Use of Both Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Study Job Stress in Different Gender and Occupational Groups Cong Liu Hofstra University Paul E. Spector University of South Florida Lin Shi Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China Gender differences in job stress were investigated, collecting both qualitative (stressful incidents at work) and quantitative (rating scales of commonly experienced job stressors and strains) data from a sample of university employees. Content analyses of the qualitative data revealed 5 major job stressors, 5 major psychological strains, and 4 major physical strains experienced by both genders. When comparisons are made between men and women on their job stress experiences, a potential confounder is occupation, for which the authors controlled. While the authors controlled for occupation, women reported more overall psychological strains (as indicated by the qualitative data) and depression (as indicated by the quantitative data) than did men. Conversely, while the authors controlled for gender, faculty reported more anger and less frustration (as indicated by the qualitative data) and less turnover intentions (as indicated by the quantitative data) than did support staff. In this study, both qualitative and quantitative data indicated interaction effects between gender and occupation in predicting job stressors and strains. Finally, there was a stronger relation between interpersonal conflicts and negative emotions/job satisfac- tion were stronger for faculty than for staff. Keywords: job stressor, job strain, gender, occupation, qualitative approach Although job stress has become a popular topic of research, demographic factors of occupation and gen- der have not received sufficient systematic attention (Iwasaki, MacKay, & Ristock, 2004). Though some researchers studied job stress among occupations (e.g., Liu, Spector, & Jex, 2005; Taris, Bakker, Schaufeli, Stoffelsen, & van Dierendonck, 2005), not many studies have focused on unique job stressors and strains experienced by employees in different occupations. Nonetheless, both gender and occupa- tion contribute significantly to employees’ job stress experiences (Narayanan, Menon, & Spector, 1999; Pousette & Hanse, 2002). Narayanan et al. (1999) used a qualitative method to study job stress among professors, clerks, and sales associates. As a replication and extension of their study, we ex- amined the role of gender and occupation on job stressors and strains among university faculty and support staff, utilizing both qualitative and quan- titative methods. Gender and Job Stress Gender and Job Stressors Some have suggested that men and women expe- rience different stressors (e.g., Misra, McKean, West, & Russo, 2000). Research has shown that men’s stressors relate to finances (McDonough & Walters, 2001), work-related power (Spielberger & Vagg, 1999;Vagg, Spielberger, & Wasala, 2002), and job responsibility (Sharada & Raju, 2001). On the other hand, women’s stressors relate to social life (McDon- ough & Walters, 2001), interpersonal issues (Thomp- son, Kirk, & Brown, 2006), work–family conflicts (Vagg et al., 2002), role conflict, and role ambiguity (Sharada & Raju, 2001). Spielberger and Vagg (1999) found that lack of participation and conflict with other departments were more stressful for men, whereas inadequate salary, insufficient personal time, and competition for advancement were more stressful for women. Cong Liu, Department of Psychology, Hofstra Univer- sity; Paul E. Spector, Department of Psychology, University of South Florida; Lin Shi, College of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China. A portion of the data used in this article overlapped with data in Liu, Spector, and Shi’s (2007) article. Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Cong Liu, Department of Psychology, 135 Hof- stra University, Hempstead, NY 11549. E-mail: cong.liu@ hofstra.edu Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2008, Vol. 13, No. 4, 357–370 Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association 1076-8998/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1076-8998.13.4.357 357
Transcript
Use of Both Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Study JobStress in Different Gender and Occupational Groups
Cong LiuHofstra University
Paul E. SpectorUniversity of South Florida
Lin ShiBeijing Normal University, Beijing, China
Gender differences in job stress were investigated, collecting both qualitative (stressful incidentsat work) and quantitative (rating scales of commonly experienced job stressors and strains) datafrom a sample of university employees. Content analyses of the qualitative data revealed 5 majorjob stressors, 5 major psychological strains, and 4 major physical strains experienced by bothgenders. When comparisons are made between men and women on their job stress experiences,a potential confounder is occupation, for which the authors controlled. While the authorscontrolled for occupation, women reported more overall psychological strains (as indicated by thequalitative data) and depression (as indicated by the quantitative data) than did men. Conversely,while the authors controlled for gender, faculty reported more anger and less frustration (asindicated by the qualitative data) and less turnover intentions (as indicated by the quantitativedata) than did support staff. In this study, both qualitative and quantitative data indicatedinteraction effects between gender and occupation in predicting job stressors and strains. Finally,there was a stronger relation between interpersonal conflicts and negative emotions/job satisfac-tion were stronger for faculty than for staff.
Although job stress has become a popular topic ofresearch, demographic factors of occupation and gen-der have not received sufficient systematic attention(Iwasaki, MacKay, & Ristock, 2004). Though someresearchers studied job stress among occupations(e.g., Liu, Spector, & Jex, 2005; Taris, Bakker,Schaufeli, Stoffelsen, & van Dierendonck, 2005), notmany studies have focused on unique job stressorsand strains experienced by employees in differentoccupations. Nonetheless, both gender and occupa-tion contribute significantly to employees’ job stressexperiences (Narayanan, Menon, & Spector, 1999;Pousette & Hanse, 2002). Narayanan et al. (1999)used a qualitative method to study job stressamong professors, clerks, and sales associates. Asa replication and extension of their study, we ex-
amined the role of gender and occupation on jobstressors and strains among university faculty andsupport staff, utilizing both qualitative and quan-titative methods.
Gender and Job Stress
Gender and Job Stressors
Some have suggested that men and women expe-rience different stressors (e.g., Misra, McKean, West,& Russo, 2000). Research has shown that men’sstressors relate to finances (McDonough & Walters,2001), work-related power (Spielberger & Vagg,1999;Vagg, Spielberger, & Wasala, 2002), and jobresponsibility (Sharada & Raju, 2001). On the otherhand, women’s stressors relate to social life (McDon-ough & Walters, 2001), interpersonal issues (Thomp-son, Kirk, & Brown, 2006), work–family conflicts(Vagg et al., 2002), role conflict, and role ambiguity(Sharada & Raju, 2001). Spielberger and Vagg(1999) found that lack of participation and conflictwith other departments were more stressful for men,whereas inadequate salary, insufficient personal time,and competition for advancement were more stressfulfor women.
