Emotions in The Workplace

Spector, P. E., & Goh, A. (2001).
The role of emotions in the occupational stress

process. In P. L. Perrewé & D. C. Ganster (Eds.). Research in Occupational
Stress and Well-Being, (Volume 1): Exploring Theoretical Mechanisms and
Perspectives (pp. 195-232). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
1
2
3
4 THE ROLE OF EMOTIONS
5
6 IN THE OCCUPATIONAL
7
8 STRESS PROCESS
9
1011
11
12 Paul E. Spector and Angeline Goh
13
14
15
16
17 INTRODUCTION
18
19 It has become widely recognized that occupational stress is an important element
2011 in employee performance and well-being (Jex, 1998). A number of
21 occupational stress models have been developed linking job conditions
22 (stressors) to employee reactions (strains). Most of these models see the stress
23 process as part of an adaptation to the environment, with negative emotions
24 serving as one form of strain among many. However, we argue that negative
25 emotions play a more central role in the occupational stress process, and in fact
26 mediate the effect of job stressors on strains. It is the negative emotion and
27 associated physiological arousal that can lead to both physical and
28 psychological breakdown in employee well-being.
29 In this chapter we will discuss the role of negative emotion in the
3011 occupational stress process. We will begin with an overview of our emotion-
31 centered occupational stress model, and then provide empirical evidence for the
32 various proposed linkages. Much of this evidence will be provided in the form
33 of a meta-analysis of studies relating negative emotions at work to job
34 stressors and strains. We will conclude with suggestions about how a focus on
35 emotions can lead to practices that can enhance employee well-being.
36
37
38 Exploring Theoretical Mechanisms and Perspectives, Volume 1, pages 195–232.
Copyright © 2001 by Elsevier Science Ltd.
39 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
40 ISBN: 0-7623-0846-X
195
196 PAUL E. SPECTOR AND ANGELINE GOH
1 THE OCCUPATIONAL STRESS PROCESS

2
3 Job Stressors
4
5 Occupational stress models posit a general causal flow from environmental
6 conditions (job stressor) to employee health and well-being (job strains). Most
7 occupational stress researchers define a stressor as a job condition that requires
8 an adaptive response (see Jex, 1998). For example, Beehr and Newman (1978)
9 describe a job stressor as a situation that disrupts a person’s ongoing physical
1011 or psychological equilibrium, forcing a deviation from normal functioning. A
11 weakness in such definitions is that they leave undefined what is meant by
12 “adaptive” and “normal”. With such definitions it is difficult to distinguish a
13 stressor from other situations that might affect people, leaving almost any
14 perceived situation a stressor.
15 Our approach is to be more explicit and at the same time more restrictive.
16 We define a job stressor as any condition or situation that elicits a negative
17 emotional response, such as anger/frustration or anxiety/tension. Situations that
18 fail to induce such reactions are not considered job stressors. Thus we
19 distinguish situations that elicit negative emotion from those that elicit positive
2011 emotion or no emotion at all. This implies that to be a job stressor, a situation
21 must lead to some form of distress, which is presumed from the existence of
22 a negative emotion. This approach is a departure from what has been seen in
23 the literature, and variables assumed to be job stressors would not be
24 automatically defined as such under our conceptualization. For example,
25 workload is considered a job stressor, but having a great deal to do is not
26 necessarily associated with negative emotions. Although hard work can have
27 an impact on negative emotions, particularly if that work is boring or the
28 workload prevents a person engaging in other desired activities (e.g. leisure
29 pursuits), it is not necessarily unwanted. In some cases it might only lead to
3011 fatigue and not distress.
31 Our position is supported by the literature on work hours as an indicator of
32 workload. Such studies have investigated the relation of hours worked per week
33 with various strains. In their combined meta-analysis/narrative review, Sparks,
34 Cooper, Fried, and Shirom (1997) found quite small mean correlations of hours
35 worked with strains (0.06 for physical and 0.15 for psychological). However,
36 they provided evidence in their narrative review that negative effects tend to
37 be found only in situations where the person had no choice about working long
38 hours. People who choose to work overtime or second jobs do not experience
39 the same level of strains as those forced to work as many hours. We can presume
40 that the element of choice is what determines in large part whether working
The Role of Emotions in the Occupational Stress Process 197
1 hours is perceived as a stressor or not. The individual forced to work extra

2 hours may experience anger over their lost leisure time, whereas the person
3 who keeps the same work schedule voluntarily might see it as a positive
4 opportunity for accomplishment, earning overtime, or making points with
5 the boss.
6 There is further evidence from a series of Swedish studies of workplace
7 physiology that provide more objective evidence that negative emotions are an
8 important element in distinguishing stressors from nonstressors. Frankenhaeuser
9 and Lundberg (1982) showed how situations that lead to distress differ
1011 physiologically from those that merely require nondistressful effort. In their
11 workplace studies of what are typically called stress hormones, Frankenhaeuser
12 (1979) showed that tasks requiring effort led to an increase in catecholamines
13 (adrenaline and noradrenaline) and a decrease in cortisol. Distressing situations,
14 however, led to an increase in all three hormones, which is a pattern
15 associated with heart disease (Johansson, 1989). Thus effort may result in
16 fatigue, but distress may result in negative health consequences (e.g. heart
17 disease) associated with elevated cortisol.
18 It is not only with workload that we see differences in how people vary in
19 the extent to which they see a situation as a stressor, and therefore, something
2011 that elicits a negative emotion. This makes it imperative in the occupational
21 stress area to assess people’s reactions to the work environment. We cannot
22 assume that certain objective conditions are necessarily job stressors that will
23 be potentially harmful to well-being. Of course, there are likely exceptions. For
24 example, abuse from a supervisor is likely to be a stressor for everyone or
25 almost everyone. Even here there can be vast individual differences in response.
26 Sexual harassment is generally recognized as a situation that has severe
27 consequences for well-being (Terpstra & Cook, 1985), and it fits well our
28 definition of a stressor. Yet studies have shown that individuals differ in their
29 tendency to perceive certain situations as sexual harassment, although extreme
3011 cases (e.g. sexual assault) likely overshadow individual differences (Wiener &
31 Hurt, 2000).
32
33 Job Strains
34
35 A job strain is the reaction to the job stressor. Jex and Beehr (1991) classified
36 job strains as behavioral, physical, or psychological. Behavioral strains are
37 instances of behavior elicited in response to the job stressor, such as smoking
38 cigarettes or drinking alcohol at work. Physical strain, the physiological
39 reaction to the job stressor, can be divided into long-term and short-term (Frese
40 & Zapf, 1988). Heart disease is an example of long-term strain whereas
197
1 short-term physiological disturbance (e.g. increased blood pressure) and somatic

2 symptoms (headache or upset stomach) are examples of short-term strain.
3 Internal psychological states and conditions are psychological strains that
4 include attitudes (e.g. job dissatisfaction), behavioral intentions (e.g. intention
5 of quitting), and emotions (e.g. anger or anxiety). These strains vary in temporal
6 consistency from emotions that tend to be short-lived to attitudes that can be
7 consistent over many years.
8 The occupational stress literature has tended to consider strains as conditions
9 that have implications for both physical and psychological health and
1011 well-being. This is certainly true of physical and psychological strains.
11 Behavioral strains, however, are somewhat different. They include behaviors
12 that can directly or indirectly affect health, such as smoking cigarettes, but
13 many behaviors that occur in response to job stressors may or may not affect
14 health. Furthermore, many such behaviors are elicited as a means of positive
15 coping with job stressors, such as taking a mental health day and calling in
16 sick from work when feeling overwhelmed. We will use the term behavioral
17 strains to refer to behavioral responses to job stressors, but such responses
18 should not be considered manifestations of ill-health or poor well-being, even
19 though many of them might be concomitant phenomena.
2011
21 THE ROLE OF EMOTION
22
23 Emotion serves an adaptive function in helping a person respond to
24 environmental events and situations that have implications for survival (Plutchik,
25 1989). They energize the individual physiologically, force attention toward
26 events and objects that are particularly relevant to well-being, and induce action
27 (Simon, 1967). According to Wallbott and Scherer (1989), there are five
28 components involved in the experience of emotion: Evaluation of the situation,
29 physiological changes, motor expression, motivation for action, and subjective
3011 feeling states. This suggests that individuals are active agents in their own
31 experience who monitor and evaluate the environment, and take actions that
32 are deemed appropriate for the situation.
33 Cognitive interpretation of the situation provides the basis for the particular
34 emotion experienced (Schachter & Singer, 1962). A positive emotion will be
35 experienced if an individual appraises a situation as enhancing well-being
36 (Lazarus, 1982). However, a negative emotion will be experienced if the same
37 situation is perceived as a threat to well-being. Different kinds of situations
38 tend to elicit different emotions. Anger (and anger related emotions such as
39 frustration) tends to be a response to situations that interfere with goal directed
40 behavior, either by preventing goal achievement or threatening the maintenance
1 of a desired condition or state. Thus we get angry if someone interferes with

