[email protected]@Journals@Ocp@3@4@294

8/17/2019 [email protected]@Journals@Ocp@3@4@294

1/12

ourn l of Occupational Health Psychology

1998, Vol. 3, No. 4, 294-305

Copyright 1998

by the

Educational Publishing Foundation

I076-S998/9S/$3.00

Occupational Stress: Measuring Job Pressure and

Organizational

Support in the Workplace

Peter

R.

Vagg

and Charles D.

Spielberger

University of South Florida

Person-environment

fit and demand-control theoretical

models developed

to explain

stress

and

strain in the workplace

have

guided the construction of most

measures

of

occupational

stress. The

strengths and

limitations

of 8 job stress measures are briefly reviewed, and the Job Stress

Survey

(JSS), designed

to assess the

severity

and

frequency

of

occurrence

of 30

specific sources

of

occupational stress, is described in some detail. Factor analyses of responses to the JSS items

identified Job

Pressure

and Lack of Organizational Support as major

dimensions

of occupational

stress

for

male

and

female

employees

in a wide

variety

of

work settings.

JSS

Index, scale,

subscale, and item scores assess general and specific aspects of the work environment

that

are

most

distressing for individual workers and that adversely affect groups of employees.

Concern with

the effects of

occupational stress

on

productivity, absenteeism, and health-related prob-

lems has

increased dramatically during

the past

decade

(e.g.,

Cooper

& Cartwright,

1994;

Karasek &

Theorell,

1990; Quick, Quick, Nelson,

& Hurrell,

1997).

In a recent book, Wright and Smye

(1996,

p. 7)

cited studies estimating the

overall

costs to business

and industry of highly

stressed

or dispirited employ-

ees at

between $150 billion

and

$180 billion

a year.

As

noted by

Ryland

and Greenfeld (1991, p. 43)

Numerous studies

have

linked stress to

impaired

performance in the

workplace

due to

such

factors as

health

problems,

absenteeism,

turnover, industrial

accidents, the use of

drugs

and

alcohol

on the job, and

counterproductive behaviors such as

spreading

rumors,

doing

inferior

work on

purpose,

stealing from

employ-

ers, purposely

damaging

property, equipment

and

products, and various kinds of white collar crimes.

In

two nationwide surveys of American workers

conducted

by

Northwestern National

Life

Insurance

Company

(1991, 1992),

the

proportion

of

workers

who reported feeling highly stressed on the job more

than

doubled from 1985 to 1990. Of those surveyed,

69%

reported that their productivity

was

reduced

by

high levels of stress, and 14% indicated that stress had

caused

them

to quit or change jobs during the

Peter R. Vagg and Charles D. Spielberger, Center for

Research in

Behavioral

Medicine and Health

Psychology,

University of South Florida.

The Job Stress

Survey

is

available

for research from Charles

D. Spielberger

and will be published commercially by Psycho-

logical Assessment Resources, Inc., in March

1999.

Correspondence

concerning

this

article

should

be ad-

dressed to Charles D.

Spielberger, Center

for

Research

in

Behavioral

Medicine

and

Health Psychology, University

of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, BEH

339,

Tampa,

Florida 33620-8200. Electronic mail may be sent to

spielber@ctiumal .cas.usf.edu.

preceding 2-year period.

The

number

of

workers

reporting multiple stress-related illnesses also doubled,

increasing from 13% to 25%. Among those who stated

that

their

jobs were

highly stressful,

more

than

twice

as

many

reported experiencing

burnout

(50%

vs.

19%),

as

compared

with

less-stressed

employees. Highly stressed

employees also reported suffering

much

more

from

stress-related medical problems (55% vs. 21%).

Growing

interest in the consequences of job stress

for

both employees

and

organizations

is

also

reflected

in

a

substantial increase

in

studies

reported in the

psychological and medical literature (Spielberger,

Reheiser, Reheiser,

&

Vagg, in press). Over the past

quarter century,

the

number

of

studies cited

in

PsycLIT that included

job stress, work stress, or

occupational stress in their titles or abstracts has

increased twentyfold. Although this explosive in-

crease in studies of stress in the workplace has helped

to identify

major

sources

of

job-related stress (Quick

et al., 1997),

definitions

of occupational stress and

operationalization of

measures have also continued

to

proliferate,

and

tend

to differ

from study

to

study

(Kasl,

1978;

Schuler,

1980). Much of the resulting

conceptual ambiguity stems from measures that

sometimes confuse exposure to stress

with

outcomes

and the pressures of a particular job, or with the

behavioral and health consequences of work-related

stress (Schuler,

1991).

To evaluate and interpret

findings

obtained

with

various measures

of

occupa-

tional

stress,

one must understand the divergent

conceptual models that have guided the construction

of

these measures.

Conceptions

of

Occupational Stress

Person-environment fit

(PE-Fit) theory

has

long

been the most influential and widely accepted

294


2/12

SPECIAL SECTION: OCCUPATIONAL STRESS 295

conceptual framework

for

guiding

research on

occupational stress (Chemers, Hayes, Rhode wait.

&

Wysocki,

1985;

Edwards & Cooper,

1990;

J. R. P.

French

& Caplan, 1972).

According

to

this theory,

stress

and

strain

in the

workplace result

from the

inter-

action of an

individual with

her or his work

environment

Occupational stress occurs when job demands

that

pose

a

threat

to the

worker contribute

to an

incompatible

person-environment fit, producing psychological

strain that may cause stress-related psychological and

physical disorders (J. R. P. French & Caplan,

1972;

J.

R. P. French, Caplan, & Harrison, 1982).

Research guided by PE-Fit theory has stimulated

the construction of numerous measures of organiza-

tional and job characteristics, employee skills, job

satisfaction, individual differences in attitudes and

personality traits, and health status

(e.g., Beehr

&

Newman, 1978;

Cooper, Kirkcaldy, & Brown,

1994;

Sharit &

Salvendy,

1982). PE-Fit concepts such as

role

ambiguity

and role

conflict have

also

been

investigated

in

studies

of a

variety

of

occupations

(Fisher

& Gitelson, 1983;

Jackson

&

Schuler, 1985).

Unfortunately,

as was noted by Chemers et

al.

(1985),

PE-Fit theory

has

not yielded a highly focused

approach" (p. 628) to the

assessment

of

occupational

stress. Moreover, according to Edwards and Cooper

(1990),

this highly influential theory is "repeatedly

plagued with serious theoretical and methodological

problems

...

