Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 1992 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1992, Vol. 77, No. 5,623-628 0021-9010/92/53.00

The Meaning of Occupational Stress Items to Survey Respondents

Steve M. Jex, Terry A. Beehr, and Cathlyn K. Roberts
Central Michigan University

This study tested the effect of using the word stress in the measurement of self-reported occupa-
tional stressors and strains. Employees from two organizations responded to a questionnaire that
included specific occupational stressors, strains, and 16 items in which the word stress was used.
Survey respondents tended to interpret the word stress to refer both to employees' strains or
reactions to the work environment and to job stressors or elements of the environment itself.
Implications of these findings for occupational stress research are discussed.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Work-stress research has been characterized by a lack of
agreement about important terms and constructs (Beehr &
Bhagat, 1985; Beehr& Newman, 1978; Ivancevich & Matteson,
1980; Schuler, 1980). When Selye (1976) began using the term
stress to mean a syndrome of human responses, his English was
not yet very good, leading him to misuse the term. He noted
that he should have chosen the word strain to be consistent with
fields such as physics and engineering. It is probably no exagger-
ation to say there has been confusion ever since with respect to
the term stress. Work-stress researchers have typically denned
stress in one of three ways: as a stimulus, a response, or a stimu-
lus-response relationship.
A stimulus definition of stress refers to a job stressor, which is
any environmental event in the workplace requiring some type
of adaptive response. Stimulus definitions were derived from
physics and were borrowed by organizational psychologists
from the field of engineering. In this frame of reference, stress
means any outside force on an object (person), and strain is a
potentially harmful effect of the force on that object (e.g., Kahn
& Quinn, 1970; Lazarus, 1966). Using this definition, a wide
variety of working conditions have been studied as examples of
stresses, including role conflict, role ambiguity, role overload
(e.g., Beehr, Walsh, & Taber, 1976; Kahn, Wolf, Quinn, Snoek, &
Rosenthal, 1964), the danger of accidents, and the pace of work
(e.g, Frese, 1985).
In contrast, a response definition of stress is associated with
what was referred to earlier as strain. Stress is an individual's
response to work-related environmental stressors. Selye (1976)
refers to stress as the reaction of the organism, which can be
psychological, physiological, or behavioral.
Finally, stress may be defined within a stimulus-response
approach. Researchers who refer to stress in this way refer to
the interaction between environmental stimuli (job stressors)
and individual responses (strains; Beehr & Franz, 1987; Schuler,
We wish to thank Maria Tinsley and Dave Gudanowski for their
assistance with data analysis. We would also like to thank Paul Spector
and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an ear-
lier version of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Steve M. Jex, Department of Psychology, Sloan Hall, Central Michi-
gan University, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48859.
623
1980). Thus, as recommended by McGrath (1976), the word
stress is used to label an area of study, as is done in other topical
areas in industrial and organizational psychology (e.g., leader-
ship, job design). In this context, the term stressor is often used
to refer to job or organizational conditions, and the term strain
is used to refer to the individual's response to these conditions,
as is done in this article.
To investigate the degree to which there is commonality in
usage of the word stress among researchers, we manually
searched the 1985-1989 issues of six major journals in organiza-
tional behavior. Each article in which the word stress or stress-
ful appeared was assigned to one of four categories: stimulus,
response, stimulus-response, and usage unclear. Articles were
first examined by Terry A. Beehr and Cathlyn K. Roberts, and
disagreements were then classified by consensus. Of the 51
stress articles found, 21 (41 %) used the word to refer to stimulus
conditions, 11 (22%) referred to responses, and 13 (25%) implied
stimulus-response conditions. For 7 (14%) articles, the usage
was unclear. There was a slight tendency for researchers to use a
stimulus definition of stress, but the variation in usage was
considerable. Most researchers clarified their definitions
within a single article, however.
Even though researchers often defined the word stress pre-
cisely within a single article, the variation in usage is a problem
for two reasons. First, it simply makes it more difficult to inte-
grate research findings. Furthermore, because the advance-
ment of any field is based on the accumulation of research
findings, this could be one of the reasons why psychologists'
understanding of occupational stress has progressed slowly. Al-
though occupational stress is important, a common meaning
for the word stress has proved elusive (Ilgen, 1990; Kasl, 1984).
