Artigo - English - Cross-National Job Stress - Liu - Spector - Shi - 07

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/23302114
Use of Both Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Study Job Stress in

Different Gender and Occupational Groups
Article in Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · November 2008

DOI: 10.1037/1076-8998.13.4.357 · Source: PubMed
CITATIONS READS
74 4,043
3 authors, including:
Cong Liu Paul E. Spector

Hofstra University University of South Florida
39 PUBLICATIONS 1,069 CITATIONS 361 PUBLICATIONS 56,956 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Workplace Ostracism Project I View project
Challenge and Hindrance Project View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Cong Liu on 04 June 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Organizational Behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 209–239 (2007)
Published online 5 January 2007 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.435
Cross-national job stress: a quantitative

and qualitative study
CONG LIU1*, PAUL E. SPECTOR2 AND LIN SHI3
1
Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, Illinois, U.S.A.
2
Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, U.S.A.
3
School of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, China
Summary Using both quantitative and qualitative methods, this study contrasted employees’ job stress
perceptions and their relationships to strains in China and the United States. Significant job
stressor–strain correlations were found in both countries. However, hierarchical regression
analyses revealed significant interactions of country by job stressors in predicting job strains,
indicating the unique patterns of stressor–strain relationships in China and the United States. In
the qualitative analyses, American employees reported significantly more incidents of lack of
job control, direct interpersonal conflict, lack of team coordination, anger, frustration, feeling
overwhelmed, and stomach problems than the Chinese. Chinese employees reported signifi-
cantly more incidents of job evaluations, work mistakes, indirect conflict, employment
conditions, lack of training, anxiety, helplessness, sleep problems, and feeling hot than the
Americans. The qualitative approach contributed above and beyond the quantitative results in
that it revealed culture-specific job stressors of job evaluations, work mistakes, and indirect
conflict that had been overlooked in western-based stress research. Copyright # 2007
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
As the world economy gets more competitive and workplace more fast-paced, job stress has become a
serious threat to employees’ occupational well-being. Numerous studies have been conducted to
identify sources of job stress (stressors), and correspondent psychological, physical, and behavioral
reactions (strains). Different stress models have been proposed to explain the relationship between job
stressors and strains, such as the Process Model (McGrath, 1976), the Institute for Social Research
(ISR) model (Katz & Kahn, 1978), the Conceptual Model (Beehr & Newman, 1978), the
Demand-Control Model (Karasek, 1979), and the Emotion Centered Model (Spector, 2003). However,
these models and most studies designed to test them were done in Western societies. It is unclear if
these results and conclusions are generalizable to other nonwestern societies, such as China. To date,
only a small number of studies have investigated job stress in cross-national/cultural settings (e.g.,
Glazer & Beehr, 2005; Peterson et al., 1995; Spector et al., 2000). To fill the research gap, this study
* Correspondence to: Cong Liu, Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, Campus Box, 4620, Normal, IL 61790,
U.S.A. E-mail: cliu@ilstu.edu
Received 26 July 2004

Revised 5 September 2005
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 25 October 2006
210 C. LIU ET AL.
examined job stress perceptions in two culturally dissimilar nations: China and the United States using
two methods, one quantitative and the other qualitative.
Culture Comparison: The United States and China
Culture may affect the presence of certain job stressors in the workplace. Differences in
individualism–collectivism, Confucianism, and economics are especially important in understanding
employees’ job stress perceptions in Western and Eastern countries. China and the United States differ
in their histories, religions, and political and economic traditions (Oyserman, Kemmelmeier, & Coon,
2002). First, American culture is characterized by individualism (Hofstede, 1984, 2001), whereas
Chinese culture almost always is described as collectivist (Hsu, 1981; Hui & Triandis, 1986). Second,
Chinese culture is characterized by the Confucian rules of face-preservation (Boisot & Child, 1996;
Ralston, Egri, Stewart, Terpstra, & Yu, 1999; Ralston, Yu, Wang, Terpstra, & He, 1996; Redding, 1990)
and forbearance (Hwang, 1997). Third, China and the United States differ in their economics and
resources.
Individualism Versus Collectivism (I–C)
Individualism has been defined as a self-orientation that emphasizes autonomy (Ralston et al., 1999).
Individualist Americans are taught to value independence and achievement through their own actions
(Gudykunst, 1998; Ho & Chiu, 1994; Triandis, 1988). They expect to have direct control over various
aspects of life. Markus and Kitayama (1998) termed this as the independent self. On the other hand,
collectivism has been defined as group-orientation that emphasizes group interests and compliance (Ho
& Chiu, 1994). Collectivist Chinese do not place autonomy at the highest priority. They view the groups
as having legitimate control over their actions (Triandis, 1988). Markus and Kitayama (1998) explained
that collectivists express the interdependent self.
Confucianism
The Chinese Culture Connection (1987) identified Confucian work dynamism as a construct that
differentiates Western and Eastern cultures. One important feature of Confucianism is ‘saving face’
(e.g., Fang, 2003; Redding & Ng, 1982). In Confucianism, ‘face’ means avoiding a sense of shame
(Hofstede, 2001). Chinese are particularly mindful in gaining ‘face’ for themselves, their family, and
their groups (Schütte & Ciarlante, 1998). Thus, ‘face’ is not only a personal issue but also related to
one’s family and social networks. Losing face is shameful for both self and the family (Fang, 2003). In
China, people avoid direct humiliation in order to save face for both self and others.
Another important social virtue of Confucianism is ‘forbearance’ (Hwang, 1997), which has a very
profound basis in Chinese culture (Lee, 1997). Generally speaking, forbearance means personal control
of one’s emotions (e.g., anger) or other psychological impulses. The ultimate goal of forbearance is to
maintain harmonious relationships in stressful situations, for example, an interpersonal conflict
situation. However, forbearance can have negative consequences to people’s health and well-being.
Instead of venting anger, one may bear negative emotions internally, and eventually, feel anxious,
worried or a sense of despair (Fernandez-Ballesteros, Ruiz, & Gard, 1998). Eysenck (1994) pointed out
that individuals who are overly cooperative and appeasing have a tendency to experience hopelessness
and depression.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 209–239 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/job
CROSS-NATIONAL JOB STRESS 211
Economic/resource differences between China and the United States
The United States and China have very different economies and resources. According to the World
Bank Group (2001), the United States is one of the high-income economies, while China belongs to the
lower-middle-income economy group. Based on Gross National Income (GNI) per capita of 1999, the
United States ranked the 8th ($31,910) and China ranked the 142nd ($780). Accordingly, American
employees possess more resources at work than their Chinese counterparts. Related to economics,
China also has a higher unemployment rate than the United States. According to the Information
Technology Associates (2003), urban unemployment was roughly 10% in China in 2002; there was
substantial unemployment in rural areas. On the other hand, the unemployment rate for the United
States in 2002 was 5.8%. According to Schwartz (1999), societal insecurity (e.g., high unemployment
rate) would relate to conservatism, whereas societal security (e.g., low unemployment rate) would
relate to openness to change.
The changing nature of culture
Culture changes over time (Tung, 1996), so that the comparison of culture should be identified with a
certain time frame, such as generations. China’s current work settings are dominated by the
Consolidation generation, the Cultural Revolution generation, and the Social Reform generation. The
Consolidation generation and the Cultural Revolution generation grew up during China’s closed-door
policy period that had very little interaction with the Western world (Egri & Ralston, 2004). The young
Chinese generation (the Social Reform generation) grew up when China reopened her doors, providing
them exposure to Western influences during a period of rapid globalization (Egri & Ralston, 2004). The
United States’ current work settings are dominated by the Baby Boomers and the Generation Xers.
Thus, the cultural differences between these work populations in China and the United States
(especially the early generations) are significant.
Taken together, the significant cultural differences of I–C, Confucianism (e.g., face and
forbearance), and economies between China and the United States unavoidably affect employees’
occupational stress perceptions. Such influence has been reported in the job stress literature. For
example, Peterson et al. (1995) measured role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload for middle
managers from 21 nations. They found that I–C and power distance were the cultural dimensions that
most closely related to role stressors. Culture has also been shown to relate to employees’ health and
well-being (e.g., Diener & Suh, 1999; Narayanan, Menon, & Spector, 1999; Spector et al., 2001).
Therefore, our goal in this study is to contrast two culturally dissimilar countries on employees’ job
stressors and strains.
Quantitative Versus Qualitative Methods in Cross-National Job