[that] include inadequate distinction

between different versions of fit, confusion of

different functional forms of fit, poor measurement of

fit

components,

and

inappropriate analysis

of the

effects of fit" (p.

294).

Karasek's (1979) demand-control model focuses

on interactions between objective pressures of the

work

environment

and the decision

latitude

of the

worker

in

doing

the job

(Karasek

&

Theorell,

1990).

Psychological strain occurs when a job is

very

demanding, but allows little latitude for decision

making.

High demand with

little

control has been

found to contribute to lowered productivity and a

greater risk of health problems, such as cardiovascu-

lar disease (Theorell & Karasek, 1996). The impor-

tance of autonomy and control was also recognized

by

Sauter and Hurrell (1989), who maintained that

control

is essential to overcome the stress inevitably

associated with demanding work. However, they

noted that support

for

Karasek's model

has

been

mixed

and that "fundamental questions remain

concerning the conceptualization and operationaliza-

tion of the [control] construct" (Sauter & Hurrell,

1989, p. xvi).

Siegrist

(1996) recently introduced the effort-

reward imbalance model, which provides

a

promising

approach to understanding work stress. According to

this model, stress occurs when there is lack of

reciprocity between the effort that a worker puts into a

job and the potential rewards she or he receives for

completing

it. A

combination

of

strong

effort in

response

to

extrinsic work pressures when there

is

low potential for reward

(e.g.,

promotions, raises,

etc.) leads

to

work stress, which contributes

to

health-related problems. Like the PE-Fit and Demand-

Control theories, the Effort-Reward model focuses

primarily

on the interaction of general demands of a

job and the skills and attributes of the worker, while

giving less attention to how specific job pressures

influence emotional health and productivity.

Lazarus (1991) conceptualized occupational stress

as

a process involving a transaction between an

individual and his or her work environment. He

distinguished between stressful antecedent conditions

( stressors ) and how

these

are cognitively appraised

by

a particular person

("threat"),

taking into account

the individual's coping resources. Anxiety, anger, or

both

are evoked when a

stressor

is perceived as

threatening, and these emotional reactions are more

intense when

the

person does

not

have

the

resources

needed to cope

effectively

with them. Brief and

George (1991) criticized

Lazarus's transaclional

process model as too ideographic. They pointed out

that,

from an organizational perspective, it is important

to identify stressful working conditions that adversely

affect groups of employees, as well as individual

workers. In a similar vein, Harris (1991) observed

that the entire climate or culture of an organization

may

be

adversely influenced

by

specific occupational

stressors that profoundly affect

many

employees,

even though this impact

may

also

be

markedly

influenced by

individual

differences in

personality,

coping skills, and the gender of the worker.

The prevailing conceptions of occupational stress

have both merit

and

limitations,

and

appear

to be

complementary and overlapping rather than contradic-

tory

frameworks

for

understanding stress

in the

workplace. Cooper and his colleagues (Cooper &

Cartwright, 1994;

Cooper et al.,

1994;

Cooper &

Marshall,

1978;

Cooper, Sloan, & Williams,

1988)

have

noted a number of limitations in current theories

of

occupational stress

and

have been especially

critical

of the PE-Fit

model.

A major

problem with

most theories of workplace stress resides in how

occupational stress

and

strain

are defined and

measured. When theoretical concepts

are

ambiguous

or undifferentiated, it is

difficult

to

know exactly what

aspects of job stress and strain are being measured.


3/12

296

VAGG

AND SPffiLBERGER

Jackson and Schuler (1985, p. 47) recommended

that research on occupational stress focus on the

development

of

good diagnostic tools

for

pinpointing

specific aspects

about

one's job that are ambiguous or

conflicting

[italics

added]. In a similar vein,

Murphy

and

Hurrell

(1987) called

for the

construction

of

generic questionnaires or core sets of questions to

facilitate

comparing stress levels

in

various occupa-

tional groups.

A

comprehensive assessment

of

occupational stress will require taking into account

the working conditions that produce job strain, how

specific stressor events are perceived and appraised,

and the emotional reactions and coping skills of the

individual worker.

Measuring Stress in the

Workplace

Growing interest in

research

on

occupational stress

has

stimulated

the

construction

of a

number

of

measures

for

assessing

the

diverse aspects

of

stress

in

the workplace (Quick et al., 1997). To determine how

often

particular measures were being used in research

on occupational stress, we undertook a search of the

titles

and abstracts

of

publications reported

in

PsycLIT. On the basis of the total number of citations

between 1975

and

1996,

the

four most commonly

used instruments that were identified are listed in

Table 1, in the chronological order of their publica-

tion. Each of these measures was

cited

in the titles or

abstracts of 20 or more publications. No other

measure

received

as

many

as 10

citations during this

period.

Over the past two decades, the Job Diagnostic

Survey

(JDS), developed by Hackman and his

colleagues (Hackman &

Lawler,

1971; Hackman &

Oldham, 1975), has been used to assess occupational

stress more

frequently

than any other psychometric

measure.

However, citations of the JDS reached a

zenith in the early 1980s and have declined as other

measures have become available. Insel and Moos's

(1974)

Work

Environment Scale (WES) ranked

second in total number of citations, which have been

fairly

consistent for the past 15 years. Osipow and

Spokane's (1981) Occupational Stress Inventory

(OSIv)

was used only sparingly in the decade

following its introduction, but its usage has increased

subsequent to its commercial publication in 1987.

Published only 10 years ago, the Occupational Stress

Indicator (OSId; Cooper et al., 1988) has shown a

rapid increase in the number of citations; the OSId

was cited more frequently than any other measure of

occupational stress between 1991 and 1996. In this

article, we briefly examine the general approach to

measuring

occupational stress used in these four

inventories and

note some strengths

and

short-

comings of each measure.

The JDS assesses perceptions of job characteris-

tics, internal

motivation,

and

worker satisfaction

(Kulik,

Oldham, &

Langner,

1988). In its original

form,

the JDS

also assessed affective responses,

but

the scale was subsequently revised and shortened to

15 items that focus on the five

core

characteristics that

were

identified

by

Hackman

and

Oldham

(1975).

These dimensions are: skill variety, task significance,

task identity, autonomy,

and

feedback.

