(p. 314). A number of cross-sectional studies suggest that events can influence more persons than simply those directly
social support buffers the negative effects of stressors (for a faced with the stressor. On the other hand, other team mem-
review, cf. Kahn & Byosiere, 1992). bers’ positive moods can serve as a resource when another
Longitudinal studies are needed to arrive at a conclusion member is confronted with a stressful situation. Linking
about causality. Dormann and Zapf (1999) reviewed 10 lon- group work factors to stress issues seems to be a fruitful
gitudinal studies published between 1985 and 1999 that avenue for future research.
examined the interaction effect of social support. Three of
these studies found no moderator effects. In some of the other Coping Styles
studies, moderator effects missed the conventional signifi-
cance level or were only significant for a small part of all the A favorable coping style can be a core resource for bolstering
effects tested. Thus, the evidence for an across-the-board an individual’s health and well-being. Lazarus and Folkman
moderator effect of social support is not very strong. A closer (1994) defined coping as “constantly changing cognitive and
look at some of the recently published studies suggests that behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal
there might be specific mechanisms underlying the stress- demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the re-
buffering potential of social support. For example, in corre- sources of the person” (p. 141). They differentiated between
spondence to the stress matching hypothesis (Cohen & Wills, problem-focused and emotion-focused forms of coping.
1985), Frese (1999) found the strongest effects for social Problem-focused coping includes problem-solving behaviors
stressors and socially related aspects of psychological dys- that aim directly to change the stressor, other aspects of the en-
functioning. Dormann and Zapf (1999) found a lagged mod- vironment, or one’s own behavior. Emotion-focused coping
erator effect of social support only with an 8-month time lag, refers to attempts to manage cognitions or emotions directly
but neither for shorter nor for longer time lags. More research (for a critique and extension, cf. Semmer, 1996).
is needed that examines in more detail how the effects of so- Problem-focused coping has been found to be positively
cial support unfold over time. related to mental health and well-being, whereas emotion-
Moreover, there is increasing evidence that social support focused coping and an additional style of avoidance coping
does not have unequivocal positive effects. A number of au- were often found to be associated with poorer well-being
thors reported that a high degree of social support or related (Guppy & Weatherston, 1997; Hart, Wearing, & Headey,
variables increased the relationship between stressors and 1995; Leiter, 1991; Sears, Urizar, & Evans, 2000).
strain symptoms (Schaubroeck & Fink, 1998). Peeters, Buunk, With respect to moderator effects, empirical findings are
and Schaufeli (1995) showed that a high level of instrumental less conclusive. Many studies did not find the hypothesized
social support may induce feelings of inferiority that are detri- moderator effects of coping on the relationship between
mental to an individual’s well-being. stressors and strains (e.g., Ingledew, Hardy, & Cooper, 1997).
In addition to social support, group work factors such as Most studies that found a moderator effect of coping identi-
group cohesion or team climate play a role when it comes to fied problem-solving coping as a favorable coping style,
stress in organizations. First, research suggests that individu- whereas emotion-focused coping turned out to be an unfa-
als who work in teams experience better well-being than do vorable coping style (Parkes, 1990). This implies that indi-
individuals working in no team or a pseudoteam (Carter & viduals who approach the stressors directly or engage in other
West, 1999). Second, group cohesion and favorable team problem-solving behaviors are better off than individuals
climates were found to be associated with team members’ who concentrate on the management of their emotions and
well-being (Carter & West, 1998; Sonnentag, Brodbeck, cognitions.
Authors like Perrez and Reicherts (1992) have argued that cf. Kahn & Byosiere, 1992; Sonnentag, 2002). Evidence for a
coping behavior should match the situation in order to be ef- moderator effect of self-esteem is weak (Jex & Elacqua, 1999).
fective. A recent study in a hospital setting supports this as- With respect to self-efficacy, there is more evidence—
sumption (de Rijk, Le Blanc, Schaufeli, & de Jonge, 1998). although not unequivocal—for a moderator effect. Some stud-
Problem-focused coping was found to be only superior in sit- ies show that the relationship between stressful work situations
uations in which nurses could exert control over their work and poor well-being is stronger for individuals low on self-
situations. In low-control situations, attempts of problem- efficacy than for individuals high on self-efficacy (Jex &
focused coping were negatively associated with individuals’ Bliese, 1999; VanYperen, 1998). There are additional studies
well-being. that reported this moderator effect for some but not all of the
studied stressor or strain measures (Bhagat & Allie, 1989; Jex
& Elacqua, 1999). Jex and Gudanowski (1992) and Saks
Locus of Control
and Ashforth (2000) did not find an interaction effect for self-
Locus of control (Rotter, 1966)—an individual difference efficacy. Parker and Sprigg (1999) provide evidence that
concept—refers to whether individuals see themselves as pri- proactive personality—a concept closely related to self-
marily able to control their lives and their major experiences efficacy—attenuates the stressor-strain relationship, particu-
(internal locus of control) or whether individuals think that larly when job control is high. Also recent work by
other people or forces beyond themselves (e.g., luck) deter- Schaubroeck and his coworkers suggests a more complex pic-
mine what happens to them (external locus of control). At the ture with three-way interactions between stressors, job con-
most general level, it is assumed that individuals with an in- trol, and self-efficacy (Schaubroeck, Lam, & Xie, 2000;
ternal locus of control exert more direct action against the Schaubroeck & Merritt, 1997).
stressor than do those with an external locus of control. Because self-efficacy is an individual’s belief that he or
Therefore, it is expected that they will suffer less from work- she is competent, the issue of subjective competence can be
related stressors (Cohen & Edwards, 1989). Indeed, individ- discussed within the self-efficacy framework. Surprisingly,
uals with an internal locus of control experience better mental we know of no studies on objective competence and skills as
health than do individuals with an external locus of control resources in the stress process. This is all the more surprising
(for reviews, cf. Glass & McKnight, 1996; Kahn & Byosiere, because skills needed at work should be the prime candidates
1992). Such a positive effect of an internal locus of control for dealing with stressors.
was also confirmed in longitudinal studies (Daniels & Guppy,
1994; Newton & Keenan, 1990). Other Person Factors
Additionally, it was tested whether a high internal locus of
control buffers the negative effects of a stressful work situa- In the past, researchers paid attention to the Type A behavior
tion. Findings from cross-sectional studies seem to support pattern as one important individual difference variable in
such a moderator effect (for a review, cf. Kahn & Byosiere, explaining negative effects of stressful work situations, par-
1992). However, results from longitudinal studies are less ticularly with respect to cardiovascular diseases. Type A indi-
conclusive. For example, in the study by Newton and Keenan viduals are competitive, hostile, impatient, and hard driving.
(1990), only a small portion of the tested moderator effects Ganster and Schaubroeck (1991) and Kahn and Byosiere
reached their significance level. Longitudinal studies by (1992) summarized the findings of studies on Type A behav-
Parkes (1991) and Daniels and Guppy (1994) reported more ior pattern. There is some support for a main effect of Type A
complex three-way interactions between stressors in the behavior on strain. More specifically, the hostility component
work situation, job control, and locus of control. was found to be closely related to physiological reactivity
Taken together, research suggests that locus of control has (Ganster, Schaubroeck, Sime, & Mayes, 1991). In contrast,
a main effect on well-being. However, longitudinal studies did the evidence for a moderator effect of Type A behavior pat-
not provide evidence for a simple moderator effect of locus of tern is weak (Kahn & Byosiere, 1992). More recent longitu-
control on the relationship between stressors and strains. dinal studies are inconclusive. Type A behavior enhanced the
relationship between stressors and strains in one study
(Moyle & Parkes, 1999), whereas it attenuated this relation-
Self-Esteem, Self-Efficacy, and Competence
ship in another study (Newton & Keenan, 1990).
Self esteem and self-efficacy are important for an individual’s Hardiness is another individual difference variable assumed
health and well-being. There is consistent empirical evidence to moderate the stressor-strain relationship. Hardiness com-
for a main effect of self esteem and self-efficacy (for reviews, prises the dimensions commitment, control, and challenges
(Kobasa, Maddi, & Kahn, 1982). There is some evidence for a additional information on role requirements, will attenuate the
main effect of hardiness on individual health, but support for a negative impact of role ambiguity but not the negative impact
moderator effect was found only in some studies (e.g., Howard of high time pressure. Second, large sample sizes are needed
et al., 1986) but not in others (e.g., Tang & Hammontree, 1992). for ensuring sufficient power for detecting effects. Third, de-
Sense of coherence (Antonovsky, 1991) is a concept sign issues are important as well. Given the power issues in-
closely related to hardiness. Its central aspects are perceived volved, one can select workplaces with the extremes of
comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness of the stressors (high vs. low stressors) and resources (e.g., very high
environment. Recently, researchers included sense of coher- vs. very low control) and test for interactions within such a de-
ence as a potential moderator in studies on work-related sign (Aiken & West, 1991). Fourth, it is necessary to under-
stress. Cross-sectional research suggests that sense of coher- stand better whether the resources have an impact on stressors
ence can attenuate the negative impact of high-strain jobs (and vice versa). One reason may be that, for example, control
(Söderfeldt, Söderfeldt, Ohlson, Theorell, & Jones, 2000). at work leads to a reduction of certain stressors (particularly
Longitudinal tests are needed to substantiate this effect. those that match the control). If this is the case, then we would
know why resources are sometimes negatively related to stres-
sors. One way to deal with the problem of confounding be-
Conclusions About Moderator Effects
tween resources and stressors is to study people who are new
Methodological reasons make it difficult to detect moderator in their jobs. Finally, we suggest combining experimental and
effects, particularly in nonexperimental studies. Moderated field studies to a larger extent, attempting to simulate in the ex-
regression analysis is a conservative procedure that makes it periment the same types of stressors and resources that are
hard to establish moderator effects. Thus, the field of moder- studied in the field.
ators in stress research may very well have to deal with a In summary, research on resources has revealed main ef-
large Type II error (i.e., not finding in research what exists in fects of resources on health an well-being; this implies that
reality). First, main effects are entered first into the regression the availability of resources is helpful and beneficial in itself
equation, and therefore not much variance remains to be ex- and across a wide range of situations. Additionally, there is
plained by the interaction term. This problem is enhanced in some—although not unequivocal—evidence that certain re-
longitudinal studies in which the initial level of the strain sources can attenuate the negative effects of stressors on
measure (i.e., the dependent variable) is also entered into the health and well-being. Particularly important are control at
regression equation as a control variable. Because individual work, social support, coping styles, and self-efficacy.
strain measures are fairly stable over time, a large proportion
of the variance of the dependent variable is already ex- Stress and Performance
plained. Thus, there is little variance left to be explained by
the interaction effect. Second, most stress studies rely on rel- Stress in organizations may influence not only individual
atively small sample sizes; this implies that the studies do not health and well-being but may also influence performance.
have enough power for detect the moderator effects even if Performance refers to individuals’ actions that are relevant
they exist (Aiken & West, 1991). for organizational goals (Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, &
Consequently, empirical findings on moderator effects are Sager, 1993). Borman and Motowidlo (1993) differentiated
mixed. There are some studies—including those using longi- between task and contextual performance. Task performance
tudinal designs—that speak for a moderator effect of control, refers to in-role behaviors that contribute to the organiza-
social support, and coping styles. Cross-sectional findings on tion’s technical core. Contextual performance refers to extra-
a moderator effect of self-efficacy are encouraging. However, role, discretionary behaviors that do not directly contribute to
support for a moderator effect of locus of control, Type A an organization’s technical core but that are assumed to sup-
behavior, or hardiness are weak. port its broader organizational, social, and psychological
If we analyze these findings in the light of methodological environment.
problems associated with the test of moderator effects, it There are several contradictory assumptions about how
seems warranted to continue research in this area. However, stressors in organizations affect performance. It is plausible
we think that the following recommendations may make it to assume that stressors have a negative linear effect on per-
more likely to find moderator effects: First, more attention formance. Such a negative effect can be explained by direct
should be paid to a match between specific stressors and and indirect effects. The direct effect implies that stressors—
specific moderators (cf. Cohen & Wills, 1985). For example, it particularly situational constraints—make task accomplish-
is plausible to assume that social support, which provides ment more difficult, if not impossible. For example, if a task
has to be accomplished with specific technical equipment and Farris (1972) reported that experienced time pressure in-
this equipment is not available because of a computer break- creased subsequent performance. One of the best studies
down, task performance will suffer directly. Moreover, stres- (Jones et al., 1988) showed that stressors at work increase the
sors may indirectly affect performance—for example, by likelihood of errors and that an organization-wide stress man-
decreasing alertness or motivation, which in turn negatively agement program and changes in management of the hospi-
affects performance. tals reduced malpractice. All these results point to the need to
There is a long tradition in conducting laboratory studies develop a more specific theory of how stressors are related to
on the task performance effects of stressors (Postman & performance.
Bruner, 1948). These studies show that the exposure to stres- Evidence from meta-analyses suggests that there is no
sors leads to cognitive reactions such as narrowed attention substantial relationship between role stressors such as role
(including a focus on salient cues) and reduced working mem- ambiguity or role conflict and job performance, at least
ory capacity (Baddeley, 1972; Hamilton, 1982; for sum- when job performance is assessed by objective measures or
maries, cf. Hockey, 1986; Wickens, 1996). A reduced working supervisory-peer ratings (Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Tubbs &
memory capacity is associated with a speed-accuracy trade- Collins, 2000). Findings from field studies on the perfor-
off when working under stressful conditions—particularly mance effects of situational constraints are inconclusive as
under time pressure (Hockey, 1986; Lulofs, Wennekens, & well. Some studies found performance-deteriorating effects
van Houtem, 1981). Moreover, narrowed attention and re- of situational constraints, whereas others did not (for a sum-
duced working memory capacity have an impact on decision- mary, cf. Jex, 1998).
making strategies. More specifically, they result in simpler There are several explanations for the lack of substantial
decision strategies, recognition rather than analytical strate- linear relationships between stressors and job performance in
gies, and less complete mental simulations (Klein, 1996). field studies. First, one might assume a curvilinear relationship
Recent studies suggest that the effects of stressors on perfor- between stressors and performance; this would imply that the
mance are mediated by fatigue (Hockey, Maule, Vlough, & performance effects of stressors are not uniform across all