Cong Liu, Department of Psychology, Hofstra Univer-sity; Paul E. Spector, Department of Psychology, Universityof South Florida; Lin Shi, College of Psychology, BeijingNormal University, Beijing, China.
A portion of the data used in this article overlapped withdata in Liu, Spector, and Shi’s (2007) article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-dressed to Cong Liu, Department of Psychology, 135 Hof-stra University, Hempstead, NY 11549. E-mail: [email protected]
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology2008, Vol. 13, No. 4, 357–370
Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association1076-8998/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1076-8998.13.4.357
357
Iwasaki et al. (2004) suggested that differences injob stressor perceptions were due to the way in whichgender is socially constructed, especially that thereare different gender role expectations and responsi-bilities for women and men. Women are expected tobe more relationship-focused than are men (e.g.,Anderson, 1997). Interpersonal issues are more sa-lient for female employees, as is indicated by fe-male employees seeking more emotional supportand relying more on social networks (Belle, 1987;Greenglass, 2003; Pines & Zaidman, 2003). Incomparison with their male counterparts, femaleemployees are more sensitive to interpersonalproblems. Since interpersonal issues are more sa-lient and important for women than for men, inter-personal problems might be more serious forwomen (Narayanan et al., 1999). Thus, womenmay experience greater interpersonal stressors thando men (Thompson et al., 2006). However, be-cause gender and occupation can be confounded(Hall, 1989), it is important to control for occupa-tion when testing for gender differences.
Hypothesis 1: Female employees report moreinterpersonal conflicts at work than do theirmale counterparts (controlled for occupation).
Gender and Job Strains
Research has suggested that women experiencehigher levels of job strain than do men (Greenglass,1991; Jick & Mitz, 1985). The differential vulnera-bility hypothesis proposes that women tend to per-ceive more strain than do men when facing identicalsituations (McDonough & Walters, 2001; Roxburgh,1996), because women are more sensitive to discom-forts and are more willing to express problems (Ver-brugge, 1985). The social/psychological hypothesissuggests that women and men appraise stressful sit-uations differently (Jick & Mitz, 1985). Women aresocialized to view job stressors in a less confidentway than are men, resulting in their having morestrains (Frankenhaeuser, Rauste von Wright, Collins,von Wright, Sedvall, & Swahn, 1978). The differen-tial exposure hypothesis suggests that women facemore objective stressors and accordingly, experiencemore strains than do men (McDonough & Walters,2001; Roxburgh, 1996). Women might set higherstandards for themselves, and accordingly, they ex-perience more strains when the standards are not met(Weinstein & Zappert, 1980). These hypotheses aresupported by studies showing higher levels of strainin women than in men in various occupational
groups. For example, women reported higher levelsof depression (Jurado, Gurpegui, Moreno, Fernandez,Luna, & Galvez, 2005) and general strain (Day &Livingstone, 2003; Kirkcaldy, Brown, Furnham, &Trimpop, 2002) than did men. It should be noted thatnot all studies have found higher strain in women; forexample, Lackritz (2004) found that men reportedhigher levels of burnout. Still other researchers didnot find gender differences in job satisfaction andgeneral job strain (e.g., Griffin, 2006; Owen, 2006).
Hypothesis 2: Female employees report moreand a higher level of job strain than do theirmale counterparts (controlled for occupation).
Occupation and Job Stress
Job Stressors for Employees inDifferent Occupations
Employees in different occupations may experi-ence different job stressors (Keenan & Newton,1985; Narayanan et al., 1999; Vagg et al., 2002),particularly when those occupations differ in status.University faculty and staff engage in different tasks,and they receive different levels of respect and rec-ognition. The O�NET database (Occupational Infor-mation Network, 2007) reported that the recognitionscores are 70 and 45 for psychology faculty andclerks, respectively. A higher-status job of professoralso has more job autonomy than does a lower-statusjob of a university support employee (Narayanan etal., 1999). The O�NET database indicated that theindependence scores are 80 and 36 for psychologicalfaculty and clerks, respectively. Finally, according tothe structuralist explanation that focuses on the dif-ferences in employees’ work situations (Jick & Mitz,1985), faculty usually have more structural advantagewith respect to influence, mobility, and job autonomythan do support staff.
Hypothesis 3a: Faculty report a higher level ofjob autonomy than do support staff, whereassupport staff report more incidents of lack of jobautonomy than do faculty.
As occupational status and job autonomy increase,the potential for interpersonal conflicts increases ac-cordingly (Menon, Narayanan, & Spector, 1996). In-dividuals who have greater status and autonomy areless dependent on others and thus may be less moti-vated to maintain harmonious working relationships.The nature of these jobs has determined that faculty
358 LIU, SPECTOR, AND SHI
are less cooperative than are support staff. Supportfor this is found in the O�NET database (Occupa-tional Information Network, 2007), in which scoresfor “cooperation” are lower for faculty (76) than foroffice clerks (90). Using a qualitative approach,Narayanan et al. (1999) found that interpersonal con-flict was the top stressor for university professors butnot for clerical workers. Similarly, Keenan and New-ton (1985) found that interpersonal conflict was oneof the most important job stressors for engineers.
Hypothesis 3b: Faculty report more interper-sonal conflicts than do support staff.
Job Strains for Employees inDifferent Occupations
Job strains may differ as a function of occupations.Kasl (1998) found that workers at a lower occupa-tional status who were doing routine jobs experi-enced greater alienation and more absence than didworkers with less routine jobs. Marchand, Durand,and Demers (2005) examined the distribution of psy-chological distress among 12 occupations in Canada.They concluded that upper managers experiencedless psychological distress than did lower-level em-ployees. Likewise, lower-level workers reported lessjob satisfaction and more strains than did higher-levelworkers (Guppy & Rick, 1996; Judge, Boudreau, &Bretz, 1996).