2 us getting what we want or takes something that we have. This can involve
3 tangible objects as well as intangible psycho-social entities, such as honor and
4 prestige. Anger tends to elicit direct action against its perceived agent, although
5 there can be strong inhibitions against such action. Thus we may resort to verbal
6 rather than physical aggression, or we may delay response and direct it toward
7 a safe target or form. Instead of attacking the boss, we may wait for an
8 opportunity to secretly destroy his or her property.
9 Anxiety is a fear response to situations that threaten our well-being, both
1011 physical and psychological. We use the anxiety term to refer to fear reactions
11 in response to environmental conditions as opposed to internally generated or
12 free-floating anxiety. Although such anxiety states can be related to
13 occupational stress, it is of more concern to clinical psychologists who study
14 clinical and subclinical anxiety. The anxiety reaction to the environment is in
15 proportion to the extent of perceived harm. Often the distinction between an
16 anger and anxiety eliciting situation concerns the degree to which significant
17 injury is perceived to be likely. If little or no injury is perceived, we may
18 experience anger, but if the threat of injury is salient, anxiety may be elicited.
19 Anxiety induces a person to escape its cause. Whereas situations may tend to
2011 produce fairly immediate reactions, it is often the case that people will
21 experience two or more emotions sequentially in response to a situation. For
22 example, if a person is in an automobile accident caused by a drunk driver, the
23 initial reaction is likely to be anxiety, but subsequently after the perceived threat
24 has passed, the person may experience anger.
25 Depression is an emotion that is associated with loss, and we distinguish here
26 depression as an emotional state from depression as a psychological disorder.
27 As a state, depression is the experience of sadness, leading to a loss of
28 motivation to act. It is in some ways the opposite of anger and anxiety that
29 tend to induce powerful motive states to engage in active behavior. Although
3011 immediate threat to the maintenance of desired possessions and situations may
31 elicit anger, their loss can elicit subsequent depression. As a temporary state,
32 depression can function as an internal means of forcing the person to rest after
33 expending considerable energy associated with other powerful negative
34 emotions.
35 Emotions typically do not tend to elicit reflexive or immediate behaviors.
36 Certainly, an individual may act immediately and impulsively by striking out
37 at another person or object when faced with a strong negative emotion such as
38 anger. Likewise, an individual may respond to anxiety with an immediate
39 withdrawal from a situation. However, in most instances emotions act to help
40 formulate intentions to engage in certain behaviors or a readiness to act at a
199
1 later time (Bies, Tripp & Kramer, 1997). Their function is more as a
2 motivational factor that leads to purposive action that may occur in the absence
3 of the emotional state that elicited it. Thus an individual may experience anger
4 toward another person, but not take action for days or weeks after that
5 anger has subsided, illustrated with the old expression “revenge is a dish best
6 served cold.”
7 Emotional display plays an additional role in transmitting information in a
8 social setting. Facial expression of emotion is one form of nonverbal behavior
9 through which people communicate information about their internal affective
1011 states and attitudes (Snyder, 1974). Display rules typically dictate the
11 appropriateness of a person’s emotional presentation in response to a situation,
12 influencing whether he or she intensifies, deintensifies, neutralizes, or masks
13 his or her expression of felt affect (Ekman, 1973). In addition, feeling rules act
14 as a template with which people appraise the meaning of situations and events
15 for their own well-being, defining how one should feel in a social context
16 (Hochschild, 1983). Display rules and feeling rules not only impact expressed
17 emotion, but may also influence which emotions are consciously experienced
18 (Scherer, 1986).
19
2011 Emotional Expression In Organizational Settings
21
22 The culture of an organization typically influences the experience and
23 expression of emotion at work (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995). Organizational
24 norms specify the types of emotional displays required of employees and dictate
25 which other truly experienced emotions should be suppressed. Typically a
26 limited range of emotional expression is acceptable, such as generally positive
27 emotion. The expression of intense emotion (positive or negative), however, is
28 not typically acceptable, as such emotions are thought to impair routine task
29 performance. The expression of negative emotion in particular (anger, or
3011 anxiety) is only acceptable under certain conditions, such as when a high status
31 member conveys impatience with a low status member, and must generally be
32 of fairly low intensity (e.g. irritation rather than rage). The emphasis of
33 positive emotions by organizations is supported by the fact that those who tend
34 to feel and display positive emotions at work often experience more favorable
35 outcomes, such as more favorable performance evaluations, higher pay, and
36 greater support from supervisor and coworkers (Staw, Sutton & Pelled, 1994).
37 Regarding the occupational stress process, an organization’s display and
38 feeling rules (i.e. norms) may impact the physical and psychological well-being
39 of its employees. For example, being forced to suppress or “bottle up” one’s
40 felt emotions may create psychological and physical problems, especially when
1 the felt emotions are anger and hostility (Arvey, Renz & Watson,
2 1998). Suppressed anger has been associated with coronary heart disease,
3 hypertension, and mortality among hypertensives (Begley, 1994).
4 Organizational display and feeling rules also affect those employees who
5 perform emotional labor (emotion work), such as airline attendants, customer
6 service representatives, or cashiers. Emotional labor refers to the job
7 requirement that an employee must display certain emotions, usually positive,
8 while interacting with clients or customers (Hochschild, 1983). The
9 discrepancy between displayed emotion (the expressed emotion) and felt
1011 emotion (the experienced emotion) produces a state of emotional dissonance
11 (Zapf, in press). This is a likely occurrence for customer service jobs where
12 service with a smile is policy; for example, a flight attendant must smile at all
13 times (displayed emotion of happiness), even though he or she may feel angry
14 or sad (felt emotion). Zapf’s (in press) review discusses evidence that emotional
15 dissonance is associated with emotional exhaustion (component of burnout) and
16 job dissatisfaction, especially when the displayed emotion is opposite in
17 direction (positive vs. negative) from the felt emotion.
18
19 An Emotion-Centered Model of the Occupational Stress Process
2011
21 Figure 1 illustrates our emotion-centered model of the occupational stress
22 process. As is typical of most occupational stress models, it begins at the left
23 with job stressors and ends at the right with strains. On the job stressor side,
24 it is important to distinguish the objective environment (environmental stressor)
25 from it’s appraisal/perception (perceived stressor). Our view is consistent with
26 Lazarus (1995) whose transactional theory of stress suggests that appraisal is
27 a critical element in the process. Perrewé and Zellars (1999) expanded this
28 theory to include an important role for attributions in how people appraise and
29 respond to situations.
3011 According to our definition, a stressor is a condition/situation that elicits an
31 emotional response. From that perspective, all stressors are subjective in nature,
32 as the situation does not rise to a stressor unless the person perceives it as such,
33 and thus responds emotionally. However, the study of occupational stress should
34 not be only the study of subjective experience with no reference to the
35 objective world (Frese & Zapf, 1999; Schaubroeck, 1999), because except for
36 the cases of extreme psychopathology (and perhaps not even then), people’s
37 reactions do not occur independently from the objective environment. People
38 may differ in their appraisal of situations, and certain people may tend to
39 over-react to situations whereas others under-react, but perceptions of job
40 stressors do not occur in a vacuum but are based on interpretations of
201
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
The Role of Emotions in the Occupational Stress Process.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2011
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Fig. 1.
3011
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
1 objective reality. It is important to isolate environmental factors that tend to be

2 perceived as job stressors by some reasonable proportion of people, and thus
3 it can be meaningful to consider such factors as environmental (or objective)
4 job stressors. This is true even if there are vast individual differences in appraisal
5 of those situations. For example, being assaulted at work would be considered
6 an environmental stressor because it is likely to lead to an emotional reaction,
7 although it is conceivable that under some circumstances, certain individuals
8 might not experience the emotion. An important challenge is to determine what
9 sorts of objective conditions/situations tend to be experienced as perceived
1011 stressors, and what factors contribute to appraisal differences.
11 Following the environmental stressor is the perceived stressor. It is assumed
12 that people monitor the environment at work. Through cognitive/perceptual
13 processes attention is directed toward events/situations that have particular
14 meaning for well-being. Routine benign events/situations may be ignored, as
15 they don’t elicit emotions. However, the unusual or unexpected may divert
16 attention and demand appraisal. If the situation is appraised as a threat to
17 well-being, it will be perceived as a stressor that elicits an emotion.
18 It is important here to distinguish acute stressors from chronic stressors. An
19 acute stressor is an event that happens at one time. It is often fairly serious,
2011 such as being assaulted on the job or being fired. A chronic stressor, on the
21 other hand, is produced by a condition or situation that is fairly constant, such
22 as having to be on call every other night. An acute stressor can elicit a strong
23 emotional reaction, and if serious enough, the single instance can cause
24 significant physical or psychological health problems (e.g. post-traumatic stress
25 disorder). A chronic stressor may produce a more mild emotional reaction, but
26 it can result in fairly consistent episodes of negative emotions that may
27 never reach the same level of intensity. This chronicity can have cumulative
28 detrimental effects, although it may take a long period of time for such effects
29 to materialize. Furthermore, it is possible for people to habituate to low level
3011 job stressors so that the emotional reaction subsides over time and is no longer
31 experienced. Thus people can adapt to chronic stressors if their intensity is not
32 too high.
33
34 Overview of Emotions In the Occupational Stress Process
35
36 Emotions can have several roles in the occupational stress process. First, they
37 influence how the work environment is perceived. That is, they affect how an
38 individual will appraise objective work conditions as job stressors. Some
39 individuals might perceive a particular condition in the environment to be a job
40 stressor while others may not. Here, the appraisal process (Lazarus, 1995) is
203
1 important as a job condition or situation that is not perceived as a stressor will