Bdzola, 2000; Lorist et al., 2000). degrees of stressor intensity. For example, similarly to the
Some of these effects of stressors were also found in more Yerkes-Dodson Law (1908) on the relationship between
realistic simulations of work environments. For example, arousal and performance, performance might increase as stres-
simulated workload resulted in a performance decrease in sors increase up to a moderate degree; when stressors become
some studies (Glaser, Tatum, Nebeker, Sorenson, & Aiello, too high, however, performance might decrease. Studies that
1999; Jimmieson & Terry, 1999) but not in all (Shaw & tested the assumed curvilinear relationship between stressors
Weekley, 1985). When using a mail-sorting task, Searle et al. and performance failed to find such a relationship, however
(1999) found that high job demands (i.e., high workload) (e.g., Jamal, 1985; Westman & Eden, 1996). Second, the rela-
were associated with an increase in performance attempts but tionship between stressors and job performance might be mod-
also with a reduction in performance accuracy, particularly in erated by other variables. Such moderator variables might
situations with low control. include individual competence (Payne, 1991) or work com-
In contrast to these findings from laboratory and simula- mitment (Jamal, 1985). Until now, however, empirical evi-
tion studies, findings from field studies are far less consistent. dence for the existence of such moderator effects is weak (for a
With respect to task performance, some stressors were found summary, cf. Jex, 1998). Third, the performance measures
to be related to impaired performance, whereas others were used in most of the field studies might be too global for show-
not. For example, in a study on secretaries’ job performance, ing a performance-deterioration effect of work stressors. For
Spector, Dwyer, and Jex (1988) reported a negative relation- example, a study by Kjellberg, Sköldström, Andersson, and
ship between secretaries’ perceptions of constraints and am- Lindberg (1996) suggests that specific performance measures
biguity with supervisory performance ratings. No significant such as reaction times show decrements under stress in a field
relationships, however, between secretaries’ perceptions of setting.
workload or conflict and supervisory performance ratings Fourth, possibly there is essentially no—or no large—
emerged. Similarly, Beehr, Jex, Stacy, and Murray (2000) effect of stressors on performance in field settings. This inter-
found negative relationships between specific stressors (i.e., pretation would contradict findings from laboratory studies
acute stressful events, chronic occupation-specific stressors that showed stressors to impair basic cognitive processes.
and workload variability) and an objective financial perfor- However, impairment of basic cognitive processes may not
mance measure of door-to-door book sellers but found a pos- necessarily translate into a decrease in overall job performance
itive relationship between role overload and job performance. in real-life work settings. Individuals are able to compensate
In a classic study of engineers and scientists, Andrews and for the effects of stressors—for example, by switching to
different task strategies (Sperandio, 1971). Hockey (2000) of- fore affects an individual’s health and well-being in a nega-
fers an additional explanation for the inconsistency between tive way.
laboratory and field study results: Many laboratory tasks are
relatively simple, trivial, and underlearned. If stressors occur Stress and Other Aspects of Organizational Behavior
in such a situation, study participants have few possibilities to
switch to different strategies, be it because of a lack of skills in Organizational stress is related to low organizational commit-
the specific task, or because of the restrictions of the laboratory ment, high turnover rates, and—under specific conditions—
setting. Real-life work tasks, however, are usually well- increased levels of absenteeism. Organizational commitment
learned and complex. If stressors occur in these real-life situa- refers to an individual’s bond or link to the organization
tions, individuals often possess the necessary skills to pursue (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). It comprises attitudinal,
different strategies. Moreover, in organizational settings, goal normative, and continuance aspects (Allen & Meyer, 1990).
attainment has high priority; this implies that task performance In a meta-analysis on organizational commitment, Mathieu
must be protected, if necessary, at the expense of increased ef- and Zajac (1990) reported mean weighted corrected correla-
fort or neglect of subsidiary activities. Klein (1996) addition- tions between role stressors (role overload, role conflict, role
ally argues that some of the cognitive strategies affected by ambiguity) and various aspects of organizational commit-
stressors in laboratory settings play a minor role in real-life ment ranging between r .206 and r .271. Thus, indi-
settings. For example, analytical decision strategies suffer viduals perceiving a more stressful work situation reported
from time pressure, but such strategies are rarely used in nat- lower organizational commitment.
ural decision making; therefore, the negative impact of perfor- There is clear meta-analytic evidence that work-related
mance is limited. strains including impaired health are positively related to
There are a few studies that examined the relationship be- absence behavior (Farrell & Stamm, 1988; Martocchio,
tween stressors and contextual performance. For example, Harrison, & Berkson, 2000). However, this does not necessar-
Motowidlo, Packard, and Manning (1986) reported negative ily imply that stressors at work are related to absenteeism.
relationships between the intensity and frequency of stress- Stressors may overlap with strain and strain may overlap with
ful events on the one hand and interpersonal aspects of job absenteeism, but strain may not be the mediator between
performance of nurses on the other hand. Kruse (1995, cited stressors and absenteeism. A variance decomposition idea ex-
in Jex, 1998) tested whether situational constraints were plains how such a relationship may appear. There is common
related to organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and variance between stressors and strain and between strain and
reported negative relationships between situational con- absenteeism. But the two common variance fields do not over-
straints and three aspects of OCB. These findings suggest that lap. Thus, it is that part of strain that is not related to stressors
in stress situations, individuals assign priority to maintain that may contribute to absenteeism. As a matter of fact, the
task performance at the expense of discretionary behaviors data on the relationship between stressors and absenteeism are
such as contextual performance. However, a longitudinal inconclusive. Cross-sectional studies found weak and often
study by Fay and Sonnentag (in press) suggests that the ex- nonsignificant relationships between work stressors and ab-
perience of stressors at work can even have an enhancing sence data (Chen & Spector, 1992; Hemingway & Smith,
effect on extrarole performance and personal initiative. Sim- 1999; Peter & Siegrist, 1997). Some studies revealed positive
ilarly, Bunce and West (1994) reported that health care pro- relationships between stressors and absenteeism (e.g.,
fessionals responded with innovations to the experience of Kristensen, 1991), whereas others showed negative relation-
stressors at work. ships (e.g., North, Syme, Feeney, Shipley, & Marmot, 1996).
Taken together, laboratory studies showed that stressors Also longitudinal studies resulted in inconsistent findings.
impair basic cognitive processes. However, as field studies Tang and Hammontree (1992) found that work stress in po-
indicate, this impairment does not necessarily result in a de- lice officers was a significant predictor of self-reported ab-
crease in overall job performance. In particular, workload sence; they also found this to be true when they controlled for
was found to be associated with higher job performance. prior absence (time lag was 6 months). Vahtera, Kivimäki,
These findings suggest that individuals spend more effort, Pentti, and Theorell (2000) analyzed absence data from more
prioritize the most relevant tasks, and use compensatory than 500 Finnish municipal employees over a period of
strategies for upholding their performance under stressful 7 years. They found that initially healthy employees who ex-
situations. It remains unclear whether and how such a per- perienced high psychological job demands in 1990 had a
formance management strategy is associated with health or 21% higher risk of long absence spells (more than 3 days)
well-being effects. It might be that such an approach ex- than did employees with low psychological job demands in
hausts an individual’s resources in the long run and there- 1990. For physical demands, the risk of long absence spells
was even 66% higher. The experience of downsizing and per- situation are positively related to intentions to quit the organi-
ceived job insecurity also increased the risk of absence spells zation and to job search behavior (Cavanaugh, Boswell,
(Kivimäki et al., 1997). Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000; Chen & Spector, 1992; Gupta &
Smulders and Nijhuis (1999) collected data on absence Beehr, 1979). With respect to actual turnover behavior, a re-
frequency and rate of 1,755 male employees of a Dutch tech- cent meta-analysis by Griffeth, Hom, and Gaertner (2000) re-
nical maintenance company. In their analyses, Smulders and ported effect sizes ranging from .10 to .21 (corrected
Nijhuis controlled for employee health and absenteeism in for measurement error in the predictors and sampling error)
the 1st year of their study. Results showed that high job de- between stressors and turnover behavior.
mands were not associated with higher absence frequency or Taken together, there is empirical support for the assump-
absence rate during the following 3 years. Contrary to what tion that stressors in the work situation are related to low or-
one might expect, high demands predicted a lower absence ganizational commitment, turnover intentions, and turnover
rate, particularly when the Poisson regression method was behavior. However, with respect to organizational commit-
used. Similarly, a natural experiment (Parkes, 1982) found ment and turnover intentions, the issue of causality remains
lower absence rates in high-demand work settings. unclear. Although it makes intuitive sense to assume that
These cross-sectional and longitudinal findings suggest experiencing a stressful work situation increases the intention
that the relationship between stressful work situations and to quit the organization, individuals who plan to leave the
absenteeism does not follow a simple pattern. First, it might organization might perceive more stressors than do their
be that the relationship is contingent on moderator variables. coworkers who in fact experience the same work situation but
In line with the job demand-job control model (Karasek, intend to stay. Longitudinal studies are needed in this area.
1979), one might argue that job control is such a moderator. In general, research in this area suggests that organiza-
However, although there is some support for this assumption tional stress is detrimental not only to individuals’ health and
(e.g., Dwyer & Ganster, 1991), most empirical studies did not well-being; it can also harm the organization by increasing
confirm the hypothesized interaction effect of job control on turnover rates and—possibly, although it has not been
the demands-absenteeism relationship (Smulders & Nijhuis, proven—absenteeism.
1999; Vahtera, Pentti, & Uutela, 1996).
Moreover, person factors such as organizational or profes-
sional commitment might play a role in the stressor- STRESS INTERVENTIONS
absenteeism relationship. It might be that in stressful work
situations, absenteeism increases in employees with low com- Stress prevention can be achieved with different sorts of
mitment but decreases in highly committed employees. Data programs (Ivancevich & Matteson, 1988; Murphy, 1988;
reported by Jamal (1984) partially supported this assumption. Murphy, 1996; Theorell, 1993). In the United States, stress
Gender might also play a role. For example, Melamed et al. interventions are often only directed at the individual in the
(1995) found substantial correlations between objective mo- sense of stress management programs. In Europe, there has
notony and sickness absence in women but not in men. been a bit more emphasis on job-oriented stress interventions
Additionally, a study by Peter and Siegrist (1997) suggests such as job restructuring (which increases the resources con-
that it is not the stressfulness of a situation per se that affects trol and skills; Cooper & Payne, 1992). Table 18.4 displays
an employee’s absence behavior. In accordance with the
effort-reward-imbalance model, the authors found that status TABLE 18.4 Stress Interventions in Organizations
incongruity (i.e. a mismatch between effort and career
Individual Organizational
achievements) was positively related with both short-term
Stressor Reduction of individual Reduction of stressor
and long-term absenteeism in middle managers, whereas ef-
reduction stressor (e.g., time (e.g. organizational
fort alone (i.e. time pressure and interruptions) was not re- pressure) problems)
lated to absenteeism. These findings can be explained in the Resource Competence training Participation in decision
context of a psychological contract interpretation (Rousseau, increase making, health circles
1995): Stressors increase absenteeism if employees feel that Strain Relaxation, stress Rest periods
reduction immunization, training,
their efforts are not rewarded adequately. Longitudinal stud- respites (vacations,
ies are needed that explicitly test this assumption. leisure time)
Stressful work situations are positively related to turnover Lifestyle Antismoking program; Nonsmoking buildings;
intentions and turnover behavior. There is rather consistent changes exercise program salient staircases
vs. salient elevators
evidence from numerous studies that stressors in the work
Stress Interventions 475
organizational and personal approaches to stressors, strains, relationship between a secretary and his or her boss. Second,
and resources. Although the differentiation in various ap- because technological and organizational changes are quite
proaches is convenient, in many cases multiple approaches frequent and increasingly rapid, research is too slow to tell us
are combined—for example, institutional resource en- which stressors are particularly problematic and need to be
hancement and individual stress-management programs (cf. taken care of. Therefore, reduction of stressors should be ac-
Kompier, Aust, Van den Berg, & Siegrist, 2000; Kompier, companied by an increase in resources.
Cooper, & Geurts, 2000).
Increase in Resources
Stressor Reduction
Two important resources at work are control at work and com-
Stressors can be reduced by individuals or by institutions (or petencies or skills. Resources in the sense of control or partic-
some combination). Examples for the latter are reduction of ipation in decision making help individuals to have an
noise, change of assembly line speed in accordance with the influence on how to do their work and to increase or reduce
circadian rhythm, reduction of interruptions at work. Individ- stressors appropriately. Stressors that come about through
ual stressor reduction is often an outgrowth of stress man- new technology can best be addressed when resources are
agement programs that alert people to the fact that they can given to influence one’s work. Thus, restructuring work by in-
change certain parts of their work environment. However, increasing job content and responsibilities often has a stress-
dividual stressor reduction often presupposes a certain preventive function as well. At least two careful studies on the
amount of control over work (or in general, a certain amount effects of institutionally increasing control have been done
of resources). Certainly, people have an impact on what the (Jackson, 1983; Wall & Clegg, 1981). Jackson (1983) used a
job looks like—including the stressors and the resources four-group Solomon control group design to study the effects
(Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991). As discussed previously, we do of enhanced participation (increase of group meetings) in de-
not know of any studies, however, that have examined how cision making that she hypothesized to increase power, in-
resources affect stressors or vice versa. These studies are formation, and social support. An increase of participation
necessary to understand how people as individuals change in decision making decreased emotional stress, absence
stressors. frequency, and turnover intention. Wall and Clegg (1981)
Institutional stressor reduction approaches may take many showed that increase in autonomy and control by introducing
different forms. A general stressor reduction approach (or bet- semiautonomous work groups led to short- and long-term
ter exposure time reduction) is to decrease the number of (12 months after the study was ended) increases in mental
working hours, which seems to have positive effects, as re- health. Unfortunately, this effect could not be replicated in
ported in some company reports (Kompier, Aust, et al., 2000) another study (Wall, Kemp, Jackson, & Clegg, 1986).
and in a meta-analysis (Sparks, Cooper, Fried, & Shirom, Increasing individual competence and skills is also an as-
1997). Other institutional approaches reduce specific stres- pect of resources, although it has not been typically discussed