Hypothesis 4: Support staff report more andhigher levels of job strain than do faculty.
Interactions Between Gender andOccupational Status
The distribution of men and women across jobs isnot equal (Hall, 1989). In university settings, facultyare disproportionately men and staff are dispropor-tionately women. Research has shown that the nu-merical minorities are more visible than are the nu-merical majorities (Lord & Saenz, 1985; Taylor,Fiske, Etcoff, & Ruderman, 1978). Being underrep-resented may have a negative influence on employ-ees’ job stressors and strains (Burke & McKeen,1996; Dworkin, Chaftez, & Dworkin, 1986; Jackson,Thoits, & Taylor, 1995; Miner-Rubino & Cortina,2004; Ott, 1989).
Hypothesis 5: Gender and occupation interactsin predicting job stressors and job strains, re-spectively. Female faculty and male staff expe-
rience more job stressors (e.g., interpersonalconflict and lack of job autonomy) and strains(e.g., frustration, depression, job dissatisfaction,turnover intentions, and physical strains) thando male faculty and female staff.
Interpersonal Conflict–Job Strain Relations inDifferent Gender and Occupational Groups
Interpersonal conflict at work has been linked tovarious job strains, such as depression, job dissatis-faction, turnover intentions, and physical symptoms(Appelberg, Romanov, Heikkila, Honkasalo, &Koskenvuo, 1996; Frone, 2000; Spector & Jex,1998). Interpersonal relationships are more importantfor female employees than for male employees(Stewart & Lykes, 1985). For example, Josephs,Markus, and Tafarodi (1992) pointed out that womentended to base their self-esteem on their interpersonalrelationships. In addition, the social/psychologicalhypothesis focused on the differential internal re-sponses of men and women in stressful situations(Jick & Mitz, 1985). Women tend to view stressfulexperiences in a less confident way than do men(Frankenhaeuser et al., 1978), resulting in experienc-ing more strains. Taken together, we predict thatinterpersonal conflicts are more harmful for womenthan for men. Using open-ended questionnaires,Narayanan et al. (1999) found that female employeesreported more interpersonal conflict incidents at workthan did their male counterparts. Day and Living-stone (2003) found that women reported significantlyhigher stressfulness than did men in friend-relatedstress scenarios.
Hypothesis 6: Gender moderates the relationsbetween interpersonal conflict and job strains.Specifically, the relations are stronger forwomen than for men.
As was noted earlier, support staff are more con-cerned with maintaining good working relationships,which should lead to less frequent and less severeconflicts than for faculty. When conflicts occur, theneed for cooperation will encourage a quick settlingof differences. The lesser intensity of conflict shouldresult in an attenuated effect on strains. For faculty,on the other hand, conflict is less inhibited and canmore easily escalate and become serious; with inde-pendence comes the luxury of being able to continueconflict over a long period of time. Thus the relationsbetween conflict and strain would be stronger.
359JOB STRESS: GENDER AND OCCUPATION EFFECT
Hypothesis 7: Occupational status moderates therelations between interpersonal conflict and jobstrains. Specifically, the relations are strongerfor faculty than for support staff.
Method
Participants
Participants were university faculty of all ranksand university support staff (e.g., receptionists, sec-retaries, and office clerks) at the University of SouthFlorida, Tampa, FL. The overall sample included 336participants (134 men and 198 women). There were175 faculty members and 161 support staff. Medianage was between 40 and 49. The response rates were45.2% and 20.6% for the quantitative and qualitativedata, respectively.
Measures
The study of gender and occupation differenceswith quantitative scales blurs potential differencesacross populations that might exist on variables notincluded in the study (Liu, Spector, & Shi, 2007;Narayanan et al., 1999; Vagg et al., 2002). Use of aqualitative approach allows researchers to content-analyze open-ended interview or questionnaire re-sponses to reveal job stressor and strain themes thatare common across individuals (Liu et al., 2007;Parkes, 1985). An important advantage of conductingquantitative and qualitative research simultaneouslyis the complementarities of the two methods to seewhether the two methods can yield converging re-sults. In this study, we used both qualitative andquantitative approaches to study job stress in differ-ent gender and occupational groups.
Qualitative approach. The Stress Incident Record(SIR; Keenan & Newton, 1985) was used to collect thequalitative data. Each participant was asked to describeone event that had been stressful at work during theprevious 30 days and to indicate whether no such eventoccurred. Responses were content-analyzed to developa list of job stressors and strains (Kerlinger, 1964).Guided by Weber’s (1990) procedures, three under-graduate students were trained by Cong Liu to pro-duce good interrater agreement. After the training,two raters independently free-sorted responses intojob stressor and strain categories. Discrepancies werediscussed and resolved, and some categories werecombined by consensus. Next, a third rater indepen-dently retranslated these incidents back to the cate-gories. Interrater agreement, the percentage of times
the third rater placed an incident into the correct cat-egory, was 90%. The raters discussed the “disagreedincidents” to consensus.
Quantitative scales. Interpersonal conflict wasmeasured with the 4-item Interpersonal Conflict atWork Scale (ICAWS; Spector & Jex, 1998). Re-sponse options range from 1 � less than once permonth or never to 5 � several times per day. Theitems were modified to measure conflict with super-visor and conflict with coworker separately, as hasbeen suggested by Frone (2000). Coefficient alphawas .87 for the Supervisor Conflict scale and .90 forthe Coworker Conflict scale. The two subscales werecombined (taking the average value) to measureoverall interpersonal conflicts. Job autonomy wasmeasured with a 3-item subscale from the Hackmanand Oldham’s (1976) Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS).The scale was modified slightly, as has been sug-gested by Idaszak and Drasgow (1987). Responsesrange from 1 � very inaccurate to 7 � very accurate.The coefficient alpha was .95.