A second, at least as serious, problem with the varied use of
the word stress relates to its use by the general public. Most
organizational psychology research on work stress has used
self-reports of organizational members to measure some or
even all variables in the job-stress process. Self-report mea-
sures of stressors ask people to describe their work situation,
whereas self-report measures of strains ask people to describe
their reactions to these stressors. Some researchers, however,
use the word stress or its close cognates (e.g, stressor, stressful)
in questionnaire items. Table 1 presents examples of such items,
along with the constructs they are purported to measure. As
 624 S. JEX, T. BEEHR, AND C. ROBERTS

Table 1
A Summary of Stress Items and Their Sources
Total no.
Source Sample item of items Construct measured
Schaubroeck, Cotton, & Jennings My job (e.g., the type of work, the amount of responsibility, etc.) 3 Job tension
(1989) causes me a great deal of stress and anxiety.
Relations with people I work with (e.g., co-workers, supervisors,
subordinates) cause me a great deal of stress and anxiety.
General aspects of the organization I work for (e.g., policies and
procedures, general working conditions) tend to cause me a
great deal of anxiety and stress.
Hendrix, Ovalle, & Troxler (1985) I feel a great deal of stress and anxiety in the performance of my 10 Perceived stress
job.
My life away from home is extremely tense and stressful.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Hendrix(1987) To what extent do you have a great deal of stress on the job? 5 Job stress
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

To what extent is your job stressful as a whole?

To what extent do you have job-related stress?
To what extent does your organization cause you stress?
To what extent is your life away from the job stressful?
Motowidlo, Packard, & Manning I feel a great deal of stress because of my job. 6 Stress
(1986) Very few stressful things happen to me at work.
My job is extremely stressful.
Stefry& Jones (1988) Working with people in my job is stressful. 21 Job stress
Fimian(1984) Subjects (teachers) were presented with 42 job conditions with 42 Unknown
the following instructions:
Rate the degree to which items relate to individual concepts of
teacher stress. . . .
Sykes& Eden (1985) Subjects (medical students) were presented with 4 general areas 25 Unknown
of concern (stress of medical school, maintenance tasks,
adapting to a new culture and environment, and interpersonal
stresses) with the following instructions:
Different people experience different degrees of stress. Given
your capacities, time limitations, and conflicting pressures,
how stressful is each of the following tasks and conditions for
you?

can be seen, some of these items clearly refer to individuals'
responses or strains (e.g., "I feel a great deal of stress because of
my job"; Motowidlo, Packard, & Manning, 1986), and others
appear to focus on stressors or stimuli (e.g., "how stressful is
each of the following tasks and conditions for you?"; Sykes &
Eden, 1985). Unfortunately, many items are more ambiguous
and can be interpreted by respondents as referring to either
stressors or strains. An example is, "To what extent do you have
job-related stress?" (Hendrix, 1987). Researchers' use of these
items has been based on the assumption that respondents inter-
pret the word stress in the intended manner.
If respondents have interpreted the word stress in a manner
consistent with researchers' interpretation (e.g., as a stressor),
the validity of the studies' conclusions probably have not been
affected. If, however, respondents have interpreted the word
stress to mean something different, this could cause serious
problems. There has been little previous research on the ways
in which survey respondents interpret the word stress. Chen
(1989), however, modified Peters and O'Connor's (1980) frus-
tration scale by substituting the word stress for frustration. The
correlation between the modified scale and the original frus-
tration scale was .77, suggesting that respondents tended to
interpret stress in terms of their affective reactions (frustration).
Research using stress words in self-report measures of stressors
might be contaminating the measurement of the theoretically
causal variable (stressor) with the outcome variable (strain),
thereby risking spuriously high correlations between stressors
and strains.
Current Study
The current study was designed to determine the meaning of
the word stress to survey respondents. To accomplish this ob-
jective, we administered 16 stress items to survey respondents.
Work-related stressors (role ambiguity, role conflict, perceived
workload, and interpersonal conflict) and psychological
strains (job dissatisfaction, anxiety, frustration, depression, and
turnover intent) were also measured with self-reports. Canoni-
cal correlations compared the variance shared by stress items
and stressors with the variance shared by stress items and
strains. Judgments about respondents' interpretations of the
word stress were then based on the degree to which stress items
shared variance with either stressors or strains.