2 not have psychological impact that leads to strain. However, an environmental
3 condition or situation that is perceived as a stressor will lead to negative
4 emotional reactions, such as anxiety and anger (Parasuraman & Alutto, 1981;
5 Spielberger, 1975).
6 Emotions, themselves a form of psychological strain, can lead to the
7 development of behavioral and physical strains, as well as other psychological
8 strains. In the case of behavioral strain, emotions motivate behavior designed
9 to reduce negative and enhance positive affect. Such behaviors can be
1011 considered coping responses and categorized as emotion-focused versus
11 problem-focused (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Emotion-focused coping
12 behaviors reduce the emotional response without dealing directly with the job
13 stressor while problem-focused coping behaviors directly address the job
14 stressor. Regarding physical strains, emotions have physiological components
15 that can affect health. Production of both catecholamines (e.g. adrenaline) and
16 cortisol has been shown to increase in response to situations people find
17 distressing (i.e. negative emotion inducing), and these hormones have been
18 linked to heart disease (Frankenhaeuser & Lundberg, 1982). In addition,
19 negative emotions themselves at work have been linked to both heart disease
2011 (Greenglass, 1996) and to suppression of the immune system (O’Leary, 1990).
21 Finally, emotions can be a factor in the development of psychological strains.
22 Continued negative emotional experiences with the job is likely to induce job
23 dissatisfaction, and may lead to a decline in organizational commitment, and
24 an increase in withdrawal intentions and other cognitions.
25
26 LINKAGES AMONG MAJOR CLASSES OF VARIABLES
27 IN THE MODEL
28
29 The Link From Objective Stressors To Perceived Stressors
3011
31 There are classes of job condition/situation variables that can be considered
32 objective stressors. These are variables that have been found to reliably relate
33 to both perceived stressors and strains. Unfortunately, the literature contains
34 many studies of perceived stressors but relatively few of objective stressors,
35 and many of those fail to include measures of the same objective and perceived
36 stressors. Furthermore, objective stressors are generally assessed via subjective
37 judgment of people, such as coworkers, supervisors, or observers, and are only
38 objective from the standpoint of being independent of the assessment by the
39 incumbent who is the target of study (Frese & Zapf, 1988). Perhaps a more
40 accurate description would be the convergence of perception, although in most
1 studies the “objective” source is likely to have a different view of the situation
2 since it may not directly affect him or her. For example, a situation perceived
3 as threatening to a job incumbent (interpersonal conflict with a coworker) might
4 not be threatening to an observer or a supervisor.
5 Spector (1992) conducted a small meta-analysis of studies that reported
6 correlations between corresponding “objective” and perceived stressors.
7 There were considerable differences across stressors in the degree to which
8 there was convergence. Workload showed the strongest convergence with a
9 mean correlation of 0.42. Job complexity, sometimes considered a stressor,
1011 had a mean correlation of 0.29, and role ambiguity had a mean correlation
11 of only 0.11. Spector, Dwyer, and Jex (1988) found a correlation of 0.30
12 between incumbents and their supervisors for interpersonal conflict with others
13 at work.
14 Furthermore, there is evidence that not only is there at least some
15 convergence between incumbents and other sources in reports of stressors, but
16 there is also evidence that objective stressors relate to strains, and as predicted
17 by the model, especially negative emotions. For example, Spector et al. (1988)
18 found that workload as assessed from both job incumbents and their
19 supervisors related to incumbent frustration at work, and interpersonal conflict
2011 assessed from both job incumbents and their supervisors related to incumbent
21 frustration and work anxiety. Consistent with the idea of perceptions as a
22 mediator, the relation from supervisor-reported stressors to emotions was
23 smaller than from incumbent-reported stressors.
24 It should be kept in mind that the objective sources of data are not
25 necessarily accurate (Frese & Zapf, 1988) and might not always be in the best
26 position to know the extent to which a situation is a stressor. Furthermore,
27 nonincumbent sources can have their own biases. One likely factor limiting the
28 convergence with role ambiguity is that the supervisor might see himself or
29 herself as somehow deficient if the subordinate does not have a clear picture
3011 of his or her role. Thus there may be a tendency to rationalize away the extent
31 to which role ambiguity exists. Furthermore, some stressors by their nature are
32 concerned with aspects of the job that are as much a product of subjective
33 experience as objective situations. The extent to which a person feels confident
34 he or she knows his or her role in the organization can be rooted in objective
35 reality, but that reality is comprised of complex social cues not easily
36 objectively quantified. Workload, on the other hand, is much more concrete,
37 and can be indicated by counts of work input and output, hours worked, and
38 energy exerted. For example, Spector et al. (1988) found a correlation between
39 incumbents (secretaries) and their supervisors of 0.49 for a general workload
40 scale, but 0.83 for hours worked per week, and 0.65 for number of people for
205
1 whom the incumbent performed tasks. The more concrete and factual the aspect
2 of workload, the greater the convergence.
3 All this suggests that perceived stressors are in part a function of the
4 objective environment, and that it is meaningful to refer to objective stressors
5 as conditions that have a tendency to be perceived as stressors. It should be
6 kept in mind that the convergence found between objective and perceived
7 stressors is likely an underestimate due in large part to the difficulty in
8 accurately assessing many stressors objectively. Thus the connection between
9 the objective environment and perceived stressors is far stronger than reflected
1011 in the rather modest correlations often reported.
11
12 The Link From Perceived Stressors To Emotions
13 The emotional reaction follows the perceived stressor and is a direct
14 response to the appraisal of the situation. Furthermore, as noted earlier,
15 emotions can flow from one to the other. Anxiety can be an initial reaction
16 during the time the person feels in danger. Once the danger passes, the
17 person might become angry at the agent of the job stressor. Alternately, anxiety
18 can follow anger, especially in cases where the person becomes enraged
19 and impulsively acts. Once the angry reaction passes, the person may
2011 experience anxiety over the consequences of their actions or just the loss of
21 control. Furthermore, he or she might feel other emotions such as guilt over
22 their anger.
23 It should be kept in mind that the causal flow is bi-directional between
24 appraisal and emotion. The person’s background emotional state can impact
25 their readiness to perceive a job stressor (Anderson, Deuser & DeNeve, 1995).
26 Thus an individual who is caught in a traffic jam on the way to work may be
27 in an irritated state and be more likely to perceive a minor impediment to their
28 work (e.g. a computer problem) as a stressor and become angry. A person who
29 is in a more positive mood might appraise the same situation quite differently
3011 and not experience any emotion. Thus emotion plays a role as both cause and
31 effect of perceptions/appraisal, and people can come to work in negative moods
32 that are almost guaranteed to produce job stressor perceptions. However, such
33 moods are typically short-lived and may pass quickly in the absence of serious
34 environmental stressors. There is considerable evidence linking perceived
35 stressors to emotions that we will show with a meta-analysis that will be
36 presented later in this chapter.
37
38 The Link From Emotion To Strain
39 Emotions also elicit other strains through both cognitive and physical
40 mechanisms. Some strains occur fairly immediately whereas others may take
1 time to develop, and in the case of serious illness, this can take many years.
2 Behavioral strains and to some extent psychological strains occur through
3 volitional processes (i.e. an individual chooses to respond to an irritating
4 coworker by yelling at him or her). Physical strains tend to occur via
5 mechanisms that are not under volitional control. A person does not choose to
6 have elevated blood pressure or a headache. However, some physical strains
7 can be mediated by volitional actions, such as health problems that are caused
8 by smoking or substance abuse.
9
1011 The Link From Emotion To Psychological Strain
11 Cognitive mechanisms lead to psychological strains such as poor attitudes
12 (job dissatisfaction) or intentions to quit the job. Although it is beyond our
13 scope to discuss in detail the causes of attitudes, it has been shown that
14 negative emotions in response to an attitude object (a job) can lead to negative
15 attitudes toward that object (Weiss, in press). Thus a job that induces
16 frequent negative emotions, especially when those emotions are attributed to
17 coworkers, supervisors, or top management, is likely to lead to job
18 dissatisfaction. Certainly context is important as with some jobs negative
19 emotions might be seen by incumbents as inherent in the job, and therefore
2011 will not be likely to lead to dissatisfaction, at least with nontask
21 aspects of the job, such as coworkers or supervisors. For example, police
22 officers who experience negative emotions due to encounters with
23 perpetrators will not necessarily change their job attitudes, although they might
24 change their attitudes about the public in response to frequent negative
25 interactions.
26 Associated with negative attitudes and job dissatisfaction are intentions of
27 quitting the job (Maertz & Campion, 1998). A job that elicits frequent
28 negative emotions is likely to induce turnover intentions and other turnover
29 cognitions, such as increasing the expected utility (favorability) of turnover,
3011 that are typically associated with job dissatisfaction (Maertz & Campion, 1998).
31 Such intentions are more under volitional control than attitudes, which like
32 emotions, can be difficult albeit not impossible to inhibit. Thus it may be
33 difficult to avoid wanting to quit, but formulating specific plans is something
34 that is far more controllable, and it represents an intermediate step between
35 attitudes that may induce action or behavior tendencies, and the behavior itself
36 (Fishbein & Azjen, 1975).
37
38 The Link From Emotion To Behavioral Strain
39 Behavioral strains can occur in response to emotions, and although there are
40 times when people act quite impulsively when in the throes of a strong
207
1 negative emotion, in most instances behavior is controlled. Thus

2 negative emotion acts more as a motivational state that leads not directly
3 to behavior, but to the formulation of goals and intentions. Instead of
4 immediately responding, an individual may formulate a plan to respond.
5 These plans can vary according to the specific emotion involved, intensity
6 of the emotion, how frequent the emotion is experienced at work, and
7 attributions (Perrewé & Zellars, 1999) about the cause of the emotion. What
8 has the greatest impact are very strong emotions that are attributed to
9 coworkers, supervisors, or an organization’s management, and that are
1011 seen as being caused by others either intentionally or through
11 indifference.
12 Behaviors in response to negative emotions can be classified from the
13 employee’s perspective into emotion-focused vs. problem-focused (Lazarus &
14 Folkman, 1984). Emotion-focused approaches are concerned with reducing the
15 emotion itself without addressing its cause. Problem-focused addresses the
16 cause itself. Thus if an individual is irritated because his or her computer
17 malfunctions, he or she can do something to relieve the emotional response
18 (e.g. drink alcohol) or do something to solve the problem (e.g. get the computer
19 repaired). These two classes of responses have parallels in the control
2011 literature where a distinction has been drawn between primary and secondary
21 control (Rothbaum, Weisz & Snyder, 1982). Primary control is where an
22 individual takes direct action to affect the environment. Secondary control
23 consists of actions designed to manage the person’s reaction to the
24 environment.
25 Behaviors can also be classified from the organization’s perspective as
26 productive vs. counterproductive. A productive behavior is one that enhances
27 organizational functioning through employee actions, and ranges from the
28 day-to-day required task behaviors to extra efforts we typically classify as
29 organizational citizenship behaviors or OCB (Organ & Konovsky, 1989). In
3011 many if not most cases, an individual who experiences a negative emotion at
31 work will respond either productively or in a way that does not harm to the
32 organization. Thus the person might attempt to “fix” the perceived cause of the
33 negative emotion, or take positive action to reduce the emotion (e.g. exercise).
34 A counterproductive behavior or CWB is one that is intended to harm the
35 organization (Spector & Fox, in press), although it may benefit the individual.
36 Although in many cases counterproductive behaviors are emotion-focused (help
37 the person reduce the negative emotion), they can also be problem-focused,
38 although sometimes in a perverse way. For example, an individual might
39 have a personal conflict with an annoying coworker that leads to anger. A
40 problem-focused approach might be to physically threaten the coworker, causing
1 him or her to quit the job. This might be problem-solving from the point of
2 view of the individual who has removed an annoyance assuming he or
3 she doesn’t get arrested, but it is likely to be counterproductive from the
4 organization’s perspective if it has lost a valuable employee. Of course, a more
5 likely response to an annoying employee is to engage in a program of mobbing
6 or bullying (Zapf, Knorz & Kulla, 1996) intended to drive the person to quit.
7 Of particular concern in a model of occupational stress are the counterpro-
8 ductive and emotion-focused behaviors that have implications for reduced
9 employee and/or organizational well-being. These include behaviors that can
1011 adversely affect health, such as smoking or substance abuse, as well as CWBs
11 such as aggression/hostility toward other employees, sabotage, theft, and
12 withdrawal from work (Fox & Spector, 1999). In some cases the individual is
13 engaged in actions that are potentially self-destructive, but in other cases they
14 may alleviate the emotional disturbance temporarily (e.g. withdrawal), but the
15 problem remains when they return to work.
16
17 The Link From Emotion To Physical Strain
18 The effect of emotions on physical health can be direct and not mediated by
19 volitional behaviors or psychological factors. Emotional states are associated
2011 with physiological changes such as increased heart rate, increased blood
21 pressure, perspiration, and secretion of stress hormones, although specific
22 patterns can be to some extent a function of individual differences among
23 people. In the short run such changes, except in the most extreme cases, are
24 unlikely to have any lasting health consequences. However, they can lead to
25 unpleasant somatic symptoms such as headache, skin rashes, or stomach upset.
26 Chronic emotional arousal, on the other hand, has been shown to contribute to
27 serious illness. Perhaps the most well established finding is that negative
28 emotions are associated with coronary heart disease, CHD (Booth-Kewley &
29 Friedman, 1987). Individuals who experience anger, anxiety, or depression are
3011 more at risk for CHD. Negative emotions have also been linked to suppression
31 of the immune system (O’Leary, 1990), although most of this work has not
32 shown a direct cause to specific disease.
33
34 The Link From Strain To Emotion
35 As shown in the model, the link from emotion to strain also runs backwards
36 (i.e. strains can affect emotions). For example, a person who is dissatisfied with
37 the job may tend to be more emotionally responsive to events that occur at
38 work. If an employee dislikes his or her supervisor, small acts by that
39 supervisor might elicit annoyance or anger. Likewise, physical strains can affect
40 emotions. A person who is not feeling well may be irritable and prone to
209
1 annoyance or anger. Finally, it is possible that counterproductive behaviors

