International Journal of Stress

Management
An Examination of Stressors, Strain, and Resilience in
Academic and Non-academic U.K. University Job Roles
Sheena J. Johnson, Sara M. Willis, and Jack Evans
Online First Publication, April 16, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/str0000096

CITATION
Johnson, S. J., Willis, S. M., & Evans, J. (2018, April 16). An Examination of Stressors, Strain, and
Resilience in Academic and Non-academic U.K. University Job Roles. International Journal of
Stress Management. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/str0000096
 International Journal of Stress Management
© 2018 American Psychological Association 2018, Vol. 25, No. 1, 000
1072-5245/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/str0000096

An Examination of Stressors, Strain, and Resilience in Academic

and Non-academic U.K. University Job Roles

Sheena J. Johnson and Sara M. Willis Jack Evans

University of Manchester Robertson Cooper Limited, Manchester,
United Kingdom
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Recent years have seen changes within the academic profession including decreased
perceptions of autonomy and job security, increasing student numbers and teaching
quality focus, and greater emphasis on high-quality research outputs. Such changes
arguably lead to increased workplace stress, and given the potential negative impact of
high workplace stress levels on health and work-related outcomes, a consideration of
stressors and strain within academia is timely. In this article, we compared stressors and
strain across U.K. academic and non-academic university job roles. The article also
determines which stressors are the strongest drivers of poor health and considers the
role of resilience in the stressor–strain relationship. The sample consisted of partici-
pants from three U.K. universities using the ASSET (A Shortened Stress Evaluation
Tool) stress measure that gives information on eight stressors and two measures of
strain (psychological and physical ill-health). As data sets varied across organizations,
different subsamples were used for analysis, with sample sizes of N ⫽ 2,779 to N ⫽
652, with the majority of the analysis using the smaller sample. Academics reported
better physical health, higher levels of work overload, poorer work–life balance, better
job conditions and work relationships, and less concern about pay and benefits in
comparison with non-academic employees. For both academic and non-academic staff,
the stressors work–life balance and aspects of the job were associated with psycho-
logical and physical ill-health, and stressors that impact ill-health did not differ by job
type. Resilience had a direct effect on psychological and physical ill-health as well as
an indirect effect by influencing perceptions of stressors.

Keywords: workplace stress, resilience, health, mediation, academic

Academics work in a demanding environ- unsurprisingly then, there is a history of re-