Frustration was measured with a 3-item frustrationscale (Peters & O’Connor, 1980). Response optionsrange from 1 � strongly disagree to 6 � stronglyagree. The coefficient alpha was .65. Depression wasmeasured with a 9-item Patient Health Questionnairedeveloped by Spitzer, Kroenke, and Williams (1999).Response options range from 0 � not at all to 3 �nearly everyday. The coefficient alpha was .86. Neg-ative emotions at work—such as furious, angry,frightened, anxious, and disgusted—were measuredwith 5 items from the Job-Related Affective Well-Being Scale (JAWS; Van Katwyk, Fox, Spector, &Kelloway, 1999). Response options range from 1 �never to 5 � extremely often or always. The coeffi-cient alpha was .85. Job satisfaction was measuredwith 3 items from the Michigan Organizational As-sessment Scale (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, &Klesh, 1979). Response options range from 1 �strongly disagree to 5 � strongly agree. The coeffi-cient alpha was .82. Turnover intention was assessedwith a single-item measure (Spector, Dwyer, & Jex,1988) that asked how often the person had beenseriously considering quitting. Response options arefrom 1 � never to 6 � extremely often. Finally,physical symptoms were assessed with the 18-itemPhysical Symptoms Inventory (PSI) developed bySpector and Jex (1998). There are three choices foreach item: no; yes, but I didn’t see doctor; yes, and Isaw doctor. The answers (both seeing and not seeingdoctors) were counted into a total symptom score, ashas been suggested by Spector and Jex (1998), and
360 LIU, SPECTOR, AND SHI
was cumulated for each participant. The lowest pos-sible score is 0, and the highest possible score is 36.
Procedure
Data were collected in 2002 in a single question-naire, mailed to participants through the universitymail system. Participants were asked to complete thequestionnaires and return them through campus mailin an enclosed return envelope. Participation wasvoluntary and anonymous. A small gift was includedto increase response rate. A brief letter explaining thepurpose of the study and the instructions on fillingout each questionnaire was enclosed. After a periodof 2 weeks, reminders were sent.
Results
Content Analysis of Qualitative Data
Overall, 179 incidents were collected. Amongthese, 142 employees reported psychological strains,and 57 reported physical strains. Content analysesrevealed five job stressors: organizational constraints,workload, interpersonal conflict, lack of job auton-omy, work mistakes and an other category (e.g.,boring tasks). Organizational constraints involved avariety of issues such as equipment constraints, bud-get cuts, or inadequate training. Work overload wasanother theme, involving heavy workload, deadlines,and time constraints. Interpersonal conflicts in uni-versities involved conflicts with one’s coworker, su-pervisor, student, or the administration. Anothersource of stress for university employees was lack ofjob autonomy. Finally, 6 faculty members reportedstressful incidents related to work mistakes or lack ofachievement. See Table 1 for example incidents ineach job-stressor category.
Content analyses also revealed five psychologicalstrains (anger, frustration, anxiety, overwhelmed, andsadness) and an other category, such as disappoint-ment; and four physical strains (tiredness, physicaltension, being sick, and stomach problem) and another category, such as sweaty palms. See Table 2 forthe details.
Effects of Gender, Occupation, and TheirInteractions on Job Stressors and Strains:Qualitative Analysis
A 6 � 2 (job stressors � gender) chi-square test onthe qualitative data revealed a significant differencebetween women and men in the nature of job stres-
sors reported (�2 � 22.21, df � 5, p � .001). A seriesof 2 � 2 (report vs. no-report �gender) chi-squaretests on specific job stressors indicated that womenreported more interpersonal conflicts (�2 � 3.43,df � 1, p � .06) and lack of job autonomy (�2 �3.43, df � 1, p � .06), whereas men reported moreworkload (�2 � 3.16, df � 1, p � .08) and workmistakes (�2 � 9.58, df � 1, p � .003).
Hypotheses 1, 3a, 3b, and 5 were tested withhierarchical log-linear models. Gender, occupation,and job stressors (report vs. no-report) were enteredas categorical factors. As can be seen in Table 3,occupation (staff had more conflicts) and the gen-der � occupation interaction were both significant inpredicting interpersonal conflict incidents, but genderalone was not. Among faculty, women reported moreincidents than did men (27% vs. 9%, respectively),whereas among support staff, men reported moreincidents than did women (42% vs. 25%, respec-tively). Thus Hypotheses 3b and 5 were supported,whereas Hypotheses 1 and 3a were not. None of themain and interaction effects were significant whenpredicting lack of job autonomy incidents. In addi-tion, gender interacted with occupation in predictingworkload. Male faculty (34%) reported most work-load incidents, followed by female staff (22%), fe-male faculty (13%), and male staff (8%).
A 2 � 2 (overall psychological strain � gender)and a 2 � 2 (overall physical strain � gender)chi-square analysis indicated that women reportedmore overall psychological strains (�2 � 4.32, df �1, p � .04) and overall physical strains (�2 � 4.45,df � 1, p � .04) than did their male counterparts. A6 � 2 (psychological strains � occupation) chi-square analysis indicated that the nature of psycho-logical strains reported by faculty and staff was sig-nificantly different (�2 � 11.87, df � 5, p � .04). Aseries of 2 � 2 (report vs. no-report � occupation)chi-square analyses on specific psychological strainsindicated that support staff reported significantlymore frustration than did faculty (�2 � 8.94, df � 1,p � .001), whereas faculty reporedt significantlymore anger than did staff (�2 � 3.35, df � 1,p � .05).
Hierarchical log-linear analyses were applied toexamine Hypotheses 2, 4, and 5. As can be seen fromTable 3, gender was significant for overall psycho-logical strain and anger, and occupation was signif-icant for frustration and anger, thus partially support-ing Hypotheses 2 and 4. Women reported moreoverall psychological strains and anger than did men.Faculty reported more anger, whereas support staff
361JOB STRESS: GENDER AND OCCUPATION EFFECT
reported more frustration. Inconsistent with Hypoth-esis 5, there were no significant interactions.
