Journal of Applied Psychology

1976, Vol. 61, No. 1, 35-40

Perceived Situational Moderators of the Relationship Between

Subjective Role Ambiguity and Role Strain
Terry A. Beehr
Illinois State University
Previous research has focused on personality moderators of the relationship
between organizational stress and individual strain. This study was a search
for situational moderators of the relationship between one organizational stress,
role ambiguity, and four psychological strains: job dissatisfaction, life dis-
satisfaction, low self-esteem, and depressed mood. Three situational character-
istics were hypothesized to moderate the relationship by reducing its strength:
group cohesiveness, supervisor support, and autonomy. Group cohesiveness
moderated the relationship between role ambiguity and two of the role strains,
but the direction of its moderating influence was inconsistent. An explanation
was offered for this result. Supervisor support showed .a nonsignificant tendency
to reduce the strength of the relationship between role ambiguity and role
strain. Autonomy tended to moderate the relationship in the expected direc-
tion significantly and strongly.

Role stress is any aspect of role expecta-
tions that has adverse consequences (role
strain) for individual role incumbents (Kahn
Si Quinn, 1970). Most research on role stress
has focused on samples representative of
limited populations, for example, a single role
or a small number of organizational roles
(French & Caplan, 1973; Lyons, 1971; Paul,
1974; Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970; Cap-
lan & Jones, Note 1).
In addition to the use of narrow samples,
most previous research has been limited to
the investigation of the direct, overall rela-
tionship between role stress and role strain.
A few researchers have tested personality
characteristics (Johnson & Stinson, 197S;
Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal,
1964; Lyons, 1971; Caplan Si Jones, Note 1)
as moderator variables in a role stress model.
There has been no serious attempt, however,
This study is based on the author's doctoral dis-
sertation, "Role Ambiguity as a Role Stress: Some
Moderating and Intervening Variables," which was
completed at The University of Michigan.
The author wishes to thank Edward Bordin,
Robert Cooke, Jack Drexler, Larry Michaelsen,
Robert Quinn, and Stanley Seashore for their help
during various stages of work on this article.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Terry A.
Beehr, Department of Psychology, De Garmo Hall,
Illinois State University, Bloomington-Normal, Illi-
nois 61761.
35
to test situational characteristics as moder-
ators of the relationship between role stress
and strain.
In this study, three situational character-
istics were hypothesized as moderators of the
relationship between role stress and role
strain. Group cohesiveness and supervisor
support were proposed as moderators because
of the argument by Kahn and Quinn (1970)
that psychological support in the presence of
stress may reduce role strain. (Presumably,
cohesive groups are more supportive than
noncohesive groups.) Autonomy also was
hypothesized as a moderator. If the role ex-
pectations that others send to the focal per-
son are stressful, people with job autonomy
may define their own role expectations, re-
sulting in reduced role strain.
This study added to the knowledge from
previous studies of role stress in two ways.
First, the variety of roles and of organizations
was greater, so that the results would be
representative of phenomena that are widely
dispersed in the world of work. Second, situa-
tional rather than personality moderators
were examined. Role ambiguity, that is, un-
certainty regarding what is expected on one's
job, was chosen for analysis because of the
long history of psychological research on am-
biguity, and because of the Kahn et al.
(1964) rinding that role ambiguity is felt to
a stressful extent by about one third of the
36 TERRY A. BEEHR
American male wage and salary workers. Four
psychological role strains were measured: job
dissatisfaction, life dissatisfaction low self-
esteem, and depressed mood.
The specific hypotheses were that role am-
biguity is more strongly related to the role
strains (a) among people in noncohesive
groups than among people in cohesive groups,
(b) among people with nonsupportive super-
visors than among people with supportive
supervisors, and (c) among people in non-
autonomous roles than among people in
autonomous roles.
METHOD
Sample
The sample comprised 651 respondents employed
35 hours or more per week by five midwestern work
organizations: a printing company (« = 173), a