ment and are required to perform complex tasks
(Houston, Meyer, & Paewai, 2006). Perhaps
Sheena J. Johnson and Sara M. Willis, Alliance Man-
chester Business School, University of Manchester; Jack
Evans, Robertson Cooper Limited, Manchester, United
Kingdom.
Preliminary findings from the study were presented at a
symposium at the Institute for Work Psychology Confer-
ence in Sheffield, United Kingdom, in June 2016. The
presentation was entitled “Resilience in academic employ-
ees.”
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Sheena J. Johnson, Alliance Manchester Business
School, University of Manchester, Booth Street East, Man-
chester M15 6PB, United Kingdom. E-mail: sheena
.johnson@manchester.ac.uk
1
search indicating that an academic setting is
likely to expose employees to high levels of
workplace stress. A review in 2000 revealed
that academic stress levels had increased over
the preceding 15 years, and academic stress was
reported to be higher than other occupations
(Winefield, 2000). The high levels of stress in
academia were further supported in 2005
through a comparison of 26 occupations, which
revealed that lecturers had worse than average
psychological well-being when compared with
a norm score derived from a large data set
of ⬎25,000 working individuals (Johnson et al.,
2005). An earlier study investigating stress in
academia reported that academics believed
work was their most significant cause of stress
and placed three quarters of academic staff in a
 2 JOHNSON, WILLIS, AND EVANS
moderate stress category, and 10% in a serious
stress category (Abouserie, 1996), indicating
that workplace stress was a significant concern
in an academic setting 20 years ago. Recent
studies continue to indicate high levels of stress
in academic settings (Shin & Jung, 2014). It is
apparent then that workplace stress and the re-
lated potential impact of such stress on em-
ployee health and well-being is a significant risk
factor within the academic profession.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
A number of studies have investigated aca-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
demic job roles in more depth to understand the
potential causes of stress in academia, reporting
issues such as funding reductions, relatively low
pay, working long hours and heavy workloads,
increased student numbers, poor communica-
tion, role ambiguity, and publication expecta-
tions (Kinman, 2008; Rutter, Herzberg, &
Paice, 2002; Winefield & Jarrett, 2001). It is
generally accepted that excessive workplace
stress can lead to negative health outcomes such
as burnout (Schaufeli, 2003). This was con-
firmed in an academic study by Barkhuizen,
Rothmann, and van de Vijver (2014) who re-
ported that a lack of job-related resources and
job demands contributed to burnout. Other ac-
ademic-based studies have also supported links
between work stress and health and well-being
outcomes; for example, physical health (Wine-
field, Gillespie, Stough, Dua, & Hapuararchchi,
2002), poor mental health (Doyle & Hind,
1998), reduced commitment to the organiza-
tions (Kinman, 2001), and medical symptoms
(Hogan, Carlson, & Dua, 2002) have all been
linked to workplace stress.
One reason for the reported increasing stress
levels in academia is believed to be the signif-
icant changes in the academic working environ-
ment that have occurred over the previous 2
decades (Kinman, 2008). Change continues to
be a factor in academic working environments,
and recent years have seen continued significant
changes within the academic profession includ-
ing increasing student numbers, increasing
workload, increasing focus on teaching quality,
continued focus on high-quality research out-
puts, and decreased perceptions of autonomy
and job security (University and College Union
[UCU], 2016). Such changes are arguably likely
to lead to increased levels of workplace stress
within the academic workplace, with studies
showing that continuous change in academic
settings can have a negative effect on employee
well-being (Kinman & Jones, 2008; Tyther-
leigh, Webb, Cooper, & Ricketts, 2005). Given
the accepted potential negative impact of high
workplace stress levels on health and work-
related outcomes, a consideration of stressors
and strain within academia is therefore timely.
There have been numerous studies of stress in
academic settings; however, the focus of such
studies is typically on academic employees and
not on the support staff working within aca-
demia, although a study in 2002 compared job
roles and reported lower job stress levels in
support staff compared with academic staff
(Hogan et al., 2002). Given the significant
changes in the profession, as outlined earlier,
academic support staff are also potentially neg-
atively affected by high levels of workplace
stress, particularly in relation to increasing stu-
dent numbers and related increased workload. It
is pertinent then to include both academics and
academic support staff in an investigation of
workplace stress levels and related health out-
comes in academia in the United Kingdom.
A number of general workplace stressors
have been identified in the empirical literature
as being potentially important with regard to an
employee’s health and well-being. For example,
Cooper and Marshall’s (1976) work stress
model described five potential sources of work-
place stress including intrinsic job factors (e.g.,
poor working conditions or work overload), the
employee’s role in the organization (e.g., role
conflict), career development (e.g., job insecu-
rity), workplace relationships (e.g., workplace
bullying), and organizational climate (e.g., lack
of involvement in decision-making). Workplace
stress measures are designed to inform on such
workplace stressors and are commonly used to
provide an overview of how employees are be-
ing affected. One such measure, influenced by
established models of stress such as Cooper and
Marshall’s work stress model, is ASSET (A
Shortened Stress Evaluation Tool), which in-
forms on eight workplace stressors and physical
and psychological ill-health. The eight work-
place stressors measured by ASSET tool are
overload, work–life balance, resources and
communication, job security, work relation-
ships, control, pay and benefits, and aspects of
job (referring to working conditions and unnec-
essary change). ASSET tool has been used ex-
tensively, is a valid and reliable tool, and has
been used to demonstrate the links between high
 STRESSORS, STRAIN, & RESILIENCE IN UNIVERSITIES
workplace stress levels and poor employee
health outcomes (Faragher, Cooper, & Cart-
wright, 2004; Johnson & Cooper, 2003). The
ASSET tool measure has recently been ex-
panded to include a Resilience scale drawing
from the theoretical model of resilience pro-
posed by Robertson and Cooper (2013) about
which we provide more detail in the resilience
section in the following text.
The aforementioned review of the literature
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
details the high levels of stress previously re-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ported in an academic work setting, and the
continuous changes reported in the profession
that have the potential to negatively affect em-
ployee health and well-being. We argue that it is
timely to review and better understand current
levels of stressors and strain within a U.K. ac-
ademic setting and propose the following two
aims of the article, which will be investigated
using the ASSET tool.
Aim 1: Examine and compare reported
stressors and strain across U.K. academic
and non-academic university job roles.
Aim 2: Consider how stressors are related
to health outcomes and to determine which
stressors are the strongest drivers of poor
physical and psychological health across
U.K. academic and non-academic job
roles.
Resilience
Resilience has been described as a phenom-
enon inferred from research findings that people
are differentially affected by stressors (Rutter,
2013), and as “the ability to bounce back from
negative emotional experiences and flexibly
adapt to the changing demands of stressful ex-
periences” (Hu, Zhang, & Wang, 2015, p. 18).
One approach to resilience proposes that resil-
ience is a personality trait that helps people
successfully cope with stressors although
Windle (2011) reviewed the evidence and ar-
gued that resilience should not be viewed as a
stable personality trait, as it is dynamic and will
change over time. Other conceptualizations of
resilience include seeing it as a behavioral out-
come, or as a dynamic process during which
individuals can adapt and recover (Hu et al.,
2015) and as a capacity that develops over time
(Egeland, Carlson, & Sroufe, 1993). Fletcher
3
and Sarkar (2013) reviewed resilience defini-
tions and concluded resilience is best defined as
“the role of mental processes and behavior in
promoting personal assets and protecting an in-
dividual from the potential negative effect of
stressors” that includes both process and trait
resilience conceptualizations (Fletcher &
Sarkar, 2012, p. 675). Despite the evident dis-
agreement between researchers in defining and
understanding resilience, which has hindered
research (Hu et al., 2015), it is generally be-
lieved to be a multidimensional construct
(Campbell-Sills, Cohan, & Stein, 2006). Rob-
ertson and Cooper (2013) discussed how resil-
ience is unlikely to be a unidimensional con-
struct. Drawing on different theories of
resilience (e.g., as reviewed by Haglund,
Nestadt, Cooper, Southwick, & Charney, 2007),
they described a practical model of resilience
that includes four components: adaptability
(flexibility and adapting to changing situations),
confidence (feelings of competence and effec-
tiveness), purposefulness (having a clear sense
of purpose), and social support (good relation-
ships with others). Moreover, the model con-
ceptualizes resilience as a malleable character-
istic, as Robertson and Cooper (2013) argued
that research indicates that although resilience
might be related to personality, it is not a fixed
characteristic (Cooper, Flint-Taylor, & Pearn,
2013). In support of this, Robertson, Cooper,
Sarkar, and Curran (2015) showed in their re-
view of resilience training studies that training
can improve personal resilience and assist em-
ployee mental health and well-being develop-
ment. In the present study, we use this multidi-
mensional conceptualization of resilience
(adaptability, confidence, purposefulness, and
social support) and adopt Robertson and Coo-
per’s (2013) approach to resilience as an indi-
vidual characteristic that can be developed.
Despite the lack of clarity surrounding the
conceptualization of resilience, it is apparent
from research evidence that resilience can be
practically important and it has been indicated
as one explanation for why some employees
exposed to high levels of workplace stressors do
not experience burnout and are better able to
manage challenges (Kinman & Grant, 2011).
Resilient individuals are seen to have greater
psychological well-being and reduced rates of
depression (Burns, Anstey, & Windsor, 2011),
and less psychological distress (Kinman &
 4 JOHNSON, WILLIS, AND EVANS
Grant, 2011). Although these studies point to
the importance of resilience, there is limited
understanding of the explanatory mechanisms
underlying the effects of resilience. Moreover,
research on resilience mechanisms are drawn
from studies of resilience in varied settings, for