sors that are suspected to be problematic. For example, an or- as a stress prevention technique. Without the necessary skills
ganization may reduce noise and may ensure a better flow of it is not possible to use control (Frese, 1989). Three argu-
material, thereby reducing organizational problems—or there ments speak for the importance of competence as a resource
may be a reduction of time pressure, task ambiguity, or task in the stress process. First, working smarter, not harder is a
difficulty. Such institutional stressor reduction approaches are good description of what superworkers—that is, excellent
useful, although problems may arise if such an approach is performers—do (Frese & Zapf, 1994; Sonnentag, 2000);
used singly and not in combination with other approaches: because working smart implies using efficient rather than
First, reducing stressors may sometimes lead to a reduction of inefficient action strategies, this means that employees expe-
challenges. If there is high qualitative overload, one may be rience less stress when working smart. Second, it follows
tempted to reduce overload by decreasing the cognitive de- from the P-E fit model (cf. our discussion of this model ear-
mands of a job. This can, however, reduce not only overload lier in this chapter) that people can increase the fit by devel-
but also challenges and resources. A case in point was the ef- oping their competence to deal with environmental demands.
fort to reduce external disturbances in secretaries by intro- When a person is supposed to produce a certain number of
ducing central typing pools. In this case, interruptions and products, development of skills helps him or her to actually
disturbances—stressors about which secretaries frequently do that—the P-E fit will be high and strain low. Third, self-ef-
complain—were reduced, but this also reduced control over ficacy is intimately related to competence. Bandura (1997)
how and when to do a job and reduced a clear and reliable has argued for the strain-reducing function of self-efficacy in
various domains and has shown that self-efficacy (e.g., via immunization or relaxation techniques). Because there are ex-
mastery experiences that increase the competence to deal cellent reviews (e.g., Bamberg & Busch, 1996; Murphy, 1996;
with difficult situations) plays an important role in the strain Van der Klink, Blonk, Schene, & Van Dijk, 2001), we do not
reduction process. need to discuss studies on stress management in detail.
An additional resource is social support (mainly by super- Two techniques stand in the foreground (Murphy, 1996):
visors; Frese, 1999), which may be increased by management relaxation techniques and cognitive-behavioral techniques
training. However, to our knowledge, the strain-reducing na- (cf. also Bellarosa & Chen, 1997). Relaxation is most often
ture of management training has not been shown yet. based on progressive muscle relaxation (Jacobson, 1938) as
well as meditation and biofeedback. By and large, progres-
sive muscle relaxation has been shown to be effective (e.g.,
Combination of Stressor Reduction and Increase
Murphy, 1996). It is particularly effective for psychophy-
in Resources
siological outcomes; for other outcomes, the effect size for
In general, Elkin and Rosch (1990) suggested that the fol- cognitive-behavioral techniques is higher (Van der Klink
lowing interventions can be used to decrease stress: task and et al., 2001).
work environment redesign, flexible work schedules, partici- Cognitive-behavioral techniques are based on cognitive
pation in management, analysis of work roles, establishment therapy for depression (Beck, 1967; Whisman, 1998), on
of goals, social support, cohesive teams, fair employment rational-emotive therapy (Ellis, 1962), and on stress immu-
policies, and shared rewards. More specifically, Bunce and nization or stress inoculation (Meichenbaum, 1985). Cogni-
West (1996) showed that an approach encouraging people to tive therapy has been shown to be a highly useful procedure
innovatively deal with work stressors led to a reduction of for depressive individuals in clinical trials (Robinson,
strain (this finding was also replicated by Bond & Bunce, Berman, & Neimeyer, 1990) and in stress management for
2000). Bunce and West’s concept increased the subjective re- working populations (Bamberg & Busch, 1996; Murphy,
sources to deal with stressors because it encouraged innova- 1996; Van der Klink et al., 2001). Most studies do not really
tive approaches. It is similar to the German concept of health differentiate in detail between cognitive and rational-emotive
circles (quality circles applied to health issues) that discuss therapy, and a combination is usually preferred. Similar posi-
stressors and work problems that can potentially lead to ill tive effects appear for rational-emotive therapy. Rational-
health (Beermann, Kuhn, & Kompier, 1999; Slesina, 1994). emotive therapy works by helping the person to use rational
A program on reduction of burnout with a similar element of self-instructions. For example, a person might have a tendency
suggesting innovative approaches to deal with the stressors to exaggerate a given stress situation and catastrophize when
has also been suggested by Van Dierendonck, Schaufeli, and something goes wrong. Alternative self-instructions are then
Buunk (1998). They combined their approach to changing trained (for example, it is not catastrophic if something goes
the workplace with enhancing the individual’s realistic orien- wrong because mistakes happen to most people). Stress inoc-
tation toward investments and outcomes so that the impres- ulation training is “designed to impart skills to enhance resis-
sion of equity was increased. Van Dierendonck et al. (1998) tance to stress” and its objective is “to prepare the individual to
found their training to reduce emotional exhaustion, although respond more favorably to negative stress events” (Saunders,
it did not positively affect depersonalization and personal Driskell, Johnston, & Salas, 1996, p. 171). Stress inoculation
accomplishment. works via three phases: First, conceptualization and educa-
tion; second, skill acquisition and rehearsal; and third, appli-
cation and follow-through (Saunders et al., 1996). The first
Strain Reduction
phase—conceptualization and education—teaches people to
Individually oriented strain reduction programs belong to the have a more sophisticated view of the nature of stress.
most frequently used programs in business; as a matter of fact, Second—acquisition and rehearsal—provides a stronger
in some reviews, individual strain reduction programs are the repertoire of coping skills and rehearses them either in vivo
only ones discussed in presentations of evidence on stress (e.g., role-play) or in guided imagery. Third—application and
management. A large body of studies exists, and reviews find follow-through—works also via role play and guided imagery
clear and positive effects. Stress management programs at- to deal with the real-life threats and stressors. A meta-analysis
tempt to influence employees to interpret a situation not as of 37 studies showed that performance anxiety was strongly
stressful but as a challenge. They also teach a person to affected (r .509), state anxiety was also affected (r .373),
improve one’s coping strategies and to reduce strain (stress
Stress Interventions 477
and—finally—there was also a positive performance effect comparison of individual stress management approaches to
(r .296; Saunders et al., 1996). organizational changes with the aim to reduce stress and in-
One meta-analysis of 16 work-related stress management crease resources. Organizational changes had a nonsignificant
studies found an average effect size of 0.41 (Bamberg & effect size that was significantly lower than was the effect size
Busch, 1996). A second, more recent meta-analysis (Van der for individually oriented approaches. Unfortunately, they
Klink et al., 2001) found somewhat different effect sizes for could only include five samples from four organizational
18 cognitive-behavioral studies (d .68), 17 relaxation stud- intervention studies; these studies showed widely differing
ies (d .35), and 8 so-called multimodel approaches (acqui- effect sizes, from a negative effect size of .20 (Landsbergis
sition of passive and active coping skills; d .51). Thus, & Vivona-Vaughan, 1995) to a positive effect size of .50
stress management programs increase health by about a half (Jones et al., 1988). Moreover, one study had 1,375 partici-
of a standard deviation. The study by Murphy (1996) corrob- pants (Heaney, Price, & Rafferty, 1995), whereas the other
orates these results by showing that published reports on 64 studies included only very small groups of participants. Thus,
stress management interventions show on average between the field of organizational intervention does not provide suffi-
59% (for job and organizational outcome measures) and 68% cient data yet to make a meta-analysis feasible. Moreover, it is
(for physiological and biochemical outcome variables) posi- necessary to study moderators of the effect; for example,
tive and significant results. Furthermore, those interventions Landsbergis and Vivona-Vaughan (1995) explained their neg-
that used a combination of approaches (e.g., relaxation and ative effects with lack of management commitment to stress
cognitive-behavioral techniques) tended to lead to the best management and with obstacles in the implementation of the
results. Murphy (1996) and Van der Klink et al. (2001) also intervention strategies.
reported results for more disturbed individuals and for reme- An institutional approach to reducing strain is to provide
dial interventions to be better than results for normal employ- rest periods. Whereas stress management is a modern topic
ees or preventive approaches; this implies that clinical studies and full of new research, the study of rest periods is an older
show better results than does stress management training for topic, with only a few studies appearing each year (Graf,
unselected working populations. An additional constraint of Rutenfranz, & Ulich, 1970). It is well-known that the recov-
most stress management programs is that they presuppose ery is fastest after short periods of work and that the first
that the employees can actually do something about their few minutes of a rest period are most important for recovery.
stress levels (i.e., have at least some measure of control at Graf et al. (1970) suggests, therefore, that 5% of the work
work). Employees with a high degree of control at work and time should be taken as rest periods. Because rest periods are
with higher status jobs showed better success in stress man- anticipated, performance is higher if there are rest periods
agement interventions than did low-control or low-status job (Graf et al., 1970). Therefore, there is usually no decrement
employees (Van der Klink et al., 2001). For this reason, stress in overall performance in spite of the time needed for rest pe-
management programs are probably less useful for blue- riods (Galinsky, Swanson, Sauter, Hurrell, & Schleifer, 2000;
collar workers than for white-collar workers and managers. Graf et al., 1970). At the same time, stress effects are smaller
Thus, in general, a positive picture on stress management when rest periods are interspersed in work (Galinsky et al.,
programs appears. However, a number of caveats are in order: 2000). Evidence in the literature suggests that rest periods
First, it is quite plausible that negative or zero effects do not should be organizationally prescribed and supervised but
find their way into the journals (Murphy, 1996). Second, the should not be self-taken (concealed breaks) because people
better studies with randomized control groups showed a tend to take less frequent and too short rest periods when left
lower degree of success than did the studies without a control to their own decisions (Graf et al., 1970; Henning, Sauter,
group (Murphy, 1996). Finally, reviews find clear nonspecific Salvendy, & Krieg, 1989). Employees also want to cluster
effects; this points to the importance of using control groups rest periods and add them at the end or at the beginning of the
in stress intervention studies. For these reasons, a certain de- workday rather than interspersing them into their workday at
gree of skepticism has to prevail. On the positive side, stress regular intervals. We think that the issue of rest periods
management programs are often effective in increasing life should be taken more seriously again in the literature on
expectancy—for example, if given to heart disease patients stress interventions than it is at the moment.
(34% reduction in cardiac mortality; Dusseldorp, Van Additionally, to strain reduction programs individuals
Elderen, Maes, Meulman, & Kraaij, 1999). may initiate strain reduction by themselves during vacation
Digressing somewhat from the general theme of strain re- and other leisure time periods (for a recent review on respites
duction, it is useful to look at Van der Klink et al.’s (2001) from work, cf. Eden, 2001). Research has shown that during
vacations, burnout decreases—particularly when an individ- relatively small amount of daily physical activities, such as
ual is satisfied with his or her vacations (Westman & Eden, walking stairs, walking to work, doing small errands on foot,
1997). Researchers even reported that military reserve service or bicycling to work have an enormously positive effect on
results in a decline in burnout and that psychological de- mortality ratios. An example is the study by Pfaffenberger,
tachment from work increased this effect (Etzion, Eden, & Hyde, Wing, and Hsieh (1986) who showed that people using
Lapidot, 1998). Similarly, leisure time activities pursued dur- up 500 to 2,000 kcal per week had a reduced mortality rate
ing evenings of normal workdays can reduce strain. For exam- within the 16 years of study in comparison to men who did
ple, a diary study revealed that specific activities such as not do any physical exercises. The reduced mortality rate was
low-effort activities, physical activities, and social activities even more pronounced for those using 2,000 kcal per week.
had a positive impact on a person’s well-being, whereas work- Burning 2,000 kcal per week is equivalent to walking, for
related activities performed during leisure time had a negative example, 35 km per week or climbing three flights of stairs
impact (Sonnentag, 2001). These studies suggest that psycho- 70 times per week; this speaks for the importance of encour-
logical detachment from work during vacation or leisure time aging light sports in the office building by building adequate,
periods is crucial for strain reduction to occur. aesthetically pleasing, and salient staircases and by encourag-
ing employees to use the stairs.
Lifestyle Changes
Conclusion on Stress Interventions
Individually oriented lifestyle change programs attempt to im-
prove diet, to support healthy living (e.g., reducing alcohol Taken together, the literature on stress intervention concepts
and tobacco consumption), and to increase physical exercise. and studies suggests a number of conclusions. First, stress
Employee assistance programs (EAP) are a case in point: They intervention studies go under very different names and are
often target alcoholism or other addictions, but they can also presented in very different disciplines and journals. Stress
be broad-based and include exercise and stress management management studies are done by clinicians or clinical work
programs; they experienced a tremendous growth in compa- psychologists and are mainly published in the Journal of
nies during the 1970s and 1980s (Matteson & Ivancevich, Occupational Health Psychology or the International Jour-
1987). Breslow and Enstrom (1980) have shown that men who nal of Stress Management. Lifestyle changes are reported
used seven positive habits (sleeping 7–8 hours, eating break- in sports psychology and in medical journals. Rest period
fast almost every day, never or rarely eating between meals, studies appear in human factors journals, mainly ergonomics
being near height-adjusted weight, never smoking, moderate and new technology journals. Stressor reduction and re-
or no use of alcohol, and regular physical activity) had a lower source enhancement is done by job enrichment and job de-
mortality rate across 10 years than did those who followed sign professionals and appear in Academy of Management
zero to three practices. Exercise- and health-promoting pro- Journal, Human Relations, and other outlets. Social resource
grams at work have been quite successful in decreasing anxi- enhancement—for example, social support increase—is re-
ety (Long & Van Stavel, 1995), in reducing cardiovascular ally part of teaching management skills and appear, for
mortality after myocardial infarction (O’Connor et al., 1989), example, in Leadership Quarterly. Obviously many articles
and in enhancing general well-being (Ivancevich & Matteson, also appear in the more general journals, such as Journal
1988). A dramatic example of the success of a wellness of Applied Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
program for cardiovascular fitness is the one used by the and Applied Psychology: An International Review; we think
New York Telephone Company that saved the organization that it pays to pull these diverse areas together and gain
$2.7 million in reduced absenteeism and treatments costs in by using theories across different intervention domains. The
1 year alone (Cartwright, Cooper, & Murphy, 1995). More best developed areas of stress interventions are rest peri-
specific psychological programs— for example, toward the ods (although the literature in this area is quite old), stress
coronary-prone Type A behavior pattern—also proved to management techniques, and lifestyle changes. These areas