Stress Research
In cross-cultural research, most studies have used Western-developed quantitative scales to make mean
and relationship comparisons among countries. An alternative that has been less used is the qualitative
approach that asks participants to describe their job stress experiences (Keenan & Newton, 1985).
Although the quantitative method is good in testing comparative hypotheses on common job stressors
and strains in cross-cultural studies (e.g., Greenfield, 1996), this method only explains half of the story.
First, there are difficulties in doing mean comparisons using quantitative scales when languages are as
DOI: 10.1002/job
212 C. LIU ET AL.
different as English and Chinese. It would be helpful to replicate the quantitative differences by
examining job stress experiences reported in a qualitative study. Thus, an important advantage of
conducting quantitative and qualitative research simultaneously is the complementarities of the two
methods.
Second, qualitative data may provide more information on cultural-specific job stress perceptions.
For example, there are job stressors and strains that may be important to Chinese people that have been
overlooked in Western research. Therefore, examination of nation-specific job stressors and strains by
qualitative methods can uncover variables that have not been previously studied. The qualitative
method emphasizes description, understanding, and interpretation of events, by interviewing subjects
or using open-ended questionnaires (Parkes, 1985). Qualitative data generated by the participants with
their own culture backgrounds can provide detailed information about what exactly results in stress
(Liu & Spector, 2004; Morris, Leung, Ames, & Lickel, 1999; Narayanan et al., 1999). Several
researchers have used qualitative approaches to study job stress (e.g., Keenan & Newton, 1985;
Motowidlo, Packard & Manning, 1986; Narayanan et al., 1999; Parkes, 1984, 1985). In this study, we
examined cross-cultural job stress perceptions using both quantitative and qualitative methods.
The Current Study
In order to capture a more complete contrast of work stress between China and the United States, we
collected both quantitative and qualitative data on samples of Chinese and U.S. workers. Each method
was used to address a separate set of complementary hypotheses.
Quantitative hypotheses
Job stressors
Job stressors can be affected by cultural differences between China and the United States. First, I–C is
expected to influence employees’ job autonomy perceptions. Individualist Americans prefer and
demand high levels of job control whereas collectivist Chinese value compliance and view their group
as having legitimate control over their actions (Triandis, 1988). Accordingly, American employees
would have and therefore perceive more job autonomy than Chinese employees. Research has shown
that collectivists tend to be lower than individualists on perceived control (Bae & Chung, 1997; Hamid,
1994; Hui, 1982), and collectivists consider job control less important than Individualists (Lundberg &
Peterson, 1994).
Hypothesis 1.1 American employees would perceive higher levels of job autonomy than their
Chinese counterparts.
Second, economic and resource differences are expected to affect employees’ perceptions of
organizational constraints. The United States is more developed than China. Generally speaking,
American employees would have more resources (e.g., equipment and supplies) at work than their
Chinese counterparts. In university settings, American employees would have more office space, better
equipments such as computers, fax machines, copy machines, and stationary supplies, than Chinese
employees.
Hypothesis 1.2 Chinese employees would perceive higher level of organizational constraints (e.g.,
lack of equipment or supplies) than their American counterparts.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Job strains
Job strains can be affected by cultural differences between China and the United States. First,
individualist Americans value freedom and independence (Hofstede, 2001). In stressful and conflict
situations, American employees are free to express their emotions (e.g., frustration or anger). On the
other hand, collectivist Chinese value group harmony and interdependence (Schwartz, 1999). Chinese
employees are educated to manage their negative emotions (e.g., frustration or anger) in order to keep
group harmony. However, researchers have suggested that the suppression of anger may cause anxiety
or depression (e.g., Eysenck, 1994; Greer & Watson, 1985).
Hypothesis 1.3a. American employees would report higher level of frustration than their Chinese
counterparts.
Hypothesis 1.3b. Chinese employees would report higher level of depression than their American
counterparts.
Second, economic conditions can affect employees’ turnover intentions (Carsten & Spector, 1987).
It is expected that different unemployment rates in China and the United States would lead to country
differences in turnover intentions. The average unemployment rate for American university employees
(combination of professional and related occupations, office and administrative support occupations,
and installation, maintenance, and repair occupations) in 2002 was 4.3%, which is less than the
national mean of 5.8%. Thus, with much higher unemployment rate (10%), Chinese employees
would be less likely to consider quitting their current jobs. In addition, China has a Chinese Residence
Registration System. Government employees in China (such as university employees) need to get
their current employer’s permission to switch jobs. Therefore, job mobility is limited in Chinese
universities. Finally, the conservative Chinese culture (e.g., Schwartz, 1999) could lead Chinese
employees to be more cautious about making major life decisions, such as quitting their current
jobs.
Hypothesis 1.4. American employees would have higher turnover intentions than their Chinese
counterparts.
Third, I–C may also affect employees’ overall psychological and physical well-being. Individualist
Americans emphasize freedom, rights, and one’s own needs whereas collectivist Chinese value
acceptance of one’s fate, harmony, and their groups’ needs. Americans would have greater well-being
because they take actions to enhance that well-being (e.g., Reykowski, 1994). Empirical studies have
found that individualists have higher levels of well-being than collectivists (Diener & Suh, 1999;
Veenhoven, 1993). Spector et al. (2000) found that employees in Japan, China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan
had more psychological and physical strains than employees in the United States. Iwata, Okuyama,
Kawakami, and Saito (1989) reported a higher level of depressive symptoms for Japanese than for
Americans. Research has also shown that Taiwanese managers suffered worse physical well-being than
UK managers (Lu, Chen, Hsu, Li, Wu, & Shih, 1994).
What’s more, economic conditions may also affect employees health and well-being. Individuals
from less developed countries such as China would have poorer well-being than individuals from
developed countries such as the U.S. (Sadri, Marcoulides, Cooper, & Kirkcaldy, 1996). McCormick
and Cooper’s (1988) cross-cultural study supported this notion in that psychological and physical
strains were higher in developing countries (e.g., Brazil, Egypt, and Asian countries) than in developed
countries (e.g., the United States, Germany, and Sweden).
Hypothesis 1.5. Chinese employees would have higher level of psychological strains (e.g., job
dissatisfaction) than their American counterparts.
DOI: 10.1002/job
214 C. LIU ET AL.
Hypothesis 1.6. Chinese employees would have higher level of physical strains than their American
counterparts.
The relationships between job stressors and strains

There are significant correlations between job stressors and strains in the United States (e.g., Quick,
Quick, Nelson, & Hurrell, 1997; Spector & Jex, 1991). Researchers have extended this research into
other countries in Asia (Jamal & Preena, 1998), Pakistan (Jamal, 1999), Taiwan, (Lu, Kao, Cooper, &
Spector, 2000), and Taiwan and Latin America (Spector et al., 2004). Spector et al. (2004) concluded
that the stressor–strain relationships may be universal, at least among Anglo, Chinese, and Latin
American groups. Taken together, the fundamental stressor–strain relationship seems to be culturally
universal.
Hypothesis 1.7 There would be significant relationships between job stressors and job strains in both
China and the United States.
The moderator effects of country on job stressor–strain relations

As stated above, culture unavoidably affects employees’ job stress perceptions. Though, we
hypothesized universal job stress–strain relationships, the patterns of these relationships might be
different across two cultural dissimilar countries.
First, I–C might affect employees’ lack of job autonomy–strain relations. Individualist culture values
independence and autonomy whereas collectivist culture values interdependence and group harmony.
When job autonomy is in jeopardy, American employees would be more frustrated and dissatisfied with
their jobs than their Chinese counterparts.
Hypothesis 1.8a Country would moderate the relationship between job autonomy and frustration.
Specifically, American employees would be more frustrated when they are lack of autonomy at work
than their Chinese counterparts.
Hypothesis 1.8b Country would moderate the relationship between job autonomy and job
satisfaction. Specifically, American employees would be more dissatisfied with their jobs when they
lack of autonomy at work than their Chinese counterparts.
Second, I–C may influence employees’ interpersonal conflict–strain relations. Individualist
Americans value independence and privacy. Though no one could succeed in an isolated office,
American university employees don’t consider interpersonal relationship as the core of their jobs. They
focus on their work tasks instead of complicated interpersonal relationships. Interpersonal conflict is
considered something interrupting their work, and something ‘unexpected.’ Thus, when there is a
conflict at work, American employees would be more dissatisfied with their jobs than their Chinese
counterparts.
On the other hand, collectivist Chinese value interdependence and harmony. Chinese define
themselves within certain groups. Interpersonal conflict at work has a far-reaching effect on Chinese
employees (e.g., Millington, Eberhardt, & Wilkinson, 2006). When there is a conflict, Chinese
employees would worry about group harmony, as well as their professional career embedded in work
relationships. Thus, in a conflict situation, Chinese employees would be more depressed than their
American counterparts.
Hypothesis 1.9a Country would moderate the relationship between interpersonal conflict at work
and job satisfaction. Specifically, American employees would be more dissatisfied with their jobs
when they have conflicts with other people at work than their Chinese counterparts.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Hypothesis 1.9b Country would moderate the relationship between interpersonal conflict at work
and depression. Specifically, Chinese employees would be more depressed when they have conflicts
with other people at work than their American counterparts.
Third, I–C would affect employees’ organizational constraints–strain relations. Individualist
Americans value independence and freedom. When they encounter constraints at work, they lose
freedom to do their jobs. Therefore, they would be more frustrated and dissatisfied with their work. On
the other hand, collectivist Chinese emphasizes group interdependence and cooperation. With limited
work resources or constrained working environment, Chinese employees would be more patient and try
to make things work.
Hypothesis 1.10a Country would moderate the relationship between organizational constraints and
frustration. Specifically, American employees would be more frustrated when they experience
organizational constraints than their Chinese counterparts.
Hypothesis 1.10b Country would moderate the relationship between organizational constraints and
job satisfaction. Specifically, American employees would be more dissatisfied with their jobs when
they experience organizational constraints than their Chinese counterparts.
Qualitative hypotheses
A qualitative approach was used to collect, and compare via content analysis, the stressful incidents at
work callected from Chinese and American employees. This allowed both the testing of specific
hypotheses, and the exploration of culture-specific stressors and strains not anticipated or measured by
Western-developed quantitative scales.
Job stressors
As hypothesized earlier, individualist Americans would report higher level of autonomy on our
quantitative scale. Given that they are more likely to perceive lack of control as stressful, we expect to
find corresponding differences with the qualitative results as well.
Hypothesis 2.1 American employees would report more incidents of lack of control than their
Chinese counterparts.
Interpersonal conflict is a universal human phenomenon. Qualitative studies done in the U.K.
(Keenan & Newton, 1985), the U.S., and India (Narayanan et al., 1999) have shown that conflict is a
commonly reported stressor. Thus, we expected that both Chinese and Americans would report
incidents of conflict. However, culture may affect the type of conflict reported by Chinese and
American employees. Previous research showed that culture influenced employees’ interpersonal
conflict styles (Gudykunst & Nishida, 1986; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, & Asai, 1988). For
example, some employees may engage in direct confrontation, such as yelling at others (direct
conflict), whereas other employees may vent their anger by doing nasty things behind people’s back
(indirect conflict). Collectivist Chinese have tendency to avoid direct conflict and unpleasant
interpersonal situations to protect group harmony and save face whereas individualist Americans tend
to use explicit and direct verbal conversation (Ting-Toomey, 1985). The conflict management literature
has shown that collectivist cultures foster conflict avoidance styles whereas individualist cultures foster
direct conflict styles (Chua & Gudykunst, 1987; Leung, 1988; Ting-Toomey, Trubisky, & Nishida,
1989). Failing to maintain harmonious relationship can be one of the most important job stressors for
DOI: 10.1002/job
216 C. LIU ET AL.
Chinese (Huang, 1986; Kuo, 1989). Thus, we predicted that Chinese and American employees would
report different types of work conflict, as reflected in their qualitative data.
Hypothesis 2.2 American workers would report more direct conflicts whereas Chinese workers
would report more indirect conflicts.
Finally, as stated previously, economic and resource differences between China and the United States
affect employees’ perceptions of organizational constraints. Limited by resources at work, Chinese
employees would experience more organizational constraints. In another developing country,
Narayanan et al. (1999) found that equipment problems and situational constraints were among the
most frequently reported job stressors by Indian employees but not by Americans. Therefore, in
supporting the quantitative mean comparisons, we predicted that the difference in organizational
constraints could also be found in the qualitative results.
Hypothesis 2.3 Chinese employees would report more incidents of organizational constraints than
their American counterparts.
Job strains
Since the contexts and settings that elicit psychological and physical strains may vary, individuals in
different countries might experience stressors in ways that result in different strains. In stressful or
conflict situations, individualist Americans are free to express their anger. Collectivist Chinese who
practice Confucian forbearance are likely to tolerate stressful situations rather than express anger.
When Chinese inhibit anger, it might convert to anxiety (e.g., Eysenck, 1994; Greer & Watson, 1985).
Therefore, in supporting our quantitative hypotheses on frustration and depression, we predicted that
American employees would report more incidents reflecting anger whereas Chinese employees would
report more incidents reflecting anxiety.
Hypothesis 2.4a American employees would report more anger than their Chinese counterparts in
response to stressors at work.
Hypothesis 2.4b Chinese employees would report more anxiety than their American counterparts in
response to stressors at work.
Organizational Context
Time and Location