Although

most

influenced by

PE-Fit theory,

the

variables assessed

by

the

JDS are

also clearly relevant

to the

demand-

control and effort-reward models. The JDS provides

useful

information relating to workers' feelings about

then- jobs

(Renn, Swiercz, & Icenogle, 1993), but

does not inquire about the perceived severity of

Table

1

Number

of

Citations in the

Titles

or

Abstracts of

Publications

Listed

in PsycLIT

From

1975 Through

1996 for

Various Measures of Job-Related Stress

Number of citations

Measure

Job

Diagnostic Survey

(Hackman

&

Lawler,

1971)

Work

Environment

Scale

(Insel

& Moos,

1974)

Occupational

Stress

Inventory

(Osipow

&

Spokane,

1981)

Occupational Stress Indicator (Cooper, Sloan, &

Williams, 1988)

75-80

36

7

1

81-85

61

21

2

86-90

31

16

5

4

91-96

21

21

14

26

Total

149

64

21

30

Total 43

84 55

82 264

Note. The number of citations may underestimate how often each measure was used because

the

title of a measure is not always

included

in

either

the title or

abstract

of publications

cited

in

PsycLIT.


4/12

SPECIAL SECTION: OCCUPATIONAL STRESS

297

specific occupational stressors, nor the frequency of

their occurrence.

Guided primarily by PE-Fit theory, the WES was

developed by

Insel

and Moos (1974) to assess the

psychological states and emotional reactions of

workers assigned

to a

particular job. Each

WES

item

inquires about the general reactions of workers

toward

their supervisors or

fellow

employees, or

various aspects of the work environment. The three

major

domains of occupational stress measured by the

WES are: interpersonal relationships, orientation

toward

personal growth, and organizational structure

of the

work setting.

Unfortunately,

the true-false

response format of the WES

does

not

provide

information on how individual

workers react

to

specific

occupational stressors, nor how often these

stressors are experienced.

The OSIv (Osipow

&

Spokane, 1981)

assesses

PE-Fit variables such as

role

overload and role

ambiguity and

also evaluates physical

strain,

coping

skills, and social support. The three

major

dimensions

assessed by the OSIv are: occupational role stress;

vocational, psychosocial, and physical strain; and

coping and social support. Although the OSIv

provides information about both general

and

specific

sources of

job

stress,

it

evaluates neither

the

perceived

severity of these stressors nor how

often

they are

encountered. An important limitation of the OSIv,

noted

by several researchers (e.g., Bunda, 1992;

Cochran, 1992), is that insufficient normative data are

reported in its test manual.

The

construction

of

Cooper

et al.'s

(1988) OSId

was influenced by the

PE-Fit

and

Demand-Control

models, and by Lazarus's

Transactional

Process

theory. A major strength of the OSId is its emphasis

on

specific stressors in the work environment, while

also assessing

job

satisfaction, individual differences

in

personality, coping strategies, and physical and

mental

health problems. It should be noted, however,

that

some OSId items

are

quite lengthy

and

inquire

simultaneously about more than one content area,

making responses to these items

difficult

to interpret.

Furthermore, although the omnibus nature of the

OSId is one of its strengths, it is also a significant

limitation. Administering the entire inventory re-

quires considerable time. Moreover, several dimen-

sions

assessed by the OSId can be measured better by

instruments that focus specifically

on

personality,

coping,

or

health problems. These shortcomings not-

withstanding, the OSId appears to be the most

promising of the measures of occupational stress

reported

in

Table

1.

We

wish

to briefly

note

four

additional measures

of

occupational stress. Although each was cited in

fewer

than 10

publications

in our

PsycLIT review, these

measures

are

considered

to be of historical

impor-

tance or

emphasize

a

unique approach

to

measuring

occupational stress. The Stress Diagnostic Survey

(SDS) appears to be the first psychometric scale

constructed to

assess

sources of

perceived

[italics

added]

stress"

in

organizational settings (Ivancevich

&

Matteson,

1976).

Recently revised

and

expanded,

this

multidimensional self-report inventory

assesses

15 important work-related dimensions (Ivancevich,

Matteson, & Dorin, 1990). Most SDS items inquire

about

the

frequency

of

occurrence

of specific and

general sources of stress, but information is also

obtained

on job

satisfaction, quality

of

work,

organizational effectiveness, and

pressure-strain.

Although

introduced over 20 years ago, relatively few

studies using the SDS have been reported in PsycLIT.

However, the SDS has

been

widely used in

industrial-

organizational

settings

and in

thesis

research

(e.g.,

B. J. French, 1989; Lau, 1989).

Karasek's (1979) demand-control model provides

the

conceptual framework

for the Job

Content

Questionnaire (JCQ), which

was

initially constructed

to measure work-related social and psychological

factors that contributed to cardiovascular disorders

(Karasek, Schwartz, &

Peiper,

1983).

Research

with

the JCQ appears to have established a

"clear

relationship between adverse job conditions (particu-

larly low decision latitude) and coronary heart

disease" (Theorell &

Karasek, 1996,

p.

23).

The

most

recent form of the JCQ (Karasek, Hulbert, &

Simmerman, 1995) evaluates five job-related dimen-

sions: decision latitude, psychological and physical

demands, exposure to physical hazards in the

workplace, job satisfaction and security, and social

support.

The JCQ

evaluates

how often

specific

job-related events are experienced by workers, but

does not

assess

the perceived severity of these

stressors. Although widely used in cross-cultural

studies of occupational stress, little information has

been published on the psychometric properties of the

JCQ.

The Generic Job Stress Questionnaire (GJSQ) was

developed by psychologists associated with the

National Institute

for

Occupational

Safety and

Health.

It consists of scales

selected from

existing occupa-

tional stress measures and new scales constructed

when no sound measure of an important job stress

construct was available (Hurrell &

McLaney,

1988).

Influenced

primarily

by

PE-Fit theory,

the

GJSQ

measures role

conflict and

ambiguity, along with

work load, job

satisfaction, cognitive demands,


5/12

298

VAGO

AND

SP1ELBERGER

Type-A

personality, social support,

and

other dimen-

sions. Given its omnibus characteristics, the GJSQ

appears

to

have

the

same strengths

and

limitations

as

the

OSId.

However, published studies using

the

GJSQ

have been reported

much less

frequently in the

occupational stress literature.