example, patients, children, students, and the
elderly, and are not typically focused on work-
place resilience.
Workplace resilience is a relatively new con-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
cept, with research on workplace resilience
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
steadily increasing over the past decade (Crane
& Searle, 2016; Vanhove, Herian, Perez,
Harms, & Lester, 2016). However, researchers
are only just beginning to investigate mecha-
nisms through which resilience may be related
to the experience of work stressors and strain
(Windle, 2011). Work-based studies that have
investigated resilience report varied findings,
and despite the evidence linking resilience,
work stressors, and burnout to the best of our
knowledge, no studies have investigated the re-
lationship between resilience, work stressors,
physical health, and psychological well-being.
Based on the evidence, we expect resilient in-
dividuals to be less negatively affected by work-
place stressors. Given the lack of consensus of
how resilience may interact with work stressors
and employee well-being, we propose that re-
silience may play a role in both a moderating
and mediating model.
First, a moderator model assumes resilience
may act as a buffer between stressors and
health. It is suggested that employee resilience
may play a (positive) buffering role between
stressors and health, with some nonwork-based
studies supporting this buffering hypothesis
(Catalano, Chan, Wilson, Chiu, & Muller,
2011). In further support of a potential moder-
ating role of resilience, there is extensive evi-
dence to support personality variables playing a
moderating role between stressors and strain
(Grant & Langan-Fox, 2007), which, given that
conceptualizations of resilience believe it to be
related to personality (Cooper et al., 2013), may
help to explain a potential moderating role of
resilience. In one of the few work-based studies
to date, Hao, Hong, Xu, Zhou, and Xie (2015)
reported a moderator effect of resilience be-
tween work stressors and burnout, suggesting
resilience acts as a buffer that can reduce the
potential negative impact of work stress. Stud-
ies on nurses and doctors provide support for
this, showing resilience to buffer risk factors
and burnout (Manzano-García & Ayala Calvo,
2012; Mealer et al., 2012; Taku, 2014). Thus,
we argue that resilience may play a similar
moderating role between stressors and strain
and propose the following aim:
Aim 3: Investigate the role of resilience in
the stressor–strain relationship by testing
resilience as a moderator of the effect of
workplace stressors on ill-health.
An alternative mediator model tests whether
resilience influences an individual’s perceptions
of workplace stressors, which in turn will im-
pact on health outcomes. Whereas some re-
search has reported resilience as a partial medi-
ator in the stress–strain relationship when
investigating whether the experience of stres-
sors can deplete one’s resilience (Hao et al.,
2015), our study aims to explore resilience as a
capacity to react more effectively to stressful
events. Hao et al.’s (2015) study provides some
support for this as, in addition to identifying
resilience as a partial mediator, they also report
that workplace stressors play a partial mediating
role between resilience and burnout. This indi-
cates that resilience can help prevent burnout
development by influencing and relieving the
experience of workplace stressors. In our medi-
ation model, we therefore position resilience as
an independent variable that affects employees’
perceptions of workplace stressors, which con-
sequently impacts strain levels. This model is in
line with conceptualizations that resilience af-
fects employees’ reactions to workplace expe-
riences and with individuals high in resilience
processing stressful events as less threatening
(Avey, Luthans, & Jensen, 2009). One explana-
tion for this is that resilience can affect how
individuals perceive and react to workplace
stressors. Theoretically this is in line with
Bolger and Zuckerman’s (1995) differential ex-
posure–reactivity framework, which proposes
that “personality affects both the exposure and
reactivity stages of the stress process” (p. 891).
Their study showed that, in comparison with
low-neuroticism participants, high-neuroticism
participants reported experiencing more daily
conflicts and increased likelihood of reacting to
conflicts with depression and anger. Using a
similar framework for resilience would support
the argument that highly resilient individuals
 STRESSORS, STRAIN, & RESILIENCE IN UNIVERSITIES
will perceive lower stressors due, for example,
to their greater resources and confidence in
dealing with workplace stress, and will have a
decreased likelihood of reacting to workplace
stressors with a negative strain response. Thus,
the mediation model tested in our study pro-
poses that individuals with high resilience lev-
els will be less troubled by work stressors,
which in turn results in better health outcomes
(Figure 1). The final aim of the current study is
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
therefore as follows:
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Aim 4: Investigate the role of resilience in
the stressor–strain relationship by testing
whether resilience influences perceptions
of workplace stressors, which in turn affect
ill-health.
Method
Sample and Procedure
A total of 2,821 (1,025 male, 1,784 female,
and 12 not reported) employees in three higher
education institutions (N ⫽ 1,396 for Organiza-
tion 1, N ⫽ 764 for Organization 2, and N ⫽
661 for Organization 3) completed ASSET tool
Work
Relationships
Work-Life
Balance
Overload
Job Security
Resilience
Resources and
Communication
Control
Pay and Benefits
Aspects of Job
Figure 1. Mediation model with ASSET stressor variables as mediators in the relationship
between resilience and physical and psychological health. Results for the model are reported
in Table 5.
5
anonymously online. Respondents were catego-
rized as either academic (N ⫽ 864) or non-
academic (N ⫽ 1,937) employees within their
respective higher education institution (20 par-
ticipants did not report their job type). Non-
academics consisted of non-teaching support
staff, for example, working in administrative or
clerical roles. A smaller sample of N ⫽ 652 (N
academic ⫽ 222; N non-academic ⫽ 430) was
used for most parts of the analysis, as not all
variables were assessed in each participating
organization. Surveys were conducted in the
three institutions independently with data col-
lected in Organization 1 in 2010, Organization 2
in 2014/2015, and Organization 3 in 2015. Due
to organizational constraints, the psychological
and physical ill-health measures were not in-
cluded in Organization 2 and resilience was not
measured in Organization 1, as the scale was
still under development at the time. Hence,
analysis relating to ill-health was only possible
using the data from Organizations 1 and 3 (N ⫽
2,014 with listwise deletion; i.e., 43 cases ex-
cluded due to missing values), and analysis in-
cluding ill-health as well as resilience was based
on data from Organization 3 only (N ⫽ 652 with
Physical Health
Psychological
Health
 6 JOHNSON, WILLIS, AND EVANS
listwise deletion, i.e., nine cases deleted due to
missing values). Table 1 shows the sample in-
formation for each of the three organizations.
With regards to assessing the study aims, this
means that analyses conducted for Aim 1 were
based on the complete sample from Organiza-
tions 1, 2, and 3 (N ⫽ 2,779) to compare total
stressor levels (all eight stressor variables com-
bined) between academics and non-academics
and on a subsample (N ⫽ 2,014) from Organi-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
zations 1 and 3 to compare levels of individual
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
stressors and ill-health between the two job
groups. Aims 2, 3, and 4 were tested using data
from Organization 3 only (N ⫽ 652). In all parts
of the analysis, sample sizes can be considered
large, and exact sample sizes are reported in the
tables’ notes.
Measures
The data for this study were collected using
items from the ASSET tool (Faragher et al.,
2004), which includes scales on stressors, ill-
health, and resilience. Previous research has
demonstrated good psychometric properties for
the ASSET tool questionnaire (Donald et al.,
2005; Faragher et al., 2004; Johnson & Cooper,
2003). To measure stressors, ASSET tool in-
cludes 37 items designed to assess how psycho-
logically troubled respondents are by certain
work pressures. There are eight subscales
within this, which are as follows: Resources and
Communication (four items), Control (four
items), Overload (four items), Work–Life Bal-
ance (four items), Job Security (four items),
Work Relationships (eight items), Pay and Ben-
efits (one item), and Aspects of the Job (eight
items; referring to working conditions and
change at work). Items are preceded by the
phrase, “I am troubled that . . .,” for example, “I
Table 1
Sample Size Information for the Three Higher Education Institutions
Sample details University 1
Total sample size 1,396
N non-academic 894
N Academic 487 (15 missing)
Variables measured 8 ASSET stressors
Psychological health
Physical health
Note. ASSET ⫽ A Shortened Stress Evaluation Tool.
am troubled that I am given unmanageable
workloads.” Responses are given on a 6-point
Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 6 (strongly agree). Stressor scores showed
good reliability ranging between ␣ ⫽ .72 to .85
(Table 2). Pay and benefits is measured using a
single item; therefore, no reliability is reported
(Faragher et al., 2004). The eight stressor sub-
scales can be combined into a total workplace
stressor index, which has been supported by
previous research (Nikolaou & Tsaousis, 2002;
Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005) and showed good
reliability in the current study (␣ ⫽ .93).
ASSET tool also includes two Self-Reported
Health scales. Respondents report the extent to
which they have experienced specific physical
ill-health (six items, e.g., “Insomnia—sleep
loss”) and psychological ill-health symptoms
(11 items, e.g., “Panic or anxiety attacks”) dur-
ing the previous 3 months (4-point scale: 1 ⫽
never to 4 ⫽ often). The two ill-health scales
have been shown to be reliable and valid in
previous research (Faragher et al., 2004; John-
son & Cooper, 2003) and had good reliability in
the present study (Psychological Ill-Health: ␣ ⫽
.92; Physical Ill-Health: ␣ ⫽ .77). Finally, the
ASSET tool includes a Resilience scale that
measures participants’ current levels of psycho-
logical resilience on four items that were de-
signed to correspond with the theoretical model
and four components of resilience proposed by
Robertson and Cooper (2013): confidence,
adaptability, purposefulness, and the use of so-
cial support (e.g., “Right now at work I feel
confident that I can deal with difficulties when
they arise”). Respondents indicate the extent to
which they agree with the four statements on a
0 –100-point scale, with higher scores indicative
of higher levels of resilience. The scale showed
University 2 University 3
764 661
610 433
153 (1 missing) 224 (4 missing)
8 ASSET stressors 8 ASSET stressors
Resilience Resilience
Psychological health
Physical health
 STRESSORS, STRAIN, & RESILIENCE IN UNIVERSITIES 7