Method
Subjects
Two independent samples contained a total of 245 subjects; 131 were
city and county employees and 114 were hospital employees in Michi-
gan. The average age of all employees was 40 (with a range of 18 to 67
years), 77% were women, and the average organizational tenure was 90
months (range, 1 to 312 months). The samples were combined for analy-
 OCCUPATIONAL STRESS ITEMS
sis because they were similar in terms of age, gender composition, and
organizational tenure. In addition, all analyses were run separately for
the two samples; the results were quite similar.
Measures
Stressors. Stressors included role ambiguity, role conflict, per-
ceived workload, and interpersonal conflict. Role ambiguity was mea-
sured with a four-item index taken from Beehr et al. (1976). Role con-
flict was measured with Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman's (1970) index
(eight items). Perceived workload was measured with a seven-item in-
dex developed by Spector, Dwyer, and Jex (1988), which combines
items from Arsenault and Dolan (1983), Caplan (1971), Mayes, Gan-
ster, Sime, and Tharp (1984), and Payne and Fletcher (1983). Interper-
sonal conflict on the job was measured with a 4-item index from Spec-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tor (1987).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Psychological strain. Psychological strains included overall job dis-
satisfaction, anxiety, frustration, depression, and turnover intent.
Overall job dissatisfaction was assessed with the 3-item overall job
satisfaction index of the Michigan Organizational Assessment Scale
(Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979). A modified version of
the 10-item state index of Spielberger's (1979) State-Trait Personality
Inventory was used to measure anxiety. Specifically, subjects were
asked how they had generally felt at work during the past 30 days.
Frustration was measured with Peters and O'Connor's (1980) 3-item
index assessing overall frustration with one's job. Depression was mea-
sured with a 10-item index taken from Quinn and Shepard (1974),
which was based on a 20-item scale originally developed by Zung
(1965).
Turnover intentions were measured with a three-item scale devel-
oped by Beehr and O'Driscoll (1990). One of these items reflected the
degree to which subjects were thinking about quitting their jobs, and
the other two reflected subjects' plans to seek alternative employment.
Stress items. To maximize the relevance of the present study's re-
sults to previous research, we derived 16 items containing the word
stress (or its close cognates, e.g., stressful) directly from the items pre-
sented in Table 1. We chose items that were not specific to any one
occupation (e.g., teachers) or type of organization (e.g., the military). It
must be noted, however, that these items were taken out of the original
context in which they were used. The items were randomly placed into
groups of four, and these groups were randomly situated among the
stressor and strain measures. The first group of items preceded the
workload scale; the second group followed the ambiguity measure; the
third group was placed between two personality scales not included in
the analysis for the present study; and the fourth scale followed the
turnover intent measure. The purpose of this arrangement was to avoid
having item order imply a specific meaning to respondents. There has
been little research on the effects of item order in employee surveys
(Roberson & Sundstrom, 1990). Spector and Michaels (1983) found no
order effect, but Roberson and Sundstrom (1990) found an effect for
ordering based on importance of the information to employees. The
issue of the ambiguity of the items has not been addressed previously,
however, and we therefore deemed it wise to be concerned about item
order. Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with each
item on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree).
Procedure
For the county and city employee sample, questionnaires were dis-
tributed at the work site by Cathlyn K. Roberts. A cover letter stated
that responses would be confidential and that participation was volun-
tary. Employees were instructed to keep completed questionnaires at
their worksite so that they could be picked up by Cathlyn K. Roberts
625
within 48 hr. Questionnaires not completed within 48 hr were col-
lected one week after the distribution date. Of the 345 questionnaires
distributed, 131 usable questionnaires were returned (a response rate
of 38%). This low response rate was most likely due to absences and to
employees' being occupied with job responsibilities.
For the hospital sample, various times were set aside during two days
for Steve M. Jex to administer the questionnaire to employees on all
shifts. Employees at each of these sessions were briefed about the pur-
pose of the study (although none of the respondents in either sample
were told that interpretation of the word stress was being examined)
and told that responses would be confidential. Of the approximately
500 employees in the hospital, 113 (23%) provided usable data. This
low response rate was largely due to the inability of many employees to
get away from their worksites to attend the data collection sessions.