The cross-cultural data was collected from universities in the United States and China. In the United
States, data was collected from the University of South Florida in Tampa, Florida from April 2002 to
August 2002. In China, data was collected from three universities in Beijing and one university in
Hubei province within the same time frame.
Organizational Factors
The University of South Florida is a top tier research institution, located in an urban area in the 4th
most populated state in the U.S. The university is the 9th largest in the U.S. with more than 44 000
students and 15 000 employees on its four campuses. The university has 10 colleges and schools
DOI: 10.1002/job
covering liberal arts, sciences, business, education, engineering, medicine, nursing, and public
health. Participants were recruited from the main Tampa campus.
The three universities in Beijing, China are top tier research institutions. Beijing is the capital of
China. The three universities are multi-disciplinary universities that feature in many academic
areas, such as arts and sciences, engineering, management, law, education, etc. These
comprehensive universities promote advance scientific research and education.
The first university enrolls more than 16 000 full-time students with 8000 undergraduates and
7000 graduates. There are more than 10 000 students in Continuing Education and Online
Education. Also there are 2000 students from overseas. The university has about 3000 employees
with 1300 faculty members and researchers in Economics and Business Administration, Education,
Liberal Arts, Sciences, Engineering, etc.
The second university enrolls over 20 000 students, including 12 000 undergraduates and 9000
graduates. The university has more than 8000 employees. The university consists of 44 departments
in sciences, architecture, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, information science and
technology, humanities and social sciences, economics and management, law, arts and design,
public policy and management, and applied technology.
The third university enrolls over 15 000 students, with 13 000 undergraduates and 2400 graduates.
The university has more than 2000 employees. The university not only features in forestry,
environmental and biological sciences, but also runs programs in other sciences, engineering, liberal
arts, management, economics, law and fine arts.
The fourth university is located in Wuhan, Hubei province, China. Wuhan (population 8 million),
the provincial capital of Hubei, is one of the major economic and industrial cities in China. The
university has a student body of over 20 000, of whom 2000 are postgraduates. The university has
more than 1500 employees with over 700 faculty members. The university has set up its Continual
Education College, Higher Vocational Education College, Network Education College and
International Cultural Exchange College, entrusted by the Ministry of Education. It has also
established a Teachers Training Center for Teachers Universities and Colleges in South Central
China and a Training Center for Education Administrators from the same region.
Worker–Job Factors
Data was collected from university employees including faculty and staff. We surveyed faculty
members with different ranks, such as instructor, lecturer, assistant professor, associate professor,
and full professor. University staff work at different job positions, such as secretary, postman,
plumber, civil workers, food processor, accountants, etc. They are routine employees work 8 hours a
day, and 5 days a week.
Method
Participants and procedure
The participants were university faculty of all ranks, and administrative and support staff from the
United States and China. In the United States, participants were randomly selected from the University
of South Florida in the southeastern U.S. In China, participants were randomly chosen from four
universities in mainland China. Most of the data were collected in northern China (Beijing), with
DOI: 10.1002/job
218 C. LIU ET AL.
10 participants coming from a university in the south. The American and Chinese universities are
comparable in that (1) They are all large comprehensive universities offering both undergraduate and
graduate education; and (2) Employees in these universities are engaged in similar kind of work. On the
other hand, since the United States has stronger economy than China, American university employees
have more resources at work (e.g., more office space, better computers, more stationary and supplies)
than their Chinese counterparts.
The first author was responsible for collecting data in the United States. The third author was
responsible for the process in China. Survey packets including both quantitative and qualitative
questionnaires and a small gift were mailed to participants. The first part included the quantitative
scales. The second part included the qualitative open-ended questions. Participation was on a voluntary
and anonymous basis. After a period of 2 weeks of the initial survey, reminders were sent out to
increase the response rate.
In the first round, 663 survey packets including both quantitative and qualitative questionnaires were
distributed in the United States and 300 copies were returned. All 300 participants completed the
quantitative scales and 143 employees also answered the qualitative questions. In China, 315 survey
packets were distributed and 286 copies were returned. All 286 participants completed the quantitative
scales and 37 employees also provided qualitative data.
In order to collect more qualitative data, we initiated the second round of data collection with
distribution of only the qualitative questionnaires. In the second round, 204 qualitative questionnaires
were distributed in the United States and 36 copies were returned; 266 qualitative questionnaires were
distributed in China and 150 copies were returned.
The response rates for the overall sample (including the overlapping quantitative and qualitative
data) were 75.0% and 38.8% in China and the U.S., respectively. The samples were 42.5% and 39.9%
male with mean ages between 30 to 39 versus 40 to 49 for China and the U.S., respectively. As can be
seen from our samples, the Chinese workplace is dominated by the Culture Revolution generation and
the American workplace is dominated by the Baby Boomers and the Generation Xers.
Quantitative method
Participants
Demographic differences between the Chinese and American samples were small. The samples were
42.0% and 38.7% male for China and the U.S., respectively. Median ages were between 30 and 39
versus 40 to 49 for China and the U.S., respectively (See Table 1). The response rates were 90.8% and
42.3% for China and the U.S., respectively.
Measures
The quantitative data were collected with existing scales originally developed in English. They were
translated into Chinese and then independently back-translated to check for accuracy (Werner &
Campbell, 1970).
Job Autonomy was measured by a three-item subscale from Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) Job
Diagnostic Survey (JDS). The scale was modified slightly to eliminate the negatively worded item, as
suggested by Idaszak and Drasgow (1987). Responses ranged from 1 (very inaccurate) to 7 (very
accurate). Interpersonal conflict was measured by Spector and Jex’s (1998) 4-item Interpersonal
Conflict at Work Scale (ICAWS). The items were adapted following Frone’s (2000) suggestions so that
conflict with supervisor and conflict with coworker were assessed separately. Response options ranged
from 1 (Less than once per month or never) to 5 (Several times per day). The two subscales were
combined to measure overall interpersonal conflict. Organizational constraints were measured with the
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 1. Demographic information

China US
Faculty Support Faculty Support
Quantitative Male 77 43 94 22
Female 75 86 45 134
Age (<¼29) 12 29 1 19
Age (30–39) 62 34 25 19
Age (40–49) 51 46 40 52
Age (50–59) 15 21 49 55
Age (60þ) 10 1 25 10
Overall 152 134 142 158
Qualitative Male 52 29 58 12
Female 51 45 45 63
Age (<¼29) 23 26 0 9
Age (30–39) 41 21 18 9
Age (40–49) 27 21 34 24
Age (50–59) 12 9 39 28
Age (60þ) 6 2 12 4
Overall 107 80 103 76
Note: Faculty ¼ Full Professor þ Associate Professor þ Assistant Professor þ University Instructor; Support ¼ University
Administrative and Support Staff.
11-item Organizational Constraints Scale (OCS) developed by Spector and Jex (1998). Response
options ranged from 1 (Less than once per month or never) to 5 (Several times per day.) To understand
different types of organizational constraints, we further broke organizational constraints into job
context constraints (summing items of poor equipment or supplies, lack of equipment or supplies, and
inadequate training) and interpersonal constraints (summing items of other employees, your
supervisor, interruptions by other people, and inadequate help from others).
Frustration was measured by a three-item frustration scale (Peters & O’Connor, 1988). Response
options ranged from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 6 (Strongly agree). Depression was measured by the
9-item Patient Health Questionnaire developed by Spitzer, Kroenke, and Williams (1999). Response
options ranged from 0 (Not at all) to 3 (Nearly everyday). Intent to quit was assessed with a single item
measure (Spector, Dwyer, & Jex, 1988) that asked how often the person had been seriously considering
quitting. Response options were from 1 (never) to 6 (extremely often). Job Satisfaction was measured
with the 3-item overall job satisfaction scale from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Scale
(Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979). Response options ranged from 1 (Strongly disagree) to
6 (Strongly agree). Finally, physical strain was assessed with the 18-item Physical Symptoms
Inventory (PSI) developed by Spector and Jex (1998). There were three choices for each symptom item:
No, didn’t have; Yes, but I didn’t see doctor; and Yes, and I saw doctor. The total score was the sum of all
symptoms that the person reported having, whether seeing or not seeing doctor.
Measurement Equivalence/Invariance (ME/I)