small research and development company (n = 21),
two automotive supply companies (ns — 120 and
124), and four services departments of a hospital
( n — 2 1 3 ) . These organizations were chosen in part
on the criterion that they contain a diverse set of
jobs, and there is evidence that the occupational
census codes of the respondents roughly match the
codes of a national sample of workers (Beehr, 1974).
All supervisors were included in the sample, and
nonsupcrvisors were sampled systematically at rates
varying from organization to organization (between
25% and 100%). The response rate was 72.9%.
Fifty-one percent of the respondents were male,
79.8% were white, 68.5% were married, 73,0% had
finished at least high school, and the mean age was
35 years. Comparable information on the nonre-
spondents was not available.
Measures
Data were collected during a 90-minutc structured
interview in the respondent's home conducted during
the winter of 1972-1973 by interviewers from the
Survey Research Center. The data were collected
for another study (Cammann, Quinn, Beehr, &
Gupta, Note 2) unrelated to the present study.
The measures of all variables in the study were
subjective, that is, they were perceptions of the sub-
jects. It could be argued, however, that the percep-
tions of the subject are important in stress research,
because strain may be largely an individual's reac-
tion to his subjective environment. In addition, some
of the environmental variables in this study have
a partially subjective nature. For example, regardless
of a supervisor's objective behavior, it cannot be said
that a subordinate is given true psychological support
unless the subordinate feels supported.
Since all of the data were gathered during a single
interview, there is a possibility that relationships
could bo inflated by correlated method variance.
Since the present study is seeking differences in the
strengths of relationships, however, the results prob-
ably are conservative, that is, more significant dif-
ferences might have been found if multiple sources
of data had been used.
Role ambiguity (If =1.92, SD = ,64) was mea-
sured by a four-item index:
How true is this of your job?
I can predict what others will expect of me
tomorrow.
I am clear on what others expect of me on my
job.
On my job, whatever situation arises, there are
procedures for handling it.
I get enough facts and information to work my
best.
All items except the third (On my job . . .) were
taken from the Quality of Employment Survey
(Quinn & Shepard, 1974). The response categories
were "very true," "somewhat true," "a little true,"
and "not at all true."
Four psychological strains were measured. Pre-
sumably, psychological strains are more accurately
measured by interviews than physiological strains
would be. The first, job dissatisfaction (M = 3.94,
SD = .97), was measured by a four-item subset of
Quinn and Shepard's (1974) global job satisfaction
index:
All in all, how satisfied would you say you are
with your job—very satisfied, somewhat satis-
fied, not too satisfied, or not at all satisfied?
In general, how well would you say that your job
measures up to the sort of job you wanted when
you took it? Would you say it is very much
like, somewhat like, or not very much like the
job you wanted when you took it?
Knowing what you know now, if you had to de-
cide all over again whether to take the job you
now have, what would you decide? Would you
decide without any hesitation to take the same
job, would you have some second thoughts, or
would you decide definitely not to take the
same job?
If a good friend of yours told you that he/she
was interested in working in a job like yours,
what would you tell him/her? Would you
strongly recommend this job, would you have
doubts about recommending it, or would you
strongly advise him/her against this sort of job?
The job dissatisfaction index had a possible range
of 1-5.
The life dissatisfaction measure 01'/ = 4.8', SD =
1.25) consisted of a nine-item subset of Quinn and
Shepard's (1974) life satisfaction index. Seven of
these items were answered on a semantic differential
scale. The seven pairs of anchors were "interesting-
boring," "enjoyable-miserable," "friendly-lonely,"
"full-empty," "hopeful-discouraging," "rewarding-
dissappointing," and "brings out the best in me-
doesn't give me much of a chance" in response to
 SITUATIONAL MODERATORS
the question, "How do you feel about your present
life in general?" The fixed-alternative questions were:
In general, how satisfying do you find the ways
you're spending your life these days? Would
you call it completely satisfying, pretty satisfy-