Analysis of Quantitative Data
The descriptive statistics and correlations amongthe quantitative job stressors and strains are presentedin Table 4. Interpersonal conflict was positively re-lated to all psychological and physical strains mea-sured in this study. Job autonomy was negativelyrelated to frustration and turnover intention and waspositively related to job satisfaction.
Effects of Gender, Occupation, andInteractions on Job Stressors and Strains:Quantitative Analysis
The independent-samples t tests indicated that sup-port staff experienced marginally more interpersonalconflicts than did faculty (t � �1.74, df � 225, p �.08). Two-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) wereused to test Hypothesis 1, 3a, 3b, and 5 — the mainand interaction effects of gender and occupation onjob stressors. As can be seen from Table 5, none ofthe effects were significant.
Table 1Content Analysis on Stressful Incident Records: Definition and Example Incidents for Each JobStress Category
Job stressor Example incident
Organizational constraints: A variety ofissues including equipments, budget cuts,or inadequate training
1. Arranged to use technology (computer with projection) in classroom;server went down; implemented ‘back-up’ plan and back-upequipment malfunctioned; rushed back and forth to tech supportservices for assistance; not fixed before students arrived for class;delivered lesson but not optimal quality.
2. I am new on the job without a great deal of training, many thingswere being asked of me and I felt that my supervisor did notunderstand there was no human way for me to perform well on allof these things.
Work overload: Heavy workload, deadlines,or time constraints
1. Meeting deadline on a grant, trying to get job done last minuteworked only involved two people and got done ultimately.
2. Another secretary has taken time off, and I’ve been filling in for her(over the past month).
Interpersonal conflicts: Conflicts with one’scoworker, supervisor, student, or theadministration
1. Conflict with coworker over content of a project. She approved adocument that I had not seen, which contained errors. When I wentalone her to put a stop on the document, she accused me of not helpa team player.
2. I have a co-worker, who lacks diplomatic skills. She is oftenaccusatory when something happens in our lab. Occasionally the labdoor is left unlocked and she starts throwing around accusations andtelling us what is going to happen (theft). She goes on a severalminute tirade. The incident involved a coworker shorting andthrowing accusations to me and other coworkers.
Lack of job autonomy: Lack of autonomyon work-related issues, such as makingwork schedule, making decisions, etc.
1. While at work, the program coordinator tried to overturn a decision Imade regarding a student. I had spent hours & hours arranging thedecision/ruling and felt very frustrated and angry that the programcoordinator spent more of my time on this and didn’t respect myefforts or decision.
2. I felt stressed when my supervisor gave a list of things to doroutinely. To me it is very boring and mundane to do the samethings over and over at certain time. I was furious, and I ignored thelist for a couple of days. The list of duties was not different fromwhat I have been doing every day, but I felt like I was not doing thejob. I do not like being told what to do.
Work mistakes: Dereliction of duty orunsuccessfulness at work
1. Trying to get a survey put together at the end of the semester. Icouldn’t get the program I was developing working properly andfinally had to abandon the project.
362 LIU, SPECTOR, AND SHI
For job strains, the independent-samples t testsrevealed that women experienced significantlymore depression (t � �3.14, df � 283, p � .001),turnover intentions (t � �3.24, df � 283, p �.001), and physical symptoms (t � �2.62, df �282, p � .001) than did their male counterparts.Similarly, support staff reported significantly more
depression (t � �1.85, df � 284, p � .07), turn-over intentions (t � �2.92, df � 288, p � .004),and physical symptoms (t � �2.69, df � 286, p �.008) than did faculty. Two-way ANOVAs wereused to examine the main and interaction effects ofgender and occupation on job strains (Hypothesis2, 4, and 5). As can be seen from Table 5, gender
Table 2Content Analysis Results on Job Stressors, Psychological Strains, and Physical Strains
Note. M � male; F � female. Percentage of men/women and faculty/staff who reported the stressor or strain is inparentheses.
363JOB STRESS: GENDER AND OCCUPATION EFFECT
was significant for depression, and occupation wasmarginally significant for turnover intentions. Aswas predicted, women reported more depressionthan did men, and staff reported a higher level ofturnover intentions than did faculty, thus partially
supporting Hypotheses 2 and 4. Consistent withHypothesis 5, the interaction effects were signifi-cant for negative emotions and turnover intentions.Female faculty (M � 2.20) had the highest level ofnegative emotions, followed by male staff (M �
Table 3Main Effect of Gender, Occupation, and Interaction Effect of Gender and Occupation: Log-LinearAnalysis on Qualitative Data
Note. M � mean; SD � standard deviation.� p � .05. �� p � .01.
364 LIU, SPECTOR, AND SHI
2.16), female staff (M � 1.94), and male faculty(M � 1.86). Male staff (M � 2.41) had higherturnover intentions, followed by female faculty(M � 2.33), female staff (M � 2.31), and malefaculty (M � 1.74).
Moderating Effect of Gender andOccupational Status on InterpersonalConflict–Job Strain Relations
Hypotheses 6 and 7 state that the relations betweeninterpersonal conflicts and job strains are moderated
by gender and occupational status, respectively. Themoderated regression analysis revealed significantmoderating effects of gender on the interpersonalconflict–negative emotion relation (�R2 � .05, p �.001), controlled for occupation. As can be seen fromFigure 1, contrary to our hypothesis, the slope formen is steeper than the slope for women, indicatingthat there was a stronger relation between interper-sonal conflicts and negative emotions for men thanfor women.
When we controlled for gender, the moderatedregression analyses revealed a significant interaction
Table 5Main Effect of Gender, Occupation, and Interaction Effect of Gender and Occupation: Two-Way Analysisof Variance on Quantitative Data
Figure 1. Moderator effect of gender on interpersonal conflict–negative emotions relation,while controlling for the effect of occupation.
365JOB STRESS: GENDER AND OCCUPATION EFFECT
effect between interpersonal conflict and occupa-tional status in predicting negative emotions (� R2 �.07, p � .001) and job satisfaction (� R2 � .035, p �.001). The form of the moderating effect is presentedin Figures 2a and 2b. As was predicted, the relationsbetween interpersonal conflicts and negative emo-tions/job satisfaction were stronger for faculty thanfor staff.