It has been suggested that ME/I of quantitative scales needs to be established before any cross-cultural
comparison is conducted (Liu, Borg, & Spector, 2004; Ryan, Chan, Ployhart, & Slade, 1999; Raju,
Laffitte, & Byrne, 2002). According to Meredith (1993), strong invariance of factor loadings and
intercept parameters imply the equivalence of measured constructs across different cultural groups.
The Mean and Covariance Structure analysis (MACS, Little, 1997) can achieve these functions by
DOI: 10.1002/job
220 C. LIU ET AL.
examining both the variance–covariance metrics and the mean-level information of a cross-cultural
scale. Therefore, we conducted MACS analyses using Jöreskog and Sörbom’s (2002) LISREL 8
program. First, model fits were assessed for the scales of interpersonal conflict, organizational
constraints, interpersonal constraints, and depression in each country. (Since the measures of job
autonomy, job context constraints, frustration, and job satisfaction only have three items, respectively,
model fit within each country cannot be assessed for these scales). Second, analyses were performed to
assess cross-cultural ME/I. Since chi-square is sensitive to sample size, four practical indices (SRMR,
NNFI, CFI, and GFI) were considered to estimate the ME/I. As can be seen from Table 2, most of the
practical indices suggested factor loading invariance and mean invariance for the scales of autonomy,
interpersonal conflict, job context constraints, frustration, and depression. For the Organizational
Constraints Scale, we got marginal fits for the factor loading invariance and mean invariance. The
model fit was similar in each country. For the interpersonal constraints scale, we got a good fit for the
factor loading invariance and a marginal fit for the mean invariance. The model fits were established in
both countries, with slightly better fit for Chinese data. Finally, for the Job Satisfaction Scale, we got
marginal fits for the factor loading invariance and the mean invariance.
Qualitative method
Participants
Demographic differences between the Chinese and the U.S. samples were small. The samples were
43.3% and 39.1% male for China and the U.S., respectively. Median ages were between 30 and 39
versus 40 to 49 for China and the U.S., respectively (See Table 1). The response rates for the qualitative
samples were 20.7% and 32.2% for China and the United States, respectively.
Measures
Qualitative data were collected with the Stress Incident Record (SIR) technique (Keenan & Newton,
1985), in which participants were instructed to answer some open-ended questions. First, participants
were asked to describe some concrete events that had been stressful for them in the past 30 days at
work. If there wasn’t a stressful incident during the time period specified, the subjects were instructed to
say so. Second, specific questions were written to obtain detailed information on job stressors, such as
lack of control, interpersonal conflict, and organizational constraints. Finally, participants were
instructed to provide information on psychological and physical strains.
Content analysis
All qualitative answers in Chinese were translated into English. Translation accuracy was checked by
back-translation. Three raters (undergraduate students) conducted content analyses to develop
exhaustive category sets of job stressors and strains. All material was presented in English. The raters
were blind to the country of the materials they categorized and research hypotheses.
Three raters were trained using procedures suggested by Krippendorff (1980) and Weber (1990).
First, they learned the definitions of common job stressors (e.g., organizational constraints,
interpersonal conflict, lack of job autonomy, work-family conflict, role conflict, role ambiguity, and
lack of job complexity), common psychological strains (e.g., frustration, anger, anxiety, depression,
helplessness, job dissatisfaction, and turnover intention), and common physical strains (e.g., physical
symptoms, headache, and heart disease). Second, the raters were asked to work on 10 stressful job
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 2. Summary of fit statistics for measurement equivalence/invariance tests of the quantitative scales using LISREL
Scale Model x2/df SRMR NNFI CFI GFI
Job autonomy Fitting the model to the US data — — — — —

Fitting the model to the Chinese data — — — — —
Model 1: Factor loading invariance 11.32/2 0.05 0.99 0.99 .99
Model 2: Loading and mean invariance 96.57/7 0.11 0.92 0.91 .92
Interpersonal conflict Fitting the model to the US data .33/2 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fitting the model to the Chinese data .97/2 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Model 1: Factor loading invariance 6.11/7 0.04 1.00 1.00 1.00
Model 2: Loading and mean invariance 132.34/14 0.13 0.96 0.96 0.96
Organizational constraints Fitting the model to the US data 399.35/43 0.05 0.85 0.88 0.81
Fitting the model to the Chinese data 454.19/43 0.03 0.88 0.91 0.78
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Context constraints (1,5, 6) Fitting the model to the US data — — — — —
Interpersonal constraints (3, 4, 7 10) Fitting the model to the US data 39.98/2 0.04 0.86 0.95 0.94
Frustration Fitting the model to the US data — — — — —
Depression Fitting the model to the US data 278.61/27 0.03 0.92 0.94 0.83
Job satisfaction Fitting the model to the US data — — — — —
CROSS-NATIONAL JOB STRESS
Notes: SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; NNFI, non-normed fit index; CFI, comparative fit index; GFI, goodness of fit index.
J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 209–239 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/job
221
222 C. LIU ET AL.
incidents drawn from the overall dataset. They were advised to come up with their own categories if
they didn’t see the fit with any of above categories. The goal of the training was to make all raters
produce good interrater agreement on the same material.
After the training phase, two raters conducted content analyses independently. Then they shared and
discussed their results. Categories that were closely related and had a common theme were combined
into a higher-order category; some infrequent categories were placed into the ‘other’ category. Finally,
the incidents and categories were mixed together, and the third rater retranslated these incidents back
into the categories. Interrater agreement, the percentage of times the third rater placed the incident into
the correct category, was 90%. The raters discussed the ‘disagreed incidents’ and the final classification
was made for each incident by consensus.
Results
Quantitative results
Descriptives
The descriptive statistics for each quantitative variable are presented in Table 3. The coefficient alphas
for most job stressor and strain measures were above 0.75, suggesting that these scales maintained
internal consistency across translations and cultures (Spector et al., 2004). For the frustration scale, the
internal consistencies were not satisfactory in both Chinese and the U.S. samples. For the job
Table 3. Independent t-tests for job stressors and strains between American and Chinese samples
Variables Country M SD a n t df p
Autonomy US 5.62 1.68 0.95 300 7.58 578 0.00

China 4.58 1.62 0.87 280
Interpersonal conflict US 1.20 0.51 0.92 300 0.79 580 0.43
China 1.24 0.49 0.90 282
Organizational constraints US 1.96 0.73 0.88 297 2.81 565 0.01
China 1.78 0.73 0.91 270
Job context constraints US 1.76 0.85 0.78 295 0.05 545 0.96
China 1.76 0.80 0.79 252
Interpersonal constraints US 2.09 0.83 0.73 297 4.33 562 0.00
China 1.79 0.82 0.76 267
Frustration US 3.31 1.25 0.65 298 1.47 574 0.14
China 3.17 0.98 0.54 278
Depression US .50 0.50 0.86 295 1.74 568 0.08
China .58 0.50 0.89 275
Turnover intention US 2.14 1.13 — 290 2.45 558 0.02
China 1.93 0.93 — 270
Job satisfaction US 4.90 1.15 0.82 300 6.18 573 0.00
China 4.35 0.98 0.67 275
Physical symptoms US 5.14 3.97 0.77 288 2.26 533 0.02
China 5.97 4.56 0.84 247
Note: p < 0.05;
p < 0.01.
DOI: 10.1002/job
satisfaction scale, the coefficient alpha was less satisfactory in the Chinese sample than in the U.S.
sample.
Job stressors
Quantitative mean comparisons were examined by independent-samples t-tests. Hypothesis 1.1 was
supported in that American employees had significantly higher job autonomy than Chinese employees
(see Table 3). Opposite to hypothesis 1.2, there was a significant difference in overall organizational
constraints with Americans reporting more rather than less (see Table 3).
Job strains
Hypotheses 3a and 3b were not supported in that there was no significant difference between American
and Chinese employees in frustration and depression. Turnover intention was significantly higher for
Americans than for Chinese, supporting hypothesis 1.4. Consistent with hypothesis 1.5, American
employees were significantly more satisfied with their jobs than Chinese employees (see Table 3).
Finally, Chinese employees reported significantly more physical health problems than their American
counterparts, supporting Hypothesis 1.6.
The relationship between job stressors and strains

Table 4a presents the correlations between job stressors and strains for the American and Chinese
samples. Job autonomy was significantly related to frustration, turnover intention, and job satisfaction
in both countries. Interpersonal conflict was significantly related to all psychological strains in both
countries. Organizational constraints, job context constraints, and interpersonal constraints were
significantly related to all psychological and physical strains in the U.S., and most strains in China.
Regression analyses were conducted on job stressors and job strains, while controlling the effects of
age, gender, and job position. The results are presented in Table 4b and Table 4c. As can be seen from
Table 4b, all job stressor–strain relationships remained significant in the U.S. sample. As can be seen
from Table 4c, for the Chinese data, the job autonomy–turnover intentions relationship and the
interpersonal conflict–job satisfaction relationship lost significance. Generally speaking, hypothesis
1.7 was supported.
The moderator effects of country on job stressor–strain relations

We conducted hierarchical regression analyses to examine the interactions between job stressors and
country in predicting job strains, while controlling the demographic effects. Age, gender, and job
position (faculty vs. staff) were entered in the first hierarchical step. Second, the specific job stressor
was entered. Third, country was entered. Finally, the interaction term between job stressor and country
was entered. The results are presented in Table 5.
As can be seen from Table 5, there was no significant moderator effect of country on the job
autonomy–frustration relationship. Hypothesis 1.8a was not supported. Country significantly
moderated the job autonomy–job satisfaction relationship (see Table 5). Opposite to hypothesis
1.8b, the slope for the Chinese data was ‘steeper’ than the slope for the U.S. data (see Table 6). The
corresponding correlation coefficients in Table 4a were also larger in magnitude for the Chinese sample
than for the U.S. sample.
There was no significant moderator effect of country on the interpersonal conflict–job satisfaction
relationship and on the interpersonal conflict–depression relationship (see Table 5). Hypothesis 1.9a
and 1.9b were not supported. On the other hand, country significantly moderated the relationship
between interpersonal constraints and job satisfaction (see Table 5). The slope for the U.S. data was
DOI: 10.1002/job
224
C. LIU ET AL.
Table 4a. Correlations between job stressors and job strains for American (N ¼ 296) and Chinese samples (N ¼ 261)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
1) Autonomy 1 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.29 0.12 0.14 0.40,þ 0.06
2) Interpersonal conflict 0.14 1 0.57,þ 0.45 0.54 0.16 0.33,þ 0.35 0.16 0.06
3) Org. constraints 0.45 1 0.85 0.88 0.28,þ 0.36,þ 0.49 0.14

0.04 0.29
4) Job context constraints 0.00 0.38 0.78 1 0.59 0.29 0.34 0.44 0.24 0.11
5) Interpersonal constraints 0.05 0.40 0.84 0.48 1 0.19 0.33 0.41 0.21 0.15
6) Frustration 0.11 0.17 0.53 0.27 0.47 1 0.36 0.34 0.46 0.14
7) Depression 0.08 0.26 0.30 0.19 0.24 0.28 1 0.30 0.30 0.39
8) Turnover intention 0.15 0.34 0.40 0.28 0.35 0.43 0.36 1 0.42,þ 0.15
9) Job satisfaction 0.17 0.31 0.37 0.26 0.33 0.33 0.37 0.58 1 0.05
10) Physical symptoms 0.04 0.09 0.25 0.15 0.29 0.17 0.54,þ 0.27 0.22,þ 1
Note: The correlation matrix for American samples is presented below the diagonal while the correlation matrix for Chinese sample is presented above the diagonal.

