Sources of Stress (AQA A-Level Psychology): Revision Notes
Workplace Stress
Workplace stress represents a major public health concern, with research from the Health and Safety Executive revealing that approximately half a million people in the UK experience work-related stress severe enough to impact their health. The economic burden is substantial, with workplace stress costing the UK economy £3.6 billion annually according to 2013 estimates. These significant human and financial costs have prompted psychologists to investigate the underlying causes of stress in work environments.
Key definitions
Understanding workplace stress requires clear definitions of key concepts that researchers use to analyse work environments and their effects on employee wellbeing.
Workplace stress refers to sources of stress that individuals encounter in their work environment. This encompasses various factors that can negatively impact employee wellbeing and performance.
Workload describes the quantity of work assigned to an employee. While this can involve both excessive work (overload) and insufficient work (underload), it typically refers to situations where employees face overwhelming work demands.
Control represents the level of autonomy workers possess in determining how they perform their job tasks. This includes the freedom to make decisions about work methods, timing, and priorities.
Job demands-control model
Robert Karasek developed the job demands-control model in 1979 to explain the relationship between workplace factors and employee health. The model proposes that stressful job demands, such as excessive workload, can result in poor health outcomes, job dissatisfaction, and increased absenteeism. However, the model's key insight is that this relationship is moderated by the level of control employees have over their work.
When two employees face equally demanding jobs, only the worker who lacks control over their work environment is likely to experience negative health effects. Control acts as a protective buffer against the harmful effects of job demands, helping employees manage stress more effectively.
Research supporting the effects of control
The relationship between job control and health outcomes has been extensively studied, with longitudinal research providing compelling evidence for the protective effects of workplace autonomy.
Research Study: Marmot, Whitehall studies, 1997
Participants: Over 10,000 civil servants across various job grades in Whitehall, London
Aim: To investigate the relationship between job control, workload, and health outcomes
Procedure: The research team conducted a longitudinal study using detailed questionnaires to assess different aspects of workload and job control. Participants underwent medical examinations to identify symptoms of coronary heart disease (CHD) and were monitored over five years.
Findings: The study revealed no correlation between workload and illness, suggesting that job demands alone do not predict workplace stress. However, employees who reported low levels of job control at the study's beginning were significantly more likely to develop CHD five years later, even after controlling for other risk factors such as lifestyle, smoking, and diet. This pattern remained consistent across all job grades, indicating that senior civil servants' higher status and support did not offset the health risks associated with lack of control.
Evaluation: Strengths
- Large sample size provides statistical power and generalisability
- Longitudinal design allows for examination of cause-and-effect relationships
- Controlled for confounding variables like lifestyle factors
- Replicated findings across different job grades
Evaluation: Weaknesses
- Contains confounding variables that reduce validity - employees with less control also had lower grades, poorer pay, worse conditions, and less job security
- Limited to civil service workers, potentially restricting generalisability to other occupations
- Failed to account for individual differences in personality traits or coping mechanisms
Research supporting the effects of workload and control
Natural experiments in workplace settings provide valuable insights into how the combination of job demands and control affects employee stress and health outcomes.
Research Study: Johansson et al., Swedish sawmill study, 1978
Participants: Swedish sawmill workers in two distinct job roles - finishers and cleaners
Aim: To examine the combined effects of job demands and control on employee stress and health
Procedure: This natural experiment compared two groups of workers. The finishing group prepared timber and their work was machine-paced, repetitive, and highly skilled, with limited control but significant responsibility as other workers' wages depended on their productivity. The cleaning group had more control, flexibility, and social contact but less responsibility. Researchers measured illness rates, absenteeism, and stress hormone levels (adrenaline and noradrenaline) in workers' urine samples taken before work and three times during the workday.
Findings: Finishers demonstrated higher overall stress hormone levels compared to cleaners. Morning samples showed that finishers already had elevated hormone levels before starting work, and these levels increased throughout the day while cleaners' levels decreased. Finishers also experienced more stress-related illnesses and higher absenteeism rates.
Evaluation: Strengths
- Natural experiment design provides real-world validity
- Objective biological measures (stress hormones) support subjective reports
- Clear differences between job roles allow for meaningful comparison
Evaluation: Weaknesses
- Inability to randomly allocate participants creates systematic differences between groups
- Finishing required more skill than cleaning, suggesting finishers likely had better training and education
- Gender differences probable given employment patterns (finishers likely male, cleaners likely female)
- Age and pay differences may exist between groups, creating multiple confounding variables
Evaluation of workplace stress research
While the job demands-control model has provided valuable insights into workplace stress, researchers have identified several important limitations that affect its applicability and validity across different contexts and populations.
Limitations of the job demands-control model
The job demands-control model has been criticised for its oversimplified approach to workplace stress. While workload and control are important stressors for many employees, they represent only two factors in a complex web of workplace influences.
Employee stress results from intricate interactions between job characteristics, individual coping mechanisms, and personal circumstances. The model also fails to distinguish between objective workplace conditions and employees' subjective perceptions of their work environment.
Cultural differences in workplace stress
Research by Christina Györkös and colleagues (2012) examined cross-cultural variations in workplace stress perceptions. Their review found that lack of job control was perceived as stressful primarily in individualist cultures such as the UK and USA. However, in collectivist cultures including China and many Asian countries, control was considered less important. The concept of job control may reflect individualist values emphasising personal autonomy and rights, which may not translate to collectivist cultures that prioritise group harmony and community benefit.
Interestingly, Cong Liu et al. (2007) found that workload was universally stressful across both individualist and collectivist cultures. This suggests that excessive work demands represent a more culturally generalisable source of workplace stress than control issues.
The role of self-efficacy
Research has challenged the assumption that job control is universally beneficial. Some studies indicate that excessive control can become stressful, particularly for individuals with low self-efficacy - those who doubt their ability to perform tasks successfully.
Laurenz Meier et al. (2008) used questionnaires to measure job strain in employees with varying levels of self-efficacy. Workers with low self-efficacy reported greater stress in high-control positions, while those with high self-efficacy found low-control situations more stressful. This suggests that individuals with limited confidence in their abilities cannot effectively utilise the opportunities that workplace control provides, making autonomy a source of stress rather than a buffer against it.
Key Points to Remember:
- Workplace stress costs the UK economy £3.6 billion annually, affecting half a million workers
- Karasek's job demands-control model suggests that control acts as a buffer against the negative effects of high workload
- The Whitehall Studies demonstrated that low control predicts coronary heart disease, regardless of job grade or other risk factors
- The Swedish sawmill study showed that workers with demanding jobs and little control had higher stress hormones and illness rates
- The model is limited by its cultural bias towards individualist societies and failure to account for individual differences like self-efficacy