09578239410051853

Journal of Educational AdministrationJob Stressors and Their Effects on Physical Health, Emotional Health and Job Satisfaction in a UniversityJagdish K. Dua

Article information:To cite this document:Jagdish K. Dua, (1994),"Job Stressors and Their Effects on Physical Health, Emotional Health and Job Satisfaction in aUniversity", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 32 Iss 1 pp. 59 - 78Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578239410051853

Downloaded on: 20 May 2015, At: 22:47 (PT)References: this document contains references to 20 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4649 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Kerry Fairbrother, James Warn, (2003),"Workplace dimensions, stress and job satisfaction", Journal of Managerial Psychology,Vol. 18 Iss 1 pp. 8-21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940310459565Jui-Chen Chen, Colin Silverthorne, (2008),"The impact of locus of control on job stress, job performance and jobsatisfaction in Taiwan", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 29 Iss 7 pp. 572-582 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730810906326Orly Michael, Deborah Court, Pnina Petal, (2009),"Job stress and organizational commitment among mentoring coordinators",International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 23 Iss 3 pp. 266-288 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513540910941766

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 543663 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visitwww.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio ofmore than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of onlineproducts and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F TH

E PU

NJA

B A

t 22:

47 2

0 M

ay 2

015

(PT)

Stress andHealth in

University Staff

59

Job Stressors and TheirEffects on Physical Health,Emotional Health, and JobSatisfaction in a University

Jagdish K. DuaUniversity of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia

IntroductionDespite a significant increase in research on stress[1], researchers and peopleinterested in stress are still not in agreement about the meaning and nature ofstress. Stress has been variously defined as a response to challenging events[2],as an event that places demands on the individual[3], as an environmentalcharacterisitic which poses a threat to the individual[4], and as a realization bythe individual that he/she is unable to deal adequately with the demands placedupon him/her[5,6]. The nature and effects of stress might be best understood bysaying that some environmental variables (stressors), when interpreted by theindividual (cognitive interpretation), may lead to stress. The stress experiencedby the individual may cause strains and long-term negative effects. Whether ornot the individual experiences stress and its effects depends, among otherthings, on the individual characteristics such as social support, hardiness, typeA behaviours, and coping strategies[7,8]. Thus, stressors are objective events,stress is the subjective experience of the event, and strain is the maladaptiveresponse to stress[9, p. 42].

One important part of our lives which causes a great deal of stress is our jobor our work. Work-related stress is of growing concern because it has significanteconomic implications for the organizations through employee dissatisfaction,lowered productivity and lowered emotional and physical health of theemployees[10]. It has been argued that organizational and extraorganizationalstressors lead to stress through cognitive appraisal which, in turn, leads to pooremotional health, poor physical health, and behaviours which harm theorganizations[10,11]. Given the research findings that job stressors cause stress,the terms stress and stressors will be used interchangeably in the presentarticle.

There is a fair degree of agreement on the variables that act as organizationalstressors. Cooper et al.[11-13] have identified intrinsic job factors (e.g. poorworking conditions and work overload), role in organizations (e.g. role conflict and

Journal of EducationalAdministration Vol. 32 No. 1. 1994,pp. 59-78. MCB University Press,

0957-8234

Research reported in this article was supported by an Australian Research Council Small Grantto the author. I would like to thank Michael Forsyth for his assistance with data collection andsome data analysis. Thanks are also due to Edward Campbell for his assistance with dataanalysis.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F TH

E PU

NJA

B A

t 22:

47 2

0 M

ay 2

015

(PT)

Journal ofEducationalAdministration32,1

60

role ambiguity), career development (e.g. lack of promotion policies and jobsecurity), poor relationships at work, and organizational culture (e.g. politics inorganizations and lack of participation in decision-making) as organizationalstressors. Matteson and Ivancevich[10] have also identified similar job factors asjob stressors. Not only do various stimuli at work act as stressors, various thingsthat happen to people outside their work environment may also contribute to theirwork stress. These extraorganizational stressors include factors such as familyproblems, personal problems, and social problems. As mentioned above, job-related stressors and extraorganizational stressors cause stress which, in turn,causes strains. The strains caused by stress are:

l lower emotional health which is manifested as psychological distress,depression and anxiety;

l lower physical health which is manifested as heart disease, insomnia,headaches, and infections;

l organizational symptoms such as job dissatisfaction, absenteeism, lowerproductivity, and poor work quality.