2 could result in negative emotions through a process of rationalization. An
3 individual, for example, who steals from the employer might justify it by
4 convincing himself or herself that treatment has been unfair, and therefore
5 stealing is a reasonable remedy. That self-generated sense of justifiable outrage
6 will likely be associated with negative emotions.
7
8 Control
9
1011 An important element in the occupational stress process is beliefs/perceptions
11 about control. An individual who feels in control of a situation is likely to
12 appraise it differently from one who feels out of control, and the consequences
13 are likely to be different. Control refers to the ability of an individual to choose
14 his or her own actions from two or more options (Ganster & Fusilier, 1989).
15 There are two variants of control, environmental and perceived. Environmental
16 control represents the degree of choice an employee is given by the situation
17 or his or her supervisor. Perceived control represents the amount of choice the
18 employee believes he or she possesses. It is possible that an employee is given
19 control; however, he or she may not necessarily perceive that control. In
2011 addition, he or she may not feel capable of using the control. In fact, too much
21 control can be overwhelming and lead to anger and anxiety. Perceived control
22 is crucial as it is not the objective events or situations in the environment that
23 cause strains, but rather the perceptions of the individual of not having control
24 to cope with perceived threats (see Spector, 1998). Moreover, it is control over
25 the job stressor itself that is important, rather than control over things that don’t
26 influence the stressor.
27
28 Different Forms of Control
29 A number of different control-related variables have been studied in the
3011 workplace. Autonomy is the extent to which an individual can control how,
31 when, and where he or she conducts job tasks. An individual with high
32 autonomy might only be accountable for outcomes and not for the process by
33 which those outcomes are achieved, whereas an individual with low autonomy
34 might be primarily accountable for following directions and doing as he or she
35 is told.
36 A broader conception of control can be seen in the work of Dwyer
37 and Ganster (1991). They developed a 22-item control scale that went
38 beyond mere autonomy on the job. Included were items that assessed individual
39 control over extrinsic elements of the job, such as how the person is evaluated,
40 how much the person can earn, policies and procedures in the work unit,
1 physical work conditions (e.g. lighting or temperature), and resource

2 availability. Although their items clearly assessed different aspects of control,
3 a factor analysis suggested that all items reflected a single overall
4 control construct.
5 Autonomy and control are typically assessed with scales that tap the
6 individual’s perceptions about the immediate workplace. Locus of control
7 scales assess, not perceptions of control in a specific setting, but beliefs
8 about control more generally. Rotter (1966) developed the locus of control
9 construct as a stable personality variable reflecting an individual’s beliefs
1011 about where control arises in their own lives. Although the operationalization
11 of this variable is as a continuum, the extremes are defined as internality
12 (beliefs that the person can control reinforcements in life himself or herself)
13 vs. externality (beliefs that external forces such as fate, luck, or powerful
14 others are in control). Spector (1988) narrowed the conception of locus of
15 control specifically to the workplace with the development of the Work
16 Locus of Control Scale that assesses people’s beliefs about whether or
17 not they control reinforcements in their work lives, such as pay raises and
18 promotions.
19 There is an important distinction between control as a perception versus
2011 control as a belief-based personality variable. As a perception, control is
21 expected to vary with changes in the environment. Thus as people change jobs,
22 their level of perceived control should change if the level of control changes.
23 Certainly people may have predispositions to view themselves as having more
24 or less control, so there can be a trait-like component to perceived control, but
25 it should also be expected to vary with changes in the environment. Evidence
26 that control perceptions are not just idiosyncratic interpretations of the work
27 environment are provided by studies relating incumbent perceptions of control
28 to more objective, non-incumbent sources of data on control. Spector (1992)
29 conducted a small meta-analysis of seven studies reporting convergent validi-
3011 ties for autonomy studies. The mean correlation between incumbent self-reports
31 and other sources was 0.30. It should be kept in mind that the other sources
32 (e.g. supervisors) are not necessarily accurate (Frese & Zapf, 1988), rendering
33 this at best a conservative under-estimate of convergent validity.
34 Locus of control, on the other hand, as a personality variable would be
35 expected to be quite stable, and may reflect a predisposition to perceive control
36 across settings and time. However, such perceptions do not occur in a vacuum,
37 and even the most internal individual will almost certainly perceive lack of
38 control in situations that are truly uncontrollable. Although locus of control has
39 been shown to relate significantly to control perceptions, those relations are
40 often quite modest (e.g. Spector, 1988). This modest level of relation lends
211
1 further support to the idea that perceptions are different constructs from locus
2 of control.
3 Both control beliefs and perceptions play a role in the occupational stress
4 process. As a personality variable, locus of control would be expected to have
5 a more general effect, and may provide a frame of reference or filter through
6 which an individual views the work world. Especially in situations without
7 clear-cut cues about whether or not the individual has control, the internal and
8 external will tend to see the situation from different vantage points. However,
9 in situations where control opportunities are fairly obvious, locus of control
1011 would be expected to have relatively little impact. Control perceptions, however,
11 should be much more closely tied to the immediate situation, and therefore
12 would be expected to show stronger relations with perceived job stressors and
13 psychological strains than locus of control.
14
15 The Role of Control In the Stress Process
16 The model suggests that control beliefs/perceptions, hereafter just referred to
17 as control, affect the process in several ways. First, control influences how an
18 individual appraises the objective situation. If an individual has control, he or
19 she will be less likely to interpret a situation as a job stressor. For example, if
2011 an individual feels in control of the work situation, a minor malfunction of a
21 piece of equipment is not likely to be perceived as important. If the person can
22 easily and quickly make the repair or knows how to get it quickly done, it
23 will probably be seen at worst as a minor annoyance, especially if such
24 malfunctions are rare and the person is not in a hurry. For the individual who
25 does not feel in control of the machine and situation, a malfunction can elicit
26 anxiety and frustration. He or she might be unsure how to get the repair done,
27 and may be quite upset that he or she cannot complete work and might get
28 panicky about not knowing what to do next. Thus control provides a filter
29 through which an individual might view the work environment and interpret
3011 events. This leads to the proposition that control beliefs, and to a greater extent
31 control perceptions, should be correlated with perceived job stressors and strains.
32 Furthermore, they should both relate to intensity and frequency of negative
33 emotions, since higher levels of perceived stressors should elicit more negative
34 emotion.
35 Control is also a factor in strains. Since control contributes to both perceived
36 stressors and negative emotions, both of which lead to strains, we would expect
37 that control should be related to strains. However, control serves an additional
38 role as a moderator of the stressor – strain, and emotion – strain relation,
39 especially for those strains that are under cognitive or volitional control, such
40 as job attitudes and behaviors. Different individuals who experience the same
1 level of stressors and negative emotions do not all respond similarly. Those
2 who have control are likely to respond in constructive and problem-focused
3 ways. They prefer primary over secondary control. Those who don’t have
4 control will be less likely to act constructively and in a problem-focused
5 manner because they see this avenue as closed to them. What are available are
6 emotion-focused approaches that may be productive or counterproductive. Thus
7 the person must adopt secondary control approaches. In the extreme they may
8 respond with behaviors intended to be destructive (Allen & Greenberger, 1980).
9 This leads to the proposition again that control will relate to strains, but it
1011 also suggests a moderator role whereby the relation between job stressors
11 (or emotions) and certain types of strains will be affected by control. Individuals
12 low in control are likely to show a strong, positive relation between stressors
13 and strain, whereas those high in control may show no relation or at best a
14 weak relation.
15 The demand–control model of occupational stress (Karasek, 1979) also posits
16 a moderator role for control in the relation between job stressors and strains.
17 According to this view, individuals who have low levels of control will display
18 a positive relation between stressors and strains; individuals with a high level
19 of control will not. Thus control serves a buffering function. Our model is
2011 consistent with Karasek, although we go somewhat further in separating the
21 objective from perceived stressor and emotions from other strains. Furthermore,
22 as discussed previously control may act initially as a moderator of the
23 objective stressor–perceived stressor relation, thus filtering experience in a way
24 so that the high control individual is unlikely to perceive stressors. This then
25 serves as a buffer between objective stressors and strains rather than perceived
26 stressors and strains. In other words, control may act early in the occupational
27 stress process (see also Spector 1998), so that the moderator effect between
28 perceived stressors and strains may be weak because the effect of control has
29 already occurred.
3011 There is some evidence in support of this expected moderator effect. For
31 example, Dwyer and Ganster (1991) found that control moderated in the
32 expected way the relation between psychological demands (stressors) and the
33 behavioral strains of both absence and tardiness. They did not find this pattern
34 for workload, but keep in mind that mere workload is not a job stressor under
35 our definition, as merely having a lot of work to do or difficult work does not
36 necessarily lead to negative emotion. Storms and Spector (1987) found a similar
37 moderator effect of control beliefs (work locus of control) on the relation
38 between work frustration and counterproductive work behavior.
39 However, in general results of studies testing the control buffering effect
40 hypothesized by the demand–control model have been inconsistent (see the
213
1 review by Terry & Jimmieson, 1999). In part this may be due to the influence
2 of control early in the process (moderating the objective stressor–perceived
3 stressor relation) as described earlier. The majority of studies have looked at
4 the effects of perceived control on perceived stressor–strain relations.
5 Individual who perceive high control are less likely to perceive job stressors
6 and when they do, they are likely to be more mild and thus the emotional
7 response is lower. Thus we don’t get a good test of the effect since we have
8 few if any high stressor, high emotion, high control individuals. Interestingly,
9 in the Dwyer and Ganster (1991) study that found significant moderators, there
1011 was little direct relation of control with their stressors or with the behavioral
11 strains.
12 Furthermore, for control to be effective it must be over the job stressors
13 themselves. Merely having autonomy over how the job is done is not helpful
14 in dealing with an abusive supervisor. Having the ability to stop the abuse,
15 perhaps by working in an organization with strictly enforced policies against
16 such supervisory behavior, would be required to buffer the effects. In addition,
17 some of the studies that tested the demand–control model included variables as
18 stressors that would not necessarily lead to negative emotions. The Karasek
19 (1979) conception of job demands as stressors is in some ways more akin to
2011 workload, and it is not necessarily the case that high demands (workload) result
21 in negative emotions.
22
23 Affective Dispositions
24
25 Affective dispositions are personality variables that reflect the tendency for
26 people to experience negative emotions. A situation that induces an emotional
27 response in one person may not necessarily induce one in another, in other
28 words, some people are more emotionally reactive than others. Affective
29 disposition variables range from the tendency to experience a specific emotion
3011 such as anger (Tanzer, Sim & Spielberger, 1996) or anxiety (Spielberger, 1972)
31 to the more general categories of negative affectivity (NA; Watson & Clark,
32 1984) or emotional stability from the five factor model of personality (see Hough
33 & Schneider, 1996 for a brief history).
34 Trait anxiety is a personality variable with a long history of research in both
35 the work and nonwork domains. It has been linked directly to the stress
36 literature, and in fact individuals high in trait anxiety showed greater state
37 anxiety increases in response to certain stressors than those low in trait
38 anxiety (Spielberger, 1972). However, research has shown that the high
39 trait anxious are hyper-responsive primarily to psycho-social threats and
40 not physical threats (Spielberger, 1972). Thus we would expect the high trait
1 anxious to elicit unusually strong response to the social aspects of the