be effective in reducing coronary recurrences (Nunes & are easier to study because they can be studied experimen-
Kornfeld, 1987). tally (particularly rest periods) and only imply changes of
Surprisingly, institutional approaches such as building individuals. Organizational approaches have been studied
architecture have not been studied to our knowledge as much less frequently because they are more difficult to
potential stress interventions. Office buildings may make it study; there is a need to look at moderators (e.g., how well
easier or harder to use the stairs, for example, by making the program is supported by management and how well it is
either the staircase or the lift salient. It is surprising that a implemented), and these studies are much more risky
Overall Conclusions 479
because many aspects cannot be controlled by the change better in situations that allow little control and other resources;
agent. (b) the long-term effectiveness of emotion-focused strategies
Second, nearly every review of the field speaks about the may be lower than that for problem-focused approaches; (c) a
importance of doing more studies in the area of organiza- combination of emotion- and problem-focused strategies is
tional changes. We can only repeat this call. Most authors probably superior to either one of them alone.
assume that it makes sense to combine structural and institu- Finally, more research is needed that pits different ap-
tional changes with individually oriented approaches, at least proaches against each other. One of the most important is-
for blue-collar workers (e.g., Bamberg & Busch, 1996; sues is whether there are general and specific effects of an
Ivancevich, Matteson, Freedman, & Phillips, 1990; Kompier, intervention (Bunce, 1997; Murphy, 1996). Trainer charac-
Cooper, et al., 2000; Murphy, 1996). teristics also need to be studied more frequently. For exam-
Third, practically every review on stress intervention tech- ple, one study surprisingly showed that less well-trained
niques has called for better designed studies in this area. Be- trainers were more effective in stress management than were
cause there seems to be a relationship between effect size and experienced trainers (Saunders et al., 1996). Another surpris-
study design (Murphy, 1996), this issue needs to be taken se- ing finding of the meta-analysis by Van der Klink et al.
riously. Undoubtedly, better research has been done within (2001) that needs to be studied in more detail is that there
the last 15–20 years—particularly in the area of stress man- is an inverse relationship between number of sessions and
agement and lifestyle changes. effect size.
Forth, one issue of improving design is related to the fact
that there are nonspecific effects of stress management. A
notreatment control group does not actually account for OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
nonspecific effects; it is therefore necessary to include
pseudotreatment control into designs because merely think- Empirical research summarized in this chapter shows that or-
ing about stress at work and self-reflecting may actually ganizational stress has detrimental effects on individual health
enhance health outcomes as well. and well-being. Moreover, stress interventions—particularly
Fifth, most studies only look at short-term changes, but we those aimed at individual stress management—have been
need to be able to produce long-term changes with stress in- found to have beneficial effects.
terventions. Both in the areas of job interventions and in Researchers have criticized past empirical studies on orga-
stress management, there are hypotheses in the literature that nizational stress for their methodological shortcomings (Frese
the effects are mainly short term. & Zapf, 1988; Kasl, 1978; Sullivan & Bhagat, 1992). During
Sixth, by and large, more process-oriented research on the past decade, an increasing number of studies followed a
stress interventions needs to be done (Bunce, 1997). This more rigorous research methodology (e.g., objective measures
can be done by developing manuals as well as by checking of stressors, longitudinal designs, test of curvilinear effects).
how much trainers conform to the theoretically proposed We are convinced that this improved methodology has
procedures, how much of the effect was due to the specific contributed to substantial progress within organizational stress
program, and how much of the effect was due to general effects. research. Specifically, we observed progress with respect to the
Good examples for such an approach exist in the clinical psy- following issues:
chology—particularly cognitive therapy—approaches to de- First, objective stressors—and not just the perception of
pression (e.g., Castonguay, Hayes, Goldfried, & DeRubeis, stressors—are related to indicators of poor health and well-
1995; DeRubeis et al., 1990; Hollon, DeRubeis, & Evans, being. This implies that the well-documented empirical rela-
1987). tionship between stressors and strains can not be fully
Seventh, research on respites from work stress is a promis- explained by common method variance and overlap in con-
ing area of research (Eden, 2001). More studies are needed that tent between independent and dependent variables.
examine the specific features—predictors as well as short- and Second, stressors have a causal effect on health and well-
long-term consequences—of successful respite periods. being with concurrent effects that are stronger than lagged
Eighth, some authors have confronted emotion-focused effects. There are additional reverse effects of strains on stres-
versus problem-focused approaches of stress interventions sors. However, these effects seem to be relatively weak.
(e.g., Bond & Bunce, 2000). We agree with Keinan and Fried- Third, resources are important for an individual’s health
land (1996; p. 269) that a simple comparison cannot be made and well-being. The main effects of resources such as control
and leads to inconclusive results and that the following issues at work, social support, and self-efficacy are stronger than
need to be considered: (a) Emotion-focused strategies may be their buffer effects.
Fourth, there are curvilinear effects of stressors on strains. the stressor (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Here, researchers have to
However, it seems that compared to the linear effects, these specify more explicitly which resources are most helpful in a
curvilinear effects are of minor importance. specific stressful situation.
Fifth, better designed studies with objective measures re- Third, aspects of time should be taken much more seri-
port smaller correlations than do studies with subjective mea- ously within organizational stress research. When studying
sures (cf. also Zapf, Dormann, et al., 1996); it may appear that the effects of stressors longitudinally, researchers should pay
this points to actually low impact rates of stressors on strain more attention to the time lags between the first and subse-
and that the effect of stressors at work is rather small. We think quent measurement points. Until now it seems that the time
that this would be a mistake (Frese & Zapf, 1988) because lags have been chosen rather arbitrarily or for convenience
(a) no study ever measures all stressors at work; (b) objective reasons. As the Dormann and Zapf (1999) study illustrated,
measures of stressors underestimate the relationship between some effects are found only for a limited set of time lags. Re-
stressors and strains because observers’ errors decrease the searchers need to spell out more clearly within which time
correlations; (c) strain is caused by many factors (stressors at frame they expect specific strain symptoms to develop. Frese
work, biological and psychological predispositions, stressors and Zapf (1988) have differentiated the following models
outside work, etc.)—every one of which can only have a cer- based on time and stress exposure effects: (a) stress reaction
tain amount of influence; (d) there is a selection effect of most model that implies an ill-health reaction to the stressor, which
studies on stress at work (healthy workers effect) because ill is reduced when the stressor is reduced; (b) accumulation
people have a lower probability to be in the sample; (e) there model, in which the effect is not reduced even if the stressor
are moderators that may increase the relationships; (f ) finally, no longer present; (c) dynamic accumulation model, in which
low correlations often appear to be of less practical impor- the effects increase ill health further even when individuals
tance than is actually the case, as shown by Abelson (1985), are no longer exposed to the stressors; (d) adjustment model,
Frese (1985), and Rosenthal and Rubin (1982). in which people learn to cope with the stressor and ill health
Sixth, there are some studies that use natural experiments is reduced even though the people are still exposed to the
in stress research (e.g., Parkes, 1982). Kasl (1978) has called stressors; (e) sleeper effect model, in which the ill health ap-
for more studies making use of natural experiments, and we pears after the stressor disappears, as in the case of posttrau-
can only repeat the suggestion here again. matic stress disorder. We think that it is useful to explicitly
As a whole, the recent advancements made in organiza- test different models, taking into consideration exposure time
tional stress research demonstrate that it pays to invest in a and differential timing effects (cf. also Garst et al., 2000).
better research methodology. However, to make real progress Fourth, more attention to time aspects is also necessary for
in a field it is not sufficient to focus only on research method- testing interaction effects. It is necessary to examine in more
ology. It is necessary to also invest in theory development and detail at which point in time in the stress process resources
to make sure to address the most relevant research questions are most helpful. For example, resources might act as power-
(Brief & George, 1995). For deepening the understanding of ful stress buffers only early in the stress process.
the process of how and when organizational stress affects the Fifth, researchers should explicitly address the mediating
individual and the larger organization, we suggest the follow- processes in the stressor-strain relationship; this refers both to
ing avenues for future research: mediators at the physiological level and to mediators at the
First, there is a clear need for a direct comparison between emotional and cognitive level (i.e., appraisals).
competing theoretical models. Such comparisons are still very Sixth, there should be more studies on stress and perfor-
rare (for an exception, cf. de Jonge et al., 2000). Such compar- mance. Laboratory studies suggest that stressors have a nega-
isons will be helpful for advancing theory about organizational tive effect on basic cognitive processes. However, in field
stress because they will show which specific assumptions study settings, the effects of stressors on job performance are
within one model make it superior to a competing model. less obvious. It seems that individuals uphold their perfor-
Second, researcher should pay more attention to the im- mance by increasing effort. This increased work effort might
pact of specific stressors and specific resources on specific have detrimental long-term effects on health and well-being,
strains. Such a specificity hypothesis (Broadbent, 1985) im- however. It is interesting to note that there are only a few field
plies that specific stressors are related to specific symptoms studies that simultaneously examined the effects of stressors
but not to others. Empirical tests of this hypothesis are still on performance and on health and well-being. Research on the
rare (Hesketh & Shouksmith, 1986; Steen, Firth, & Bond, health effects of organizational stress and research on the per-
1998). For a resource to be effective as a stress buffer, it is formance effects of organizational stress are separate research
crucial that the resource matches the specific requirements of areas, particularly in field studies. By focusing exclusively on
References 481
health and well-being or on performance effects, researchers (quasi-)experimenteller Studien (Work oriented improvements
get to know only one side of the coin. We suggest further ad- in health through stress-management training: A metaanalysis of
vancing organizational stress research by looking simultane- quasi-experimental studies). Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organi-
ously at the impact of stressors on performance and on health sationspsychologie, 40, 127–137.
and well-being. Such studies could identify the health and Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New
well-being costs of upholding high performance in stressful York: Freeman.
situations. Moreover, such studies could shed light on the per- Barnett, R. C., & Brennan, R. T. (1997). Change in job conditions,
formance requirements under which strain symptoms occur. It change in psychological distress, and gender: A longidtudinal
study of dual-earner couples. Journal of Organizational Behav-
is also useful to address the role of resources by examining
ior, 18, 253–274.
which resources let people uphold performance without im-
Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Causes and treatment. Philadelphia:
pairing health and well-being.
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Taken together, organizational stress research has bene-
Beehr, T. A. (1995). Psychological stress in the workplace. New
fited from methodologically more sophisticated studies. It
York: Routledge.
has become obvious that organizational stress affects individ-
Beehr, T. A. (1998). Research on occupational stress: An unfinished
ual health and well-being in a negative way. Individuals,
enterprise. Personnel Psychology, 51, 835–844.
however, have a broad range of ways of dealing with stress so
Beehr, T. A., Jex, S. M., Stacy, B. A., & Murray, M. A. (2000). Work
that both their health and performance do not suffer necessar-
stressors and coworker support as predictors of individual strain
ily. Despite this research progress, there remain many ques- and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21,
tions to be answered by future research. 391–405.
Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. E. (1978). Job stress, employee health,
and organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and
REFERENCES literature review. Personnel Psychology, 31, 665–699.
Beermann, B., Kuhn, K., & Kompier, M. A. J. (1999). Germany:
Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little Reduction of stress by health circles. In M. A. J. Kompier &
is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 129–133. C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Preventing stress, improving productivity:
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and European case studies in the workplace (pp. 222–241). London:
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Routledge.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement of antecedents Begley, T. M., & Czajka, J. M. (1993). Panel analysis of the moder-
of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the or- ating effects of commitment on job satisfaction, intent to quit,
ganization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18. and health following organizational change. Journal of Applied
Andrews, F. M., & Farris, G. F. (1972). Time pressure and perfor- Psychology, 78, 552–556.
mance of scientists and engineers: A five-year panel study. Bellarosa, C., & Chen, P. Y. (1997). The effectiveness and practical-
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 185–200. ity of occupational stress management interventions: A survey of
Antonovsky, A. (1991). The structural sources of salutogenic subject matter expert opinions. Journal of Occupational Health
strenghts. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Personality and Psychology, 2, 247–262.
stress: Individual differences in the stress process (pp. 67–104). Bhagat, R. S., & Allie, S. M. (1989). Organizational stress, personal
Chichester, England: Wiley. life stress, and symptoms of life strains: An examination of the
Aronsson, G., & Rissler, A. (1998). Psychophysiological stress moderating role of sense of competence. Journal of Vocational
reactions in female and male urban bus drivers. Journal of Behavior, 35, 231–253.
Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 122–129. Bliese, P. D., & Britt, T. W. (2001). Social support, group consensus
Baddeley, A. D. (1972). Selective attention and performance in dan- and stressor-strain relationships: Social context matters. Journal
gerous environments. British Journal of Psychology, 63, 537–546. of Organizational Behavior, 22, 425–436.
Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2000). Burnout contagion Bond, F. W., & Bunce, D. (2000). Mediators of change in emotion-
processes among teachers. Journal of Applied Social Psychol- focused and problem-focused worksite stress management inter-
ogy, 30, 2289–2308. ventions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 156–163.
Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Sixma, H. J., Bosveld, W., & van Bongers, P. M., de Winter, C. R., Kompier, M. A. J., & Hildebrandt,
Dierendonck, D. (2000). Patient demands, lack of reciprocity, V. H. (1993). Psychosocial factors at work and musculoskeletal
and burnout: A five-year longitudinal study among general prac- diseases. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health,
titionars. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 21, 425–441. 19, 297–312.
Bamberg, E., & Busch, C. (1996). Betriebliche Gesundheits- Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion
förderung durch Streßmanagementtraining: Eine Metaanalyse domain to include elements of contextual performance. In