Discussion
Do Men and Women Experience Job Stressorsand Strains Differently?
Our qualitative data confirm that different societalexpectations for men and women caused them to
experience different stressors at work. Whereasworkload and work mistakes are cited more fre-quently by men, interpersonal conflicts and lack ofjob autonomy are top stressors for women. Theseresults are consistent with previous findings (e.g.,McDonough & Walters, 2001).
Both the qualitative and quantitative data suggestthat women might experience more interpersonalconflicts at work than do men. However, the genderdifference lost significance when occupation wascontrolled. Looking at the conflict incidents reportedby each gender and occupational group, we find thatfemale faculty had more conflicts than did male fac-ulty, whereas male staff had more conflicts than didfemale staff. Taken together, our results suggest that
Figure 2. Moderator effect of occupational status on (a) interpersonal conflict–negativeemotions relation and (b) interpersonal conflict–job satisfaction relation, while controlling forgender.
366 LIU, SPECTOR, AND SHI
what may appear to have been a gender effect mightwell have been due to occupation, given that genderand occupation were confounded. The same mayhave been true of prior studies that found gendereffects when type of occupation or organizationallevel was not controlled.
Women reported more overall psychologicalstrain (qualitative), anger (qualitative), and depres-sion (quantitative) than did men, when we con-trolled for occupation. According to the differen-tial vulnerability hypothesis (McDonough &Walters, 2001; Roxburgh, 1996), women tend toexperience more job strains than do men whenunder similar working conditions. Female employ-ees may be more vulnerable in stressful work sit-uations, as has been suggested by Jurado et al.(2005) and Lidwall and Marklund (2006).
Do Faculty and Support Staff Experience JobStressors and Strains Differently?
Both the qualitative and quantitative data indicatenonsignificant occupational differences in interper-sonal conflicts. As is revealed by the qualitative data,the patterns of conflicts are similar between facultyand staff, with most coworker conflicts, followed bysupervisor conflicts, and conflicts with students oradministration.
The occupational difference in job autonomy is notsignificant. Faculty and staff reported a similar num-ber of “lack of job autonomy” incidents. These find-ings may be due to the nature of the organization,which may allow an unusually high level of jobautonomy to support staff.
Occupational differences in job strains are re-vealed by both qualitative and quantitative methods.Support staff reported higher levels of frustration(quantitative) and turnover intentions (quantitative),whereas faculty reported more anger (qualitative),when we controlled for gender. Our results are con-sistent with those of Narayanan et al. (1999). In astressful situation, employees with higher social sta-tus may be less inclined to inhibit anger than wouldemployees at a lower social status. Employees withlower social status may report a more inner-directedform of emotion, such as frustration, because they donot have the power to change the situation.
Interaction Between Gender and Occupationfor Job Stressors and Strains
As was predicted, the underrepresented groups(male staff and female faculty) reported more conflict
incidents (qualitative) and a higher level of negativeemotions (quantitative) and turnover intentions(quantitative) than did the numerical majorities (fe-male staff and male faculty).
We also found that male faculty reported the high-est workload (qualitative). It seems that male facultyare under the highest perceived work pressure, sothey take on more workload and responsibilities,although whether this is voluntary or not is unclear. Itis worth noting that male faculty have reported thefewest interpersonal conflicts, negative emotions, andturnover intentions, indicating that even though theyhave more work to do, they do not experience morestrains. Taken together, we conclude that gender in-teracts with occupation in predicting employees’ jobstressors and strains. Generally speaking, the unrep-resented groups tend to experience more job stressorsand job strains.
Moderator Effects of Gender and Occupationon Interpersonal Conflict–Strain Relations
Controlling for the effect of occupation, we findthat gender moderated the relation between interper-sonal conflicts and negative emotions. However, con-trary to our prediction, interpersonal conflicts have astronger impact on men than on women. Taking acloser look at the conflict incidents, we find that thepatterns of interpersonal conflicts provided by maleand female employees are similar, with most beingcoworker conflicts. In most conflict cases, men reportedanger, whereas women reported a broader variety ofless intense emotions, such as frustration. Therefore,one possible explanation is that men experience moreintense emotional reactions to conflict. Another possibleexplanation is that women have better social skills andmay cope better than men with conflict.
Controlling for gender, we find significant moder-ating effects of occupational status on interpersonalconflict–negative emotion and job satisfaction rela-tions. For a higher-status occupation (e.g., professor),there are negative relations between interpersonalconflicts and both negative emotion and job dissatis-faction. For a lower-status occupation (e.g., supportstaff), the relations are smaller in magnitude. Thequalitative data suggest that both faculty and staffreported conflicts most often with coworkers. However,faculty were more likely to report anger, whereas staffreported milder reactions such as frustration. As withthe results comparing men and women, it is possiblethat faculty tend to experience more intense negativeemotions in response to interpersonal conflicts at
367JOB STRESS: GENDER AND OCCUPATION EFFECT
work. Because they work more independently, theyare less likely to inhibit their negative emotions andreactions. Interpersonal conflicts might be more se-vere and longer lasting, which leads to greater strains.
Limitations and Future Research
There are some limitations to this study, whichshould be kept in mind. Perhaps most important isthat we examined only two occupations, so general-izability to other occupations is not certain. To morecompletely test the idea that being underrepresentedhas an impact on stressors and strains, future researchshould include samples from a variety of occupationsthat vary in their gender distribution. In addition, theresponse rate for the qualitative data was relativelylow. Since the qualitative approach requested more ofthe participants in having to write narratives, it wasmore difficult to collect the qualitative data. It wouldbe ideal to have a larger sample in order to betterstudy low-frequency stressors. Nonetheless, we didhave 179 stressful incidents in our sample, whichcovered a good range of job stressors and strainsexperienced by university employees. It is worthnoting that the design of this study does not allowconfident causal conclusions, nor is it able to rule outpotential biases that might have affected results.