2 workplace (e.g. interpersonal conflict) more so than the physical aspects (e.g.
3 workload).
4 Trait anger is the tendency to appraise situations as annoying or frustrating
5 and thus experience the emotional state of anger (Tanzer et al., 1996),
6 ranging from mild irritation to intense rage. Individuals who are high on
7 this personality trait have a tendency to over-react to situations, and
8 may exhibit inappropriate anger. Spielberger, Krasner, and Solomon (1998)
9 and Spielberger and Sydeman (1994) have developed two distinct trait
1011 anger constructs. Angry temperament is the tendency to perceive a wide range
11 of situations as anger-provoking, whereas angry reaction, in parallel to trait
12 anxiety, concerns angry reactions to specific types of social situations.
13 Negative affectivity (NA) is the tendency for an individual to experience a
14 variety of negative emotions across time and situations (Watson & Clark, 1984),
15 although it is most typically operationalized as trait anxiety in occupational
16 stress research (Ganster & Schaubroeck, 1991). However, scales specifically
17 designed to assess NA such as Watson, Clark and Tellegen’s (1988) Positive
18 and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) have included a wide range of negative
19 emotions.
2011
21 The Impact of Affective Dispositions on the Occupational Stress Process
22 Affective dispositions affect the occupational stress process at several points.
23 First, they have direct effects on both the perception of stressors and
24 on emotions. The individual who is high on trait anxiety is likely to view the
25 world as threatening, and will perceive more stressors than the low trait
26 anxious. Likewise, an individual high in trait anger will perceive a variety of
27 situations as provocative. Second, these traits reflect the tendency to experience
28 emotions so that a high trait anxious person, for example, will be more likely
29 than a low trait anxious individual to feel anxious. So we would expect to find
3011 that affective disposition correlate with both perceived stressors and emotions
31 at work.
32 Affective dispositions also play a moderator role in at least two places. They
33 moderate the relation between the objective environment and perceived
34 stressors. For example, a person high in trait anxiety will show a stronger
35 relation between level of environmental stressor and perceived stressor than a
36 person who is low in trait anxiety. Their threshold for perceiving a situation as
37 a threat is lower and so it takes a lower level of environmental stressor to
38 produce a perception of a stressor. In addition affective dispositions moderate
39 the relation between perceived stressors and emotion. As the level of perceived
40 stressor increases, the high trait anxious will show a stronger increase in emotion
215
1 than the low trait anxious. The same would be true for trait anger, although
2 situations that induce perceptions of a stressor and anger might be different
3 than those that induce anxiety.
4
5 The Link From Strains to Objective Stressors
6
7 Although job stress researchers are primarily concerned with the causal flow
8 from the environment to strains, there is a feedback loop of sorts from strains
9 back to stressors. In other words, people can be the source of their own
1011 environmental stressors. To some extent this can be mediated by job
11 performance, or at least the perceived performance by coworkers and
12 supervisors. If an individual experiences strain that interferes with their ability
13 to do the job, one response by coworkers and supervisors might be to increase
14 pressure for performance. This can result in conflicts between the individual
15 and others (e.g. coworkers might feel the person is not carrying his or her own
16 weight). It could also result in being given extra assignments or being asked
17 to work more hours, thus producing even more stressors.
18 Strains can also result in stressors more directly, without affecting job
19 performance. An individual who is upset at work may discuss their work
2011 problems with coworkers and supervisors, and get the reputation of being a
21 complainer. This might result in poor treatment by coworkers and supervisors
22 who find the person annoying, want the person to leave them alone, and perhaps
23 even quit the job. The individual may find himself or herself to be isolated,
24 with little social support, or may be the target of nasty remarks and even an
25 organized campaign of mobbing (bullying). This can result in a cycle of strain
26 leading to complaint, leading to increased stressors, leading to strain.
27
28 META-ANALYTIC SUPPORT FOR THE
29 MAJOR MODEL
3011
31 Consistent support has been found for relations between job stressors and strains
32 (Jex & Beehr, 1991), although there are differences in the degree of relation
33 depending on the specific stressor and strain. For example, Jackson and Schuler
34 (1985) found mean correlations of role ambiguity and role conflict with job
35 dissatisfaction and some affect-related strains. Spector and Jex (1998) found
36 correlations between the stressors of interpersonal conflict and organizational
37 constraints with job dissatisfaction and physical symptoms. Chen and Spector
38 (1992) expanded the usual strain list, linking job stressors to counterproductive
39 behavior. Some of these studies looked at the link between job stressors and
40 negative emotions as well. However, rather than summarize them in narrative
1 form, we felt that a meta-analysis would be a better way of showing support

2 for the various hypothesized linkages in the model. Because the majority of
3 studies used self-report to assess job stressors and most strains, there were only
4 sufficient studies available to conduct a meta-analysis on self-report studies,
5 thus addressing only some of the linkages in the model.
6
7 Meta-Analysis Method
8
9 Literature Search
1011 An attempt was made to locate all published studies reporting relations between
11 job stressors and emotional reactions to work. We also focused on strains
12 that were common in occupational stress studies, specifically job dissatisfac-
13 tion, physical symptoms, intention to quit the job, doctor visits, and
14 counterproductive work behavior. Since this was a meta-analysis, we looked
15 for combinations of variables that were common across at least two, and
16 preferably more, studies. We limited the search to published journal articles;
17 dissertations were omitted as there wasn’t sufficient time to acquire them.
18 Computer-based literature searches were conducted with PsycInfo
19 (Psychological Abstracts) from 1967 until Fall, 2000. The searches were
2011 conducted using the following key terms: all forms of job stressors
21 (autonomy/control, interpersonal conflict, organizational constraints, role
22 ambiguity, role conflict, role overload, workload); all forms of emotional
23 reactions (anger, anxiety, depression, discomfort/uneasiness, frustration, irrita-
24 tion, positive/negative affect, state/trait emotion, tension); and all forms of
25 strains (behavioral, physical, psychological). Reference lists of all located
26 studies were searched for additional studies, as was our own files.
27
28 Criteria For Inclusion
29 Studies were initially selected if they included: (1) some combination of a job
3011 stressor and an emotional reaction to work, or (2) some combination of an
31 emotional reaction and strain (e.g. absence, counterproductive work behavior
32 (CWB), doctor visits, intention to quit, job dissatisfaction, physical symptoms).
33 Only studies that reported zero-order correlations were retained for the
34 meta-analysis. Studies that employed Chi Square, t-test, or one degree of
35 freedom (numerator) F test as analytical strategies were acceptable for
36 inclusion since the aforementioned statistics can be converted into a
37 correlation coefficient (see Rosenthal, 1984 for transformation procedures).
38 However, the literature search did not yield such studies.
39 Our final criteria for inclusion in the sample resulted in a total of 34 published
40 sources (see Appendix), which yielded effect sizes from 35 samples, resulting
217
1 in a total sample size of 8,020. We report results for the four emotions that
2 we were able to find a sufficient number of studies to report: anger, anxiety,
3 depression, and tension. Although tension is not generally considered a distinct
4 emotion and such scales contained items that overlapped with anxiety, it seemed
5 to be distinctive in that it also contained elements of feeling overwhelmed and
6 generally aroused in a negative way. Thus it was operationalized to be a more
7 general negative emotional state than anxiety. We found several studies that
8 assessed this variable, so we included it as a separate category.
9
1011 Analysis
11 The meta-analysis was conducted using Rosenthal’s (1984) approach. For each
12 variable combination, the following were computed: The number of studies
13 (k), the total sample size across studies (n), mean correlation, mean correlation
14 (weighted by sample size), median correlation, standard deviation of
15 correlations, ranges of the correlations, and a 95% confidence interval (Lee,
16 1989) for the correlations. Correlations for role overload were merged with
17 workload, and correlations for frustration and irritation were combined with
18 anger.
19
2011 Link From Perceived Stressors To Emotions
21
22 Table 1 presents the results of the meta-analysis for the various combinations
23 of job stressors: Interpersonal conflict, organizational constraints, role
24 ambiguity, role conflict, and workload versus emotional reactions: anxiety,
25 anger, depression, and tension. We included autonomy as well, although as
26 noted earlier, control variables can have a complex role in the occupational
27 stress process. We limited our analysis to autonomy because the majority of
28 control studies assessed this subcomponent of control. For each variable
29 combination the table shows the number of studies and total sample size across
3011 studies, and descriptive statistics of mean, weighted (by sample size) mean,
31 median, standard deviation, range, and 95% confidence interval. As can be seen
32 the number of studies ranged from two to 14, and the total sample sizes from
33 264 to 2456. If there were fewer than three samples, we did not report a stan-
34 dard deviation. Correlations varied according to specific stressor and emotion,
35 ranging from 0.20 to 0.49 in magnitude. In no case did a confidence interval
36 include zero, suggesting that every correlation was statistically significant.
37 As expected, each of the five stressors was related to negative emotions.
38 Organizational constraints concerns conditions/situations at work that interfere
39 with an individual’s ability to effectively complete work tasks. It comes close
40 to the classical definition of frustration (impediment or interference with an
1 Table 1. Meta-analysis Results for Job Stressors and Emotional Reactions.

2
k n Mean Weighted Median SD Range Confidence
3
Mean Interval
4
5 Autonomy
6 Anxiety 5 840 0.25 0.23 0.25 0.09 0.34/0.15 0.32/0.18
Anger 5 840 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.12 0.34/0.06 0.27/0.13
7
Depression n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
8 Tension 2 396 0.25 0.25 0.25 n/a 0.32/0.17 0.32/0.15
9 Constraints
1011 Anxiety 2 264 0.39 0.40 0.39 n/a 0.33/0.44 0.27/0.51
11 Anger 6 2456 0.49 0.42 0.50 0.07 0.36/0.55 0.45/0.53
12
Tension n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
13 Interpersonal Conflict
14 Anxiety 5 840 0.37 0.37 0.36 0.07 0.28/0.47 0.30/0.44
15 Anger 7 1361 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.02 0.34/0.40 0.32/0.42
16 Depression 3 875 0.32 0.30 0.33 0.09 0.23/0.40 0.25/0.39
Tension n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
17
Role ambiguity
18 Anxiety 14 1783 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.12/0.44 0.24/0.34
19 Anger 8 1453 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.07 0.26/0.45 0.28/0.38
2011 Depression 5 1598 0.32 0.29 0.33 0.08 0.23/0.44 0.27/0.37
21 Tension 8 1489 0.39 0.41 0.40 0.09 0.26/0.53 0.34/0.44
Role conflict
22
Anxiety 10 1133 0.29 0.29 0.26 0.11 0.12/0.43 0.23/0.35
23 Anger 6 978 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.07 0.32/0.52 0.39/0.51
24 Depression 6 1638 0.34 0.30 0.30 0.16 0.20/0.54 0.29/0.39
25 Tension 8 1551 0.45 0.49 0.48 0.19 0.12/0.69 0.40/0.50
26 Workload
Anxiety 10 1506 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.08 0.27/0.52 0.35/0.45
27
Anger 9 1574 0.44 0.43 0.47 0.13 0.26/0.61 0.39/0.49
28 Depression 7 1548 0.19 0.14 0.24 0.20 0.21/0.41 0.14/0.24
29 Tension 4 629 0.22 0.20 0.31 0.18 0.05/0.32 0.14/0.30
3011
31
32 ongoing activity; Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer & Sears, 1939) that has been
33 closely associated with anger (Spector, 1978). Not surprisingly it was most
34 strongly correlated with anger (0.49), but it was also correlated with anxiety
35 (0.39). This suggests that people not only get angry when confronted with
36 constraints, but may experience anxiety as well. The latter is particularly likely
37 when the stakes for failure are high, and the person’s confidence in being able
38 to deal successfully with the constraints is low.
39 Interpersonal conflict was related equally to anger and anxiety, and
40 somewhat lower to depression. People who experience conflicts with others at
219
1 work may be equally likely to respond with anger and anxiety. There is reason
2 to expect that this stressor is particularly important for employees. Studies that
3 ask people to relate the most serious stressful incident that happened recently
4 at work have consistently found that interpersonal conflict is one of the most
5 frequently mentioned stressors (e.g. Keenan & Newton, 1985; Narayanan,
6 Menon & Spector, 1999).
7 Role ambiguity, uncertainty over what one’s role is in an organization,
8 correlated with all four emotions, ranging from 0.29 for anxiety to 0.39 for
9 tension, suggesting that ambiguity can be associated with a wide range of nega-
1011 tive emotions. Role conflict, incompatibility in competing demands within the
11 workplace or between work and nonwork, was associated with all four emotions,
12 but with larger differences than for role ambiguity. Correlations ranged from
13 0.29 for anxiety to 0.45 for tension. In both cases with the role variables, it
14 may be that they lead more to tension and a general feeling of negative arousal/
15 disturbance than specific emotions.
16 Workload also related to all four emotions, but with a different pattern than
17 the role variables. In this case the smallest correlation was with depression
18 (0.19), and the largest was with anger (0.44) with anxiety not far behind
19 (0.40).
2011 Although not conceptualized as a stressor, autonomy as part of control is
21 expected to relate to negative emotions. Our results show that relations ranged
22 from 0.20 to 0.25 across three of the emotions (anger, anxiety, and tension),
23 with low control being associated with higher levels of negative emotion. There
24 were an insufficient number of studies to report relations with depression.
25
26 Relationships Between Emotional Reactions and Strains
27
28 Table 2 presents the results of the meta-analysis for the various combinations
29 of emotional reactions (anxiety, anger, depression, and tension) and strains
3011 (counterproductive work behavior (CWB), doctor visits, intention to quit, job
31 satisfaction, and physical symptoms). As with the job stressors, all cases
32 had confidence intervals that did not include zero, thus suggesting all mean
33 correlations were significant. However, some correlations were rather small,
34 with three below 0.20 and one below 0.10.
35 One of the strains was behavioral in nature – CWB. Studies could only be
36 found that assessed it in relation to anger, and they had a mean correlation of
37 0.32. Unfortunately, we could find few studies (and not enough to meta-analyze)
38 that looked at other behavioral strains.
39 Physical strains included physical symptoms and doctor visits (as an
40 indicator of illness). Physical symptoms were assessed with checklists of various
1 Table 2. Meta-analysis Results for Emotional Reactions and Strains.