p < 0.05.

p < 0.01.
þ
Corresponding correlations significantly different between China and the U.S.
J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 209–239 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 4b. Regression of job strains on job stressors, while controlling the effects of age, gender, and job position (for the U.S. sample)
Interpersonal Job context Interpersonal
Job autonomy conflict Org. constraints constraints constraints
B D R2 B D R2 B D R2 B D R2 B D R2
Frustration Age 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02

Gender 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.03
Position 0.03 0.04 0.06 .09 0.13
Stressor 0.08 0.017 0.46 0.029 0.92 0.272 0.41 0.073 0.72 0.216

Depression Age 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Gender 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18
Position 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.06
Stressor 0.02 0.005 0.26 0.053 0.20 0.086 0.11 0.037 0.14 0.050
Turnover intention Age 0.16 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16
Gender 0.30 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.30
Position 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.04
Stressor 0.10 0.020 0.91 0.142 0.64 0.166 0.41 0.088 0.47 0.116
Job satisfaction Age 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09
Gender 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.13
Position 0.07 0.07 0.11 0.16 0.00
Stressor 0.11 0.026 0.63 0.066 0.54 0.112 0.33 0.055 0.42 0.086
Physical symptoms Age 0.21 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.14
Gender 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.99 0.98
Position 0.77 0.76 0.81 0.92 0.45
Stressor 0.05 0.000 0.58 0.004 1.38 0.061 0.80 0.027 1.26 0.066

Note: p < 0.05; p < 0.01.
J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 209–239 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/job
225
226
Table 4c. Regression of job strains on job stressors, while controlling the effects of age, gender, and job position (for the Chinese sample)
C. LIU ET AL.
Interpersonal Job context Interpersonal

Job autonomy conflict Org. constraints constraints constraints
B D R2 B D R2 B D R2 B D R2 B D R2
Frustration Age 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.10

Gender 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Position 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.10
Stressor 0.17 0.073 0.25 0.015 0.35 0.064 0.31 0.065 0.21 0.033

Depression Age 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.10
Gender 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.06 0.07
Position 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.05 0.11
Stressor 0.03 0.009 0.31 0.088 0.22 0.099 0.17 0.073 0.19 0.095
Turnover intention Age 0.27 0.24 0.21 0.22 0.24
Gender 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.01
Position 0.36 0.30 0.22 0.18 0.32
Stressor 0.06 0.010 0.65 0.087 0.64 0.187 0.45 0.132 0.48 0.148
Job satisfaction Age 0.15 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.17
Gender 0.15 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.11
Position 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.06
Stressor 0.24 0.150 0.24 0.014 0.33 0.061 0.25 0.040 0.19 0.026
Physical symptoms Age 0.32 0.38 0.53 0.57 0.47
Gender 0.86 0.89 0.86 0.69 0.79
Position 1.05 1.09 0.90 0.94 1.09
Stressor 0.12 0.002 0.70 0.006 1.07 0.024 0.71 0.014 0.92 0.025

Note: p < 0.05; p < 0.01.
J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 209–239 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 5. Hierarchical regression analysis predicting job strains, while controlling the effects of age, gender, and job position
D R2, Job D R2, Interpersonal D R2, Org. D R2, Job context D R2, Interpersonal

autonomy country conflict country constraints country constraints country constraints country
Frustration 0.002 0.002 0.031 0.001 0.032

Depression 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.003
Turnover intention 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.000
Job satisfaction 0.009 0.006 0.004 0.000 0.007
Physical symptoms 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.002
Note: The R2 change statistic (~ R2) indicates the increase in R2 when the product term was entered at the last step (that is, after all controls and main effects were entered) of the
hierarchical regression analysis.

p < 0.05.

p < 0.01.
J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 209–239 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/job
227
228 C. LIU ET AL.
Table 6. Results of regression analyses showing the intercepts and slopes for the Chinese and U.S. samples,
controlling for age, gender, and job position
Interpersonal
Job autonomy Org. constraints constraints
a b a b a b
Frustration US — — 1.52 0.92 2.22 0.72

China — — 2.89 0.35 3.30 0.21
Job satisfaction US 4.06 0.11 — — 5.52 .42
China 2.41 0.24 — — 3.91 .19
Note: p < 0.05; p < 0.01. a: Intercept; b: Slope. Only the regression equations with significant moderator effects of country are
presented.
‘steeper’ than the slope for the Chinese data (see Table 6). The corresponding correlation coefficients in
Table 4a were larger in magnitude for the U.S. sample than for the Chinese sample.
As predicted by hypothesis 1.10a, country significantly moderated the relationship between
organizational constraints and frustration (see Table 5). The slope was ‘steeper’ for the American data
than for the Chinese data (see Table 6). The corresponding correlation coefficients in Table 4a were
larger in magnitude for the U.S. data than for the Chinese data. Country also significantly moderated the
interpersonal constraints–frustration relationship (see Table 5). Again, the slope for the U.S. data was
‘steeper’ than the slope for the Chinese data (see Table 6). The corresponding correlation coefficients in
Table 4a were larger in magnitude for the U.S. data than for the Chinese data. On the other hand, there
was no significant moderator effect of country on the organizational constraints–job satisfaction
relationship. Hypothesis 1.10b was not supported.
Qualitative results
Job stressors
The content analysis of stressful job incidents revealed seven job stressors: (1) organizational
constraints, (2) interpersonal conflict, (3) workload (having a lot to do or not having enough time to do
the work), (4) lack of control, (5) job evaluations and exams (examinations for professional
certification, which are important for employees’ promotion and annual job evaluation), (6) work
mistakes (making errors at work), (7) work/family conflict, and (8) other. Organizational constraints,
interpersonal conflict, and workload were the top three stressors for both samples (see Table 7).
Organizational constraints were further broken into five sub-categories which reflected different
aspects of constraint: (1) constraints of employment conditions (e.g., problems relating to pay and
benefits); (2) lack of training; (3) lack of team coordination and support; (4) equipment/situation
constraints; and (5) lack of structure (unclear assignments or disorganized work). Interpersonal
conflict was further broken into two sub-categories: (1) direct conflict (confrontations or arguments
between people) and (2) indirect conflict (doing nasty things when the person was not present, such as
spreading rumors). See Table 8 for details.
The qualitative hypotheses were examined by chi-square tests. First, a 7 2 (stressor omitting the
‘other’ category by country) chi-square test revealed that the nature of reported job stressors was
significantly different between American and Chinese employees (x2 ¼ 52.53, df ¼ 7, p ¼ 0.001).
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 7. The chi-square tests for job stressors between American and Chinese samples: the 2 2 individual
stressor country tests
Job stressors Country Report No Report Total x2 df p
Organizational constraints US 42 137 179 0.14 1 0.72

China 47 140 187
Interpersonal conflict US 38 141 179 0.05 1 0.83
China 38 149 187
Workload US 42 137 179 1.90 1 0.20
China 33 154 187
Lack of control US 38 141 179 28.08 1 0.00
China 6 181 187
Job evaluations US 3 176 179 13.62 1 0.00
China 21 166 187
Work mistakes US 6 173 179 9.16 1 0.00
China 22 165 187
Work/family conflict US 3 176 179 1.47 1 0.34
China 7 180 187
Other US 7 172 179 1.64 1 0.25
China 13 174 187
Note: p < 0.05;
p < 0.01.
As shown in Table 7, while 21% of American employees reported lack of job control as a source of
stress, only 3% of the Chinese sample mentioned it. The chi-square test indicated a significant
difference between the United States and China in the frequency of lack of control reported. Hypothesis
2.1 was supported.
A 2 2 (conflict type by country) chi-square test revealed that the nature of conflict type was
significantly different between American and Chinese employees (x2 ¼ 23.36, df ¼ 1, p ¼ 0.001). The
Table 8. The chi-square tests for sub-category of interpersonal conflict and organizational constraints between
American and Chinese samples: the 2 2 individual stressor country tests
Job stressors Country Report No report Total x2 df p
Organizational constraints
Employment condition US 5 174 179 4.09 1 0.04
China 14 173 187
Lack of training US 5 174 179 4.09 1 0.04
China 14 173 187
Lack of team coordination US 20 159 179 5.07 1 0.02
China 9 178 187
Equipment constraints US 9 170 179 0.36 1 0.55
China 7 180 187
Lack of structure US 3 176 179 0.00 1 0.96
China 3 184 187
Interpersonal conflict
Direct conflict US 28 151 179 14.97 1 0.00
China 7 180 187
Indirect conflict US 10 169 179 11.11 1 0.00
China 31 156 187
Note: p < 0.05;
p < 0.01.
DOI: 10.1002/job
230 C. LIU ET AL.
American sample reported significantly more direct conflict, whereas the Chinese sample reported
significantly more indirect conflict (see Table 8). Hypothesis 2.2 was supported.
There was no significant difference between China and the United States in the frequency of overall
organizational constraints reported (see Table 7). Hypothesis 2.3 was not supported. However, a 5 2
(organizational constraints type by country) chi-square test revealed a significant difference in the
nature of reported organizational constraints between American and Chinese employees (x2 ¼ 12.71,
df ¼ 4, p ¼ 0.01). The Chinese sample complained more about conditions of employment and lack of
training. The American sample complained more about team coordination (see Table 8).
Finally, whereas 23% of Chinese employees reported incidents related to job evaluations and
examinations, and work mistakes, only 5% of American employees reported them. The chi-square test
showed that the frequencies were significantly different (see Table 7).
Psychological strains
Table 9 presents eight psychological strains revealed by the content analyses: (1) anxiety; (2) anger; (3)
frustration; (4) sadness; (5) feeling overwhelmed; (6) energy; (7) helplessness; (8) withdrawal; and (9)
other. As can be seen from Table 9, anger and anxiety were top psychological strains for both samples.
An 8 2 (psychological strain omitting the ‘other’ category by country) chi-square test yielded a
significant difference in the nature of psychological strains reported by the U.S. and the Chinese
samples (x2 ¼ 72.84, df ¼ 7, p ¼ 0.001). As shown in Table 9, American employees reported
significantly more anger, frustration, and feeling overwhelmed. Hypothesis 2.4a was supported. On the
other hand, in supporting Hypothesis 2.4b, Chinese employees reported significantly more anxiety and
helplessness.
Table 9. The chi-square tests for psychological strains between American and Chinese samples: the 2 2
individual psychological strain country tests
Psychological strains Country Report No report Total x2 df p
Anxiety US 19 160 179 30.15 1 0.00