Despite limitations, there are notable findings inthis study. First, we found that occupation was con-founded with gender, and what may have appeared tobe gender effects in some cases were likely occupa-tion effects. Thus, it is important to rule out occupa-tional effects when studying gender differences in jobstressors and strains. Second, occupation had a sig-nificant impact on employees’ job strains after con-trolling for gender, thus showing that occupationdifferences can be important. Third, occupation andgender interacted in that the underrepresented groupstended to experience more stressors and strains atwork. We suspect in some cases it may be the genderratio of the occupation rather than gender itself that isimportant. Fourth, gender and occupational statussignificantly moderated the relations between inter-personal conflicts and job strains. By examining thestressful incidents provided by each group, we foundthat male employees and faculty reacted more stronglyin conflict situations than did female employees andsupport staff. Overall, this study has shown that genderand occupation are important variables to study togetherin the job stress domain, as is suggested by both ourqualitative and our quantitative data.
References
Anderson, M. L. (1997). Thinking about women: Sociolog-ical perspectives on sex and gender (4th ed.). Boston:Allyn & Bacon.
Appelberg, K., Romanov, K., Heikkila, K., Honkasalo,M. L., & Koskenvuo, M. (1996). Interpersonal conflictsas a predictor of work disability: A follow-up study of15,348 Finnish employees. Journal of PsychosomaticResearch, 40, 157–167.
Belle, D. (1987). Gender differences in the social modera-tors of stress. In R. C. Barnett, I. Biener, & G. K. Baruch(Eds.), Gender and stress (pp. 257–277). New York: FreePress.
Burke, R. J., & McKeen, C. A. (1996). Do women at the topmake a difference? Gender proportions and the experi-ences of managerial and professional women. HumanRelations, 49, 1093–1104.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J.(1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment Ques-tionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Mich-igan, Ann Arbor.
Day, A. L., & Livingstone, H. A. (2003). Gender differ-ences in perceptions of stressors and utilization of socialsupport among university students. Canadian Journal ofBehavioural Science, 35, 73–83.
Dworkin, A. G., Chafetz, J. S., & Dworkin, R. J. (1986).The effects of tokenism on work alienation amongurban public school teachers. Work & Occupations,13, 1399 –1420.
Frankenhaeuser, M., Rauste von Wright, M., Collins, A.,von Wright, J., Sedvall, G., & Swahn, C. (1978). Sexdifferences in psychoneuroendocrine reactions to exam-ination stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 40, 334–343.
Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work andpsychological outcomes: Testing a model among youngworkers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5,246–255.
Greenglass, E. R. (1991). Burnout and gender: Theoreticaland organizational implications, Canadian Psychology,32, 562–574.
Greenglass, E. R. (2003). Work stress, coping, and socialsupport: Implications for women’s occupational wellbe-ing. In D. L. Nelson and R. J. Burke (Eds.), Gender, workstress and health (pp. 85–96). Washington, DC: PlenumPress and American Psychological Association.
Griffin, M. L. (2006). Gender and stress: A comparative as-sessment of sources of stress among correctional officers.Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 22, 4–25.
Guppy, A., & Rick, J. (1996). The influences of gender andgrade on perceived work stress and job satisfaction inwhite collar employees. Work & Stress, 10, 154–164.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation throughthe design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Be-havior & Human Decision Processes, 16, 250–279.
Hall, E. M. (1989). Gender, work control, and stress: Atheoretical discussion and empirical test. InternationalJournal of Health Services, 19, 725–745.
Idaszak, J. R., & Drasgow, F. (1987). A revision of the JobDiagnostic Survey: Elimination of a measurement arti-fact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 69–74.
Iwasaki, Y., MacKay, K. J., & Ristock, J. (2004). Gender-based analyses of stress among professional managers:
368 LIU, SPECTOR, AND SHI
An exploratory qualitative study. International Journalof Stress Management, 11, 56–79.
Jackson, P. B., Thoits, P. A., & Taylor, H. F. (1995).Composition of the workplace and psychological well-being: The effects of tokenism on America’s Black elite.Social Forces, 74, 1543–1557.
Jick, T. D., & Mitz, L. F. (1985). Sex differences in workstress. Academy of Management Review, 10, 408–420.
Josephs, R. A., Markus, H. R., & Tafarodi, R. W. (1992).Gender and self esteem. Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 63, 391–402.
Judge, T. A., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D., Jr. (1996).Job and life attitudes of male executives. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 79, 767–782.
Jurado, D., Gurpegui, M., Moreno, O., Fernandez, M. C.,Luna, J. D., & Galvez, R. (2005). Association of person-ality and work conditions with depressive symptoms.European Psychiatry, 20, 213–222.
Kasl, S. V. (1998). Measuring job stressors and studying thehealth impact of the work environment: An epidemiolog-ical commentary. Journal of Occupational Health Psy-chology, 3, 390–401.
Keenan, A., & Newton, T. J. (1985). Stressful events, stres-sors and psychological strains in young professional en-gineers. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 6, 151–156.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1964). Foundations of behavioral re-search: Educational and psychological inquiry. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kirkcaldy, B., Brown, J., Furnham, A., & Trimpop, R.(2002). Job stress and dissatisfaction: Comparing maleand female medical practitioners and auxiliary personnel.Revue Europeenne de Psychologie Appliquee [EuropeanReview of Applied Psychology], 52, 51–61.
Lackritz, J. R. (2004). Exploring burnout among universityfaculty: Incidence, performance, and demographic is-sues. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 713–729.
Lidwall, U., & Marklund, S. (2006). What is healthy workfor women and men? A case-control study of gender- andsector-specific effects of psycho-social working condi-tions on long-term sickness absence. Work: Journal ofPrevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 27, 153–163.
Liu, C., Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. (2005). The relation of jobcontrol with job strains: A comparison of multiple datasources. Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 78, 325–336.