2
k n Mean Weighted Median SD Range Confidence
3 Mean Interval
4
5 CWB
6 Anxiety n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Anger 3 742 0.32 0.29 0.35 0.09 0.22/0.40 0.25/0.39
7
8 Tension n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
9 Doctor visits
1011 Anxiety 3 518 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.09 0.10/0.27 0.09/0.27
11 Anger 4 918 0.08 0.10 0.06 0.05 0.05/0.15 0.02/0.14
12 Depression n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Intention to quit
14
Anxiety 5 825 0.32 0.35 0.34 0.13 0.11/0.43 0.25/0.39
15 Anger 6 1305 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.08 0.35/0.57 0.40/0.50
16 Depression 2 431 0.10 0.11 0.10 n/a 0.08/0.12 0.01/0.19
17 Tension 2 479 0.24 0.34 0.24 n/a 0.09/0.39 0.15/0.33
18 Job satisfaction
19 Anxiety 11 1479 0.31 0.34 0.36 0.14 0.47/0.030.36/0.26
2011 Anger 11 3240 0.34 0.31 0.36 0.09 0.52/0.180.37/0.31
Depression 4 1268 0.24 0.24 0.27 0.06 0.29/0.150.30/0.18
21
Tension 6 1210 0.29 0.35 0.44 0.32 0.51/0.330.35/0.23
22 Physical symptoms
23 Anxiety 8 1311 0.44 0.46 0.46 0.11 0.23/0.56 0.39/0.49
24 Anger 8 1468 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.07 0.19/0.39 0.24/0.34
25 Depression 7 1822 0.42 0.43 0.42 0.11 0.20/0.57 0.37/0.47
27
28
29 symptoms/conditions associated with stress, such as headache and stomach
3011 distress. These measures of physical symptoms correlated on average from 0.29
31 with anger to 0.44 with anxiety. There were no studies of tension. Doctor visits
32 represent an indirect indicator of physical health, under the presumption that
33 the more visits the poorer the health. Relations with emotions were rather modest
34 – 0.08 for anger and 0.18 for anxiety.
35 Psychological strains included job dissatisfaction (assessed as job satisfac-
36 tion) and intention of quitting the job. Emotions correlated from 0.24
37 (depression) to 0.34 (anger) with job satisfaction. Emotions correlated from
38 0.10 (depression) to 0.45 (anger) with intention to quit, suggesting that with-
39 drawal may be a common reaction to anger at work and may represent a means
40 by which an employee could retaliate against an employer.
221
1 IMPLICATIONS OF THE MODEL