ing, or not very satisfying?
Taking all things together, how would you say
things are these days? Would you say you're
very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy
these days?
The life dissatisfaction index had a possible range
of 1-7.
Low self-esteem (M = .99, SD = 1.05) was mea-
sured by a three-item subset of Quinn and Shepard's
(1974) 7-point semantic differential scale. The an-
chors were "successful-unsuccessful," "important-
not important," and "doing my best-not doing my
best" in response to the question, "How do you see
yourself in your work?"
Depressed mood (jV/=1.8S, SD = .47) was mea-
sured by a 10-item index taken from Quinn and
Shepard (1974).
How often do you feel this way at work?
I feel downhearted and blue.
I get tired for no reason.
I find myself restless and can't keep still.
I find it easy to do the things I used to do.
My mind is as clear as it used to be.
I feel hopeful about the future.
I find it easy to make decisions.
I arn more irritable than usual.
I still enjoy the things I used to.
I feel that I am useful and needed.
The response categories were "often," "sometimes,"
"rarely," and "never."
Three situational characteristics, that is, group
cohesiveness, supervisor support, and autonomy, were
measured. The first, group cohesiveness (^ = 3.65,
SD = 1.19), was measured by five items:
Is there any group of people at [name of re-
spondent's organization] that you think of as
your .coworkers—people whom you see just
about everyday and with whom you have to
work closely in order to do your job well? I
know it's hard to talk about a whole group of
people like this, but I'd like to get your general
views about the people in this group.
How ready are they to defend each other from
criticism by outsiders?
How well do you feel they help each other on
the job?
How well do they get along together?
How well do they stick together ?
The last three items were adapted from Seashore
(1954). The response categories for the last four
items were."great, couldn't be better," "pretty good,
but some could be better," "not very good, but
some pretty good," and "not very good." Respon-
dents answering no to the first question were not
asked the other four questions and were assigned a
37
score of 1 on the group cohesiveness index. The re-
sponse categories for the last four questions were
coded 2 through 5, and respondents answering those
questions received their mean score on those four
items as their score on the group cohesiveness mea-
sure. Thus, a high score on the index meant that
the respondent was part of a very cohesive group,
and a low score indicated that he was part of no
group at all or of a group with little cohesiveness.
Supervisor support (M — 3.12, SD = .81) was mea-
sured by three items:
How true is this of your supervisor?
My supervisor keeps informed about the way
his/her people think and feel about things.
My supervisor stands up to outsiders for the
people he/she supervises.
My supervisor takes a personal interest in those
he/she supervises.
These items were taken from Hemphill and Coombs
(1957), and the response categories were "very true,"
"somewhat true," "a little true," and "not at all
true."
Autonomy (M = 2.97, SD — .75) was measured by
four items:
How true is this of your job?
I have a lot of say over what happens on my
job.
I have enough authority to do my best.
My job allows me to make a lot of decisions on
my own.
I have enough freedom as to how I do my work.
These items were taken from Quinn and Shepard
(1974), and the response categories were "very true,"
"somewhat true," "a little true," and "not at all
true." Table 1 contains the correlations among the
variables for the whole sample. Although all of the
variables were obtained from the same interview,
none of the correlations were strong enough to sug-
gest that any two variables were measuring identical
constructs.
Analyses
The sample was divided at the median on each
situational variable, and Pearson product-moment
correlations between role ambiguity and each role
strain were computed within each half sample.
Hypotheses were directional, that is, the relationship
between role ambiguity and each role strain was
predicted to be stronger in the less cohesive than in
the more cohesive group; stronger in the low-super-
visor-support than in the high-supervisor-support
group; and stronger in the low-autonomy than in
the high-autonomy group. Therefore, one-tailed tests
of the significance of the difference between correla-
tions were computed.
RESULTS
The first column of Table 1 shows that role
ambiguity is significantly related to the four
38 TERRY A. BEEHR