The

Work Stress Inventory

(WSI) was

developed

by Barone (1994) and his colleagues (Barone, Caddy,

Katell, Roselione,

& Hamilton,

1988)

to measure

sources of stress in a wide range of occupational

settings. Each

of the 40 WSI

items

is rated for

both

stress intensity (severity) and frequency of occur-

rence, using

a

rating format similar

to the State-Trait

Anxiety

Inventory (Spielberger,

1983;

Spielberger,

Gorsuch,

& Lushene,

1970).

Factor analysis of the

WSI items identified two major components of

occupational stress. Organizational Stress

and Job

Risk,

each evaluated with

20-item subscales.

Most

WSI Job Risk items assess threats in the work

environment that involve safety, exertion, or hazard-

ous physical conditions. The Organizational Stress

subscale seems to measure job pressures and lack of

support, but

does

not

distinguish between these

concepts.

In

summary, most measures

of

occupational stress

provide information on a variety of sources of stress

in the workplace and on the resulting physical and

psychological strain. Individual differences in ability,

personality characteristics, coping skills,

and

social

support are also assessed by several of these

measures. Although all of these dimensions are

important

for

understanding

the

impact

of

stressful

job-related events

on

individuals

and

groups

of

workers,

the

omnibus nature

of

many

of

these

measures is both a source of strength and a significant

limitation. Another

major

problem with several

measures

of

occupational stress

is

that

the

test items

are

often

lengthy, multidimensional in content, and

concerned with judgments about the reactions of

groups

of

people, rather than providing information

about

a

particular

respondent.

Interpreting the findings obtained with measures of

occupational stress

is often difficult

because

the

perceived severity of a particular

stressor

is either not

measured or confounded with how

often

the stressor

is

encountered.

As

Dewe

(1989,

p. 993) has

observed,

"When measuring work stressors, more attention

should be

given

to

such

facets as

intensity,

frequency,

and the meaning individuals attribute to events."

Ideally,

job

stress measures should evaluate both

the

perceived severity

of

specific sources

of

stress

in the

workplace and how often each work-related stressor

is experienced by the respondent during a specified

period

of

time. Failing

to

take into account

how often

a

particular stressor

is

experienced

may

underesti-

mate the

full

impact of a moderately

stressful

event

that frequently occurs while overestimating the

effects of

highly stressful events that

are

never

experienced in a particular work setting. For example,

a

fellow

officer

killed

in the

line

of

duty

is

extremely

stressful, but this stressor event has a zero frequency

for most police officers (Spielberger et

al.,

1981).

Only by

taking both

the

severity

and frequency of

work

stressors into account can the overall impact of

a

particular stressor be adequately assessed.

Development of the Job Stress Survey

The Job Stress Survey (JSS) was designed to assess

generic sources of occupational stress encountered by

men and women employed in a wide variety of work

settings

and to

address aspects

of

work stress that

have not been evaluated by existing measures. In

keeping with Murphy

and

HurreUs (1987) call

for

occupational stress measures

to

assess

a

core

set of

questions,

each

of the 30 JSS

items describe

generic,

job-related stressor events. As recommended by

Jackson and

Schuler

(1985), the JSS items

focus

on

aspects of work situations that

often

result in

psychological strain.

In

accordance with Dewe's

(1989) recommendation that more attention

be

given

to the

intensity

and frequency of job

stress,

the

perceived severity (intensity)

and frequency of

occurrence of 30 stressor events are assessed by the

JSS.

Ratings of the

perceived severity

of specific

work

stressors provide information about the impact of

stressor events on a worker's emotional state at that

particular moment. Inquiring about

the frequency of

occurrence

of a

particular occupational stressor

provides traitlike data on how

often

the individual has

responded to that stressor. The distinction between

the perceived severity

of

work-related stressor events

and how often

they

are

experienced

is

analogous

to

differentiating between emotional states and personal-

ity traits (Spielberger,

1983, 1988)

and appears to be

equally important in evaluating occupational stress.

Both need to be taken into account to get a more

complete understanding of the stress experienced in a

particular job or by a work group.

Prior

to

constructing

the

JSS,

Spielberger

and his

colleagues (Spielberger,

Grier,

& Pate,

1980;

Spiel-

berger, Westberry,

Grier,

&

Greenfield,

1981)

devel-

oped the 60-item Police Stress Survey

(PSS)

to


6/12

SPECIAL SECTION:

OCCUPATIONAL

STRESS

299

evaluate the perceived severity and

frequency

of

occurrence of specific stressors encountered by law

enforcement officers.

The PSS items were selected

from

a

pool

of more than 100 items derived from a

comprehensive review of the police stress literature.

Each item was then critically examined by experi-

enced

law

enforcement

officers in

focused discussion

groups

(Spielberger

et al., 1981). Factor analyses of

responses to the PSS items by large groups of police

officers

identified two underlying factors: (a) Admin-

istrative and Organizational Pressures and (b) Physi-

cal and Psychological Strain. Factor analyses with

oblique rotation of the items with salient loadings on

the

larger

first

factor identified

two related but

distinct

components

of

occupational stress:

(a) Job

Pressure

and

(b)

Lack

of

Organizational Support.

Using

the PSS as a guide, the Teacher Stress

Survey (TSS) was constructed to assess work-related

stress experienced by high school teachers (Grier,

1982). Of the 60 PSS items, 39 that were considered

to be equally applicable to teaching and police work

were selected for the TSS. Each TSS item was

identical

to a

corresponding

PSS

item, except that

teacher and school were routinely substituted

for

police

and department. For example, Per-

forming non-police

tasks

was changed to Perform-

ing

non-teacher

tasks.

The TSS

items

were

further

reviewed and approved by an advisory committee of

experienced high school teachers, who also reviewed

a pool of 50 additional items generated from the

literature on teacher stress. From this item pool, 21

items were selected and added to the 39 items adapted

from the PSS to form the 60-item TSS.

The JSS has evolved from the PSS and the TSS as a

generic

measure of occupational stress (Spielberger,

1986).

Of the 39 items found to be equally suitable for

assessing

job

stress

in

both teachers

and

police

officers,

30 items judged to be most applicable to a

broad range of work situations were selected and

adapted to

form

the JSS. Each JSS item describes a

specific

stressor event that is likely to be encountered

by managerial, professional, clerical, and mainte-

nance workers in widely different occupational

settings. Thus, the JSS is composed of a core set of

generic questions that facilitates comparing stress

levels for different occupational groups, as was

recommended by Murphy and Hurrell (1987).

In responding to the JSS, the examinee first rates

the perceived severity of each stressor event. The

format for

responding

to the JSS

Severity items

is

similar to the procedure used

with

the Social

Readjustment Rating Scale (Holmes & Rahe, 1967).