It is important to emphasize that stress causes suffering, reduction in workquantity, and reduction in work quality.

In recent years researchers have investigated the role of stressors and the effectsof stressors in various organizations. Research reported in the present article wasdesigned to investigate the nature and effects of stress in a university setting. Theproject was conducted at the University of New England. The aims of the researchwere to determine:

l The extent to which staff at the university experienced job-relatedstressors.

l If job-related stressors acted differentially as stressors in staff belonging tosubgroups in a variety of categories (e.g., did male and female staff, in thesex category, experience different amounts or degrees of job-relatedstress?). The categories investigated in this connection were sex, age,campus (and faculty at the Armidale campus) to which the staff memberbelonged, job-type (e.g., academic and administrative), permanent/temporary, full-time/part-time, supervising/not-supervising, top-of-the-scale/not-top-of-the-scale, ethnic background, qualifications, and disability.

l The degree of self-reported extraorganizational or non-work stressorsexperienced by staff at the university and to determine if staff belonging tosubgroups in different categories experienced differential non-work stress.

l The relationship between job-stressors and non-work stressors, andphysical health, emotional health, and job satisfaction.

The role of individual characteristics, for example, social support, hardiness,type A behaviours and coping strategies, in moderating the effects of stressorswas also investigated in the project. However, these results are not reported inthe present article.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F TH

E PU

NJA

B A

t 22:

47 2

0 M

ay 2

015

(PT)

Stress andHealth in

University Staff

61

MethodParticipantsThe University of New England is a recently amalgamated higher educationalinstitution in New South Wales with campuses at Armidale, Lismore andOrange, and a centre at Coffs Harbour. The amalgamation involved a universityin Armidale and colleges in Armidale, Lismore and Orange. All staff(approximately 2,250) at the university were sent a covering letter, a personalparticulars form and a battery of questionnaires designed to determine thedegree to which staff experienced various job stressors, the general stressorsexperienced by staff, and the physical and emotional health of staff. Thecovering letter explained the nature of the project and requested staff tocomplete the questionnaires. Staff were informed that they were not required towrite their name on any of the questionnaires and that participants would notbe identified in any presentation, discussion, and/or publication of the results ofthe project. The questionnaires were completed by 1,028 staff members.

As happens in studies using questionnaires, not all respondents answered allthe questions. The total number of staff in each subgroup of each category whoprovided the relevant personal information is presented in the section, StressDifferences among Respondents in Different Categories (pp. 67-72). As can beseen, staff provided information about their gender or sex (male and female),age (under-20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60, and over-60 years), campus and thefaculty at the Armidale campus to which they belonged (Faculty of Arts at theArmidale campus or Armidale-Arts; Faculty of the Sciences at the Armidalecampus or Armidale-Sciences; Faculty of Economics, Business and Law at theArmidale campus or Armidale-Economics; Faculty of Education, Nursing, andProfessional Studies at the Armidale campus or Armidale-Education; staff whodid not belong to a faculty on the Armidale campus but worked at the Armidalecampus or non-faculty-Armidale; Lismore campus; Orange campus), job-type(senior lecturer or above, below senior lecturer, research, senior technical officeror above, below senior technical officer, administrative officer grade 4 or above,administrative officer grade 2-4, below administrative officer grade 2, library,and support), ethnic background (white Australian, Asian, African, other non-English, other English, and Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander), andqualifications (trade; below school leaving certificate or below-SLC; HigherSchool Certificate or HSC; graduate; postgraduate). Staff also indicated if theyworked on a permanent or temporary basis, if they worked full-time or part-time, if they supervised the work of other staff (supervising or not supervising),if they were on top of the salary scale in their job (top-of-the-salary or not top-of-the-salary), and if they had any disability (disabled or non-disabled). As anexample, it can be seen that of the 1,028 respondents, 992 answered the questionon sex. Of these 551 were males and 441 were females.

MeasuresPersonal particulars. Staff were asked to complete a personal particulars form.This form inquired about participants sex, age, etc. (see Participants).