good reliability (␣ ⫽ .81). The Resilience scale

Note. Cronbach’s ␣ reliabilities are displayed on the diagonal in bold in parentheses. Correlations above the diagonal are for non-academics and below the diagonal for academics.
Correlations are based on listwise deletion. N academic ⫽ 222 and N non-academic ⫽ 430. A comparison analysis with a correlation matrix with pairwise deletion showed the same
.42ⴱⴱⴱ
.40ⴱⴱⴱ
.32ⴱⴱⴱ
.32ⴱⴱⴱ
.20ⴱⴱⴱ
.35ⴱⴱⴱ
.32ⴱⴱⴱ
.42ⴱⴱⴱ

⫺.50ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.36ⴱⴱⴱ
.67ⴱⴱⴱ
.15ⴱⴱ

.62ⴱⴱⴱ (.77)
12
has been recently added to the ASSET tool, and
evidence of scale structure has not previously
ⴱⴱⴱ

.45ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ

.40ⴱⴱⴱ
.23ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ

.40ⴱⴱⴱ
.47ⴱⴱⴱ
.13ⴱⴱⴱ
been published. We therefore conducted a con-

⫺.61ⴱⴱⴱ (.92)
11
.48

.40

.43
firmatory factor analysis with the four items
loading onto one overall Resilience factor. As
ⴱⴱⴱ