Despite the low response rate, the sample appeared to be quite repre-
sentative of the hospital employee population in terms of demo-
graphics and job titles.
Results
Results are presented in three parts. First, descriptive statis-
tics and reliabilities are presented for all variables. Second, an
analysis of the correlations is presented. Third, a summary of
the canonical correlation analysis is presented.
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics (sample sizes, means, standard devia-
tions, and reliabilities) for all variables are presented, along
with correlations, in Table 2. The observed ranges for most
variables were close to the possible range; thus, restriction of
range did not appear to be a problem. Coefficient alphas for the
stressor and strain scales were reasonably high, with most being
close to .70 or higher. Because the randomly formed stress item
scales were highly correlated (52 to .71), a composite measure
consisting of all 16 items was formed. The coefficient alpha for
this composite was .90.
Correlations
As can be seen in Table 2, intercorrelations among Stressors
were all significant, ranging from .21 to .49. Psychological
strains were also all significantly intercorrelated, ranging from
.22 to .56.
All except one of the correlations between Stressors and psy-
chological strains were significant. The strongest relations were
those between workload and frustration (.56) and between role
ambiguity and anxiety (.52). Stressors were strongly related to
the stress item composite (.35 to .60), with the strongest correla-
tion involving role conflict. Psychological strains were also
strongly related to the stress item composite (.39 to .72), with
the strongest correlation involving anxiety. In general, the mag-
nitude of these correlations was only slightly stronger than that
of the correlations between Stressors and the stress items. Thus,
the zero-order correlations provide some information as to re-
spondents' interpretation of the stress items. To shed more light
on this issue, we undertook a summary analysis of the individ-
ual stress items.
 626 S. JEX, T. BEEHR, AND C. ROBERTS

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Among All Variables
Variable N M SD 1 10
Stressors
1. Role ambiguity 237 3.2 1.3 (.77)
2. Role conflict 236 3.0 0.8 .46 (.87)
3. Perceived workload 233 3.4 2.1 .21 .49 (.81)
4. Interpersonal conflict 242 2.1 0.6 .30 .45 .36 (.72)
Strains
5. Satisfaction 243 4.8 1.1 -.25 -.29 -.12 -.20 (.87)
6. Anxiety 238 2.0 0.6 .35 .52 .41 .43 -.38 (.86)
7. Frustration 239 3.8 1.1 .24 .39 .56 .35 -.24 .56 (.67)
8. Depression 231 1.8 0.4 .36 .32 .19 .28 -.39 .55 .35 (.80)
9. Turnover intent 240 2.8 1.6 .32 .44 .14 .22 -.55 .37 .22 .36 (.87)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

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

10. Composite 234 4.4 1.4 .35 .60 .48 .48 -.44 .72 .59 .49 .39 (.90)
Note. Reliabilities (pt) are presented on the diagonal. Correlations larger than . 12 are significant beyond the .05 level.

Canonical Correlation Analysis
Three canonical correlation analyses were computed. Stress
items were first correlated with strains and then with stressors.
Finally, stressors were correlated with strains. This procedure
used the individual items rather than the composite, and it
provided summary statistics about overall relationships that
could be compared (i.e., relationships of stress items with
strains, stress items with stressors, and stressors with strains).
The objective of this analysis was to compare the variance
shared between stress items (as a set) and strains with the vari-
ance shared between stress items and stressors. If stress items
tend to be interpreted primarily as either strains or stressors,
they should share more variance with one of these sets of mea-
sures than with the other. Furthermore, the variance shared
should be substantially more than that between stressors and
strains.
Stress items and strains. In the canonical analysis relating
the set of stress items to the set of strains, three significant (p <
.05) canonical roots were extracted from each set. The canoni-
cal correlations for the first three pairs of roots were .84, .55,
and .37, respectively. Because the variance accounted for in
each set of variables by the third root was quite small, only the
first two were interpreted.