The

perceived severity

of

each

JSS

item

(e.g.,

Meeting Deadlines ) is rated on a 9-point scale,

ranging from 1

(least

stressful) to 9 (most stressful) as

compared with Assignment of disagreeable duties,

serving as a midpoint of 5. In previous research, this

standard

was

consistently given

an

average rating

by

workers

in a variety of occupations (Grier, 1982;

Spielberger et

al., 1981).

Severity ratings greater

than

or less than 5 indicate that a particular stressor is

considered by the examinee to be more or less

stressful than

the

standard. After completing

the

severity ratings, the respondent is instructed to report,

on a scale from 0 to 9 or more days, how often each

stressor event was experienced during the preceding 6

months.

The responses of

1,791 university

and

corporate

employees

to the 30 JSS

Severity items were

evaluated

in

separate principal-components factor

analyses for male and female managerial-profes-

sional and

clerical-maintenance

groups (Spielberger

& Reheiser, 1994a). The eigenvalues in all four

analyses identified

two relatively

strong factors

and

two

or

three weaker factors. However,

the

scree test

(Cattell,

1966)

and

breaks criteria (Cliff

&

Ham-

burger,

1967; Pennell, 1968) both suggested that only

two

factors should

be

extracted

for

each sample.

The

two-factor solutions with oblique (promax) rotations

provided the best and most consistent simple structure

for

all four samples, and were also considered most

psychologically meaningful (Spielberger & Reheiser,

1994a).

The 20 items that best defined the two oblique

factors

identified in the preceding analyses were

refactored

to provide a clearer picture of the

relationship between these factors

(Vagg &

Ham-

mond, 1976). Factor loadings obtained in promax

rotations of responses to the severity items by the

male and female managerial-professional (643 men,

340 women) and clerical-maintenance (217 men, 591

women) groups are reported in Table 2. On the basis

of item content, these positively correlated factors

were labeled Job Pressure (JP) and Lack of Organiza-

tional Support (LS). The 10 items with dominant

salient loadings on one of these factors, and minimal

loadings on the other, were assigned to the JP and LS

subscales (Spielberger & Vagg, 1998). The results of

similar factor analyses

of the JSS

Frequency

and

Index scores are reported in Table 3. For all four

samples, the factor structure was essentially the same

for

the JSS Stress Index and Frequency items,

with


7/12

300

VAGG

AND SPffiLBERGER

Table 2

Loadings

of

the JSS

Severity

Items on the Job

Pressure

and

Lack of Organizational Support Factors

for

Female and Male Managerial—Professional

and

Clerical—Maintenance Employees

Job pressure

Item

no.

4

7

9

11

16

23

24

25

26

27

3

5

6

8

10

13

14

18

21

29

Eigenvalues

Mngr/Prof

JSS

stressor

events

Assignment of new duties

Dealing with crisis situations

Perform tasks

not in job

description

Assigned increased responsibility

Critical

on-the-spot

decisions

Frequent interruptions

Frequent change, boring to demanding

Excessive paperwork

Meeting deadlines

Insufficient

personal time

Lack opportunity

for

advancement

Fellow workers

not

doing

job

Inadequate support by supervisor

Lack recognition for good work

Inadequate or poor quality equipment

Difficulty

getting along with supervisor

Negative attitudes toward organization

Not participating in decisions

Poor or inadequate supervision

Poorly motivated coworkers

Principal axis solution

Promax solution

F

.59

.51

.48

.63

.66

.74

.69

.73

.82

.59

6.17

5.23

M

.59

.69

.55

.77

.80

.51

.59

.47

.71

.55

5.27

4.49

Cleric/Maint

F

.61

.56

.59

.80

.60

.72

.60

.79

.82

.54

.31

.35

7.39

6.26

M

.79

.69

.48

.83

.74

.54

.77

.38

.83

.54

7.25

6.10

Lack

of

support

Mngr/Prof

F

.69

.52

.82

.62

.37

.74

.67

.66

.58

.50

2.41

4.92

M

.58

.50

.79

.63

.37

.69

.61

.67

.59

.56

2.61

4.23

Cleric/Maint

F

.41

.62

.92

.67

.35

.82

.76

.35

.81

.55

2.06

6.00

M

.57

.63

.81

.64

.63

.72

.67

.68

.78

.62

2.29

5.95

Note. JSS

—

Job Stress Survey;

mngr

= managerial; prof

=

professional; cleric = clerical; maint = maintenance; F =

female;

M = male.

excellent simple structure that was remarkably stable

for

both gender and occupational level.

Interpretation of JSS Scores

The JSS provides information about the perceived

severity (intensity) and

frequency

of occurrence of 30

job stressor events. Severity and Frequency scores are

computed

from

responses

to all 30

items

and for the

10-item Job Pressure and Lack of Organizational

Support subscales. Item Stress Index scores, obtained

by multiplying

the

Severity

and

Frequency scores

for

each item, evaluate

the

amount

of

stress

due to

each

stressor event. Stress Index scores, which are based

on all 30 items, and the 10-item JP and LS Stress

Index

scores provide information about the overall

level of stress experienced by the worker as well as

the stress resulting from job pressures or inadequate

organizational support. Thus, the JSS yields nine

scale

and

subscale scores, along

with

Severity,

Frequency, and Index scores for each of the 30

individual stressor events.

Given the amount and complexity of the informa-

tion provided by the JSS, an organized and systematic

strategy is required to analyze and interpret the data

obtained with this measure. From the perspective of

both management and the individual

employee,

it is

generally better to begin interpretation by considering

the Severity, Frequency, and Stress Index scores

based on all 30 JSS items and then proceeding to

examine

scores

on the Job

Pressure

and

Lack

of

Support subscales. Responses to the JSS individual

items

can be

used

to

identify

specific

sources

of

stress

in the workplace that have the greatest impact on

these scores.