China 65 122 187
Anger US 41 138 179 11.93 1 0.00
China 18 169 187
Frustration US 22 157 179 24.45 1 0.00
China 0 187 187
Sadness US 13 166 179 1.51 1 0.22
China 8 179 187
Feeling overwhelmed US 13 166 179 8.93 1 0.00
China 2 185 187
Energy US 6 173 179 0.50 1 0.48
China 9 178 187
Helplessness US 2 177 179 6.06 1 0.01
China 11 176 187
Withdrawal US 4 175 179 0.77 1 0.38
China 2 185 187
Other US 22 157 179 0.21 1 0.65
China 26 161 187
Total psychological strains reported US 142 37 179 0.81 1 0.37
China 141 46 187
Note: p < 0.05;
p < 0.01.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 10. The chi-square tests for physical strains between American and Chinese samples: the 2 2 individual
physical strain country tests
Physical strains Country Report No report Total x2 df p
Tiredness US 25 154 179 2.69 1 0.10

China 16 171 187
Sleep problems US 2 177 179 11.81 1 0.00
China 17 170 187
Physical discomfort US 7 172 179 0.43 1 0.51
China 10 177 187
Increased heart rate US 5 174 179 0.05 1 0.82
China 6 181 187
Sickness US 7 172 179 1.83 1 0.18
China 3 184 187
Feeling hot US 1 178 179 4.34 1 0.04
China 7 180 187
Stomach problem US 6 173 179 6.37 1 0.01
China 0 187 187
Headache US 2 177 179 0.16 1 0.69
China 3 184 187
Other US 2 177 179 1.87 1 0.17
China 6 181 187
Total physical strains reported US 57 122 179 0.83 1 0.36
China 68 119 187
Note: p < 0.05;
p < 0.01.
Physical strains
Table 10 presents eight physical reactions revealed by the content analyses: (1) tiredness; (2) sleep
problems; (3) physical discomfort; (4) increased heart rate; (5) sickness; (6) feeling hot; (7) stomach
problems; (8) headache; and (9) other. As can be seen from Table 10, while tiredness was the top
physical strain reported by American employees, both tiredness and sleep problem were top physical
strains reported by Chinese employees.
The chi-square test on eight physical strains (8 2, physical strain omitting the ‘other’ category by
country) revealed that the nature of physical strains were significantly different between American and
Chinese samples (x2 ¼ 26.41, df ¼ 7, p ¼ 0.001). American employees had more stomach problems,
whereas Chinese employees experienced more sleep problems, and feeling hot (see Table 10).
Discussion
We contrasted qualitative and quantitative data on job stressors and strains in samples from two
culturally-dissimilar countries: China and the United States. Results supported some, but not all,
hypotheses that were based on culture theories.
Job stressors in China and the United States
Lack of job autonomy

The quantitative results that the U.S. participants perceived a higher level of job autonomy than their
Chinese counterparts were consistent with previous studies (e.g., Hamid, 1994; Hui, 1982; Smith,
DOI: 10.1002/job
232 C. LIU ET AL.
Trompenaars, & Dugan, 1995; Spector et al., 2004). Our qualitative analyses revealed that lack of job
control was a frequently-reported job stressor by American employees but not Chinese. These results
were consistent with our hypotheses that Americans would expect and experience more control, but
that lack of control would be a more salient stressor for them than for Chinese.
Interpersonal conflict
Though our quantitative data indicated no difference between Chinese and American university
employees in overall interpersonal conflict, our qualitative analyses revealed that the Chinese reported
more indirect conflicts whereas Americans more direct conflicts. The combination of collectivism and
Confucianism that might inhibit direct conflict by Chinese in order to maintain harmony and save face
doesn’t preclude indirect forms of conflict. Individualist Americans are less likely to avoid having
direct conflict with other people. In addition, our American participants were sampled from the
southeastern U.S. Though faculty may come from different parts of the country, most university staff is
from local areas. The southern Americans are characterized by culture of honor (Cohen, Nisbett,
Bowdle, & Schwarz, 1996) that demands retribution for even small affronts. When confronted with
interpersonal conflict, culture of honor demands direct response, making it more common for American
employees, especially in the south, to have direct conflict with others (e.g., Chua & Gudykunst, 1987).
Our results are consistent with Ting-Toomey’s (1985) conclusion that individualists valued straight talk
and tend to verbalize overtly their individual needs whereas collectivists emphasized implicit and
indirect verbal interaction to maintain harmony in a conflict.
Organizational constraints
Contrary to our hypothesis, the quantitative analysis showed that university employees in the U. S. had
a higher not lower level of organizational constraints than their Chinese counterparts. The qualitative
analysis found no difference in overall constraints. However, our qualitative analysis showed that
Chinese employees reported more constraints of employment conditions (e.g., budget, pay, benefit, and
job insecurity) and lack of training. It may have been the case that the economic/resource explanation is
correct for some constraints but not those that are less dependent on monetary resources.
More detailed qualitative and quantitative analysis suggested that Americans differed from Chinese
mainly in reporting more interpersonal constraints. There is a cultural explanation in that collectivism
leads Chinese to be more cooperative, and thus better able to work in groups. Americans, by working
more independently, may have less developed group and team skills than Chinese. Therefore,
interpersonal constraints would be a more serious problem for American employees.
Psychological strains in China and the United States

Our quantitative hypotheses about frustration and depression differences between Americans and
Chinese university employees were not supported. However, the qualitative data revealed that
Americans more frequently reported anger and frustration, whereas Chinese more frequently reported
anxiety and helplessness.
As predicted, American university employees were significantly higher in turnover intentions than
their Chinese counterparts. The higher unemployment rate and job scarcity as well as difficulties in
changing employers in China may have decreased employees’ turnover intentions. This result is similar
to Spector et al.’s (2004) findings that Anglos had higher intentions of quitting their jobs than Chinese.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Consistent with previous findings (e.g., Spector et al., 2004), Americans have higher job satisfaction
than their Chinese counterparts. Previous cross-cultural studies using different job satisfaction scales
have also found that Chinese employees had lower level of job satisfaction than their American
counterparts (e.g., Spector et al., 2002).
Physical strains in China and the United States

The Chinese university employees reported significantly more total physical symptoms than the
Americans on the quantitative scale. Chinese employees also reported more qualitative incidents of
physical strains than American employees (68 vs. 57). Spector et al. (2004) also reported that Chinese
had lower physical well-being than Anglos and Latin Americans. At least one of the symptom
differences might have been attributed to the physical environment. Specifically, Chinese might have
reported feeling hot because their workplaces lacked air conditioning, a situation less likely in an
American university in the south.
New job stressors and job strains
Our qualitative results showed that the established stressors of organizational constraints,
interpersonal conflict, and work overload were frequently noted by university employees from both
countries. However, there were some stressors that were more frequently noted by participants in one
country than the other. For example, lack of control was frequently cited by American employees but
not by Chinese employees. Job evaluations and Work mistakes were more frequently mentioned by
Chinese. These latter two stressors have not been given much attention in Western research, perhaps
because they are less important for Americans and others in Western societies.
As for strains, anger, anxiety, and feeling tired were frequently reported by both countries. On the
other hand, frustration, feeling overwhelmed, and stomach problem were only frequently noted by
American employees, whereas helplessness, hopeless, sleep problem, and feeling hot were important
strains only for Chinese employees.
Job stressor–strain relationships in China and the United States
Significant job stressor–strain relationships were found in both Chinese and American samples,
indicating that the underlying processes by which stressors and strains are linked might be similar.
There were also interaction effects between country and job stressors in predicting psychological but
not physical strains.
Country moderated the relationship between job autonomy and job satisfaction. However, opposite
to our predictions, as job autonomy increased, job satisfaction increased more for Chinese employees
than for American employees. One explanation is that the Americans tended to have a higher level of
autonomy with most Americans perceiving a sufficient level. Thus autonomy might not have had a
large effect on their job satisfaction. Chinese may have considered autonomy less important, but it still
might be a factor in their job satisfaction, and if too low, it might contribute to job dissatisfaction.
Country moderated the interpersonal constraints–job satisfaction relationship. As predicted, with
more interpersonal constraints, American employees were more dissatisfied with their jobs than their
Chinese counterparts. Americans, with their greater emphasis on personal achievement, might focus
more on their task and performance than complicated interpersonal relationships. Interpersonal
DOI: 10.1002/job
234 C. LIU ET AL.
constraints are deemed as something unexpected and annoying. On the other hand, Chinese culture
values relationships among people. In order to experience career advancement, one must master
complicated interpersonal relationships. At the same time, Chinese people fully expect problems of
interpersonal constraints, and consider them as part of their work. Therefore, interpersonal constraints
had more influence on American employees’ job satisfaction level than on Chinese employees’ job
satisfaction level.
Finally, country significantly moderated the relations of organizational and interpersonal constraints
with frustration. The relationships were stronger for American employees than for Chinese employees.
One explanation is that constraints that jeopardize performance may have a bigger impact on
frustration for Americans than Chinese, perhaps because the latter are taught to inhibit angry feelings
when faced with adversity. In addition, Chinese employees may have learned a variety of strategies to
cope with limited resources.
Taken together, though there were significant relationships between job stressors and job strains in
both China and the United States, likely culture unavoidably affected the magnitude of such
relationships (Spector et al., 2004). Our results were consistent with previous findings. For example, in
Lu et al.’s (2000) study, job stressors were negatively related to job satisfaction, and mental and
physical health in both the United Kingdom and Taiwan. However, the mean magnitude of the
significant correlations was much higher in the United Kingdom than in Taiwan.
Limitations and future research
There were a number of limitations of this study that needs to be considered in interpreting the results.
First, this study collected data from only two countries, so culture is confounded with a host of other
differences that exist between China and the U.S. We discussed cultural differences based on important
cultural theories (e.g., Hofstede, 2001; Schwartz, 1999) and previous studies. However, culture was not
directly measured in our study. Future studies should measure cultural dimensions in a larger number of
countries in order to better isolate the effects of specific culture variables.
Second, our data were collected from university employees. Though university settings offer a
variety of job positions (e.g., academic professionals, clerks, and manual laborers.), it remains
unknown how well our results could be generalized to other professions and work settings. Future
studies should examine cross-cultural job stress with other groups of employees.
Third, the ME/I analysis indicated marginal fits for the mean invariance of some scales, particularly
organizational constraints, interpersonal constraints, and job satisfaction. Comparisons involving these
variables should be considered with caution, as responses might not have represented the same level of
each variable across samples. Since Chinese and English are such different languages, it is possible that
culture and translation caused scale nonequivalence, which distorted mean and relationship
comparisons. In addition, difference in culturally-determined response patterns between the samples
may also inflate or attenuate mean differences (e.g., Cheung & Rensvold, 2000; Smith et al., 2002; Van
de Vijver & Leung, 1997).
Acquiescence response style (ARS) refers to giving social desirable answers (Cheung & Rensvold,
2000). Considering Chinese culture is described as high hierarchy (Schwartz, 1999), it is likely that
Chinese employees would respond to at least some of the quantitative items in a more acquiescent
manner (e.g., report less organizational and interpersonal constraints). The tendency to endorse
extreme options or extreme response style (ERS; Cheung & Rensvold, 2000) is characteristic of
Americans but not Asians such as Koreans (Chun, Campbell, & Yoo, 1974). It is possible that the mean
difference in job satisfaction was caused by Chinese employees’ avoiding extreme positive response
choices. Finally, when analyzing the moderator effects of country on job stressor–job satisfaction
DOI: 10.1002/job
relationships, we should realize that the less than satisfactory reliability coefficient and factor loading
invariance of the job satisfaction scale might have affected these results.
The measurement nonequivalence is of particular concern with results that were not consistent
between the qualitative and quantitative analyses. It is important to replicate the quantitative results by
counting frequencies of job stress incidents in a qualitative study. The latter method allows participants
to indicate in their own words the types of situations that are stressful, and their reactions to those
situations. It does not require that participants in both country groups interpret subtle meanings in the
same way, or share the same biases and response tendencies.
Taken together, this study demonstrated how the combined use of both qualitative and quantitative
approaches complements one another. First, using a quantitative approach, we investigated the
similarities and differences in job stressors and strains between China and the United States. Second,
significant job stressor–strain relations were found in both samples. However, our hierarchical
regression analyses revealed significant interactions between job stressors (e.g., job autonomy,
interpersonal conflict, organizational constraints, and interpersonal constraints) and country in
predicting job strains. Third, the qualitative data served as a replication and extension of the
quantitative results. For example, the qualitative results helped explain that despite overall similarities
in conflict, Americans and Chinese tended to engage in different types of conflict. The qualitative
results also helped explain the unexpected higher American mean on organizational constraints.
Finally, the qualitative method contributed above and beyond the quantitative approach in that new job
stressors were revealed that have not been previously studied. Therefore, the continued use of both
methods in cross-cultural and cross-national research should help further our understanding of the
stress process.
Author biographies
Cong Liu is an Assistant Professor in Industrial/Organizational Psychology in the Department of