To interpret these results, we examined component loadings
(correlations), standardized canonical coefficients, and redun-
dancy indices for the first two roots extracted from both sets of
variables. Using a criterion of component loadings greater than
or equal to .30 for interpretation (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1983),
the first root for stress items was composed of all items except
two. All of the strain measures correlated strongly with the first
root. The standardized coefficients indicated that frustration
and anxiety contributed most to the shared variance between
stress items and strains (—.44 and —.54, respectively).
The redundancy index for stress items was .26, indicating
that 26% of the variance of the strain root was accounted for by
the stress items. The redundancy index for the strain scales was
.33, indicating that 33% of the stress-item root was accounted
for by strains.
The second root for stress items consisted of five items. These
items dealt with general aspects of the organization as a source
of stress, the degree to which stressful things happen at work,
opportunities for growth, getting respect from one's supervisor,
and earning enough money to maintain one's lifestyle. All
strains except anxiety were correlated with this root. The stan-
dardized canonical coefficients indicated that the shared vari-
ance between stress items and strains was due primarily to
frustration and turnover intent (-.62 and —.58, respectively).
The redundancy index for stress items was .02, indicating
that 2% of the variance of the second strain root was accounted
for by the stress items. The redundancy index for the strain
scales was .07, indicating that 7% of the second stress-item root
was accounted for by strains. In total, strains accounted for 40%
of the variance in the stress items.
Stress items and stressors. In the canonical analysis relating
stress items to stressors, two significant (p < .05) canonical
roots were extracted. The canonical correlations were .72 and
.57, respectively.
The first root for stress items was composed of all items ex-
cept one. All of the stressor measures were strongly correlated
with the first root. The standardized coefficients indicated that
shared variance between stress items and stressors was due to
all stressors except role ambiguity. The redundancy index for
stress items was .20, whereas the redundancy index for the
stressor scales was .27.
The second root for stress items consisted of a total of three
items. These dealt with relations with co-workers as a source of
stress, one's job in general as a source of stress, and opportuni-
ties for growth as a source of stress. All of the stressors except
role conflict correlated strongly with this root, although the
strongest correlation was clearly with perceived workload. The
standardized canonical coefficients indicated that the shared
variance between stress items and stressors was due primarily
to perceived workload (.98). The redundancy index for stress
items was .02, and the redundancy index for stressors was .06.
Stressors accounted for a total of 33% of the variance in stress
items.
Stressors and strains. In the canonical analysis relating
stressors and strains, three significant (p < .05) roots were ex-
tracted. The canonical correlations were .70, .42, and .22, re-
 OCCUPATIONAL STRESS ITEMS
spectively. Because the variance accounted for by the third root
was quite small, only the first two were interpreted.
The first root for stressors consisted of all four stressors. Simi-
larly, all five strains were correlated with this root. The standard-
ized canonical coefficients indicated that the shared variance
between stressors and strains was due to all stressors, although
the contributions of role conflict and workload were strongest
(.49 and .41, respectively). The redundancy index for stressors
was 22%, and the redundancy index for strains was 20%.
The second root for stressors consisted of all stressors except
interpersonal conflict. All strains except anxiety and depres-
sion were correlated with this root. The standardized canonical
coefficients indicated that the shared variance between stress-
ors and strains was due primarily to workload (.99). The redun-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
dancy index for stressors was 3%, as was the redundancy index
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
for strains. Stressors accounted for a total of 25% of the variance
in strain measures.
Summary. The canonical correlation analysis revealed
that, as a set, stress items shared slightly more variance with
strains than with stressors. However, the shared variance be-
tween stress items and stressors was larger than that between
stressors and strains. Thus, important variance was also shared
between stress items and stressors. Stressors accounted for 25%
of the variance in the strain measures. Strain measures ac-
counted for a total of 40% of the variance in stress items, and
stressors accounted for 33%.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to ascertain the meaning of the
word stress to survey respondents when this word is included in
survey items. To this end, two types of evidence are offered.
First, the intercorrelations among stressors, strains, and a com-
posite stress-item scale were examined. This analysis showed
that the stress scale correlated strongly with both stressors and
strains. The strongest correlations appeared to be with strains,
particularly anxiety.
Second, the canonical correlation analysis showed that stress
items, as a set, shared more variance with strains than stressors.