⫺.45ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ

⫺.57ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.21ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ

⫺.62ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.61ⴱⴱⴱ

⫺.37ⴱⴱⴱ
resilience was only measured in Organizations 2

⫺.18ⴱⴱ
(.81)
10
⫺.60

⫺.31

⫺.64
and 3, the confirmatory factor analysis was
based on a sample size of N ⫽ 1,418 (listwise
deletion; N missing ⫽ 9). The model indicated
ⴱⴱⴱ

.28ⴱⴱⴱ
.20ⴱⴱⴱ
.33ⴱⴱⴱ
.31ⴱⴱⴱ
.32ⴱⴱⴱ
.37ⴱⴱⴱ
.34ⴱⴱⴱ

73.11 (1,418) 18.45 ⫺.63ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.51ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.31ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.59ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.25ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.64ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.63ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.63ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.25ⴱⴱⴱ
.18ⴱⴱ
.14ⴱ
—
.64
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

good fit, with ␹2 ⫽ 26.87, p ⬍ .001, compara-

9
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

tive fit index ⫽ .98, Tucker–Lewis index ⫽ .93,

root mean square error of approximation ⫽ .09,
ⴱⴱⴱ

.43ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ

.64ⴱⴱⴱ
.27ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ

.74ⴱⴱⴱ

.31ⴱⴱⴱ

.57ⴱⴱⴱ
.42ⴱⴱⴱ
.71ⴱⴱⴱ (.73)
.76

.35

.72

standardized root mean square residual ⫽ .02.

8

Each of the four items loaded significantly on

ⴱⴱⴱ

.45ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ

.78ⴱⴱⴱ
.31ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ

.42ⴱⴱⴱ

.46ⴱⴱⴱ
.32ⴱⴱⴱ

the Resilience factor with factor loadings of .77

.75ⴱⴱⴱ (.85)
.82

.34

.77
7

(Resilience— confidence item), .74 (Resil-

ience—social support item), .73 (Resilience—
ⴱⴱⴱ

.51ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ

.73ⴱⴱⴱ
.27ⴱⴱⴱ

.69ⴱⴱⴱ
.37ⴱⴱⴱ

.46ⴱⴱⴱ
.32ⴱⴱⴱ

purposefulness item), and .67 (Resilience—

(.83)
.80

.42
6

adaptability item).
ⴱⴱⴱ

.30ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ

.34ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ

.40ⴱⴱⴱ
.34ⴱⴱⴱ
.47ⴱⴱⴱ

.28ⴱⴱⴱ
.19ⴱⴱ

Results
.33ⴱⴱⴱ (.73)
.55

.24

.28
5

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correla-

ⴱⴱⴱ

.54ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ

ⴱⴱⴱ

.77ⴱⴱⴱ
.63ⴱⴱⴱ
.35ⴱⴱⴱ

.43ⴱⴱⴱ
.26ⴱⴱⴱ

tions for the study variables are displayed in

.28ⴱⴱⴱ (.72)
.81

.37

.69
4

Table 2. As expected all eight stressor variables

were positively correlated with psychological
ⴱⴱⴱ

.61ⴱⴱⴱ

ⴱⴱⴱ

.34ⴱⴱⴱ
.42ⴱⴱⴱ

.47ⴱⴱⴱ
.45ⴱⴱⴱ
.19ⴱⴱ

.21ⴱⴱ

and physical ill-health. Using the data from all

(.77)
.60

.29
3

three organizations, comparison through t test

Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations for Study Variables

of the total stressor score showed higher levels

ⴱⴱⴱ

ⴱⴱⴱ

.53ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ

.54ⴱⴱⴱ
.56ⴱⴱⴱ
.29ⴱⴱⴱ

.52ⴱⴱⴱ
.42ⴱⴱⴱ

of stress for academics (N ⫽ 852) compared

.22ⴱⴱ
.72ⴱⴱⴱ (.81)
.70

.61

.48
2

with non-academics (N ⫽ 1,927; missing data

were deleted listwise, N missing ⫽ 42), al-
ⴱⴱⴱ

.78ⴱⴱⴱ
.58ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱⴱⴱ

.84ⴱⴱⴱ
.77ⴱⴱⴱ
.68ⴱⴱⴱ

.56ⴱⴱⴱ
.42ⴱⴱⴱ

though differences were small (academics total

2.82 (2,798) 0.80 (.93)

.57

.76
1

stress M ⫽ 2.89, SD ⫽ .81; non-academics total

stress M ⫽ 2.78, SD ⫽ .79), t(2777) ⫽ 3.41,
2.92 (2,817) 1.14
2.66 (2,815) 1.14
Resources and Communication 2.89 (2,815) 1.06
2.82 (2,815) 1.16
2.46 (2,817) 0.92
3.10 (2,818) 1.22
2.53 (2,820) 0.82
3.21 (2,803) 1.72

2.10 (2,051) 0.66

2.19 (2,049) 0.67

p ⫽ .001, 95% confidence interval for mean

SD

difference [0.04, 0.17]. To further investigate

differences between academic and non-aca-
M (N)

demic employees (Aim 1), a one-way multivar-

iate analysis of variance was computed on the
eight stressor variables (work–life balance,
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

work overload, job security, job control, re-

sources and communication, work relation-
Total Workplace Stressors

ships, aspects of job, and pay and benefits) and

Psychological Ill-Health

the two ill-health outcomes (psychological and

Work Relationships
Work–Life Balance

Physical Ill-Health

physical ill-health) based on the data from Or-

Variable

Pay and Benefits

ganizations 1 and 3 (N ⫽ 2,014; N academic ⫽

correlation pattern.
Aspects of Job

697; N non-academic ⫽ 1,317). A significant

Job Security

Resilience

multivariate effect was detected, Wilk’s ␭ F(10,

Overload

Control

2003) ⫽ 52.61, p ⬍ .001, ␩2 ⫽ .21. Means,

Table 2

standard deviations, and univariate F values for

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

all dependent variables are reported in Table 3.

ⴱ
 8 JOHNSON, WILLIS, AND EVANS

Table 3
Univariate Statistics for Mean Comparison Between Academics and Non-Academics on Stressor and
Health Variables
Variable Academic M (SD) Non-academic M (SD) F value p value ␩2
Overload 3.19 (1.15) 2.76 (1.09) 66.75 .001 .03
Work–Life Balance 3.23 (1.18) 2.43 (1.02) 249.21 .001 .11
Resources and Communication 2.93 (1.07) 2.93 (1.06) 0.01 .924 .001
Job Security 2.76 (1.21) 2.81 (10.13) 1.00 .318 .001
Work Relationships 2.39 (0.88) 2.52 (0.93) 9.22 .002 .001
Control 3.09 (1.18) 3.14 (1.24) 0.75 .385 .001
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Aspects of Job 2.35 (0.78) 2.58 (0.81) 38.15 0 .02

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Pay and Benefits 3.10 (1.71) 3.33 (1.74) 8.18 .004 .001
Psychological Ill-Health 2.12 (0.65) 2.08 (0.66) 1.62 .203 .001
Physical Ill-Health 2.11 (0.67) 2.24 (0.66) 18.02 .001 .01
Note. ␩2 ⫽ estimated effect size. Bonferroni-corrected level of significance with ␣ at .05 is p ⬍ .005. Total N ⫽ 2,014;
N academic ⫽ 697; N non-academic ⫽ 1,317. Missing data are deleted listwise.