TABLE 1
CORRELATIONS OP ROLE AMBIGUITY, STRAINS, AND SITUATIONAL MODERATORS

Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Role stress
1. Role ambiguity (.69)
Role strains
2. Job dissatisfaction .22** (.80)
3. Life dissatisfaction .08* .27** (.79)
4. Low self-esteem .19** .25** .28** (.68)
5. Depressed mood .19** .43** .39** .31* (.71)
Situational moderators
6. Group cohesiveness -.12** -.14** -.02 -.03 -.05 (.78)
7. Supervisor support -.30** -.37** -.17** -.23** -.32** .13** (.78)
8. Autonomy -.26** -.37** -.21** -.27** -.32** .13** .36** (.74)

Nole. N = 587 and represents the number of respondents having complete data for all variables in the table. Numbers in par-
entheses are reliability estimates obtained by applying the Spearman-Brown propheey formula to the median interitem correlation.
*/> < .05.
** t> < .01.

role strains for the sample as a whole. Job job dissatisfaction (p < .10) in the direction
dissatisfaction is the strain most strongly opposite from that predicted. A two-tailed
correlated with role ambiguity. Life dissatis- test was used for this comparison because the
faction, as one would expect, has the weakest direction had not been predicted correctly.
relationship to ambiguity in the work role. Although three of the four differences be-
Obviously, there are many sources of life tween correlations are in the predicted direc-
satisfaction other than those in the work role. tion for the analysis of supervisor support as
Table 2 shows that group cohesiveness a moderator, none of the differences are sta-
moderates the relationship between role am- tistically significant.
biguity and low self-esteem as predicted (p < All differences between correlations of role
.05). However, group cohesiveness moderates ambiguity and role strain are in the predicted
the relationship between role ambiguity and direction when the sample is divided on
autonomy (see Table 3). The differences for job
TABLE 2 dissatisfaction and depression are significant
at the .01 level and the .10 level.
GROUP COHESIVENESS AS A MODERATOR OF THE RELA-
TIONSHIP BETWEEN ROLE AMBIGUITY AND PSY-
CHOLOGICAL ROLE STRAIN DISCUSSION
Correlations with This study suggested that even if there is
role ambiguity a stress (role ambiguity), people in roles with
certain situational characteristics, especially
Low High Signif-
autonomy, do not suffer from it. This has
group group icance of important implications because situational
cohe- cohe- difference characteristics can be modified by organiza-
sive- sive- between tions.
Role strain ness ness ri and ri
There was only suggestive evidence that
Job dissatisfaction .16* .29* p < .10 people with supportive supervisors might not
Life dissatisfaction .05 .15* US feel some role strains even if their roles are
Low self-esteem .24* .08 p < .05 ambiguous. Even if psychological support has
Depressed mood .19* .10 ns the expected beneficial effect, perhaps the
\'otf. For ri, n = 386. for >'9, n = 246; jts represent the num-
supervisor is not the best source of that sup-
ber of respondents having complete data for all variables in the port. Previous laboratory work (Schachter,
table.
*p < ,01. 1959) has shown that people expecting an
 SITUATIONAL MODERATORS 39