Both canonical correlations and redundancy indices showed
that, although the variance shared between stress items and
strains was somewhat greater than that shared with stressors, it
was clear that stress items were associated with both stressors
and strains. If researchers use stress items in either stressor or
strain indexes, there is the potential for confounding of the
measures. Including such stress items in both stressor and
strain scales will, of course, lead to the most serious confound-
ing problems.
One issue essentially boils down to how confident one can be
that the researcher's interpretation of such stress items matches
the survey respondents'. One should not be too optimistic, be-
cause in most of the 1985-1989 research articles we reviewed,
we found that researchers were more likely to use the word
stress to mean stressor. Only 22% used the word stress to refer
to responses or strains. Even if researchers' and respondents'
interpretations were similar, stress items may be problematic
for other reasons. For example, many of the items in this study
required respondents to determine which aspects of the work-
place are a source of stress (e.g., "Working under constant time
627
pressure is a source of stress."). However, attributions for emo-
tional states may not be very accurate and can be manipulated
rather easily (Nisbett & Schachter, 1966). Thus, these items may
present respondents with an attribution task that they are inca-
pable of performing accurately.
If the word stress has an affective component, as seems likely,
this is consistent with the stress appraisal process proposed by
Lazarus (e.g. Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus & Launier, 1978). A stress-
ful situation in Lazarus's theory includes the person's evalua-
tion of the situation as threatening, and the word stress may be
a term many people associate with threat. If so, rather than
being an objective measure of environment, a stressor measure
using the word stress probably taps a postappraisal evaluation
by the employee.
The use of the word stress probably has not been prevalent
enough in the stressor and strain measures in the occupational
stress literature as yet to have led to serious biases in the magni-
tude of correlations, but as found in the literature review, this
practice seems to have become more common in recent years.
In addition, the field of occupational stress is multidisciplinary,
including not only industrial and organizational psychology
but also medicine, engineering, and clinical psychology, among
others (Beehr & Franz, 1987). The degree to which the word
stress has been used in survey items in these other disciplines is
uncertain, and thus the possible bias in results could be greater
than would be imagined based on the industrial and organiza-
tional research reviewed here. It is therefore a methodological
problem of concern in occupational stress research.
The most obvious conclusion is that the use of the word stress
in survey items should be avoided because of potential con-
founding and other difficulties. There are many scales available
(with acceptable psychometric properties) that measure both
job-related stressors and employees' strains without using the
word stress. Because the validity of occupational stress research
is so heavily dependent on measurement integrity (Jex & Beehr,
1991), this represents a very simple way to eliminate a poten-
tially serious problem and improve the overall quality of occu-
pational stress research.
References
Arsenault, A., & Dolan, S. (1983). The role of personality, occupation,
and organization in understanding the relationship between job
stress, performance, and absenteeism. Journal of Occupational Psy-
chology, 56, 227-240.
Beehr, T. A., & Bhagat, R. S. (1985). Introduction to human stress and
cognition in organizations. In T. A. Beehr & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.),
Human stress and cognition in organizations: An integrated perspec-
tive (pp. 3-19). New York: Wiley.
Beehr, T. A., & Franz, T. (1987). The current debate about the meaning
of job stress. In J. M. Ivancevich & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Job stress:
From theory to suggestion (pp. 5-18). New York: Haworth Press.
Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and
organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature
review. Personnel Psychology, 31, 665-699.
Beehr, T. A., & O'Driscoll, M. P. (1990, May). Employee uncertainty as a
factor in occupational stress. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual
Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.
Beehr, T. A., Walsh, J. T, & Taber, T. D. (1976). Relationship of stress to
individually and organizationally valued states: Higher order needs
as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 41 -47.
 628 S. JEX, T. BEEHR, AND C. ROBERTS
Cammann, C, Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michi-
gan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished manu-
script, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Caplan, R. D. (1971). Organizational stress and individual strain: A
psychosocial study of risk factors in coronary heart disease among
administrators, engineers, and scientists (Doctoral dissertation, Uni-
versity of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, 1971). (University
Microfilms No. 72-14822)
Chen, P. Y. (1989). Relationships of frustratorswith affective, behavioral,
and physical reactions: The effects of potential moderators. Unpub-
lished master's thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa.
Fimian, M. J. (1984). The development of an instrument to measure
occupational stress in teachers: The Teacher Stress Inventory. Jour-
nal of Occupational Psychology, 57, 277-293.