Compared with their non-academic colleagues,
academics reported poorer work–life balance,
higher levels of work overload, better job con-
ditions and work relationships as well as lower
levels of concern regarding pay and benefits.
Thus, these results suggest that the main sources
of stress might be different for academics and
non-academics. With regards to health, academ-
ics reported better physical health. No signifi-
cant difference emerged between academics’
and non-academics’ psychological ill-health.
To address Aim 2 and explore which stres-
sors are most strongly related to ill-health in
academics and non-academics, hierarchical
multiple regression was conducted whereby all
independent variables (i.e., eight stressors, job
type, resilience) were entered in a first block to
assess the main effects, and interaction terms
between stressor variables and job type (aca-
demic/non-academic) were entered in a second
step. Separate regression models were con-
ducted for psychological ill-health and physical
ill-health respectively. Hence, this analysis in-
vestigated whether unique stressors drive psy-
chological and physical ill-health for academics
compared with employees in non-academic po-
sitions (Table 4). To aid interpretation of the
results, independent variables were standard-
ized before analysis. Main effects revealed that
out of the eight stressor variables, work–life
balance, aspects of job, work overload, and job
security were related to psychological ill-health
(Table 4, Block 1). Work–life balance and as-
pects of job were also related to physical ill-
health. When entering the interaction terms be-
tween the stressor variables and job type
(academic/non-academic), no significant effects
were found (see Table 4, Block 2). Thus, there
was no support for job type to influence the
relationship between individual stressor vari-
ables and psychological and physical ill-health.
In other words, the results from moderation
analysis suggest that the sources of stress that
most strongly impact on ill-health do not differ
for academics and non-academics.
Aim 3 proposed resilience as a moderator of
the relationship between workplace stressors
and psychological and physical ill-health. To
test this, we extended the regression model that
addressed the second study aim by adding in-
teraction terms between resilience and the eight
stressor variables in a third step. Given the large
sample size of the study, it was appropriate to
test both moderators (i.e., job type and resil-
ience) within the same model. This analysis
showed that resilience emerged as a significant
moderator for the relationship between work–
life balance and psychological ill-health, but
was not a significant moderator for any other
stressor variables (Table 4, Block 3). Simple
slope analysis of the moderation effect showed
that the relationship between work–life balance
stressors and psychological ill-health was sig-
nificant when resilience was low (b ⫽ .28, t ⫽
8.82, p ⬍ .001), but was nonsignificant when
resilience was high (b ⫽ .08, t ⫽ 1.12, p ⫽ .26).
Hence, if resilience is low, experiencing stress
from poor work–life balance has a negative
effect on psychological health. However, if re-
silience is high, this effect becomes nonsignif-
 STRESSORS, STRAIN, & RESILIENCE IN UNIVERSITIES 9

Table 4
Hierarchical Regression for Stressors, Resilience, and Job Type Main Effects
(Block 1) and Academic Job (Block 2) and Resilience (Block 3) as Moderators
With Psychological Health and Physical Health as Dependent Variables
Dependent variables
Psychological Physical
Ill-Health Ill-Health
Variable ␤ SE ␤ SE
Constant 1.89 .05 1.28 .05
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Block 1 Main effects

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Overload .16ⴱ .05 .15 .05

Work–Life Balance .18ⴱⴱ .04 .27ⴱⴱⴱ .06
Resources and Communication .001 .05 ⫺.09 .05
Job Security .14ⴱ .04 .08 .06
Work Relationships .04 .06 .01 .05
Control ⫺.13 .06 ⫺.02 .06
Aspects of Job .25ⴱⴱ .05 .20ⴱ .07
Pay and Benefits ⫺.08 .04 ⫺.06 .06
Resilience ⫺.30ⴱⴱⴱ .03 ⫺.08 .04
Academic/Non-academic .03 .05 .12ⴱⴱ .04
Block 2 Moderator: Academic/Non-academic
Overload ⫻ Academic Job .004 .06 .05 .07
Work–Life Balance ⫻ Academic Job ⫺.004 .05 ⫺.13 .06
Resources and Communication ⫻ Academic Job .001 .07 .05 .08
Job Security ⫻ Academic Job ⫺.07 .05 ⫺.03 .06
Work Relationships ⫻ Academic Job ⫺.03 .07 ⫺.02 .08
Control ⫻ Academic Job .06 .08 ⫺.04 .09
Aspects of Job ⫻ Academic Job ⫺.03 .07 .08 .08
Pay and Benefits ⫻ Academic Job .004 .04 .05 .05
Block 3 Moderator: Resilience
Overload ⫻ Resilience .07 .03 ⫺.02 .03
Work–Life Balance ⫻ Resilience ⫺.10ⴱ .02 0 .03
Resources and Communication ⫻ Resilience ⫺.001 .03 ⫺.05 .04
Job Security ⫻ Resilience .03 .02 .06 .03
Work Relationships ⫻ Resilience .03 .03 ⫺.02 .03
Control ⫻ Resilience .08 .03 .07 .04
Aspects of Job ⫻ Resilience ⫺.08 .04 ⫺.04 .04
Pay and Benefits ⫻ Resilience ⫺.02 .02 ⫺.07 .02
2
Radjusted .40
2
Note. Radjusted ⫽ adjusted R-square for the overall model; N ⫽ 652; N academic ⫽ 222; N
non-academic ⫽ 430. Missing data are deleted listwise.
ⴱ ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .05. p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

icant, suggesting that resilience acts as a buffer
(Figure 2). It should be noted though that we
only found one significant interaction, so that
resilience might only be an effective buffer with
regards to specific sources of stress (i.e., work–
life balance) and might not protect employees
from the detrimental effects of other stress
sources.
Finally, in a separate regression model, we
tested whether resilience predicts employees’
stressor perceptions, which in turn predict physi-
cal and psychological ill-health (Aim 4). Thus, we
assessed whether resilience has an indirect effect
on health outcomes through influencing how in-
dividuals perceive stressors in their environment
(Figure 1). For this, we conducted path analysis in
MPlus software Version 7.1 using the INDIRECT
command (Muthén & Muthén, 2010). The advan-
tage of assessing mediation in MPlus is that esti-
mates for direct effects, indirect effects for indi-
vidual mediators and all mediators combined as
well as total effects are provided. Thus, for Aim 4,
we tested the eight stressor variables as mediators
in the relationship between resilience and psycho-
 10 JOHNSON, WILLIS, AND EVANS

4.5

4
Psychological Ill-Health

3.5
Low Resilience
3
High Resilience
2.5

2
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

1.5
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

1
Low Work Life Balance High Work Life Balance
Stressor Stressor

Figure 2. Resilience as moderator of the relationship between work life balance stressor and
psychological ill-health. High and low values are plotted at 1 SD above and below the variable
mean.

logical and physical ill-health. A path model was
specified with direct effects between resilience
and psychological and physical ill-health as well
as indirect effects through the eight stressor vari-
ables. Results revealed that resilience showed a
significant direct as well as an indirect effect on
both ill-health outcomes (Table 5). When exam-
ining the eight stressor variables as individual
mediators, results showed that the indirect effect
was mainly mediated by aspects of job for both
psychological and physical ill-health (⫺.14 and
⫺.18, respectively). Resilience also had signifi-
cant indirect effects through overload and work–
life balance on physical and psychological ill-
health, but the effects were small.
Discussion
The present research set out to determine the
main workplace stressor sources for academics