N. Schmitt & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organi- Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau,
zations (pp. 71–98). New York: Jossey-Bass. J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work
Bosma, H., Peter, R., Siegrist, J., & Marmot, M. (1998). Two alter- stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
native job stress models and the risk of coronary heart disease. 65–74.
American Journal of Public Health, 88, 68–74. Chapman, A., Mandryk, J. A., Frommer, M. S., Edye, B. V., &
Breslow, L., & Enstrom, J. E. (1980). Persistence of health habits Ferguson, D. A. (1990). Chronic perceived work stress and
and their relationship to mortality. Preventive Medicine, 9, blood pressure among Australian government employees. Scandi-
469 – 483. navian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 16, 258– 269.
Brief, A. P., & George, J. M. (1995). Psychological stress and the Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors
workplace: A brief comment on Lazarus’ outlook. In R. Crandall with aggression, withdrawal, theft and substance use: An ex-
& P. L. Perrewé (Eds.), Occupational stress: A handbook ploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
(pp. 15–19). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis. Psychology, 65, 177–184.
Broadbent, D. E. (1985). The clinical impact of job design. British Cohen, S., & Edwards, J. R. (1989). Personality characteristics as
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 33–44. moderators of the relationship between stress and disorder. In
Bromet, E. J., Dew, M. A., Parkinson, D. K., & Schulberg, H. C. R. W. J. Neufeld (Ed.), Advances in the investigation of psycho-
(1988). Predictive effects of occupational and marital stress on logical stress (pp. 235–283). New York: Wiley.
the mental health of a male workforce. Journal of Organiza- Cohen, S., & Syme, S. L. (1985). Social support and health. New
tional Behavior, 9, 1–13. York: Academic Press.
Bunce, D. (1997). What factors are associated with the outcome of Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the
individual-focused worksite stress management interventions? buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational psychology, 70, Cooper, C. (Ed.). (1998). Theories of organizational stress. New
1–17. York: Oxford University Press.
Bunce, D., & West, M. (1994). Changing work environments: Inno- Cooper, C. L., Liukkonen, P., & Cartwright, S. (1996). Stress pre-
vative coping responses to occupational stress. Work and Stress, vention in the workplace: Assessing the costs and benefits to
8, 319–331. organisations. Dublin, Ireland: European Foundation for the
Bunce, D., & West, M. A. (1996). Stress management and innova- Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
tion at work. Human Relations, 49, 209–232. Cooper, C. L., & Payne, R. L. (1992). International perspectives on
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). research into work, well-being, and stress management. In J. C.
A theory of performance. In E. Schmitt &W. C. Borman (Eds.), Quick, L. R. Murphy, & J. J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Stress and well-
Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35–70). San Francisco: being at work (pp. 348–368). Washington, DC: American
Jossey-Bass. Psychological Association.
Carayon, P. (1993). A longitudinal test of Karasek’s job strain model Corneil, W., Beaton, R., Murphy, S., Johnson, C., & Pike, K. (1999).
among office workers. Work and Stress, 7, 299–314. Exposure to traumatic incidents and prevalence of posttraumatic
Carter, A. J., & West, M. A. (1999). Sharing the burden: Teamwork stress symptomatology in urban firefighters in two countries.
in health care settings. In R. L. Payne & J. Firth-Cozens (Eds.), Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 131–141.
Stress in health professionals: Psychological and organisational Cox, T., Griffiths, A., & Rial-Gonzáles, E. (2000). Research on
issues (pp. 191–202). Chichester, England: Wiley. work-related stress. Luxembourg: European Agency for Safety
Carter, S. M., & West, M. A. (1998). Reflexivity, effectiveness, and and Health at Work.
mental health in BBC-TV production teams. Small Group Cummings, T., & Cooper, C. L. (1979). A cybernetic theory of
Research, 29, 583–601. occupational stress. Human Relations, 32, 395–418.
Cartwright, S., Cooper, C. L., & Murphy, L. R. (1995). Diagnosing Cummings, T. G., & Cooper, C. L. (1998). A cybernetic theory of
a healthy organization: A proactive approach to stress in the organizational stress. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organiza-
workplace. In L. R. Murphy, J. J. J. Hurrell, S. L. Sauter, & C. W. tional stress (pp. 101–121). New York: Oxford University Press.
Puryear Keita (Eds.), Job stress interventions (pp. 217–233). Daniels, K. (1999). Coping and the job demands-control-support
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. model: An exploratory study. International Journal of Stress
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful con- Management, 6, 125–144.
ceptual framework for personality—social, clinical, and health Daniels, K., & Guppy, A. (1994). Occupational stress, social sup-
psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 111–135. port, job control, and psychological well-being. Human Rela-
Castonguay, L. G., Hayes, A. M., Goldfried, M. R., & DeRubeis, tions, 47, 1523–1544.
R. J. (1995). The focus of therapist interventions in cognitive Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the
therapy for depression. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 19, workplace: A review and synthesis on the literature. Journal of
485–503. Management, 25, 357–384.
References 483
De Croon, E. M., Van der Beek, A. J., Blonk, R. W. B., & Frings- Edwards, J. R. (1995). Alter natives to difference scores as dependent
Dresen, M. H. W. (2000). Job stress and psychosomatic health variables in the study of congruence in organizational research.
complaints among Dutch truck drivers: A re-evaluation of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64,
Karasek’s interactive job demand-control model. Stress Medi- 307–324.
cine, 16, 101–107. Edwards, J. R. (1996). An examination of competing versions of the
de Jonge, J., Bosma, H., Peter, R., & Siegrist, J. (2000). Job strain, person-environment fit approach to stress. Academy of Manage-
effort-reward imbalance and employee well-being: A large-scale ment Journal, 39, 292–339.
cross-sectional study. Social Science and Medicine, 50, 1317– Edwards, J. R. (1998). Cybernetic theory of stress, coping, and well-
1327. being. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress
de Jonge, J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1998). Job characteristics and em- (pp. 122–152). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
ployee well-being: A test of Warr’s vitamin model in health care Edwards, J. R., & Harrison, R. V. (1993). Job demands and worker
workers using structural equation modelling. Journal of Organi- health: Three-dimensional re-examination of the relationship
zational Behavior, 19, 387–407. between person-environment fit and strain. Journal of Applied
de Rijk, A. E., Le Blanc, P. M., Schaufeli, W. B., & de Jonge, J. Psychology, 78, 626–648.
(1998). Active coping and need for control as moderators of the Elkin, A. J., & Rosch, P. J. (1990). Promoting mental health at the
job demand-control model: Effects on burnout. Journal of Occu- workplace: The prevention side of stress management. Occupa-
pational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 1–18. tional Medicine: State of the Art Review, 5, 739–754.
DeRubeis, R. J., Evans, M. D., Hollon, S. D., Garvey, M. J., Grove, Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. New York:
W. M., & Tuason, V. B. (1990). How does cognitive therapy Lyle Stuart.
work? Cognitive change and symptom change in cognitive ther- Elsass, P. M., & Veiga, J. F. (1997). Job control and job strain: A test
apy and pharmacotherapy for depression. Journal of Consulting of three models. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2,
and Clinical Psychology, 58, 862–869. 195–211.
Doby, V. J., & Caplan, R. D. (1995). Organizational stress as threat Eriksen, H. R., & Ursin, H. (1999). Subjective health complaints:
to reputation: Effects on anxiety at work and at home. Academy Is coping more important than control? Work and Stress, 13,
of Management Journal, 38, 1105–1123. 238–252.
Dollard, M. F., Winefield, H. R., Winefield, A. H., & de Jonge, J. Etzion, D., Eden, D., & Lapidot, Y. (1998). Relief from job stressors
(2000). Psychosocial job strains and productivity in human service and burnout: Reserve service as a respite. Journal of Applied
workers: A test of the demand-control-support model. Journal of Psychology, 83, 577–585.
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 501–510. Farrell, D., & Stamm, C. L. (1988). Meta-analysis of the correlates
Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (1999). Social support, social stressors at of employee absence. Human Relations, 41, 211–227.
work, and depressive symptoms: Testing for main and moderat- Fay, D., & Sonnentag, S. (in press). Rethinking the effects of stres-
ing effects with structural equations in a three-wave longitudinal sors: A longitudinal study on personal initiative. Journal of
study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 874–884. Occupation Health Psychology.
Dusseldorp, E., Van Elderen, T., Maes, S., Meulman, J., & Kraaij, V. Fletcher, B. C. (1991). Work, stress, disease and life expectancy.
(1999). A meta-analysis of psychoeducational programs for coro- Chichester, England: Wiley.
nary heart disease patients. Health Psychology, 18, 506–519. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., &
Dwyer, D. J., & Ganster, D. C. (1991). The effects of job demands Gruen, R. (1986). The dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cogni-
and control on employee attendance and satisfaction. Journal of tive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 12, 595–608. Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 992–1003.
Eden, D. (2001). Vacations and other respites: Studying stress on Fox, M. L., Dwyer, D. J., & Ganster, D. C. (1993). Effects of stress-
and off the job. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), Inter- ful job demands and control on physiological and attitudinal out-
national review of industrial and organizational psychology. comes in a hospital setting. Academy of Management Journal,
Chichester, England: Wiley. 36, 289–318.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior Frankenhaeuser, M. (1979). Psychoneuroendicrine approaches to the
in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383. study of emotion as related to stress and coping. In R.A. Dienstbier
Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, litera- (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1978 (pp. 123–161).
ture review, and methodological critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Robertson (Eds.), International review of indsutrial and organiza- Frankenhaeuser, M. (1981). Coping with stress at work. Interna-
tional psychology (pp. 283–357). Chichester, England: Wiley. tional Journal of Health Services, 11, 491–510.
Edwards, J. R. (1992). A cybernetic theory of stress, coping, and Frankenhaeuser, M., & Johansson, G. (1976). Task demand as
well-being in organizations. Academy of Management Review, reflected in catecholamine excretion and heart rate. Journal of
17, 238–274. Human Stress, 2, 15–23.
French, J. R. P. Jr., Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. (1982). Glass, D. C., & McKnight, J. D. (1996). Perceived control, depres-
The mechanisms of job stress and strain. Chichester, England: sive symptomatology, and professional burnout: A review of the
Wiley. evidence. Psychology and Health, 11, 23–48.
Frese, M. (1985). Stress at work and psychosomatic complaints: Glickman, L., Tanaka, J. S., & Chan, E. (1991). Life events, chronic
A causal interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, strain, and psychological distress: Longitudinal causal models.
314 –328. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 283–305.
Frese, M. (1989). Theoretical models of control and health. In S. L. Goetzel, R. Z., Anderson, D. R., Whitmer, R. W., Ozminkowski, R. J.,
Sauter, J. J. Hurrell Jr., & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Job control and Dunn, R. L., & Wasserman, J. (1998). The relationship between
worker health (pp. 107–128). Chichester, England: Wiley. modifiable health risks and health care expenditures. Journal of
Frese, M. (1993). Stress factors and health: A multicausal relation- Occupational and environmental Medicine, 40, 843–854.
ship. Paper presented at the work and health: Scientific basis of Graf, O., Rutenfranz, J., & Ulich, E. (1970). Arbeitszeit und
progress in the working environment. European Commission Arbeitspausen [Work time and work breaks]. In A. Mayer &
Health and Safety at work. Copenhagen, Denmark. B. Herwig (Eds.), Betriebspsychologie (2nd ed., Vol. 9, pp. 244–
Frese, M. (1999). Social support as a moderator of the relationship 277). Goettingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
between work stressors and psychological dysfunctioning: A Greiner, B. A., Ragland, D. R., Krause, N., Syme, S. L., & Fisher,
longitudinal study with objective measures. Journal of Occupa- J. M. (1997). Objective measurement of occupational stress fac-
tional Health Psychology, 4, 179–192. tors: An example with San Francisco urban transit operators.
Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1988). Methodological issues in the study of Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2, 325–342.
work stress: Objective vs. subjective measurement and the Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis
question of longituydinal studies. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update,
(Eds.), Causes, coping, and consequences of stress at work moderator tests, and research implications for the next millen-
(pp. 375–411). New York: Wiley. nium. Journal of Management, 26, 463–488.
Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychol- Guppy, A., & Weatherston, L. (1997). Coping strategies, dysfunc-
ogy: A German approach. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & tional attitudes and psychological well-being in white collar pub-
L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational lic sectors employees. Work and Stress, 11, 58–67.
psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 271–340). Palo Alto, CA: Gupta, N., & Beehr, T. A. (1979). Job stress and employee behav-
Consulting Psychologists Press. iors. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23,
Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1999). On the importance of the objective 373–387.
environment in stress and attribution theory: Counterpoint to Hacker, W. (1998). Allgemeine Arbeitspsychologie: Psychische
Perrewé and Zellars. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, Regulation von Arbeitstätigkeiten [General work psychology:
761–765. Psychological regulation of work actions]. Bern, Switzerland:
Furda, J., de Jonge, J., Le Blanc, P., Meijman, T., Schreurs, P., & Huber.
Scheenen, J. (1994). Het Demand-control-support model in Hamilton, V. (1982). Cognition and stress: An information process-
relatie tot gezondheidsklachten en herstelklachten [The demanding model. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of
control-support model in relation to health complaints and recov- stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects (pp. 105–120). New
ery complaints: A longitudinal study]. Gedrag en Organisatie, 7, York: Free Press.
225–238. Harnois, G., & Gabriel, P. (2000). Mental health and work: Impact,
Galinsky, T. L., Swanson, N. G., Sauter, S. L., Hurrell, J. J., & issues and good practices. Geneva, Switzerland: International
Schleifer, L. M. (2000). A field study of supplementary rest breaks Labour Organisation.
for data-entry operators. Ergonomics, 43, 622–638. Harrison, R. V. (1978). Person-environment fit and job stress. In
Ganster, D. C., & Schaubroeck, J. (1991). Work stress and employee C. L. Cooper & R. Paye (Eds.), Stress at work (pp. 175–205).
health. Journal of Management, 17, 235–271. New York: Wiley.
Ganster, D. C., Schaubroeck, J., Sime, W. E., & Mayes, B. T. (1991). Hart, P. M., Wearing, A. J., & Headey, B. (1995). Police stress and
The nomological validity of the Type A personality among em- well-being: Integrating personality, coping and daily work expe-
ployed adults. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 143–168. riences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychol-
Garst, H., Frese, M., & Molenaar, P. C. M. (2000). The temporal ogy, 68, 133–156.
factor of change in stressor-strain relationships: A growth curve Heaney, C. A., Price, R. H., & Rafferty, J. (1995). Increasing coping
model on a longitudinal study in East Germany. Journal of resources at work: A field experiment to increase social support,
Applied Psychology, 85, 417– 438. improve work team functioning, and enhance employee mental
Glaser, D. M., Tatum, B. C., Nebeker, D. M., Sorenson, R. C., & health. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 335–352.
Aiello, J. R. (1999). Workload and social support: Effects on per- Hemingway, M. A., & Smith, C. S. (1999). Organizational cli-
formance and stress. Human Performance, 12, 155–176. mate and occupational stressors as predictors of withdrawal
References 485
behaviours and injuries in nurses. Journal of Occupational and (Eds.), Causes, coping and consequences of stress at work
Organizational Psychology, 72, 285–299. (pp. 267–299). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Henning, R. A., Sauter, S. L., Salvendy, G., & Krieg, E. F. (1989). Ivancevich, J. M., Matteson, M. T., Freedman, S. M., & Phillips, J. S.