The information provided by the JSS can be

interpreted from either

the

perspective

of

manage-

ment

or in

terms

of the

occupational stress experi-

enced

by an

individual worker. From

a

management

perspective, the JSS identifies sources of occupational

stress experienced by an entire organization or by

its

divisions

or work groups. From the perspective of an

individual worker, the JSS provides information on

how an

employee's level

of

stress compares with

that

of others

in the

same work group

or in

similar jobs,

and helps

to

identify specific

stressors

that have

the

greatest impact. From both perspectives, the JSS can

facilitate

determining if occupational stress results


8/12

SPECIAL

SECTION:

OCCUPATIONAL STRESS 301

1

1

1

c

1

i

$

^


9/12

302

VAGG AND SPIELBERGER

from the pressures of a job or from lack of support

from supervisors, fellow workers, or organizational

policies and administrative procedures.

the managerial-professional sample and a higher

proportion of women in the clerical-maintenance

sample.

Gender Differences in the JSS

No gender differences were found in either the JSS

Index,

Severity, or Frequency scores based on

responses to all 30 items

(Spielberger

& Reheiser,

1994b) or the 10-item Lack of Organizational Support

subscales. However, women at both occupational

levels

had significantly

higher scores than

men on the

Job Pressure Severity subscale. Marked gender

differences were also found between men and women

at

the item level for almost half of the JSS Severity

items (14 of 29), and for more than 60% of the

Frequency

items

(19 of

30). Moreover, significant

differences (p <

.05 or higher) were found in the

Severity

or

Frequency scores

for 22 of the 30 JSS

items.

The 14 JSS items for which highly significant

gender differences (p < .001 or higher) were found

for Severity, Frequency, or both, are listed in Table 4.

The items for which women had

significantly

higher

scores than

men for

both Severity

and

Frequency

are

listed in the

upper part

of

Table

4, followed by the

items for which women had

significantly

higher

scores for either Severity or Frequency. The lower

half of the

table lists

the

items

for

which

men

had significantly

higher scores than women

for

both

Severity and Frequency,

followed

by items for

which men had

only

higher item frequency scores.

The final item in the table, "Making critical

on-the-spot

decisions, was more severely stressful

for women, but experienced significantly more

often

by men.

The

stressors

perceived by women as both more

severe and occurring more often were inadequate

salary,

covering work for another employee, and

insufficient personal time. Women also reported

significantly

more concern with interruptions, compe-

tition for advancement, and performing tasks not in

their

job

descriptions.

In

contrast,

men

reported

experiencing more severe and frequent stress than

women about not participating in policy decisions,

negative

attitudes toward the organization, and

conflict with other departments. Men also reported

more

frequently

working overtime, dealing with

crises,

and

having insufficient personnel

to do

their

job. However, in interpreting these results, it should

be noted that there was a higher proportion of men in

Discussion

Increased concern with stress in the workplace

over the past two decades has been noted by several

authors

and was demonstrated by the twentyfold

increase in publications on occupational stress over

the past

quarter century. Landy, Quick, and

Kasl

(1994) observed that "work-related stress in

the

21st century will be quite exacerbated by

international competitive challenges and corporate

restructuring

activities

[that] will place workers at

risk of

psychological stress

in

addition

to

traditional

health risks in the workplace" (p. 65). Thus,

conceptualizing and measuring occupational stress

will

become increasingly important in the next

millennium.

PE-Fit theory provided

an

early

and influential

conceptual

framework for

research

on

occupational

stress and on how and why people respond to

stressful

working

conditions (Edwards

&

Cooper, 1990;

J. R. P. French & Caplan, 1972; J. R. P. French et al.,

1982). In recent years

Karasek's

(1979; Karasek et al.,

1983) demand-control model and Lazarus's transac-

tional process theory have been widely used as

explanations of occupational stress and strain. How-

ever, these approaches have a number of limitations

and

have not stimulated the construction of measures

focusing

on the

perceived severity

of

specific sources

of

stress

in the

workplace,

the

meaning that

individuals

attribute

to

them,

and the frequency of

occurrence

of

stressful work-related events (Dewe,

1989).

The JSS was designed to assess both the perceived

severity and frequency of occurrence of generic work

stressors that generally cause psychological strain

(Jackson & Schuler, 1985). Each of the 30 JSS items

inquires

about

the

perceived severity

of a

specific

stressor event as perceived by the individual worker

and

how

often each stressor

was

experienced during

the past 6 months. Factor analyses of the JSS Severity

and Frequency items have consistently identified two

major

components of occupational stress, Job Pres-

sure and

Lack

of

Organizational Support, from

which

the JP and LS subscales were derived. These job

stress components have been found

for

both

men and

women

in

managerial-professional

and

clerical-


10/12

SPECIAL SECTION: OCCUPATIONAL STRESS 303

Table 4

Means, Standard

Deviations, and

Significant

Gender Differences for the JSS

Severity

and

Frequency

Items

Perceived severity

Item

19.

Inadequate salary

M

SD

28.

Covering work

for

another employee

M

SD

27.

Insufficient

personal time

M

SD

23.

Frequent interruptions

M

SD

20. Competition for advancement

M

SD

9.

Performing tasks

not in job

description

M

SD

1 1 .

Assignment

of

increased responsibility

M

SD

1 8

.

Lack of participation in policy decisions

M

SO

14.

Experience negative attitude toward organization

M

SD

30.

Conflict with

other departments

M

SD

2. Working overtime

M

5D

7.

Dealing with crisis situations

M

SD

15. Insufficient

personnel to handle assignments

M

SD

16. Critical on-the-spot decisions

M

SD

Subscale Female

LS

6.68

2.14

4.48

2.28

JP

4.03

2.33

JP

5.44

2.33

4.97

2.24

JP

4.21

2.20

JP

4.44

2.06

LS

5.12

2.18

LS

4.95

2.36

4.44

2.31

JP

3.83

2

JP

5.41

2.15

5.62

2.24

JP

4.68

2.00

Note. JSS = Job

Stress Survey,

LS =

Lack

of

Organizational Support,

JP =

*p

<

.05. **p


11/12

304

VAGG

AND SPffiLBERGER

References

Barone, D. F.

(1994). Developing

a

transaction̂ psychology

of

work stress.

In P. L. Perrewg & R.

Crandall (Eds.),

Occupational

stress: A

handbook

on job stress (pp.

29-37). New

York:

Taylor & Francis.

Barone, D.

F.,

Caddy, G. R., Katell, A.

D.,

Roselione, F. B.,

& Hamilton, R. A.

(1988).

The Work Stress Inventory:

Organizational stress and job

risk. Educational and

Psychological

Measurement, 48,

141-154.

Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. E. (1978). Job

stress,

employee

health,

and

organizational

effectiveness: A

facet analysis,

model,

and literature

review. Personnel Psychology, 31,

665-699.