2
3 In this chapter we have described a model of the occupational stress process
4 that attempts to describe how the work environment can adversely affect health
5 and well-being. The process begins with objective features of the work
6 environment that are appraised by the individual. Emotions play a central and
7 multi-faceted role in determining people’s idiosyncratic appraisal/perception of
8 the environment as well as in contributing to strains that develop through both
9 cognitive/volitional/motivational mechanisms and through purely physiological
1011 means.
11 Individual differences are important features of the model as they also
12 contribute to appraisal/perception, emotions, and strains. They help explain how
13 individuals respond differently to the same environmental stressor. Control is
14 another important element as it helps filter experience and is critical in the
15 appraisal of a situation as a stressor. It is also a factor in determining people’s
16 volitional actions in response to stressors and negative emotion.
17 There are a number of implications that this model has for organizations, and
18 for how managers might approach the issue of employee stress and well-being.
19 Perhaps most important is that there are two critical elements in the stress
2011 process that should be managed – control and emotion. Control can be intro-
21 duced as a means of helping employees cope with environmental stressors.
22 Emotion can be monitored and provides an indicator of potential employee diffi-
23 culties. A focus on these two elements can go a long way toward managing
24 employee stress.
25
26 Management Monitoring of Employee Emotions
27
28 It can be helpful if supervisors monitor the emotional states of employees.
29 This doesn’t mean being intrusive or spending all day looking for any sign of
3011 displeasure. Rather supervisors should remain sensitive to the feelings of
31 subordinates, and pay attention if they display unusually frequent or intense
32 negative emotion. If intervention is deemed appropriate, the supervisor should
33 approach the individual and offer assistance and support. In addition the
34 supervisor should always remain available to subordinates who wish to initiate
35 a discussion of issues they find distressing.
36 Actions the supervisor might take range from removing the source of the
37 problem to merely offering advice and counsel. Many stressors are part of the
38 job (e.g. nurses must deal with dying patients), so removing them is in many,
39 and perhaps most cases not an option. Another issue to consider before removing
40 a stressor is fairness to other employees. If a person who is distressed by having
1 to do a particular task is relieved of that task, which is just pushed off onto
2 someone else, the problem will likely be magnified, as the second person now
3 experiences not only the distress from the stressful task, but injustice as
4 well. However, there are instances where supervisor intervention would be
5 appropriate. For example, if an employee is being mistreated by coworkers, the
6 supervisor should intervene. It has been found, for example, that one element
7 in employee mobbing (bullying) is indifference of management (Zapf, 1999).
8 When removing the stressor is not an option, a supervisor can still take steps
9 to help the employee. First, he or she can merely offer social support. Sometimes
1011 a sympathetic ear can help a person feel better. This can be particularly
11 important for acute stressors. If a unique but upsetting event occurs (death of
12 a coworker), such support can be important. Second, the supervisor can offer
13 career advice. If an individual is ill-suited to handling stressful tasks, the best
14 strategy might be to change jobs, either inside or outside of the organization.
15 Sometimes placement mistakes are made, and the supervisor must be prepared
16 to handle them. Third, the supervisor can offer assistance and coaching in how
17 to handle stressors. Sometimes this is related to insufficient job skills, either
18 with the tasks themselves or with work strategies such as time management.
19 The supervisor can offer training or arrange for training to be provided. Fourth,
2011 the supervisor can make the employee aware of resources available for dealing
21 with stress, such as employee assistance programs for extreme cases and stress
22 management training. Many organizations offer health-promotion benefits, such
23 as exercise facilities, smoking cessation clinics, and weight loss programs that
24 can be helpful.
25
26 Enhancing Employee Autonomy and Control
27
28 The management of employee control is another area that can have important
29 implications. Environmental stressors are less likely to be appraised as
3011 stressors, and negative emotions are less likely to lead to strains if the
31 individual perceives control over the stressor. Allowing more autonomy and
32 other forms of control can be helpful, but one must be cautious that control is
33 desired and is not misused. Control itself can act as a stressor if the person
34 feels overwhelmed by the lack of structure and added responsibility that comes
35 with it. Thus it should not be imposed on people who don’t want it. Furthermore,
36 enhanced control by employees means lowered control by supervisors. It is
37 important to maintain accountability, shifting employees from a situation in
38 which they are responsible for being at work certain times or taking certain
39 actions to being responsible for certain accomplishments and outcomes. This is
40 not always possible (e.g. you can’t let a store clerk set his or her own hours
223
1 if there are shifts to be covered), but it is often the case that individuals can
2 be given enhanced control in some form.
3 Enhancing employee control can be one action that a supervisor can take to
4 help subordinates cope with job stressors, but it should be done carefully with
5 the involvement of those involved. As with the removal of stressors, one must
6 be cautious that the action is appropriate, and that it is applied fairly to all
7 employees in the group. Getting upset at work should not be rewarded with
8 privileges that more calm colleagues are denied. This can cause additional
9 problems with injustice as some employees get benefits others do not.
1011
11 Benefits To Organizations of Managing Employee Stress
12
13 Taking a proactive approach to the management of employee occupational stress
14 can be beneficial to both employees and organizations. There is growing
15 recognition that employee health and well-being is not antithetical to
16 organizational effectiveness and performance, and quite the contrary the two can
17 go hand in hand. The recent concept of the healthy work organization or HWO
18 (Jaffee, 1995; Sauter, Lim & Murphy, 1996) recognizes that employee and orga-
19 nizational well-being can be effectively linked. Employee ill-health can have
2011 direct costs in terms of absence, compensation claims, health insurance costs,
21 and medical expenses (Cartwright & Cooper, 1997). It can have more hidden
22 costs in terms of lowered individual performance (Jex, 1998) and increased coun-
23 terproductive work behavior (e.g. Fox, Spector & Miles, in press). Sauter et al.
24 (1996) provide a list of HWO practices, climate variables, and values that are
25 linked to both employee well-being and organizational effectiveness.
26 Although negative emotions can result in dysfunctional behaviors, they can
27 motivate work behaviors valuable to the organization as well (Arvey, Renz &
28 Watson, 1998). For example, employees who are upset that they are not receiv-
29 ing needed training might petition management to provide it. Innovation can be
3011 motivated by work problems employees find frustrating. As noted earlier, control
31 is an important element in determining if behavioral responses to negative
32 emotions are constructive or destructive. Sometimes negative emotions can be
33 powerful motivators that can be channeled to benefit both employees and orga-
34 nizations, but would be most likely in circumstances in which employees feel
35 their actions might be effective (i.e. they feel they have some level of control).
36
37 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
38
39 Stress is a process that is endemic to human existence both at work and away
40 from work. It arises from the interaction of people with their environment. Our
1 model describes how the process is thought to work, beginning with the
2 objective work environment that is appraised and perceived, and then
3 progressing through behavioral, physical and psychological responses. It
4 should be kept in mind, however, that the process is complex, and that causal
5 connections among various components in the model can run in more than one
6 direction. The occupational stress literature provides good support for linkages
7 between variables in the model, but tests of more complex relations among
8 model components are difficult to find. Furthermore, most tests have been
9 limited to the relation between perceived stressors and strains assessed entirely
1011 with incumbent self-reports from cross-sectional designs. These studies have
11 provided important data to help us understand the occupational stress process,
12 but there is still much to be done.
13 Many critics of the occupational stress area have suggested the need for
14 improved methodologies in occupational stress studies, most commonly calling
15 for longitudinal designs, experimental and quasi-experimental designs and
16 multi-data source studies (e.g. Frese & Zapf, 1988). We would add to the list
17 designs that look at alternative causal flows. For example, studies might look
18 at the extent to which emotions affect perceptions, or strains affect emotions.
19 Another area of concern is that there is often insufficient appreciation for the
2011 distinction between environmental and perceived stressors. Sometimes
21 nonincumbent measures are merely seen as criteria for the validation of
22 incumbent measures rather than measures of something else. Lack of
23 correlation between an incumbent and alternative source might reflect poor
24 construct validity of the incumbent measure, but it might also reflect that for
25 the particular stressor there is considerable variation in people’s appraisals. This
26 doesn’t mean the incumbent reports are necessarily inaccurate, only that
27 incumbents tend to see the same situation differently. Furthermore, it may be
28 that the alternative source is the one that lacks construct validity, perhaps
29 because the supervisor, coworker, observer, or other source is not in a
3011 position to know what the incumbent has experienced. Studies that have looked
31 at convergence have shown that there can be substantial differences across
32 stressor variables. For example, Spector et al. (1988) found correlations between
33 incumbents and their supervisors reporting about the incumbent’s stressors
34 ranging from a nonsignificant 0.08 for role ambiguity to a significant 0.83
35 for hours worked.
36 It is also important to distinguish among strains. We suggest that negative
37 emotions are the immediate response to job stressors, but the various emotions
38 are elicited by different kinds of stressors. We focused our attention on anger,
39 anxiety, depression, and tension because these emotions have been studied by
40 occupational stress researchers. There are, however, additional emotions that
225
1 are deserving of attention. Perrewé and Zellars (1999), for example, developed
2 an emotion-centered occupational stress model that included guilt and shame
3 as important variables. They suggested that the type of emotion matters in
4 determining the coping response people display. Guilt but not shame tended to
5 lead to positive actions, such as working harder to accomplish more for the
6 employer.
7 Emotions should also be distinguished from other types of strains, which
8 should be distinguished from one another. As noted in this chapter, emotions
9 can lead to other strains through both a physical and psychological process.
1011 Physical strains often arise from the physiological processes that accompany
11 negative emotions. Behavioral and psychological strains are typically the
12 product of volitional, cognitive and motivational processes whereby the person
13 chooses to engage in certain actions or formulates certain intentions to act. We
14 discussed how control is an important element in such strains, but there is a
15 need for further work to help us understand why one strain and not another
16 occurs in response to a job stressor.
17 The occupational stress area has grown rapidly over the past two decades to
18 where today there are two journals devoted entirely to its study. There is growing
19 recognition that employee health and well-being are important concerns for
2011 organizations from both a humanistic (organizations have an ethical-moral
21 responsibility to their employees) and pragmatic (employee health contributes
22 to organizational health) perspective. Our model describes the process whereby
23 environmental conditions and situations lead to strains that adversely affect
24 employee health, but can also directly hurt organizations. A better understanding
25 of how this process works can lead to effective ways to make organizations
26 effective, efficient, and healthy places to work.
27
28 REFERENCES
29
3011 Allen, V. L., & Greenberger, D. B. (1980). Destruction and perceived control. In: A. Baum &
31 J. E. Singer (Eds), Applications of Personal Control (pp. 85–109). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
32 Erlbaum.
Anderson, C. A., Deuser, W. E., & DeNeve, K. M. (1995). Hot temperatures, hostile affect, hostile
33 cognition, and arousal: Tests of a general model of affective aggression. Personality and
34 Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 434–448.
35 Arvey, R. D., Renz, G. L., & Watson, T. W. (1998). Emotionality and job performance: Implications
36 for personnel selection. In: G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources
37 Management (Vol. 16, pp. 103–147). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the Workplace: A Reappraisal. Human
38 Relations, 48, 97–125.
39 Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness:
40 A facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personnel Psychology, 31, 665–699.
1 Begley, T. M. (1994). Expressed and suppressed anger as predictors of health care complaints.
2 Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 503516.
Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M., & Kramer, R. M. (1997). At the breaking point: Cognitive and social
3 dynamics of revenge in organizations. In: R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds) Antisocial
4 Behavior in Organizations (pp. 1–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5 Booth-Kewley, S., & Friedman, H. S. (1987). Psychological predictors of heart disease: A quanti-
6 tative review. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 343–362.
7 Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1997). Managing Workplace Stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal,
8 theft and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
9 Psychology, 65, 177–184.
1011 Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and
11 Aggression. New Haven: Yale University Press.
12 Dwyer, D. J., & Ganster, D. C. (1991). The effects of job demands and control on employee atten-
dance and satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 595–608.
13 Ekman, P. (1973). Cross-cultural studies of facial expression. In: P. Ekman (Ed.), Darwin and
14 Facial Expression: A Century of Research in Review (pp. 169–222). New York:
15 Academic Press.
16 Fishbein, M., & Azjen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-
17 Wesley.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational
18 Behavior, 20, 915–931.
19 Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (In press). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response
2011 to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy
21 and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior.
22 Frankenhaeuser, M. (1979). Psychoneuroendocrine approaches to the study of emotion as related to
stress and coping. In: H. E. Howe & R. A. Diensbier (Eds), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation,
23 (pp. 123–161). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
24 Frankenhaeuser, M., & Lundberg, U. (1982). Psychoneuroendocrine aspects of effort and distress as
25 modified by personal control. In: W. Bachmann & I. Udris (Eds), Mental Load and Stress in
26 Activity (pp. 97–103). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
27 Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1988). Methodological Issues in the Study of Work Stress: Objective
vs. Subjective Measurement of Work Stress and the Question of Longitudinal Studies. In:
28 C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds). Causes, Coping and Consequences of Stress at Work.
29 (pp. 375–410) Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
3011 Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1999). On the importance of the objective environment in stress and attribution
31 theory. Counterpoint to Perrewé and Zellars. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 761–765.
32 Ganster, D. C., & Fusilier, M. R. (1989). Control in the workplace. In: C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson
(Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 235–280).
33 Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley.
34 Ganster, D. C., & Schaubroeck, J. (1991). Work stress and employee health. Journal of Management,
35 17, 235–271.
36 Greenglass, E. R. (1996). Anger suppression, cynical distrust, and hostility: Implications for coronary
37 heart disease. In: C. D. Spielberger, I. G. Sarason, J. M. T. Brebner, E. Greenglass, P. Laungani
& A. M. O’Roark (Eds), Stress and Emotion: Anxiety, Anger, and Curiosity (Vol. 16,