Psychology at Illinois State University. She earned her Ph.D. in I/O Psychology from the University of
South Florida. Her research interests include job stress, cross-cultural job stress, cross-cultural
interpersonal conflict at work, job complexity, methodology issues in job stress study, cross-cultural
measurement equivalence/invariance, and cultural theories. She has published on Journal of Applied
Psychology and Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.
Paul E. Spector is a distinguished university professor of industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology
and the I/O doctoral program director at the University of South Florida. His more than 100 journal
articles have appeared in many journals, including Academy of Management Journal, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Personnel Psychology, and Psychological Bulletin. At
present he is the Point/Counterpoint editor for Journal of Organizational Behavior, and is on the
editorial boards of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Organizational Research
Methods, and Personnel Psychology. In 1991, the Institute For Scientific Information listed him as one
of the 50 highest impact contemporary researchers (out of over 102 000) in psychology worldwide.
Dr. Lin Shi is an associate professor in the School of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, China.
She earned her Ph.D. in the Department of Psychology, University of Washington. Her current research
interests are in the area of stress and coping, stress management, stress related health issues.
DOI: 10.1002/job
236 C. LIU ET AL.
References
Bae, K., & Chung, C. (1997). Cultural values and work attitudes of Korean industrial workers in comparison with
those of the United States and Japan. Work and Occupations, 24, 80–96.
Beehr, T., & Newman, J. E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis,
model, and literature review. Personnel Psychology, 31, 665–699.
Boisot, M., & Child, J. (1996). From fiefs to clans and network capitalism: Explaining China’s emerging economic
order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 600–628.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment
Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Carsten, J. M., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Unemployment, job satisfaction, and employee turnover: A meta-analytic
test of the Muchinsky model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 374–381.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2000). Assessing extreme and acquiescence response sets in cross-cultural
research using structural equations modeling. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 31, 188–213.
Chua, E., & Gudykunst, W. (1987). Conflict resolution style in low- and high-context cultures. Communication
Research Reports, 4, 32–37.
Chun, K. T., Campbell, J. B., & Yoo, J. H. (1974). Extreme response style in cross-cultural research: A reminder.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5, 465–480.
Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., Bowdle, B. F., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of
honor: An ‘‘experimental ethnography’’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 945–960.
Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1999). National differences in subjective well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N.
Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 434–450). New York: Russell Sage.
Egri, C. P., & Ralston, D. A. (2004). Generation cohorts and personal values: A comparison of China and the
United States. Organizational Science, 15, 210–220.
Eysenck, H. J. (1994). Cancer, personality and stress: Prediction and prevention. Advances in Behavior Research
and Therapy, 16, 167–215.
Fang, T. (2003). A critique of Hofstede’s fifth national culture dimension. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, 3, 347–368.
Fernandez-Ballesteros, R., Ruiz, M. A., & Garde, S. (1998). Emotional expression in healthy women and those
with breast cancer. British Journal of Health Psychology, 3, 41–50.
Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: Testing a model among young
workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 246–255.
Glazer, S., & Beehr, T. A. (2005). Consistency of implications of three role stressors across four countries. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 26, 467–487.
Greenfield, P. (1996). Culture as process: Empirical methodology for cultural psychology. In J. W. Berry, Y. H.
Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, 1 (revised ed.): 301–346. Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Greer, S., & Watson, M. (1985). Towards a psychobiological model of cancere: Psychological considerations.
Social Science and Medicine, 20, 773–777.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1998). Individualistic and collectivistic perspectives on communication: An introduction.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 107–134.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1986). Attributional confidence in low- and high-context cultures. Human
Communication Research, 12, 525–549.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational
Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 16, 250–279.
Hamid, P. N. (1994). Self-monitoring, locus of control, and social encounters of Chinese and New Zealand
students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 353–368.
Ho, D. Y. F., & Chiu, C. Y. (1994). Component ideas of individualism, collectivism, and social organization: An
application in the study of Chinese culture. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon
(Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 137–156). New Park, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. H. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (ebridged ed.).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across
nations (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Hsu, F. L. K. (1981). Americans and Chinese: Passage to differences (3rd ed.). Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press.
Huang, G. G. (1986). Organizational commitment and career commitment among Taiwanese high school teachers
[in Chinese]. National Cheng-chi University Bulletin, 53, 55–84.
Hui, C. H. (1982). Locus of control: A review of cross-cultural research. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 6, 301–323.
Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 225–248.
Hwang, K. K. (1997). Guanxi and Mientze: Conflict resolution in Chinese society. Intercultural Communication
Studies, 7, 17–42.
Idaszak, J. R., & Drasgow, F. (1987). A revision of the Job Diagnostic Survey: Elimination of a measurement
artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 69–74.
Information Technology Associates. (2003). ITA. [online] Available: http://www.theodora.com/ita.html.
Iwata, N., Okuyama, Y., Kawakami, Y., & Saito, K. (1989). Prevalence of depressive symptoms in a Japanese
occupational setting: A preliminary study. American Journal of Public Health, 79, 1486–1489.
Jamal, M. (1999). Job stress, type-A behavior, and well-being: A cross-cultural examination. International Journal
of Stress Management, 6, 57–67.
Jamal, M., & Preena, S. (1998). Job stress and employee well-being among airline employees in an Asian
developing country. International Journal of Stress Management, 5, 121–127.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2002). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.
Karasek, R. A., Jr. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–307.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
Keenan, A., & Newton, T. J. (1985). Stressful events, stressors and psychological strains in young professional
engineers. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 6, 151–156.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kuo, S. Y. (1989). Stress and burnout among Taiwanese teachers [in Chinese]. Bullet in of Educational Psychology,
23, 71–98.
Lee, M. L. (1997). The Chinese concept of Ren (forbearance): Theory and empirical analysis [in Chinese].
Unpublished master thesis, National Taiwan University.
Leung, K. (1988). Some determinants of conflict avoidance. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 19, 125–136.
Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and
theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 53–76.
Liu, C., & Spector, P. E. (2004). International and cross-cultural issues. In J. Barling, K. Kelloway, & M. Frone
(Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 487–515). Thousand oaks, CA: Sage.
Liu, C., Borg, I., & Spector, P. E. (2004). Measurement equivalence of a German job satisfaction survey used in a
multinational organization: Implications of Schwartz’s culture model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
1070–1082.
Lu, L., Chen, Y. C., Hsu, C. H., Li, C. H., Wu, H. L., & Shih, J. B. (1994). Occupational stress and its correlates.
Taipai: IOSH.
Lu, L., Kao, S. F., Cooper, C. L., & Spector, P. E. (2000). Managerial stress, locus of control, and job strain in
Taiwan and UK: A comparative study. International Journal of Stress Management, 7, 209–226.
Lundberg, C. D., & Peterson, M. F. (1994). The meaning of working in U.S. and Japanese local governments at
three hierarchical levels. Human Relations, 47, 1459–1487.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1998). The cultural psychology of personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 29, 63–87.
McCormick, I. A., & Cooper, C. L. (1988). Executive stress: Extending the international comparison. Human
Relations, 41, 65–72.
McGrath, J. E. (1976). Stress and behavior in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (pp. 1351–1395). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58,
525–543.
Millington, A., Eberhardt, M., & Wilkinson, B. (2006). Guanxi and supplier search mechanisms in China. Human
Relations, 59, 505–531.
Morris, M. W., Leung, K., Ames, D., & Lickel, B. (1999). Views from inside and outside: Integrating emic and etic
insights about culture and justice judgment. Academy of Management Review, 24, 781–796.
DOI: 10.1002/job
238 C. LIU ET AL.
Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J. S., & Manning, M. R. (1986). Occupational stress: Its causes and consequences for job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 611–629.
Narayanan, L., Menon, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A cross-cultural comparison of job stressors and reactions
among employees holding comparable jobs in two countries. International Journal of Stress Management, 6,
197–212.
Oyserman, D., Kemmelmeier, M., & Coon, H. M. (2002). Culture psychology, a new look: Reply to Bond, Fiske,
Kitayama, and Miller. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 110–117.
Parkes, K. R. (1984). Locus of control, cognitive appraisal, and coping in stressful episodes. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 46, 655–668.
Parkes, K. R. (1985). Stressful episodes reported by first-year student nurses: A descriptive account. Social Science
Medicine, 20, 945–953.
Peters, L. H., & O’Connor, E. J. (1988). Measuring work obstacles: Procedures, issues, and implications. In F. D.
Schoorman, & B. Schneider (Eds.), Facilitating work effectiveness: Issues in organization and management
series (pp. 105–123). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books/D.C. Heath and Company.
Peterson, M. F., Smith, P. B., Akande, A., Ayestaran, S., Bochner, S., Callan, V., Cho, N. G., Jesuino, J. C.,
D’Amorim, M., Francois, P. H., Hofmann, K., Koopman, P. L., Leung, K., Lim, T. K., Mortazavi, S., Munene, J.,
Radford, M., Ropo, A., Savage, G., Setiadi, B., Sinha, T. N., Sorenson, R., & Viedge, C. (1995). Role conflict,
ambiguity, and overload: A 21-nation study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 429–452.
Quick, J. C., Quick, J. D., Nelson, D., & Hurrell, J. J., Jr. (1997). Preventive stress management in organizations.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Raju, N. S., Laffitte, L. J., & Byrne, B. M. (2002). Measurement equivalence: A comparison of methods based on
confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 517–529.
Ralston, D. A., Yu, K. C., Wang, X., Terpstra, R. H., & He, W. (1996). The cosmopolitan Chinese manager:
Findings of a study on managerial values across the six regions of China. Journal of International Management,
2, 79–109.
Ralston, D. A., Egri, C. P., Stewart, S., Terpstra, R. H., & Yu, K. C. (1999). Doing business in the 21st century with
the new generation of Chinese managers: A study of generational shifts in work values in China. Journal of
International Business Studies, 30, 415–428.
Redding, S. G. (1990). The spirit of Chinese capitalism. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Redding, S. G., & Ng, M. (1982). The role of ‘‘face’’ in the organizational perceptions of Chinese managers.
Organization Studies, 3, 201–219.
Reykowski, J. (1994). Collectivism and individualism as dimensions of social change. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis,
C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications
(pp. 276–292). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ryan, A. M., Chan, D., Ployhart, R. E., & Slade, L. A. (1999). Employee attitude surveys in a multinational
organization: Considering language and culture in assessing measurement equivalence. Personnel Psychology,
52, 37–58.
Sadri, G., Marcoulides, G. A., Cooper, C. L., & Kirkcaldy, B. (1996). Testing a model of occupational stress across
different countries. Journal of Business and Management, Winter, 10–29.
Schütte, H., & Ciarlante, D. (1998). Consumer behavior in Asia. New York: New York University Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 48, 23–47.
Smith, P. B., Trompenaars, F., & Dugan, S. (1995). The Rotter locus of control scale in 43 countries: A test of
cultural relativity. International Journal of Psychology, 30, 377–400.
Smith, P. B., Peterson, M. F., Schwartz, S. H., Ahmad, A. H., Akande, D., Andersen, J. A., Ayestaran, S., Bochner,
S., Callan, V., Davila, C., Ekelund, B., Francois, P. H., Graversen, G., Harb, C., Jesuino, J., Kantas, A.,
Karamushka, L., Koopman, P., Leung, K., Kruzela, P., Malvezzi, S., Mogaji, A., Mortazavi, S., Munene, J.,
Parry, K., Punnett, B. J., Radford, M., Ropo, A., Saiz, J., Savage, G., Setiadi, B., Sorenson, R., Szabo, E.,
Teparakul, P., Tirmizi, A., Tsvetanova, S., Viedge, C., Wall, C., & Yanchuk, V. (2002). Cultural values, sources
of guidance, and their relevance to managerial behavior: A 47-nation study. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 33, 188–208.
Spector, P. E. (2003). Individual differences in health and well-being in organizations. In D. A. Hofmann, & L. E.
Tetrick (Eds.), Health and safety in organizaitons: A multilevel perspective (pp. 29–55). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1991). Relations of job characteristics from multiple data sources with employee
affect, absence, turnover intentions, and health. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 46–53.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strains:
Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory, and
Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356–367.
Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. J., & Jex, S. M. (1988). The relationship of job stressors to affective, health, and
performance outcomes: A comparison of multiple data sources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 11–19.
Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Sanchez, J. I., O’Driscoll, M., Sparks, K., Bernin, P., Büssing, A., Dewe, P., Hart, P.,
Lu, L., Miller, K., Renault de Moraes, L., Ostrognay, G. M., Pagon, M., Pitariu, H., Poelmans, S., Radhak-
rishnan, P., Russinova, V., Salamatov, V., Salgado, J., Shima, S., Siu, O. L., Stora, J. B., Teichmann, M., Theorell,
T., Vlerick, P., Westman, M., Widerszal-Bazyl, M., Wong, P., & Yu, S. (2000). Do national levels of
individualism and internal locus of control relate to well-being: An ecological level international study. Paper
presented at the Southern Management Association Conference, Orlando, Florida, November 8–11.
T., Vlerick, P., Westman, M., Widerszal-Bazyl, M., Wong, P., & Yu, S. (2001). Do national levels of
individualism and internal locus of control relate to well-being: An ecological level international study. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 22, 815–832.
T., Vlerick, P., Westman, M., Widerszal-Bazyl, M., Wong, P., & Yu, S. (2002). A 24 nation/territory study of
work locus of control in relation to well-being at work: How generalizable are western findings? Academy of
Management Journal, 45, 453–466.
Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Poelmans, S., Allen, T. D., O’Driscoll, M., Sanchez, J. I., Siu, O. L., Dewe, P., Hart, P.,
& Lu, L. (2004). A cross-national comparative study of work-family stressors, working hours, and well-being;
China and Latin America Versus the Anglo Word. Personnel Psychology, 57, 119–142.
Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., & Williams, J. B. W. (1999). Validation and utility of a self-report version of
PRIME-MD: The PHQ Primary Care Study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 1737–1744.
The Chinese Culture Connection. (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143–164.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1985). Toward a theory of conflict and culture. In W. Gudykunst, L. Stewart, & S. Ting-Toomey
(Eds.), Communication, culture, and organizational processes (pp. 71–86). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S., Trubisky, P., & Nishida, T. (1989). An analysis of conflict styles in Japan and the United States.
Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Convention, San Francisco.
Triandis, H. (1988). Collectivism vs. individualism: A reconceptualization of a basic concept in cross-cultural
social psychology. In G. K. Verma, & C. Bagley (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and values: Cross-cultural
perspectives on childhood and adolescence (pp. 60–95). London: Macmillan.
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., & Asai, M. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural
perspectives on selfngroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323–338.
Tung, R. L. (1996). Patterns of motivation in Chinese industrial enterprises. Academy of Management Review, 12,
3–19.
Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Method and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Veenhoven, R. (1993). Happiness in nations: Subjective appreciation of life in 56 nations 1946–1992. Rotterdam:
Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park: Sage.
Werner, O., & Campbell, D. (1970). Translation, working through interpreters and the problem of decentering. In
R. Naroll, & R. Cohen (Eds.), A Handbook of method in cultural anthropology (pp. 398–420). New York:
Natural history Press.
World Bank Group. (2001). World Development Indicators. Retrieved from worldbank.org/data/wdi2001/
index.htm, June 2004.
DOI: 10.1002/job
View publication stats