Frese, M. (1985). Stress at work and psychosomatic complaints: A
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
causal interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 314-328.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Hendrix, W H. (1987). Organizational and Individual Assessment Sur-
vey. Clemson, SC: Clemson University.
Hendrix, W H., Ovalle, N. K., & Troxler, R. G. (1985). Behavioral and
physiological consequences of stress and its antecedent factors. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 70,188-201.
Ilgen, D. R. (1990). Health issues at work: Opportunities for industrial/
organizational psychologists. American Psychologist, 45, 273-283.
Ivancevich, J. M., & Matteson, M. T. (1980). Stress and work. Glenview,
IL: Scott, Foresman.
Jex, S. M., & Beehr, T. A. (1991). Emerging theoretical and methodolog-
ical issues in the study of work-related stress. In G. R. Ferris & K. W
Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources manage-
ment (pp. 311-365). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kahn, R. L., & Quinn, R. P. (1970). A framework for analysis. In A.
McLean (Ed.), Occupational mental health (pp. 50-115). New York:
Rand McNally.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, D., Jr., & Rosenthal,
R. A. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambi-
guity. New York: Wiley.
Kasl, S. V (1984). Stress and health. Annual Review of Public Health, 5,
319-342.
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R. S., & Launier, R. (1978). Psychological stress and the cop-
ing process. In L. A. Pervin & M. Lewis (Eds.), Internal and external
determinants of behavior (pp. 287-327). New York: Plenum Press.
Mayes, B. T, Ganster, D. C., Sime, W E., & Tharp, G. D. (1984, August).
A multivariate test of a general model of job stress. Paper presented at
the 44th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Boston,
MA.
McGrath, J. E. (1976). Stress and behavior in organizations. In M. D.
Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychol-
ogy (pp. 1351-1395). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J. S., & Manning, M. R. (1986). Occupa-
tional stress: Its causes and consequences for job performance. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 71, 618-629.
Nisbett, R. E., & Schachter, S. (1966). The cognitive manipulation of
pain. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 227-236.
Payne, R., & Fletcher, B. C. (1983). Job demands, supports, and con-
straints among schoolteachers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22,
136-147.
Peters, L. H., & O'Connor, E. J. (1980). Situational constraints and
employee affective reactions: The influences of a frequently over-
looked construct. Academy of Management Review, 5, 391-397.
Quinn, R. P., & Shepard, L. J. (1974). Quality of Employment Survey.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and
role ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 15,150-163.
Roberson, M. X, & Sundstrom, E. (1990). Questionnaire design, re-
turn rates, and response favorableness in an employee attitude ques-
tionnaire. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 354-357.
Schaubroeck, J., Cotton, J. L., & Jennings, K. R. (1989). Antecedents
and consequences of role stress: A covariance structure analysis.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 35-58.
Schuler, R. S. (1980). Definition and conceptualization of stress in
organizations. Occupational Behavior and Human Performance, 25,
184-215.
Selye, H. (1976). The stress of life (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Specter, P. E. (1987). Interactive effects of perceived control and job
stressors on affective reactions and health outcomes for clerical
workers. Work & Stress, 1, 155-162.
Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. J., & Jex, S. M. (1988). Relations of job stress-
ors to affective, health, and performance outcomes: A comparison
of multiple data sources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73,11-19.
Spector, P. E., & Michaels, C. E. (1983). A note on item order as an
artifact in organizational surveys. Journal of Occupational Psychol-
ogy, 56, 35-36.
Spielberger, C. D. (1979). Preliminary manual for the State-Trait Person-
ality Inventory (STPI). Unpublished manuscript, University of South
Florida, Tampa.
Steffy, B. D., & Jones, J. W (1988). Workplace stress and indicators of
coronary disease risk. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 686-
698.
Sykes, I. J., & Eden, D. (1985). Transitional stress, social support, and
psychological strain. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 6, 293-298.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983). Using multivariate statistics.
Philadelphia, PA: Harper & Row.
Zung, W R. K. (1965). A self-rating depression scale. Archives of Gen-
eral Psychiatry, 12, 63-70.
Received June 12,1991
Revision received January 21,1992
Accepted January 28,1992 •