Microbreak length, performance, and stress in a data entry task. (1990). Worksite stress management interventions. American
Ergonomics, 32, 855–864. Psychologist, 45, 252–261.
Herbert, T. B., & Sheldon, C. (1993). Stress and immunity in humans: Jackson, P. R., Wall, T. D., Martin, R., & Davids, K. (1993). New
A meta-analytic review. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55, 364–379. measures of job control, cognitive demand, and production
Hesketh, B., & Shouksmith, G. (1986). Job and non-job acitivities, responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 753–762.
job satisfaction and mental health among veterinarians. Journal Jackson, S. E. (1983). Participation in decision making as a strategy
of Organizational Behavior, 7, 325–339. for reducing job-related strain. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Hibbard, J. H., & Pope, C. R. (1993). The quality of social roles as 68, 3–19.
predictors of morbidity and mortality. Social Science and Medi- Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and con-
cine, 36, 217–225. ceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict
Hobfoll, S. E. (1998). Stress, culture, and community: The psychol- in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
ogy and physiology of stress. New York: Plenum. mance, 33, 1–21.
Hockey, G. R., Maule, A. J., Vlough, P. J., & Bdzola, L. (2000). Jacobson, E. (1938). Progressive relaxation. Chicago: University of
Effects of negative mood states on risk in everyday decision Chicago Press.
making. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 823–856. Jamal, M. (1984). Job stress and job performance controversy:
Hockey, G. R. J. (1986). Changes in operator efficiency as a func- An empirical assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human
tion of environmental stress, fatigue, and circadian rhythms. In Performance, 33, 1–21.
K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of Jamal, M. (1985). Relationship of job stress to job performance: A
perception and human performance (Vol. 2, pp. 44-1–44-49). study of managers and blue collar workers. Human Relations,
Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 38, 409–424.
Hockey, G. R. J. (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation of Jex, S. M. (1998). Stress and job performance: Theory, research,
human performance under stress and high workload: A cognitive- and implications for managerial practice. Thousand Oaks, CA:
energetical framework. Biological Psychology, 45, 73–93. Sage.
Hockey, G. R. J. (2000). Work environments and performance. In N. Jex, S. M., & Bliese, P. D. (1999). Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of
Chmiel (Ed.), Work and organizational psychology: A European the impact of work-related stressors: A multilevel study. Journal
perspective (pp. 206–230). Oxford, England: Blackwell. of Applied Psychology, 84, 349–361.
Hollon, S. D., DeRubeis, R. J., & Evans, M. D. (1987). Causal me- Jex, S. M., & Elacqua, T. C. (1999). Self-esteem as a moderator:
diation of change in treatment for depression: Discriminating A comparison of global and organization-based measures. Jour-
between nonspecificity and noncausality. Psychological Bul- nal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 71–81.
letin, 102, 139–149. Jex, S. M., & Gudanowski, D. M. (1992). Efficacy beliefs and work
House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: stress: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational Behavior,
Addison-Wesley. 13, 509–517.
Howard, J. H., Cunningham, D. A., & Rechniter, P. A. (1986). Per- Jimmieson, N. L., & Terry, D. J. (1997). Responses to an in-basket
sonality (hardiness) as a moderator of job stress and coronary activity: The role of work stress, behavioral control, and infor-
risk in Type A individuals: A longitudinal study. Journal of mational control. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2,
Behavioral Medicine, 9, 229–245. 72–83.
Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1991). The structure of work: Job Jimmieson, N. L., & Terry, D. J. (1999). The moderating role of task
design and roles. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), characteristics in determining responses to a stressful work sim-
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., ulation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 709–736.
Vol. 2, pp. 165–207). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Johansson, G., Aronsson, G., & Lindström, B. O. (1978). Social psy-
Press. chological and neuroendocrine stress reactions in highly mecha-
Ingledew, D. K., Hardy, L., & Cooper, C. L. (1997). Do resources nised work. Ergonomics, 21, 583–599.
bolster coping and does coping buffer stress? An organiza- Johnson, J. V., & Hall, E. M. (1988). Job strain, workplace social
tional study with longitudinal aspect and control for negative support and cardiovascular disease: A cross-sectional study of a
affectivity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2, random sample of the Swedish working population. American
118–133. Journal of Public Health, 78, 1335–1342.
Ivancevich, J. M., & Matteson, M. T. (1988). Promoting the indi- Jones, J. W., Barge, B. N., Steffy, B. D., Fay, L. M., Kunz, L. K., &
vidual’s health and well-being. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne Wuebker, L. J. (1988). Stress and medical malpractice:
Organizational risk assessment and intervention. Journal of Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. (1982). Job conditions and personality:
Applied Psychology, 73, 727–735. A longitudinal assessment of their reciprocal effects. American
Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In M. D. Journal of Sociology, 87, 1257–1286.
Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and Kompier, M. A. J., Aust, B., Van den Berg, A.-M., & Siegrist, J.
organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 571–650). Palo (2000). Stress prevention in bus drivers: Evaluation of 13 natural
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. experiments. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5,
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, 11–31.
R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and Kompier, M. A. J., Cooper, C. L., & Geurts, S. A. E. (2000). A mul-
ambiguity. New York: Wiley. tiple case study approach to work stress prevention in Europe.
Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9,
Comparison of two modes of stress measurement: Daily hassles 371–400.
and uplifts versus major life events. Journal of Behavioral Med- Kristensen, T. S. (1991). Sickness absence and work strain among
icine, 4, 1–39. Danish slaughterhouse workers: An analysis of absence from
Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental work regarded as coping behavior. Social Science and Medicine,
strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science 32, 15–27.
Quarterly, 24, 285–306. Kristensen, T. S. (1995). The demand-control-support model:
Karasek, R., Baker, D., Marxner, F., Ahlbom, A., & Theorell, T. Methodological challenges for future research. Stress Medicine,
(1981). Job decision latitude, job demands, and cardiovascular 11, 17–26.
disease: A prospective study of Swedish men. American Journal Landsbergis, P. A. (1988). Occupational stress among health care
of Public Health, 71, 694 –705. workers: A test of the job demands-control model. Journal of
Kasl, S. V. (1978). Epidemiological contributions to the sutdy of Occupational Behavior, 9, 217–239.
work stress. In C. L. Cooper & R. Pane (Eds.), Stress at work
Landsbergis, P. A., Schnall, P. L., Deitz, D., Friedman, R., &
(pp. 3–48). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Pckering, T. (1992). The patterning of psychological attributes
Kasl, S. V. (1986). Stress and disease in the workplace: A method- and distress by “job strain” and social support in a sample of
ological commentary on the accumulated evidence. In M. F. working men. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15, 379–405.
Cataldo & T. J. Coates (Eds.), Health and industry: A behavioral
Landsbergis, P. A., & Vivona-Vaughan, E. (1995). Evaluation of an
medicine perspective (pp. 52–85). New York: Wiley.
occupational stress intervention in a public agency. Journal of
Kasl, S. V. (1996). The influence of the work environment on car- Organizational Behavior, 16, 29–48.
diovascular health: A historical, conceptual, and methodological
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process.
critique. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 42–56.
New York: Springer.
Kasl, S. V. (1998). Measuring job stressors and studying the health
impact of the work environment: An epidemiologic commentary. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Psychological stress in the workplace. Jour-
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 390–401. nal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 1–13.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organiza- Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping.
tions (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. New York: Springer.
Keinan, G., & Friedland, N. (1996). Training effective performance Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1993). A longitudinal study of burnout
under stress: Queries, dilemmas, and possible solutions. In J. E. among supervisors and managers: Comparisons between the Leis-
Driskell & E. Salas (Eds.), Stress and human performance ter and Maslach (1988) and Golembiewski et al. (1986) models.
(pp. 257–277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54,
369–398.
Kivimäki, M., Vahtera, J., Thomson, L., Griffiths, A., Cox, T., &
Pentti, J. (1997). Psychosocial factors predicting employee sick- Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of
ness absence during economic decline. Journal of Applied the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. Journal of
Psychology, 82, 858–872. Applied Psychology, 81, 123–133.
Kjellberg, A., Sköldström, B., Andersson, O., & Lindberg, L. Leiter, M. P. (1991). Coping patterns as predictors of burnout: The
(1996). Fatigue effects of noise on aeroplane mechanics. Work function of control and escapist coping patterns. Journal of
and Stress, 10, 62–71. Organizational Behavior, 12, 123–144.
Klein, G. (1996). The effect of acute stressors on decision making. Leitner, K. (1993). Auswirkungen von Arbeitsbedingungen auf die
In J. E. Driskell & E. Salas (Eds.), Stress and human perfor- psychosoziale Gesundheit [Effects of working conditions on
mance (pp. 49–88). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. psycho-social health]. Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft, 47,
Kobasa, S. C., Maddi, S. R., & Kahn, S. (1982). Hardiness and 98–107.
health: A prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Leitner, K., Volpert, W., Greiner, B., Weber, W.-G., & Hennes, K.
Psychology, 42, 168–177. (1987). Analyse psychischer Belastung in der Arbeit: Das
References 487
RHIA-Verfahren, Handbuch [Analysis of mental stressors at Melin, B., Lundberg, U., Soederlund, J., & Granqvist, M. (1999).
work: The RHIA instrument and manual]. Cologne, Germany: Psychological and physiological stress reactions of male and
TÜv Rheinland. female assembly workers: A comparison between two difference
Levi, L., & Lunde-Jensen, P. (1996). A model for assessing the costs forms of work organization. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
of stressors at national level: Socio-economic costs of work stress 20, 47–61.
in two EU member states. Dublin, Ireland: European Foundation Mohr, G. B. (2000). The changing significance of different stressors
for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. after the announcement of bankruptcy: A longitudinal investiga-
Long, B. C., & Van Stavel, R. (1995). Effects of exercise training on tion with special emphasis on job insecurity. Journal of Organi-
anxiety: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, zational Behavior, 21, 337–359.
7, 167–189. Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J. S., & Manning, M. R. (1986). Occupa-
Lorist, M. M., Klein, M., Nieuwenhuis, S., de Jong, R., Mulder, G., & tional stress: Its causes and consequences on job performance.
Meijman, T. F. (2000). Mental fatigue and task control: Planning Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 618–629.
and preparation. Psychophysiology, 37, 614–625. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-
Lulofs, R., Wennekens, R., & van Houtem, J. V. (1981). Effect of organizational linkages. New York: Academic Press.
physical stress and time pressure on performance. Perceptual Moyle, P. (1998). Longitudinal influences of managerial support on
and Motor Skills, 52, 787–793. employee well-being. Work and Stress, 12, 29–49.
Lundberg, U., & Frankenhaeuser, M. (1978). Psychophysiological Moyle, P., & Parkes, K. (1999). The effects of transition stress:
reactions to noise as modified by personal control over noise A relocation study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20,
intensity. Biological Psychology, 6, 55–59. 625–646.
Martocchio, J. J., Harrison, D. A., & Berkson, H. (2000). Connections Murphy, L. R. (1988). Workplace interventions for stress reduction
between lower pack pain, interventions, and absence from work: and prevention. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, coping
A time based meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 53, 595–624. and consequences of stress at work (pp. 301–339). Chichester,
England: Wiley.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experi-
Murphy, L. R. (1996). Stress management in work settings: A criti-
enced burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2, 99–113.
cal review of health effects. American Journal of Health Promo-
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout.
tion, 11, 112–135.
Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422.
Muntaner, C., Tien, A. Y., Eaton, W. W., & Garrison, R. (1991). Occu-
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis pational characteristics and the occurence of psychotic disorders.
of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organiza- Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 26, 273–280.
tional commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (1999).
Matteson, M. T., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1987). Controlling work Stress . . . at work (DHHS Publication No. 99-101). Cincinnati,
stress. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. OH: Author.
Mauno, S., & Kinnunen, U. (1999). Job insecurity and well-being: A Nelson, D. L., & Sutton, C. (1990). Chronic work stress and coping:
longitudinal study among male and femal employees in Finland. A longitudinal study and suggested new directions. Academy of
Community, Work & Family, 2, 147–171. Management Journal, 33, 859–869.
McGrath, J. E. (1976). Stress and behavior in organizations. In M. D. Newton, T. J., & Keenan, A. (1990). The moderating effect of the
Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psy- Type A behavior pattern and locus of control upon the relation-
chology. Chicago: Rand McNally. ship between change in job demands and change in psychologi-
Meichenbaum, D. (1985). Stress inoculation training. New York: cal strain. Human Relations, 43, 1229–1255.
Pergamon. Noor, N. M. (1995). Work and family roles in relation to women’s
Meijman, T. F., Mulder, G., & Van Dormolen, M. (1992). Workload well-being: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Social Psy-
of driving examiners: A psychophysiological field study. In H. chology, 34, 87–106.
Kragt (Ed.), Enhancing industrial performances (pp. 245–260). North, F. M., Syme, S. L., Feeney, A., Shipley, M., & Marmot, M.
London: Taylor & Francis. (1996). Psychosocial work environment and sickness absence
Melamed, S., Ben-Avi, I., Luz, J., & Green, M. S. (1995). Objective among British civil servants: The Whitehall II study. American
and subjective work monotony: Effects on job satisfaction, psy- Journal of Public Health, 86, 332–340.
chological distress, and absenteeism in blue-collar workers. Nunes, E. V., Frank, K. A., & Kornfeld, D. S. (1987). Psychologic
Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 29–42. treatment for the Type A behavior pattern and for coronary heart
Melamed, S., Kushnir, T., & Meir, E. I. (1991). Attenuating the disease: A meta-analysis of the literature. Psychosomatic Medi-
impact of job demands: Additive and interactive effects of per- cine, 48, 159–173.
ceived control and social support. Journal of Vocational Behav- O’Connor, G. T., Buring, J. E., Yusuf, S., Goldhaber, S. Z., Olmstead,
ior, 39, 40–53. E. M., Paffenbarger, R. S., & Hennekens, C. H. (1989). An
overview of randomized trials of rehabilitation with exercise after Postman, L., & Bruner, J. S. (1948). Perception under stress. Psy-
myocardial infarction. Circulation, 80, 234–244. chological Review, 55, 314–323.
Parker, S. K., & Sprigg, C. A. (1999). Minimizing strain and maxi- Repetti, R. L. (1993). Short-term effects of occupational stressors on
mizing learning: The role of job demands, job control, and proac- daily mood and health complaints. Health Psychology, 12, 125–
tive personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 925–939. 131.
Parkes, K. R. (1982). Occupational stress among nurses: A natural Repetti, R. L., & Wood, J. (1997). Effects of daily stress at work
experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 784–796. on mothers’ interactions with preschoolers. Journal of Family
Parkes, K. R. (1990). Coping, negative affectivity, and the work en- Psychology, 11, 90–108.
vironment: Additive and interactive predictors of mental health. Revicki, D. A., Whitley, T. W., Gallary, M. E., & Allison, E. J. J.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 399–409. (1993). Impact of work environment characteristics on work-