Artigo - English - Cross-National Job Stress - Liu - Spector - Shi - 07

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Artigo - English - Cross-National Job Stress - Liu - Spector - Shi - 07

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Use of Both Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Study Job Stress in

Article in Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · November 2008

Cong Liu Paul E. Spector

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Workplace Ostracism Project I View project

Challenge and Hindrance Project View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Cross-national job stress: a quantitative

Received 26 July 2004

Culture Comparison: The United States and China

Individualism Versus Collectivism (I–C)

Economic/resource differences between China and the United States

The changing nature of culture

Quantitative Versus Qualitative Methods in Cross-National Job

The Current Study

The relationships between job stressors and strains

The moderator effects of country on job stressor–strain relations

Time and Location

Participants and procedure

Table 1. Demographic information

Faculty Support Faculty Support

Measurement Equivalence/Invariance (ME/I)

Job autonomy Fitting the model to the US data — — — — —

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 209–239 (2007)

Autonomy US 5.62 1.68 0.95 300 7.58 578 0.00

The relationship between job stressors and strains

The moderator effects of country on job stressor–strain relations

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 209–239 (2007)

Frustration Age 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 209–239 (2007)

Interpersonal Job context Interpersonal

Frustration Age 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.10

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 209–239 (2007)

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Frustration 0.002 0.002 0.031 0.001 0.032

J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 209–239 (2007)

Frustration US — — 1.52 0.92 2.22 0.72

Organizational constraints US 42 137 179 0.14 1 0.72

Anxiety US 19 160 179 30.15 1 0.00

Tiredness US 25 154 179 2.69 1 0.10

Job stressors in China and the United States

Lack of job autonomy

Psychological strains in China and the United States

Physical strains in China and the United States

New job stressors and job strains

Job stressor–strain relationships in China and the United States

Limitations and future research

Cong Liu is an Assistant Professor in Industrial/Organizational Psychology in the Department of

View publication stats

You might also like