Brief, A. P., &

George,

J. M.

(1991). Psychological stress

in

the workplace: A brief comment on Lazarus' outlook. In

P. L. Perrewe'

(Ed.),

Handbook

on job stress

(pp. 15-20).

Corte

Madera,

CA:

Select

Press.

Bunda. M. A. (1992).

Review

of the

Occupational Stress

Inventory. In J. J. Kramer, & J. C. Conoley

(Eds.),

The

eleventh mental measurements yearbook (p. 623). Lin-

coln, NE:

Buros Institute

of

Mental Measurements.

Cattell, R. B.

(1966).

Patterns of change: Measurement in

relation to state-dimension, trait change, lability, and

process concepts. In Handbook

of

multivariale experimen-

tal psychology. Chicago:

RandMcNally.

Chemers, M.

M.,

Hayes, R. B.,

Rhodewalt,

F., &

Wysocki, J.

(1985). A person-environment analysis of job stress: A

contingency

model

explanation.

Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 49, 628-635.

Cliff, N., & Hamburger, C. D. (1967). The

study

of

sampling

errors

in

factor analysis

by

means

of artificial

experi-

ments. Psychological

Bulletin, 68, 430-455.

Cochran, L. (1992). Review of the occupational

stress

inventory. In J. J. Kramer & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), The

eleventh mental measurements yearbook (pp. 623-624).

Lincoln, NE:

Buros Institute

of

Mental Measurements.

Cooper, C. L., & Cartwright, S. (1994). Healthy mind,

healthy organization: A proactive approach to occupa-

tional

stress. Human Relations, 47, 455-470.

Cooper, C. L., Kirkcaldy, B.

D.,

&

Brown,

J. (1994). A

model of job stress and physical health: The role of

individual differences. Personality and Individual Differ-

ences, 16, 653-655.

Cooper, C.

L.,

&

Marshall,

J. (1978). Understanding

executive

stress. London: Macmillan.

Cooper, C. L., Sloan, S. G., & Williams, S. (1988).

The

Occupational Stress

Indicator: Management

guide. Wind-

sor, England: NFER-Nelson.

Dewe, P. J. (1989). Examining the nature of work stress:

Individual evaluations of stressful experiences and

coping. Human Relations, 42, 993-1013.

Edwards, J. R., & Cooper, C. L. (1990). The

person-

environment fit approach to stress: Recurring problems

and

some suggested solutions. Journal

of

Organizational

Behavior, 11,

293-307.

Fisher, C.

D.,

& Gitelson, R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the

correlates

of

role conflict

and

ambiguity. Journal

of

Applied Psychology, 68, 320-333.

French,

B. J. (1989). A study o f job related

stress

between

craft

and

managerial

employees in the

V.S. Postal

Service. Unpublished master's thesis, University of

Wollongong, New

South Wales, Australia.

French, J. R. P., Jr., & Caplan, R. D. (1972). Occupational

stress

and individual strain. In A. J. Marrow (Ed.),

The

failure

o f success (pp. 30-66). New York: Amacon.

French, J. R. P., Jr., Caplan, R. D., &

Harrison,

R. V.

(1982).

The mechanisms of job stress and strain. Chichester,

England: Wiley.

Grier, K. S. (1982). A comparison of job stress in law

enforcement and teaching

(Doctoral dissertation.

Univer-

sity of

South

Florida,

1981).

Dissertation Abstracts

International,

43,

870B.

Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions

to

job

characteristics. Journal

o f

Applied Psychology, 55,

259-285.

Hackman, J. R., &

Oldham,

G. R. (1975). Development of

the job diagnostic survey.

Journal

of Applied Psychology,

60, 159-170.

Harris, J. R.

(1991).

The utility of the transaction approach

for occupational stress

research. In P. L.

Perrewe", (Ed.),

Handbook

on

job

stress

(pp.

21-29).

Corte Madera, CA:

Select Press.

Haseth, K. (in press). The Norwegian adaptation of

Spielberger's Job Stress

Survey

(JSS). In C. D. Spiel-

berger & S. Sarason, (Eds.), Stress and emotion (Vol. 17).

Washington,

DC: Taylor

&

Francis.

Hodapp,

V.,

Tanzer,

N. K., Korunka, C.,

Maier,

E. R., &

Pestemer, I. (in press). The German adaptation of the

Job

Stress Survey JSS): A multi-study validation in different

occupational settings. In C. D.

Spielberger

& S. Sarason

(Eds.), Stress and emotion (Vol. 17). Washington, DC:

Taylor &

Francis.

Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The Social

Readjustment

Rating

Scale:

A cross-cultural study of

Western

Europeans and Americans.

Journal

of

Psychoso-

matic Research, 14,

391-400.

Hurrell, J. J.,

Jr.,

&

McLaney,

A. M.

(1988). Exposure

to job

stress: A new

psychometric instrument.

Scandinavian

Journal

of

Work

Environment and

Health,

14(Supp\. 1),

27-28.

Insel,

P.

M.,

&

Moos,R.

H.

(1974). Work Environment Scale,

Form R. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Ivancevich, J. M., &

Matteson,

M. T.

(1976).

Stress

Diagnostic Survey (SDS): Comments and psychometric

properties of a multidimensional self-report inventory.

Houston,

TX: FD

Associates.

Ivancevich,

J. M., Matteson, M. T, & Dorin, F. P. (1990).

Stress

Diagnostic

Survey (SDS). Houston,

TX: FD

Associates.

Jackson, S.

E.,

& Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and

conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role

conflict in work

settings. Organizational

Behavior and

Human Decision Process, 36, 16-78.

Karasek, R. A.

(1979).

Job

demands,

job

decision latitude

and

mental strain: Implications forjob

redesign. Adminis-

trative

Science

Quarterly,

24,

285-308.

Karasek, R.

A.,

Hulbert, K., & Simmerman, B. (1995).

JCQ

user's

project summary '95: 10

years

of Job Content

Questionnaire use. Unpublished manuscript. University

of Massachusetts, Lowell.

Karasek, R.

A.,

Schwartz, J., & Peiper, C. (1983).

Validation

o f a survey instrument for job-related cardiovascular

illness.

Unpublished manuscript, Columbia University,

New York, NY.

Karasek,

R. A., &

Theorell,

T. (1990).

Healthy

work: Stress,

productivity,

and the reconstruction

of working life. New

York:

Basic Books.