38 pp. 205–225). Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Francis.
39 Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley, CA:
40 University of California Press.
227
1 Hough, L. M., & Schneider, R. J. (1996). Personality traits, taxonomies, and applications in
2 organizations. Individual Differences and Behavior in Organizations (pp. 31–88). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3 Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role
4 ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
5 Processes, 36, 16–78.
6 Jaffee, D. T. (1995). The healthy company: Research paradigms for personal and organizational
7 health. In: S. L. Sauter & L. R. Murphy (Eds), Organizational Risk Factors for Job Stress
(pp. 13–39). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
8 Jex, S. M. (1998). Stress and Job Performance: Theory, Research, and Implications for Managerial
9 Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
1011 Jex, S. M., & Beehr, T. A. (1991). Emerging theoretical and methodological issues in the study of
11 work-related stress. Research In Personnel and Human Resources Management, 9, 311–365.
12 Johansson, G. (1989). Stress, autonomy, and the maintenance of skill in supervisory control of
automated systems. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 38, 45–56.
13 Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job
14 redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308.
15 Keenan, A., & Newton, T. J. (1985). Stressful events, stressors, and psychological strains in young
16 professional engineers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 6, 151–156.
17 Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition. American
Psychologist, 37, 1019–1024.
18 Lazarus, R. S. (1995). Psychological stress in the workplace. In: R. Crandall & P. L. Perrewé (Eds),
19 Occupational Stress (pp. 3–14). Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Francis.
2011 Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York: Springer.
21 Lee, P. M. (1989). Bayesian Statistics: An Introduction. New York: Halsted Press.
22 Maertz, C. P., Jr., & Campion, M. A. (1998). 25 years of voluntary turnover research: A
review and critique. In: C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds), International Review of
23 Industrial and Organizational Psychology: 1998 (pp. 49–81). West Sussex, England: John
24 Wiley.
25 Narayanan, L., Menon, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). Stress in the workplace: A comparison
26 of gender and occupations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 63–73.
27 O’Leary, A. (1990). Stress, emotion, and human immune function. Psychological Bulletin, 108,
363–382.
28 Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational cit-
29 izenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157–164.
3011 Parasuraman, S., & Alutto, J. A. (1981). An examination of the organizational antecedents of
31 stressors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 48–67.
32 Perrewé, P. L. & Zellars, K. L. (1999). An examination of attributions and emotions in the
transactional approach to the organizational stress process. Journal of Organizational
33 Behavior, 20, 739–752.
34 Plutchik, R. (1989). Measuring emotions and their derivatives. In: R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds),
35 Emotion: Theory, research, and experience: The measurement of emotions (Vol. 4, pp. 1–35).
36 San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
37 Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the self: A two-
38 process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 5–37.
39 Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
40 Psychological Monographs, 80(1, Whole No. 609).
1 Sauter, S. L., Lim, S. Y., & Murphy, L. R. (1996). Organizational health: A new paradigm for
2 occupational stress research at NIOSH. Japanese Journal of Occupational Mental Health,
4, 248–254.
3 Schachter, S., & Singer, J. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional
4 state. Psychological Review, 63, 379–399.
5 Schaubroeck, J. (1999). Should the subjective be the objective? On studying mental processes,
6 coping behavior, and actual exposures in organizational stress research. Journal of
7 Organizational Behavior, 20, 753–760.
Scherer, K. R. (1986). Studying emotion empirically: issues and a paradigm for research.
8 In: K. R. Scherer, H. G. Wallbott & A. B. Summerfield (Eds), Experiencing Emotion: A
9 Cross-cultural Study (pp. 3–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1011 Simon, H. (1967). Motivational and emotional controls of cognition. Psychological Review, 74,
11 29–39.
12 Snyder, M. (1974). Self monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 30, 526–537.
13 Sparks, K., Cooper, C., Fried, Y., & Shirom, A. (1997). The effects of hours of work on health:
14 A meta-analytic review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70,
15 391–408.
16 Spector, P. E. (1978). Organizational frustration: A model and review of the literature. Personnel
17 Psychology, 31, 815–829.
Spector, P. E. (1988). Development of the work locus of control scale. Journal of Occupational
18 Psychology, 61, 335–340.
19 Spector, P. E. (1992). A consideration of the validity and meaning of self-report measures of
2011 job conditions. In: C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds), International Review of
21 Industrial and Organizational Psychology: 1992 (pp. 123–151). West Sussex, England:
22 John Wiley.
Spector, P. E. (1998). A control theory of the job stress process. In: C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories
23 of Organizational Stress (pp. 153–169). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24 Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. J., & Jex, S. M. (1988). The relationship of job stressors to affective,
25 health, and performance outcomes: A comparison of multiple data sources. Journal of
26 Applied Psychology, 73, 11–19.
27 Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (In press). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some
parallels between counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and organizational citizenship
28 behavior (OCB). Human Resources Management Review.
29 Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and
3011 strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative
31 Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupational Health
32 Psychology, 3, 356–367.
Spielberger, C. D. (1972). Anxiety as an emotional state. (pp. 23–49). In: C. D. Spielberger (Ed.).
33 Anxiety: Current Trends in Theory and Research, Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press.
34 Spielberger, C. D. (1975). Anxiety: State-trait process. In: C. D. Spielberger & I. G. Sarason (Eds),
35 Stress and Anxiety (pp. 115–142). Washington: Hemisphere/Wiley.
36 Spielberger, C. D., Krasner, S. S., & Solomon, E. P. (1988). The experience, expression and control
37 of anger. In: M. P. Janisse (Ed.), Health Psychology: Individual Differences and Stress (pp.
89–108). New York: Springer.
38 Spielberger, C. D., & Sydeman, S. J. (1994). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and State-Trait Anger
39 Expression Inventory. In: M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The Use of Psychological Tests for Treatment
40 Planning and Outcome Assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
229
1 Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotion and favorable
2 outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science, 5, 51–71.
Storms, P. L., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported
3 behavioral reactions: The moderating effect of perceived control. Journal of Occupational
4 Psychology, 60, 227–234.
5 Tanzer, N. K., Sim, C. Q. E., & Spielberger, C. D. (1996). Experience, expression, and control of
6 anger in a Chinese society: The case of Singapore. In: C. D. Spielberger, I. G. Sarason,
7 J. M. T. Brebner, E. Greenglass, P. Laungani & A. M. O’Roark (Eds), Stress and Emotion:
Anxiety, Anger, and Curiosity (Vol. 16, pp. 51–65).Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Francis.
8 Terpstra, D. E., & Cook, S. E. (1985). Complainant characteristics and reported behaviors and
9 consequences associated with formal sexual harassment charges. Personnel Psychology, 38,
1011 559-574.
11 Terry, D. J., & Jimmieson, N. L. (1999). Work control and employee well-being: A decade
12 review. In: C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds) International Review of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology: 1999 (pp. 95–148). West Sussex, England: John
13 Wiley.
14 Wallbott, H. G., & Scherer, K. R. (1989). Assessing emotion by questionnaire. In: R. Plutchik &
15 H. Kellerman (Eds), Emotion: Theory, Research, and Experience: The Measurement of
16 Emotions (Vol. 4, pp. 55–82). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
17 Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive
emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465–490.
18 Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures
19 of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
2011 Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
21 Weiss, H. M. (in press). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and
22 affective experiences. Human Resources Management Review.
Wiener, R. L., & Hurt, L. E. (2000). How do people evaluate social sexual conduct at work: A
23 psycholegal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 75–85.
24 Zapf, D. (1999). Organisational, work group related and personal causes of mobbing/bullying at
25 work. International Journal of Manpower, 20, 70–85.
26 Zapf, D. (in press). Emotion work and psychological well-being. A review of the literature and
27 some conceptual considerations. Human Resources Management Review.
Zapf, D., Knorz, C., & Kulla, M. (1996). On the relationship between mobbing factors, and job
28 content, social work environment, and health outcomes. European Journal of Work and
29 Organizational Psychology, 5, 215–237.
3011
31
32
33 APPENDIX
34
35 Abdel-Halim, A. A. (1978). Employee affective responses to organizational stress: Moderating
36 effects of job characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 31, 561–579.
37 Abdel-Halim, A. A. (1982). Social support and managerial affective responses to job stress. Journal
of Occupational Behavior, 3, 281–295.
38 Baba, V. V., Galperin, B. L., & Lituchy, T. R. (1999). Occupational mental health: A study of
39 work-related depression among nurses in the Caribbean. International Journal of Nursing
40 Studies, 36, 163–169.
1 Bedeian, A. G., Armenkakis, A. A., & Curran, S. M. (1981). The relationship between role stress
2 and job-related, interpersonal, and organizational climate factors. The Journal of Social
3 Beehr, T. A., Walsh, J. T., & Taber, T. D. (1976). Relationship of stress to individually and
4 organizationally valued states: Higher order needs as a moderator. Journal of Applied
5 Psychology, 61, 41-47.
6 Begley, T. M. (1994). Expressed and suppressed anger as predictors of health complaints. Journal
7 of Organizational Behavior, 15, 503–516.
Borucki, Z. (1987). Perceived organizational stress, emotions, and negative consequences of stress:
8 Global self-esteem and sense of interpersonal competence as moderator variables. Polish
9 Psychological Bulletin, 18, 139–148.
1011 Brief, A. P., & Aldag, R. J. (1976). Correlates of role indices. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61,
11 468–472.
12 Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1991). Negative affectivity as the underlying cause of correlations
between stressors and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 398–407.
13 Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal,
14 theft and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
15 Psychology, 65, 177–184.
16 Fortunato, V. J., Jex, S. M., & Heinish, D. A. (1999). An examination of the discriminant validity
17 of the strain-free negative affectivity scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
18 Fox, S. & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational
19 Behavior, 20, 915–931.
2011 Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: Testing a
21 model among young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 246–255.
22 Ganster, D. C., Fusilier, M. R., & Mayes, B. T. (1986). Role of social support in the experience of stress
at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 102–110.
23 Hall, J. K., & Spector, P. E. (1991). Relationships of work stress measures for employees with the same
24 job. Work and Stress, 5, 29–35.
25 Heinisch, D. A., & Jex, S. M. (1997). Negative affectivity and gender as moderators of the relationship
26 between work-related stressors and depressed mood at work. Work and Stress, 11, 46–57.
27 Jex, S. M., & Spector, P. E. (1996). The impact of negative affectivity on stressor-strain relations: A repli-
cation and extension. Work and Stress, 10, 36–45.
28 Jex, S. M., Spector, P. E., Gudanowski, D. M., & Newman, R. A. (1991). Relations between
29 exercise and employee responses to work stressors: A summary of two studies. In: P. L. Perrewé
3011 (Ed.), Handbook on Job Stress [Special Issue]. Journal of Social Behavior
31 and Personality, 6, 425–443.
32 Keenan, A. & McBain, G. D. M. (1979). Effects of type A behaviour, intolerance
of ambiguity, and locus of control on the relationship between role stress and
33 work-related outcomes. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 277–285.
34 Kelly, J. P., Gable, M., & Hise, R. T. (1981). Conflict, clarity, tension, and satisfaction in chain store
35 manager roles. Journal of Retailing, 57, 27–42.
36 Mayes, B. T., Barton, M. E., & Ganster, D. C. (1991). An exploration of the moderating effect of
37 age on job stressor-employee strain relationships. In: P. L. Perrewé (Ed.), Handbook on Job
Stress [Special Issue]. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 289–308.
38 O’Connor, E. J., Peters, L. H., Pooyan, A., Weekly, J., Frank, B., & Erenkrantz, B. (1984).
39 Situational constraint effects on performance, affective reactions, and turnover: A field repli-
40 cation and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 663–672.
231
1 Peiro, J. M., Gonazalez-Roma, V., & Lloret, S. (1994). Role stress antecedents and consequences
2 in nurses and physicians working in primary health care teams: A causal model. European
Review of Applied Psychology, 44, 105–114.
3 Reifman, A., Biernat, M., & Lang, E. L. (1991). Stress, social support, and health in married
4 professional women with small children. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 431–445.
5 Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex
6 organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150–163.
7 Schriesheim, C. A., & Murphy, C. J. (1976). Relationships between leader behavior and subordinate
satisfaction and performance: A test of some situational moderators. Journal of Applied
8 Psychology, 61, 634–641.
9 Singh, B., Agarwala, U. N., & Malhan, N. K. (1981). The nature of managerial role conflict. Indian
1011 Journal of Industrial Relations, 17, 1–26.
11 Spector, P. E. (1987). Interactive effects of perceived control and job stressors on affective
12 reactions and health outcomes for clerical workers. Work and Stress, 1, 155–162.
Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. J., & Jex, S. M. (1988). Relation of job stressors to affective, health,
13 and performance outcomes: A comparison of multiple data sources. Journal of Applied
14 Psychology, 73, 11–19.
15 Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1991). Relations of job characteristics from multiple data sources
16 with employee affect, absence, turnover intentions and health. Journal of Applied
17 Psychology, 76, 46–53.
Spector, P. E., & O’Connell, B. J. (1994). The contribution of personality traits, negative
18 affectivity, locus of control and Type A to the subsequent reports of job stressors and
19 job strains. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 1–11.
2011 Storms, P. L., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Relationships of organizational frustration with reported
21 behavioural reactions: The moderating effect of locus of control. Journal of Occupational
22 Psychology, 60, 227–234.
Thompson, D., & Powers, S. (1983). Correlates of role conflict and role ambiguity among secondary
23 school counselors. Psychological Reports, 52, 239–242.
24 Tudor, T. R. (2000). The impact of self-efficacy and job involvement on work stressors and strains.
25 Paper presented at the meeting of the Southern Management Association, Orlando, FL.
26
27
28
29
3011
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

Emotions in The Workplace

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Emotions in The Workplace

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Spector, P. E., & Goh, A. (2001).

The role of emotions in the occupational stress

1 THE OCCUPATIONAL STRESS PROCESS

1 hours is perceived as a stressor or not. The individual forced to work extra

1 short-term physiological disturbance (e.g. increased blood pressure) and somatic

1 of a desired condition or state. Thus we get angry if someone interferes with

The Role of Emotions in the Occupational Stress Process.

1 objective reality. It is important to isolate environmental factors that tend to be

1 important as a job condition or situation that is not perceived as a stressor will

1 negative emotion, in most instances behavior is controlled. Thus

1 annoyance or anger. Finally, it is possible that counterproductive behaviors

1 physical work conditions (e.g. lighting or temperature), and resource

1 anxious to elicit unusually strong response to the social aspects of the

1 form, we felt that a meta-analysis would be a better way of showing support

1 Table 1. Meta-analysis Results for Job Stressors and Emotional Reactions.

1 Table 2. Meta-analysis Results for Emotional Reactions and Strains.

1 IMPLICATIONS OF THE MODEL

You might also like