Parkes, K. R. (1991). Locus of control as moderator: An explanation related stress and depression in emergency medicine residents:
for additive versus interactive findings in the demand-discretion A longitudinal study. Journal of Community and Applied Social
model of work stress. British Journal of Psychology, 82, 291–312. Psychology, 3, 273–284.
Parkes, K. R., Menham, C. A., & Rabenau, C. V. (1994). Social Robinson, L. A., Berman, J. S., & Neimeyer, R. A. (1990). Psy-
support and the demand-discretion model of job stress: Tests of chotherapy for the treatment of depression: A comprehensive
additive and interactive effects in two samples. Journal of Vo- review of controlled outcome research. Psychological Bulletin,
cational Behavior, 44, 91–113. 108, 30–49.
Payne, R. (1991). Individual differences in cognition and the stress Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple, general purpose
process. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Personality and display of magnitude of experimental effect. Journal of Educa-
stress: Individual differences in the stress process (pp. 181–204). tional Psychology, 74, 166–169.
New York: Wiley. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus ex-
Peeters, M. C. W., Buunk, B. P., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1995). Social ternal control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs:
interactions and feelings of inferiority among correctional offi- General and Applied, 80, 1.
cers: A daily event-recording approach. Journal of Applied Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations:
Social Psychology, 25, 1073–1089. Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand
Pekrun, R., & Frese, M. (1992). Emotions in work and achievement. Oaks, CA: Sage.
In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of Roy, M. P., & Steptoe, A. (1994). Daily stressors and social support
industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 153–200). availability as predictors of depressed mood in male firefighters.
Chichester, England: Wiley. Work and Stress, 8, 210–219.
Perrewé, P. L., & Ganster, D. C. (1989). The impact of job demands Rydstedt, L. W., Johansson, G., & Evans, G. W. (1998). A longitudi-
and behavioral control on experienced job stress. Journal of nal study of workload, health and well-being among male and
Organizational Behavior, 10, 213–229. female urban bus drivers. Journal of Occupational and Organi-
Perrewé, P. L., & Zellars, K. L. (1999).An examination of attributions zational Psychology, 71, 35–45.
and emotions in the transactional approach to the organizational Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2000). The role of dispositions,
stress process. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 739–752. entry stressors, and behavioral plasticity theory in predicting
Perrez, M., & Reicherts, M. (1992). A situation-behavior approach to newcomers’ adjustment to work. Journal of Organizational
stress and coping. In M. Perrez & M. Reicherts (Eds.), Stress, cop- Behavior, 21, 43–62.
ing, and health (pp. 17–38). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe and Huber. Sargent, L. D., & Terry, D. J. (1998). The effects of work control and
Peter, R., Geissler, H., & Siegrist, J. (1998). Associations of effort- job demands on employee adjustment and work performance.
reward imbalance at work and reported symptoms in different Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71,
groups of male and female public transport workers. Stress Med- 219–236.
icine, 14, 175–182. Saunders, T., Driskell, J. E., Johnston, J. H., & Salas, E. (1996). The
Peter, R., & Siegrist, J. (1997). Chronic work stress, sickness ab- effects of stress inoculation training on anxiety and performance.
sence, and hypertension in middle managers: General or specific Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 170–186.
sociological explanations. Social Science and Medicine, 45, Schaubroeck, J. (1999). Should the subjective be the objective? On
1111–1120. studying mental processes, coping behavior, and actual expo-
Peterson, C., Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1993). Learned sures in organizational stress research. Journal of Organizational
helplessness: A theory for the age of personal control. New Behavior, 20, 753–760.
York: Oxford University Press. Schaubroeck, J., & Fink, L. S. (1998). Facilitating and inhibiting
Pfaffenberger, R. S., Hyde, R. T., Wing, A. L., & Hsieh, C.-C. (1986). effects of job control and social support on stress outcomes and
Physical activity, all-cause mortality, and longevity of college role behavior: A contingency model. Journal of Organizational
alumni. New England Journal of Medicine, 314, 605–613. Behavior, 19, 167–195.
References 489
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S., & Xie, J. L. (2000). Collective efficacy Siegrist, J. (1998). Adverse health effects of effort-reward imbal-
versus self-efficacy in coping responses to stressors and control: ance at work: Theory, empirical support, and implications for
A cross cultural study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 512– prevention. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational
525. stress (pp. 190–204). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Schaubroeck, J., & Merritt, D. E. (1997). Divergent effects of job con- Siegrist, J., Peter, R., Junge, A., Cremer, P., & Seidel, D. (1990).
trol on coping with work stressors: The key role of self-efficacy. Low status control, high effort at work and ischemic heart
Academy of Management Journal, 40, 738–754. disease: Prospective evidence from blue-collar men. Social Sci-
Schnall, P. L., Landsbergis, P. A., & Baker, D. (1994). Job strain and ence and Medicine, 31, 1127–1134.
cardiovascular disease. Annual Review of Public Health, 15, Slesina, W. (1994). Gesundheitszirkel: Der “Düsseldorfer Ansatz”
381– 411. [Health circles: The Düsseldorf approach]. In G. Westermeyer &
Schonfeld, I. S. (1992).Alongitudinal study of occupational stressors B. Bähr (Eds.), Betriebliche Gesundheitszirkel (pp. 25–34).
and depressive symptoms in first-year female teachers. Teaching Göttingen, Germany: Verlag für Angewandte Psychologie.
& Teaching Education, 8, 151–158. Smulders, P. G. W., & Nijhuis, F. J. N. (1999). The job demands-job
Schulz, P., Kirschbaum, C., Prüssner, J., & Hellhammer, D. (1998). control model and absence behavior: Results of a 3-year longitu-
Increased free cortisol secretion after awakening in chronically dinal study. Work and Stress, 13, 115–131.
stressed individuals due to work overload. Stress Medicine, 14, Söderfeldt, M., Söderfeldt, B., Ohlson, C.-G., Theorell, T., & Jones,
91–97. I. (2000). The impact of sense of coherence and high-demand/
low-control job environment on self-reported health, burnout
Schwartz, J. E., Pickering, T. G., & Landsbergis, P. A. (1996). Work-
and psychophysiological stress indicators. Work and Stress, 14,
related stress and blood pressure: Current theoretical models and
1–15.
considerations from a behavioral medicine perspective. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 287–310. Sonnentag, S. (1996). Work group factors and individual well-
being. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology
Searle, B. J., Bright, J. E. H., & Bochner, S. (1999). Testing the 3-
factor model of occupational stress: The impact of demands,
control and social support on a mail sorting task. Work and Sonnentag, S. (2000). Expertise at work: Experience and excellent
Stress, 13, 268–279. performance. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), Interna-
tional review of industrial and organizational psychology
Sears, S. F. J., Urizar, G. G. J., & Evans, G. D. (2000). Examining a
stress-coping model of burnout and depression in extension
agents. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 56–62. Sonnentag, S. (2001). Work, recovery activities, and individual
well-being: A diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psy-
Seeber, A., & Iregren, A. (1992). Behavioural effects of contami-
chology, 6, 196–210.
nated air: Applying psychology in neurotoxicology [Special
issue]. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41(3). Sonnentag, S. (2002). Performance, well-being and self-regulation.
In S. Sonnentag (Ed.), The psychological management of
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, develop-
individual performance: A handbook in the psychology of man-
ment and death. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
agement in organizations (pp. 405–423). Chichester, England:
Selye, H. (1956). The stress of life. New York: McGraw-Hill. Wiley.
Semmer, N. (1984). Streßbezogene Tätigkeitsanalyse [Stress-related Sonnentag, S., Brodbeck, F. C., Heinbokel, T., & Stolte, W. (1994).
job-analysis]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz. Stressor-burnout relationship in software development teams.
Semmer, N. (1996). Individual differences, work stress and health. In Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67,
M. J. Schabracq, J. A. M. Winnubst, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Hand- 327–341.
book of work and health psychology (pp. 51–86). Chichester, Sparks, K., Cooper, C., Fried, Y., & Shirom, A. (1997). The effects
England: Wiley. of hours of work on health: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Shaw, J. B., & Weekley, J. A. (1985). The effects of objective Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 391–408.
work-load variations of psychological strain and post-work-load Spector, P. E., Chen, P. Y., & O’Connell, B. J.. (2000). A longitudi-
performance. Journal of Management, 11, 87–98. nal study of relations between job stressors and job strains while
Shirom, A., Westman, M., Shamai, O., & Carel, R. S. (1997). Effects controlling for prior negative affectivity and strains. Journal of
of work overload and burnout on cholesterol and triglycerides Applied Psychology, 85, 211–218.
levels: The moderating effects of emotional reactivity among Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. J., & Jex, S. M. (1988). Relation of job
male and female employees. Journal of Occupational Health stressors to affective, health, and performance outcomes: A com-
Psychology, 2, 275–288. parison of multiple data sources. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high effort/low reward 73, 11–19.
conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, Sperandio, J. C. (1971). Variation of operator’s strategies and regu-
27– 41. lating effects on workload. Ergonomics, 14, 571–577.
Steen, N., Firth, H. W. B., & Bond, S. (1998). Relation between Van Dierendonck, D., Schaufeli, W. B., & Buunk, B. P. (1998). The
work stress and job performance in nursing: A comparison of evaluation of an individual burnout intervention program: The
models. Structural Equation Modeling, 5, 125–142. role of inequity and social support. Journal of Applied Psychol-
Sullivan, S. E., & Bhagat, R. S. (1992). Organizational stress, job ogy, 83, 392–407.
satisfaction, and job performance: Where do we go from here? VanYperen, N. W. (1998). Informational support, equity and burnout:
Journal of Management, 18, 353–374. The moderating effect of self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational
Tafalla, R. J., & Evans, G. W. (1997). Noise, physiology, and human and Organizational Psychology, 71, 29–33.
performance: The potential role of effort. Journal of Occupa- VanYperen, N. W., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2000). A multilevel analy-
tional Health Psychology, 2, 148–155. sis of the demands-control model: Is stress at work determined
Tang, T. L. P., & Hammontree, M. L. (1992). The effects of hardi- by factors at the group level of the individual level? Journal of
ness, police stress, and life stress on police officers’ illness and Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 182–190.
abesenteeism. Public Personnel Management, 21, 493–510. Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social
Theorell, T. (1993). Medical and physiological aspects of job inter- support in the process of work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of
ventions. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Vocational Behavior, 54, 314–334.
review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 8, Vrijkotte, T. G. M., van Doornen, L. J. O., & de Geus, E. J. C.
pp. 173–192). Chichester, England: Wiley. (1999). Work stress and metabolic and hemostatic risk factors.
Theorell, T., & Karasek, R. A. (1996). Current issues relating to psy- Psychosomatic Medicine, 61, 796–805.
chosocial job strain and cardiovascular disease research. Journal Wall, T. D., & Clegg, C. W. (1981).Alongitudinal study of group work
of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 9–26. redesign. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 2, 31–49.
Totterdell, P., Kellett, S., Techmann, K., & Briner, R. B. (1998). Wall, T. D., Jackson, P. R., Mullarkey, S., & Parker, S. K. (1996). The
Evidence of mood linkage in work groups. Journal of Personal- demands-control model of job strain:Amore specific test. Journal
ity and Social Psychology, 74, 1504 –1515. of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 153–166.
Totterdell, P., Spelten, E., Smith, L., Barton, J., & Folkard, S. Wall, T. D., Kemp, N. J., Jackson, P. R., & Clegg, C. W. (1986). Out-
(1995). Recovery from work shifts: How long does it take? comes of autonomous workgroups: A long-term field experi-
Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 43–57. ment. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 280–304.
Tsutsumi, A., Theorell, T., Hallqvist, J., Reuterwall, C., & de Faire, Warr, P. B. (1987). Work, unemployment, and mental health. Oxford,
U. (1999). Association between job characteristics and plasma England: Oxford University Press.
fibrinogen in a normal working population: A cross sectional Warr, P. B. (1990). Decision latitude, job demands, and employee
analysis in referents of the SHEEP study. Journal of Edidemiol- well-being. Work and Stress, 4, 285–294.
ogy and Community Health, 53, 348–354. Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A
Tubbs, T. C., & Collins, J. M. (2000). Jackson and Schuler (1985) theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of
revisited: A meta-analysis of the relationships between role affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings
ambiguity, role conflict, and job performance. Journal of Man- (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74).
agement, 26, 155–169. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Vahtera, J., Kivimäki, M., Pentti, J., & Theorell, T. (2000). Effect of Westman, M., & Eden, D. (1996). The inverted-U relationship
change in the psychosocial work environment on sickness between stress and performance: A field study. Work and Stress,
absence: A seven year follow up of initially health employ- 10, 165–173.
ees. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 54, 484– Westman, M., & Eden, D. (1997). Effects of a respite from work on
493. burnout: Vacation relief and fade-out. Journal of Applied Psy-
Vahtera, J., Pentti, J., & Uutela, A. (1996). The effect of objective chology, 82, 516–527.
job demands on registered sickness absence spells: Do personal, Whisman, M. A. (1998). Mediators and moderators of change in
social and job related resources act as moderators? Work and cognitive therapy of depression. Psychological Bulletin, 114,
Stress, 10, 286 –308. 248–265.
Van der Doef, M., & Maes, S. (1999). The job demand-control Wickens, C. D. (1996). Designing for stress. In J. E. Driskell &
(-support) model and psychological well-being: A review of E. Salas (Eds.), Stress and human performance (pp. 279–295).
20 years of empirical research. Work and Stress, 13, 87–114. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Van der Hek, H., & Plomp, H. N. (1997). Occupational stress man- Williams, K. J., & Alliger, G. M. (1994). Role stressors, mood
agement programmes: A practical overview of published effect spillover, and perceptions of work-family conflict in employed
studies. Occupational Medicine, 47, 133–141. parents. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 837–868.
Van der Klink, J. J. L., Blonk, R. W. B., Schene, A. H., & Van Dijk, Wolpin, J., Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. R. (1991). Is job satisfac-
F. J. H. (2001). The benefits of interventions for work-related tion an antecedent of a consequence of psychological burnout?
stress. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 270–276. Human Relations, 44, 193–209.
References 491
Zapf, D. (1989). Selbst- und Fremdbeobachtung in der psychologis- N. Semmer (Eds.), Psychischer Stress am Arbeitsplatz
chen Arbeitsanalyse: Methodische Probleme bei der Erfassung (pp. 168–184). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
von Stress am Arbeitsplatz [Self and expert observation in Zapf, D., Knorz, C., & Kulla, M. (1996). On the relationship be-
psychological job analysis: Methodological problems in the tween mobbing factors, and job content, social work environ-
measurement of stressors at work]. Göttingen, Germany: ment, and health outcomes. European Journal of Work and
Hogrefe. Organizational Psychology, 5, 215–237.
Zapf, D., Dormann, C., & Frese, M. (1996). Longitudinal studies in Zohar, D. (1999). When things go wrong: The effect of daily work
organizational stress research: A review of the literature with hassles on effort, exertion and negative mood. Journal of Occu-
reference to methodological issues. Journal of Occupational pational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 265–283.
Health Psychology, 1, 145–169.
Zapf, D., & Frese, M. (1991). Soziale Stressoren am Arbeitsplatz
[Social stressors at the workplace]. In S. Greif, E. Bamberg, &