Liu, C., Spector, P., & Shi, L. (2007). Cross-national jobstress: A quantitative and qualitative study. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 28, 209–239.
Lord, C. G., & Saenz, D. S. (1985). Memory deficits andmemory surfeits: Differential cognitive consequences oftokenism for tokens and observers. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology, 49, 918–926.
Marchand, A., Durand, P., & Demers, A. (2005). Work andmental health: The experience of the Quebec workforcebetween 1987 and 1998. Work: Journal of Prevention,Assessment & Rehabilitation, 25, 135–142.
McDonough, P., & Walters, V. (2001). Gender and health:Reassessing patterns and explanations. Social Scienceand Medicine, 52, 547–559.
Menon, S., Narayanan, L., & Spector, P. E. (1996). Timeurgency and its relation to occupational stressors andhealth outcomes for health care professionals. In C. D.Spielberger & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Stress and emotion,Vol. 16. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Miner-Rubino, K., & Cortina, L. M. (2004). Working in acontext of hostility toward women: Implications for em-ployees’ well-being. Journal of Occupational HealthPsychology, 9, 107–122.
Misra, R., McKean, M., West, S., & Russo, T. (2000).Academic stress of college students: Comparison of stu-dent and faculty perceptions. College Student Journal,34, 236–245.
Narayanan, L., Menon, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). Stress inthe workplace: A comparison of gender and occupations.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 63–73.
Occupational Information Network. (2007). O�NET data-base. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://www.online.onetcenter.org
Ott, E. M. (1989). Effects of the male–female ratio at work:Policewomen and male nurses. Psychology of WomenQuarterly, 13, 1941–1957.
Owen, S. S. (2006). Occupational stress among correctionalsupervisors. Prison Journal, 86, 164–181.
Parkes, K. R. (1985). Stressful episodes reported by first-year student nurses: A descriptive account. Social Sci-ence Medicine, 20, 945–953.
Peters, L. H., & O’Connor, E. J. (1980). The behavioral andaffective consequences of performance-related situa-tional variables. Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, 25, 79–96.
Pines, A. M., & Zaidman, N. (2003). Gender, culture andsocial support: A male–female, Israeli Jewish–Arab com-parison. Sex Roles, 49, 571–577.
Pousette, A., & Hanse, J. J. (2002). Job characteristics aspredictors of ill-health and sickness absenteeism in dif-ferent occupational types: A multigroup structural equa-tion modeling approach. Work and Stress, 16, 229–250.
Roxburgh, S. (1996). Gender differences in work and well-being: Effects of exposure and vulnerability. Journal ofHealth and Social Behavior, 37, 265–277.
Sharada, N., & Raju, M. V. R. (2001). Gender and rolestress in organizations. Journal of Indian Psychology, 19,50–55.
Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. J., & Jex, S. M. (1988). Therelationship of job stressors to affective, health, andperformance outcomes: A comparison of multiple datasources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 11–19.
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of fourself-report measures of job stressors and strains: Inter-personal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Con-straints Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory, andPhysical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of OccupationalHealth Psychology, 3, 356–367.
Spielberger, C. D., & Vagg, P. R. (1999). The Job StressSurvey: JSS professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psycho-logical Assessment Resources.
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 Amer-ican Medical Association, 282, 1737–1744.
Stewart, A. J., & Lykes, M. B. (1985). Conceptualizinggender in personality theory and research. In A. J. Stew-art and M. B. Lykes (Eds.), Gender and personality:Current perspectives on theory and research (pp. 2–13).Durham, NC: Duck University.
Taris, T. W., Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Stoffelsen, J.,& van Dierendonck, D. (2005). Job control and burnoutacross occupations. Psychological Reports, 97, 955–961.
369JOB STRESS: GENDER AND OCCUPATION EFFECT
Taylor, S. E., Fiske, S. T., Etcoff, N. L., & Ruderman, A. J.(1978). Categorical and contextual bases of person mem-ory and stereotyping. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 36, 778–793.
Thompson, B. M., Kirk, A., & Brown, D. (2006). Sources ofstress in policewomen: A three-factor model. Interna-tional Journal of Stress Management, 13, 309–328.
Vagg, P. R., Spielberger, C. D., & Wasala, C. F. (2002).Effects of organizational level and gender on stress in theworkplace. International Journal of Stress Management,9, 243–261.
Van Katwyk, P. T., Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Kelloway,E. K. (1999). Using the Job-Related Affective Well-Being Scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses towork stressors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychol-ogy, 5, 219–230.
Verbrugge, L. M. (1985). Gender and health: An update onhypotheses and evidence. Journal of Health and SocialBehavior, 26, 156–182.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.
Weinstein, H., & Zappert, L. (1980, September). Stress andthe working woman. Paper presented at the annual meet-ing of the American Psychological Association, Mon-treal, Quebec, Canada.
Received June 11, 2007Revision received March 2, 2008
Accepted March 5, 2008 y
Members of Underrepresented Groups:Reviewers for Journal Manuscripts Wanted
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publications andCommunications Board would like to invite your participation. Manuscript reviewers are vital to thepublications process. As a reviewer, you would gain valuable experience in publishing. The P&CBoard is particularly interested in encouraging members of underrepresented groups to participatemore in this process.
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write to the address below. Please note thefollowing important points:
• To be selected as a reviewer, you must have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. Theexperience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for preparing a thorough, objectivereview.
• To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the five to six empirical journals that are mostcentral to the area or journal for which you would like to review. Current knowledge of recentlypublished research provides a reviewer with the knowledge base to evaluate a new submissionwithin the context of existing research.
• To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs detailed information.Please include with your letter your vita. In the letter, please identify which APA journal(s) youare interested in, and describe your area of expertise. Be as specific as possible. For example,“social psychology” is not sufficient—you would need to specify “social cognition” or “attitudechange” as well.
• Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1–4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you are selected toreview a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscriptthoroughly.
Write to Journals Office, American Psychological Association, 750 First Street, NE, Washington,DC 20002-4242.