12/12

SPECIAL SECTION: OCCUPATIONAL STRESS

305

Kasl,

S. V.

(1978). Epidemiological contributions

to the

study

of

work stress.

In C. L.

Cooper

& R. L.

Payne

(Eds.), Stress

at

work (pp. 3-38). New York: Wiley.

Kulik,

C. T., Oldham, G. R., & Langner, P. H. (1988).

Measurement of job

characteristics: Comparison

of the

original and the revised job diagnostic survey. Journal of

Applied Psychology,

73,

462-466.

Landy, I., Quick,

J., & Kasl, S. (1994).

Work

stress and well

being. International Journal

of Stress

Management,

1,

33-73.

Lau, K. A.

(1989).

Improving organizational effectiveness by

increasing effective coping

and

reducing work stressors.

Unpublished master's thesis,

Pepperdine

University,

Malibu, California.

Lazarus,

R. S.

(1991). Psychological stress

in the

workplace.

In

P. L.

Perrewd (Ed.),

Handbook

on

job

stress

(pp. 1-13).

Corte

Madera,

CA:

Select Press.

Murphy, J.

R.,

&

Hurrell,

J. J.

(1987). Stress measurement

and management

in

organizations: Development

and

current status. In A. W.

Riley

& S. J.

Zaccharo

(Eds.),

Occupational stress and organizational effectiveness (pp.

29-51).

New

York: Praeger.

Northwestern National

Life

Insurance Company. (1991).

Employee burnout: America's newest epidemic. Minneapo-

lis, MN: Author.

Northwestern National Life Insurance Company. (1992).

Employee

burnout: Causes

and cures.

Minneapolis, MN:

Author.

Osipow, S.

J.,

& Spokane, A. R. (1981). Occupational Stress

Inventory

manual: Research

version. Odessa, FL: Psycho-

logical

Assessment Resources.

Pennell, R. (1968). The influence of communality and N on

the

sampling distribution

of

factor loadings.

Psy-

chometrika, 33, 423-439.

Quick, J. C., Quick, J. D., Nelson, D. L., & Hurrell, J. J.

(1997). Preventive stress

management in

organizations.

Washington,

DC:

American Psychological Association.

Renn,

R. W., Swiercz, P. M., &

Icenogle,

M. L.

(1993).

Measurement properties of the revised job diagnostic

survey: More promising news

from

the public sector.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 1011-

1021.

Ryland, E., &

Greenfeld,

S.

(1991).

Work

stress

and well

being. In P. PerrewS (Ed.),

Handbook on job

stress

pp .

39-54).

Corte Madera,

CA:

Select Press.

Sauter,

S. L., &

Hurrell,

J.

I.,

Jr.

(1989). Introduction.

In

S. L.

Sauter,

J. I.

Hurrell, Jr.,

& C. L.

Cooper

(Eds.),

Job

control and worker health

(pp.

Xffl-XX). Chichester,

England: Wiley.

Schuler,

R. S. (1980). Definition and conceptualization of

stress in organizations. Organizational

Behavior

and

Human Performance,

25,

184-215.

Schuler,

R. S.

(1991). Foreword.

In P. L.

PerrewS (Ed.),

Handbook on job stress (pp. V-VI). Corte

Madera,

CA:

Select Press.

Sharit, I.,

&

Salvendy,

G.

(1982). Occupational stress:

Review and

reappraisal.

Human

Factors, 24,

129-162.

Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-

reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 1, 27-41.

Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual

for the

State-Trait

Anxiety Inventory (Form Y),

Palo Alto,

CA:

Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Spielberger, C. D. (1986). Preliminary professional manual

for the Job

Stress Survey

JSS).

Odessa,

FL:

Psychologi-

cal

Assessment

Resources.

Spielberger, C. D. (1988). Manual for the

State-Trait Anger

Expression

Inventory

STAXI). Odessa, FL: Psychologi-

cal Assessment Resources.

Spielberger, C. D.,

Gorsuch,

R. L., & Lushene, R. D. (1970).

STAI

manual

for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory

( Self-Evaluation

Questionnaire ). Palo Alto, CA: Con-

sulting Psychologists Press.

Spielberger,

C. D.,

Grier,

K. S., &

Pate,

J. M. (1980,

Winter).

The Florida Police Stress Survey. Florida Fraternal

Order o f Police Journal, 66-67.

Spielberger,

C. D., & Reheiser, E. C.

(1994a). Job stress

in

university, corporate, and military personnel.

Interna-

tional Journal

of

Stress Management, 1, 19—31.

Spielberger, C.

D.,

&

Reheiser,

E. C.

(1994b).

The7oi> Stress

Survey

JSS): Measuring gender

differences in

occupa-

tional stress.

Journal

o f

Social Behavior

and

Personality,

9,

199-218.

Spielberger,

C. D.,

Reheiser,

E.

C., Reheiser,

J.

E.,

&

Vagg,

P.

R. (in

press). Measuring

stress in the

workplace:

The

Job Stress Survey. In D. T. Kenney, J. G. Carlson, F. J.

McGuigan,

& J. L. Sheppard (Eds.), Stress

and health:

Research and clinical applications. Sydney, New South

Wales, Australia:

Harwood/Gordon &

Breach Science

International.

Spielberger, C. D., &

Vagg,

P. R. (1998). Manual

for the Job

Stress

Survey

JSS): Research edition. Odessa,

FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

Spielberger, C.

D.,

Westberry, L. G., Grier, K.

S.,

&

Greenfield,

G.

(1981). The Police Stress Survey: Sources

of stress in law enforcement (Human Resources Institute

Monograph Series Three, No. 6). Tampa, FL: University

of South Florida, College

of

Social

and

Behavioral

Sciences.

Theorell, T., &

Karasek,

R. A. (1996).

Current issues

relating

to psychosocial job strain and

cardiovascular disease

research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1,

9-26.

Vagg,

P. R., & Hammond, S. B. (1976). The number and

kind of

invariant

(Q)

factors:

A

partial

replication of

Eysenck and Eysenck. British Journal of Social and

Clinical

Psychology,

15, 121-129.

Wright, L.,

&

Smye,

M.

(1996). Corporate abuse: How

lean and mean

robs

people and profits. New York:

Macmillan.

Received

January

26,1998

Revision

received

April 12, 1998

Accepted

June

3, 1998

[email protected]@Journals@Ocp@3@4@294

Documents

Transcript of [email protected]@Journals@Ocp@3@4@294