Table 5
Indirect Effects of Resilience on Psychological Ill-Health and Physical Ill-Health Through ASSET
(A Shortened Stress Evaluation Tool) Stressor Variables
Psychological Physical
Ill-Health Ill-Health
Effect Estimate SE Estimate SE
Mediated effect of resilience
Direct effect (resilience on health outcomes) ⫺.32ⴱⴱⴱ .04 ⫺.13ⴱ .05
Total indirect effect (through eight stressor variables combined) ⫺.23ⴱⴱⴱ .04 ⫺.24ⴱⴱⴱ .04
Total effect (direct and indirect effects combined) ⫺.55ⴱⴱⴱ .03 ⫺.37ⴱⴱⴱ .04
Specific indirect effects through individual stressor variables
Overload ⫺.07ⴱⴱ .02 ⫺.08ⴱⴱ .02
Work–Life Balance ⫺.06ⴱⴱ .02 ⫺.04ⴱⴱ .02
Resources and Communication .01 .03 .05 .04
Job Security ⫺.02ⴱ .01 ⫺.01 .01
Work Relationships .002 .04 ⫺.01 .04
Control .03 .04 .03 .04
Aspects of Job ⫺.14ⴱⴱⴱ .03 ⫺.18ⴱⴱⴱ .03
Pay and Benefits .01 .01 .003 .007
Note. N ⫽ 652; N academic ⫽ 222; N non-academic ⫽ 430. Missing data are deleted listwise. The estimates in this table
correspond to the model displayed in Figure 1.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
 STRESSORS, STRAIN, & RESILIENCE IN UNIVERSITIES
in comparison with non-academic staff (Aim 1),
to understand the main stressors that influence
psychological and physical ill-health for aca-
demics and non-academics (Aim 2), as well as
to advance the understanding of the role of
resilience in the stressor–strain relationship
(Aims 3 and 4). The study brought about several
important findings by identifying unique stres-
sors for academic and non-academic staff and
demonstrating that resilience can influence how
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
employees perceive psychosocial risks in their
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
work environment.
Results revealed that the main stressors
within a work environment can be specific to
particular occupations or job groups. It has been
argued that occupation-specific investigations
into stress are more likely to produce concrete
and useful guidance for practitioners (de Jonge,
Dollard, Dormann, Le Blanc, & Houtman,
2000; Sparks & Cooper, 1999). Thus, by iden-
tifying overload and work–life balance as two
stressors that are particularly prevalent for aca-
demics, and aspects of job, work relationships,
and pay and benefits as salient stressors for
non-academic staff, our study provides insights
where universities might target stress preven-
tion efforts for these two core staff groups.
Recent changes in the academic working envi-
ronment have involved growing student num-
bers, an increased emphasis on teaching quality
together with strong expectations regarding re-
search outputs, and securing of research funding
(UCU, 2016). Our finding that overload and
poor work–life balance are two key areas of
concern for academics, fits with such demands.
In a similar vein, one area of concern reported
by non-academics related to aspects of the job,
referring to working conditions and unneces-
sary change, which may also be a result of the
changes occurring in academic settings such as
increasing student numbers and related work-
load that will impact on non-academic as well
as academic staff (Kinman, 2008; UCU, 2016).
The concerns about work relationships reported
by non-academic staff possibly relate to the fact
that non-academic staff will typically work in a
team-based environment in comparison with ac-
ademics who work in a more solitary fashion
and who may be less concerned about work
relationships as a result. The concerns about pay
and benefits reported by non-academic staff are
perhaps unsurprising given their typically lower
pay levels in comparison with academic staff.
11
The different concerns reported by academics
and non-academics indicate the importance for
universities to monitor the effects of work en-
vironment changes on psychosocial risk factors
for specific job groups. However, results also
showed that there was no significant difference
between academic and non-academic employ-
ees in psychological health and that academics
had slightly better physical health. Thus, al-
though sources of stress might differ for job
groups, overall strain levels might be similar.
With regards to the study’s second aim, find-
ings indicated that the main stressors that influ-
ence ill-health are similar for academics and
non-academics. Job group did not moderate any
of the relationships between the different stres-
sors and psychological and physical ill-health.
In both job groups, aspects of jobs and work–
life balance were related to both health out-
comes. Job overload and job security were fur-
ther related to psychological ill-health. This
finding is in contrast with some research that
has demonstrated that the stressor–strain rela-
tionship can vary for different occupations
(Sparks & Cooper, 1999). One possible expla-
nation why we did not find specific predictors of
health issues for academics and non-academics,
is that these two job groups still operate within
the same wider work environment (i.e., higher
education). More broadly our findings are con-
gruent with existing research that has identified
aspects of job and work–life balance as major
risk factors for health issues (Amstad, Meier,
Fasel, Elfering, & Semmer, 2011; Pindek &
Spector, 2016). In particular, the finding that
aspects of job (referring to working conditions
and unnecessary change) showed a strong rela-
tionship with psychological and physical ill-
health is noteworthy. In a recent meta-analysis,
Pindek and Spector (2016) found that organiza-
tional constraints, which are related to the as-
pects of job stressor dimension in our study,
significantly impair physical and psychological
health beyond other stressors. The present find-
ings further attest that aspects of the work en-
vironment should be more central in stress re-
search and are to be considered alongside other
commonly studied stressors such as work–life
conflict.
The third and fourth aims of the study inves-
tigated the role of resilience in the stressor–
strain relationship. Our results showed little
support for resilience as a moderator of the
 12 JOHNSON, WILLIS, AND EVANS
association between stressors and ill-health, as
we only found support for resilience to interact
with work–life balance as a source of stress but
not with any of the other stressor variables. This
suggests that resilience might not be a “global
buffer,” but might only mitigate against certain
sources of stress such as poor work–life bal-
ance. The measure of stress sources used in the
present study might explain why we found an
indirect effect for resilience on health through
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
stressor perceptions, but less support for a buff-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ering moderator effect. The ASSET tool mea-
sure assesses the extent to which individuals are
troubled by a series of workplace stressors,
rather than the extent to which these are present.
Our findings suggest that levels of resilience
influence whether an individual perceives a
stressor as troublesome, but once an employee
is troubled by workplace stressors he or she is
likely to report poor health regardless of his or
her level of resilience. In other words, resilience
seems to take effect earlier on in the process by
influencing how troublesome the presence of
stressors is perceived, but once an individual
has become burdened by a stressor, resilience
does not seem to be able to mitigate effects on
health. It is acknowledged that stress lies in the
eye of the beholder (e.g., Faragher et al., 2004),
and the present results indicate that resilience
can help individuals to cope better with the
presence of stressors and subsequently to per-
ceive these as less troublesome. This makes
sense if the benefits of resilience work through
a “cognitive appraisal mechanism” in which
resilient employees evaluate potential stress
sources as less threatening than individuals with
low resilience. As discussed previously, this is
in line with Bolger and Zuckerman’s (1995)
differential exposure–reactivity framework.
Findings demonstrated that resilience has a
direct effect on psychological and physical ill-
health as well as an indirect effect through the
perceptions of stressors. Overall, our results
suggest that resilience might act through several
moderator, mediator, and direct mecha-
nisms—as a buffer against some sources of
stress, as well as a resource that directly boosts
health outcomes, and an indirect force that pro-
tects health by influencing how employees per-
ceive and experience stressors in their work
environment in the first place. Employees with
high levels of resilience might not perceive
sources of stress as depleting and are therefore
more able to retain positive emotions and sub-
sequently better health. In line with our finding,
Avey et al. (2009) suggested that resilient indi-
viduals are better equipped to deal with stressful
work situations, allowing higher levels of
health. Specifically, our results showed that re-
silience influences employees’ perceptions of
workload, work–life balance, aspects of the job,
and job security as troublesome stressors, which
subsequently influenced health outcomes. How-
ever, resilience did not have any indirect effects
on health outcomes through the remaining stres-
sors (i.e., resources and communication, work
relationships, job control, and pay and benefits).
This suggests that resilience impacts on health
by enabling individuals to cope better with the
demands that originate from certain stressors,
but that this is not a mechanism that applies to
all types of workplace stressors. The four stres-
sors (i.e., workload, work–life balance, job se-
curity, and aspects of job) that did significantly
mediate the relationship between resilience and
ill-health are also those that emerged as signif-
icant predictors of ill-health for academics and
non-academics in the main effects analysis.
Hence, when considering resilience as an ap-
proach to build individuals capacity to respond
to stressors, it seems important to first consider
which stressors are most relevant for ill-health
in the particular work context such as academia.
Overall, it should be noted that the mediation
analysis indicated that the indirect effect is lim-
ited to certain stressors and as noted earlier that
we only found resilience to be a moderator for
one stressor. Therefore, resilience should not be
viewed as a ubiquitous protector against any
source of stress. Further research is needed to
better understand when and for which particular
stressors resilience offers a protective resource.
Nevertheless, given the evidence suggesting re-
silience can be developed (Robertson et al.,
2015; Vanhove et al., 2016), the present results
suggest that it offers a proximal resource
through which universities can bolster staff
health.
Although the mediating effect of resilience,
as discussed earlier, has the potential to protect
against diminished health by affecting how em-
ployees evaluate potential stress sources, the
direct effect of resilience on health suggests one
benefit of increasing resilience might be
through directly strengthening individuals’
health. This is evident, for example, when re-
 STRESSORS, STRAIN, & RESILIENCE IN UNIVERSITIES
viewing the content of resilience training
programs in which building high levels of resil-
ience commonly involves enhancing psychoso-
cial factors such as Self-Efficacy, Optimism,
and a Sense of Social Competence (Vanhove et
al., 2016). Such psychosocial factors are likely
to contribute toward robust levels of psycholog-
ical well-being. Others have discussed that
when investigating workplace stress, it is essen-
tial to include factors outside the workplace
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(Mak, Ng, & Wong, 2011). Our results suggest
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
that resilience is an important concept to under-
stand how wider individual characteristics in-
terplay with work-specific factors to determine
health and well-being.
Our study has several strengths such as a
large sample from different universities and in-
vestigating resilience in a nonstudent, working
sample. However, a number of limitations
should be noted. As with most studies of work-
place stress there is the potential influence of the
healthy worker effect, where the employees
most negatively affected by workplace stress
leave employment and are not represented in the
research. The study used a cross-sectional de-
sign, which prevents any conclusions about the
direction of effects. For example, the associa-
tion between resilience and health might be
bidirectional, with better health enabling indi-
viduals to build resilience, which in turn en-
hances their health further. We also did not find
significant differences in psychological health
between academic and non-academic staff and
indeed academics reported slightly better phys-
ical health compared with non-academics.
There was also no support for job role to mod-
erate the type of stressors that most strongly
influence health. If the generic occupational
changes in academic work environments that
we outlined in the introduction, for example,
increased student numbers and decreased per-
ceptions of autonomy and job security (Kinman,
2008; UCU, 2016) have relatively recently in-
creased job overload and led to poorer work–
life balance for academics and poorer job con-
ditions (aspects of job) for non-academic staff,
it might take some time until diminishing ef-
fects on employees’ health are observable.
However, the degree and the timeline of change
experienced by the participants in this study
were not measured and therefore the effect of
any change cannot be determined. It would be
of value for future research to conduct fol-
13
low-up studies with multiple measurement time
points to measure change in academic working
environments, and to assess the impact of both
change and particular stress sources on academ-
ics’ and non-academics’ health. Moreover, it
was discussed earlier that the measure of work-
place stressors, which asked participants how
troubled they are by various workplace stres-
sors, might explain the lack of support for a
moderator role of resilience in the stressor–
strain relationship (only one significant moder-
ation effect was found). Future research that
compares measures that assess how troubled
individuals are by stressors with more objective
assessments of the presence of stressors (e.g.,
hours worked per week) would be valuable to
further enlighten the role of resilience for health
and well-being. Finally, the organizations in-
cluded in our sample included research-
intensive institutions (Organizations 1 and 2) as
well as a more teaching-focused university (Or-
ganization 3). Thus, the results from the study
have relevance for both types of higher educa-