TABLE 3 for the ambiguity on themselves. The fact

AUTONOMY AS A MODERATOR OF THE RELATIONSHIP that both dissatisfaction measures, that is,
BETWEEN ROLE AMBIGUITY AND PSYCHOLOGICAL job dissatisfaction and life dissatisfaction,
STRAIN tend to be correlated more strongly with role
ambiguity in the high-cohesive group while
Correlations
low self-esteem and depressed mood tend to
with role be correlated more strongly with role am-
ambiguity biguity in the low-cohesive group adds con-
Signifi- fidence to this interpretation.
n ri cance of Autonomy is the strongest and most con-
Low High difference
auton- auton- between sistent moderator of the relationship between
Role strain omy omy r\ and r-> role ambiguity and role strain. Organizations
that wish to reduce the role strain associated
Job dissatisfaction .25* .05 p <0.1 with role ambiguity should increase the
Life dissatisfaction .10 .03 ns autonomy in their members' roles. Future re-
Low self-esteem .19* .09 P < .10
Depressed mood .23* -.02 p < .01 search should attempt to determine whether
job characteristics such as autonomy reduce
Note. For r i , n = 340. for J'2. n = 296; ns represent the num-
ber of respondents having complete data for all variables in the
the relationship between a large number of
table. role stresses and role strain. If they do, re-
* p < .01.
designing jobs would seem even more likely
to reduce the strain due to role stress.
electrical shock prefer to spend their waiting
time with others like themselves, especially REFERENCE NOTES
with others expecting shocks. This indicates 1. Caplan, R. D., & Jones, K. W. Technological de-
that peers, especially those in similarly stress- pendency, role stress, and strum. Paper presented
ful roles, may be the most beneficial source at the meeting of the American Psychological
Association, New Orleans, September 1974.
of psychological support.
Group cohesiveness has an effect on the 2. Gupta,Cammann, C., Quinn, R. P., Beehr, T, A., &
N. Effectiveness in work roles Report 1:
extent to which role ambiguity is related to Validating, quality oj employment indicators (PB-
strain, but the results are contradictory. For 241 907/SWS). Ann Arbor: University of Michi-
persons in cohesive groups, the relationship gan, Survey Research Center, April 1975.
between role ambiguity and low self-esteem is
weaker than it is for those in noncohesive REFERENCES
groups. Job dissatisfaction, however, is re- Beehr, T. A, Role ambiguity as a role stress: Some
lated more strongly to role ambiguity in co- moderating and intervening variables. Unpublished
hesive than in noncohesive groups. doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1974.
A partial explanation of these results stems French, J. R. P., & Caplan, R. D. Organizational
stress and individual strain. In A. J. Marrow
from the assumption that people in cohesive (Ed.), The failure of success. New York:
groups are more likely to communicate with AMACOM, 1973.
coworkers than are people in noncohesive Hemphill, J. K., & Coons, A. E. Development of the
leader behavior description questionnaire. In R. M.
groups. People perceiving ambiguous roles can Stogdil! & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior:
blame the ambiguity either on their roles or Its description and measurement (Research Mono-
on themselves, Discussing the work situation Graph No. 88). Columbus: Bureau of Business
with peers may result in social support for Research, Ohio State University, 19S7.
external placement of the blame, that is, on Johnson, T. W., & Stinson, J. E. Role ambiguity,
vole conflict, and satisfaction: Moderating effects
the role rather than on the self. Thus, while of individual differences. Journal of Applied Psy-
people in cohesive groups still are dissatisfied chology, 1975, 60, 329-333.
with ambiguous roles, they are less likely to Kahn, R. L., & Quinn, R. P. Role stress: A frame-
internalize the blame in the form of lowered work for analysis. In A. McLean (Ed,), Occupa-
tional mental health. New York: Rand-McNally,
self-esteem. People in noncohesive groups are 1970.
not as likely to have such discussions and, Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek,
therefore, are more likely to place the blame J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. Organizational stress;
40 TERRY A. EEEHR
Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York:
Wiley, 1964.
Lyons, T. F. Role clarity, need for clarity, satisfac-
tion, tension, and withdrawal. Organizational Be-
havior and Human Performance, 19V1, 6, 99-110.
Paul, R. J. Role clarity as a correlate of satisfaction,
job related strain and propensity to leave—male
vs. female. The Journal oj Management Studies,
1974, 11, 233-245.
Quinn, R. P., & Shepard, L. J. The 1972-1973
Quality of Employment Survey: Descriptive sta-
tistics with comparison data from the 1969-1970
Survey of Working Conditions. Ann Arbor, Mich.:
The Institute for Social Research, 1974.
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. K. Role
conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, 15, 150-
163.
Schachter, S. The psychology oj affiliation. Stanford,
Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1959.
Seashore, S. E. Group cohesiveness in the industrial
work group. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, 1954.
(Received June 9, 1975)