Stress in Organisations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stress in Organisations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stress in Organisations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

First publ. in: Comprehensive handbook of psychology, Volume 12: Industrial and organizational psychology / W. C. Borman, D. R.

Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (eds.). - Hoboken: Wiley, 2003, pp. 453-491

THE STRESS CONCEPT 454 Stress and Performance 471

Konstanzer Online-Publikations-System (KOPS)

The Stress Concept 455

456 Stress in Organizations

Theories on Organizational Stress 457

458 Stress in Organizations

Theories on Organizational Stress 459

460 Stress in Organizations

Empirical Evidence 461

cholesterol, systolic blood cholesterol and

(1999) symptoms, exhaustion; on somatic

Junge, Cremer, regression inconsistency, heart disease mass index, inconsistency

Empirical Evidence 467

468 Stress in Organizations

Empirical Evidence 469

470 Stress in Organizations

Empirical Evidence 471

472 Stress in Organizations

Empirical Evidence 473

474 Stress in Organizations

Stress Interventions 475

476 Stress in Organizations

Stress Interventions 477

478 Stress in Organizations

Overall Conclusions 479

480 Stress in Organizations

482 Stress in Organizations

484 Stress in Organizations

486 Stress in Organizations

488 Stress in Organizations

490 Stress in Organizations

You might also like