tion institutions. It is possible though that the
type of stressors experienced by academics as
well as non-academics are influenced by the
type of university that they operate in. The
focus of our study was to assess differences in
stressors and strain between academics and non-
academics. Future research should extend this
investigation by exploring whether the research
or teaching status of a university influences the
demands that staff experience.
Conclusions
The present study identified that academics’
main sources of stress emerge from excessive
workloads and work–life conflict. Non-aca-
demic support staff reported to be more troubled
than academics by pay and benefits, aspects of
job, and work relationships. These findings
demonstrate that core stressors might vary for
different job groups within the same work en-
vironment, and underline the importance of oc-
cupation-oriented approaches for effective
stress prevention. Moreover, resilience emerged
as a protective resource that indirectly influ-
ences perceptions of stressors and directly bol-
sters health. Thus, our study made an important
contribution to the workplace stress literature
by establishing the positive effect of resilience
in a working sample and advanced the under-
 14 JOHNSON, WILLIS, AND EVANS
standing of the mechanisms through which re-
silience impacts health outcomes.
References
Abouserie, R. (1996). Stress, coping strategies and
job satisfaction in university academic staff. Edu-
cational Psychology, 16, 49 –56. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/0144341960160104
Amstad, F. T., Meier, L. L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A., &
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Semmer, N. K. (2011). A meta-analysis of work-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
family conflict and various outcomes with a spe-
cial emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-
domain relations. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 16, 151–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.10
37/a0022170
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Jensen, S. M. (2009).
Psychological capital: A positive resource for
combating employee stress and turnover. Human
Resource Management, 48, 677– 693. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1002/hrm.20294
Barkhuizen, N., Rothmann, S., & van de Vijver, F. J.
(2014). Burnout and work engagement of academ-
ics in higher education institutions: Effects of dis-
positional optimism. Stress and Health, 30, 322–
332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smi.2520
Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework
for studying personality in the stress process. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,
890 –902. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69
.5.890
Burns, R. A., Anstey, K. J., & Windsor, T. D. (2011).
Subjective well-being mediates the effects of re-
silience and mastery on depression and anxiety in
a large community sample of young and middle-
aged adults. Australian and New Zealand Journal
of Psychiatry, 45, 240 –248. http://dx.doi.org/10
.3109/00048674.2010.529604
Campbell-Sills, L., Cohan, S. L., & Stein, M. B.
(2006). Relationship of resilience to personality,
coping, and psychiatric symptoms in young adults.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 585–599.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.05.001
Catalano, D., Chan, F., Wilson, L., Chiu, C. Y., &
Muller, V. R. (2011). The buffering effect of re-
silience on depression among individuals with spi-
nal cord injury: A structural equation model. Re-
habilitation Psychology, 56, 200 –211. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/a0024571
Cooper, C. L., Flint-Taylor, J., & Pearn, M. (2013).
Building resilience for success: A resource for
managers and organizations. London, United
Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1057/9781137367839
Cooper, C. L., & Marshall, J. (1976). Occupational
sources of stress: A review of the literature
relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill
health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 49,
11–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325
.1976.tb00325.x
Crane, M. F., & Searle, B. J. (2016). Building resil-
ience through exposure to stressors: The effects of
challenges versus hindrances. Journal of Occupa-
tional Health Psychology, 21, 468 – 479. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/a0040064
de Jonge, J., Dollard, M. F., Dormann, C., Le Blanc,
P. M., & Houtman, I. L. (2000). The demand-
control model: Specific demands, specific control,
and well-defined groups. International Journal of
Stress Management, 7, 269 –287. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1023/A:1009541929536
Donald, I., Taylor, P., Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cart-
wright, S., & Robertson, S. (2005). Work environ-
ments, stress, and productivity: An examination
using ASSET. International Journal of Stress
Management, 12, 409 – 423. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/1072-5245.12.4.409
Doyle, C., & Hind, P. (1998). Occupational stress,
burnout and job status in female academics. Gen-
der, Work and Organizations, 5, 67– 82.
Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1993).
Resilience as process. Development and Psycho-
pathology, 5, 517–528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0954579400006131
Faragher, E. B., Cooper, C. L., & Cartwright, S.
(2004). A Shortened Stress Evaluation Tool
(ASSET). Stress and Health, 20, 189 –201. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/smi.1010
Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2012). A grounded theory
of psychological resilience in Olympic champions.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 669 – 678.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.04
.007
Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2013). Psychological
resilience: A review and critique of definitions,
concepts, and theory. European Psychologist, 18,
12–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/
a000124
Manzano-García, G., & Ayala Calvo, J. C. (2012).
Emotional exhaustion of nursing staff: Influence of
emotional annoyance and resilience. International
Nursing Review, 59, 101–107. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/j.1466-7657.2011.00927.x
Grant, S., & Langan-Fox, J. (2007). Personality and
the occupational stressor-strain relationship: The
role of the Big Five. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 12, 20 –33. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.20
Haglund, M. E., Nestadt, P. S., Cooper, N. S., South-
wick, S. M., & Charney, D. S. (2007). Psychobi-
ological mechanisms of resilience: Relevance to
prevention and treatment of stress-related psycho-
pathology. Development and Psychopathology, 19,
889 –920. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S09545
79407000430
 STRESSORS, STRAIN, & RESILIENCE IN UNIVERSITIES
Hao, S., Hong, W., Xu, H., Zhou, L., & Xie, Z.
(2015). Relationship between resilience, stress and
burnout among civil servants in Beijing, China:
Mediating and moderating effect analysis. Person-
ality and Individual Differences, 83, 65–71. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.048
Hogan, J. M., Carlson, J. G., & Dua, J. (2002).
Stressors and stress reactions among university
personnel. International Journal of Stress Man-
agement, 9, 289 –310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:
1019982316327
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Houston, D., Meyer, L. H., & Paewai, E. A. (2006).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Academic staff workloads and job satisfaction:
Expectations and values in academe. Journal of
Higher Education Policy and Management, 28,
17–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/136008005
00283734
Hu, T., Zhang, D., & Wang, J. (2015). A meta-
analysis of the trait resilience and mental health.
Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 18 –27.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.039
Johnson, S., & Cooper, C. (2003). The construct
validity of the ASSET stress measure. Stress and
Health, 19, 181–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
smi.971
Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., Donald, I.,
Taylor, P., & Millet, C. (2005). The experience of
work-related stress across occupations. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 20, 178 –187. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1108/02683940510579803
Kinman, G. (2001). Pressure points: A review of
research on stressors and strains in U. K. academ-
ics. Educational Psychology, 21, 473– 492. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410120090849
Kinman, G. (2008). Work stressors, health and sense
of coherence in U.K. academic employees. Educa-
tional Psychology, 28, 823– 835. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/01443410802366298
Kinman, G., & Grant, L. (2011). Exploring stress
resilience in trainee social workers: The role of
emotional and social competencies. British Jour-
nal of Social Work, 41, 261–275. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1093/bjsw/bcq088
Kinman, G., & Jones, F. (2008). A life beyond work?
Job demands, work-life balance, and wellbeing in
U.K. academics. Journal of Human Behavior in
the Social Environment, 17, 41– 60. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/10911350802165478
Mak, W. W., Ng, I. S., & Wong, C. C. (2011).
Resilience: Enhancing well-being through the pos-
itive cognitive triad. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 58, 610 – 617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0025195
Mealer, M., Jones, J., Newman, J., McFann, K. K.,
Rothbaum, B., & Moss, M. (2012). The presence
of resilience is associated with a healthier psycho-
logical profile in intensive care unit (ICU) nurses:
Results of a national survey. International Journal
15
of Nursing Studies, 49, 292–299. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.09.015
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s
guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Authors.
Nikolaou, I., & Tsaousis, I. (2002). Emotional Intel-
ligence in the workplace: Exploring its effects on
occupational stress and organizational commit-
ment. The International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 10, 327–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
eb028956
Pindek, S., & Spector, P. E. (2016). Organizational
constraints: A meta-analysis of a major stressor.
Work and Stress, 30, 7–25. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1080/02678373.2015.1137376
Robertson, I., & Cooper, C. L. (2013). Resilience.
Stress and Health, 29, 175–176. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/smi.2512
Robertson, I. T., Cooper, C. L., Sarkar, M., & Curran,
T. (2015). Resilience training in the workplace
from 2003 to 2014: A systematic review. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
88, 533–562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joop.12120
Rutter, H., Herzberg, J., & Paice, E. (2002). Stress in
doctors and dentists who teach. Medical Educa-
tion, 36, 543–549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j
.1365-2923.2002.01229.x
Rutter, M. (2013). Annual research review: Resil-
ience—Clinical implications. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 474 – 487. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02615.x
Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Past performance and future
perspectives of burnout research. SA Journal of
Industrial Psychology, 29, 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/
10.4102/sajip.v29i4.127
Shin, J. C., & Jung, J. (2014). Academics job satis-
faction and job stress across countries in the
changing academic environments. Higher Educa-
tion, 67, 603– 620. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10734-013-9668-y
Sparks, K., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). Occupational
differences in the work-strain relationship: To-
wards the use of situation-specific models. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
72, 219 –229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/09631
7999166617
Taku, K. (2014). Relationships among perceived psy-
chological growth, resilience and burnout in phy-
sicians. Personality and Individual Differences,
59, 120 –123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid
.2013.11.003
Tytherleigh, M. Y., Webb, C., Cooper, C. L., &
Ricketts, C. (2005). Occupational stress in U.K.
higher education institutions: A comparative study
of all staff categories. Higher Education Research
and Development, 24, 41– 61. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1080/0729436052000318569
University and College Union (UCU). (2016). Work-
load is an education issue: UCU Workload Survey
 16 JOHNSON, WILLIS, AND EVANS
Report 2016. Retrieved from https://www.ucu.org
.uk/media/8195/Workload-is-an-education-issue-
UCU-workload-survey-report-2016/pdf/ucu_
workloadsurvey_fullreport_jun16.pdf
Vakola, M., & Nikolaou, L. (2005). Attitudes to-
wards organizational change: What is the role of
employees’ stress and commitment? Employee Re-
lations, 27, 160 –174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01
425450510572685
Vanhove, A. J., Herian, M. N., Perez, A. L., Harms,
P. D., & Lester, P. B. (2016). Can resilience be
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
developed at work? A meta-analytic review of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
resilience-building programme effectiveness.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy-
chology, 89, 278 –307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
joop.12123
Windle, G. (2011). What is resilience? A review and
concept analysis. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology,
21, 152–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0959
259810000420
Winefield, A. H. (2000). Stress in academe: Some
recent research findings. In D. T. Kenny, J. G.
Carlson, F. J. McGuigan, & J. L. Sheppard (Eds.),
Stress and health (pp. 437– 446). Amsterdam, the
Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Winefield, A. H., Gillespie, N., Stough, C., Dua, J., &
Hapuararchchi, J. (2002). Occupational stress in
Australian universities: A national survey. Mel-
bourne, Australia: National Tertiary Education
Union. Retrieved from https://www.vawo.nl/wp-
content/uploads/2012/06/OccupationalstressAus
traliauniversities.pdf
Winefield, A. H., & Jarrett, R. (2001). Occupational
stress in university staff. International Journal of
Stress Management, 8, 285–298. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1023/A:1017513615819
Received October 13, 2016
Revision received January 25, 2018
Accepted February 1, 2018 䡲