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F TH

E PU

NJA

B A

t 22:

47 2

0 M

ay 2

015

(PT)


62

Job stressors. Based on organizational stressors identified by researchers[10-13] a job stressors questionnaire was constructed by the author (Table I). Thequestionnaire contained 21 statements about job satisfaction and significance,job clarity, job feedback, working conditions, workload, job security, promotionopportunities, politics and culture at the university, interpersonal relations atwork, and university reorganization. Two questions on university

Given below are a number of statements which characterize a variety of jobs. Indicate theextent to which each statement applies to your job by circling one of the answers givenopposite each statement.

Not at all Somewhat Completelytrue true true

1. I am satisfied with my job 1 2 3

2. I have freedom to carry out the job the way I want to 1 2 3

3. I get regular feedback on how well I am doing the job 1 2 3

4. My job is a significant or important one 1 2 3

5. My workplace conditions (e.g. space, light, and noise) 1 2 3are satisfactory

6. I am quite clear about what I am required to do on the job 1 2 3

7. I am overworked 1 2 3

8. I am expected to do too much in too little time 1 2 3

9. I have a secure job 1 2 3

10. There are not enough promotion opportunities in the job 1 2 3

11. I have achieved or I will achieve the level or position I had 1 2 3hoped to achieve

12. Politics rather than performance determine who gets 1 2 3promoted or who gets ahead in my unit/department

13. I have little chance or scope for contributing to decision 1 2 3making in my unit/department

14. The head of my unit/department or my supervisor is 1 2 3unreasonable in her/his attitudes towards me

15. People who work under me or with me are unreasonable 1 2 3in their attitude toward me

16. I am unhappy with the way other people treat me on 1 2 3the job

17. I get along well with my co-workers 1 2 3

18. I have all the necessary equipment and/or infrastructure 1 2 3support at work

19. I am not clear how the recent reorganization in the 1 2 3university will affect me

20. I am a failure at my job 1 2 3

21. Recent events in the university e.g. amalgamation 1 2 3have led to too many changes in too short a time

Table I.Job StressorsQuestionnaire

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F TH

E PU

NJA

B A

t 22:

47 2

0 M

ay 2

015

(PT)

Stress andHealth in

University Staff

63

reorganization were included because the three campuses of the university hadamalgamated approximately four years previously and various parts of theuniversity were still debating the pros and cons of amalgamation at the time ofthe project. Some of the questions in the job stressors questionnaire werepositive (e.g. I have a secure job) whereas others were negative (e.g. I have littlechance or scope for contributing to decision making in my unit/department).Participants answered each question on a three-point scale (1, Not at all true; 2,Somewhat true; 3, Completely true). In scoring the questionnaire, first thepositive items were reverse scored. After reverse scoring the positive items, lowscore on each item indicated low stress and high score indicated high stress.Average score, for the 21 items, indicated the degree to which the 21 items,taken as a whole, acted as stressors. In scoring, first the average score wascalculated for each subject (job stress) and then this score was recoded as lowjob stress (indicated by the average score of 1.00 to 1.50), medium job stress(1.51 to 2.00), or high job stress (2.01 to 3.00).

General stressors. General stressors experienced by staff were assessedthrough the six general stress questions in Nowacks stress assessmentprofile[8]. Participants were asked to indicate the hassles experienced by themin relation to their health, work, finances, family, social relations, andenvironment in the last three months. Participants indicated the degree ofhassles on a 5-point scale (1, Never; 2, Rarely; 3, Sometimes; 4, Often; 5, Always).The average score for the six items indicated the general stressors faced by thesubjects. In scoring, first the average score on the six items was calculated foreach subject (general stress). The average score was then recoded into low(meaning an average score of 1.00 to 2.50), medium (2.51 to 3.50), or high (3.51 to5.00) general stress category.

Emotional health. Emotional health of the participants was assessed throughthe psychological distress scale[8,14], manifest anxiety scale[15], and thought-related distress subscale of the thoughts and real-life experiences scale[16,17].Participants completed all the scales for the past three months.

Nowacks psychological distress scale consists of 57 items indicative ofpsychological distress (e.g. pains in the chest, hot or cold spells, nausea, upsetstomach, and trouble concentrating or paying attention). The present projectused 55 of the 57 items. Participants were asked to indicate the frequency withwhich they experienced each symptom on a five-point scale (1, never to 5,always). Psychological distress was the sum of the scores for the 55 items.

Manifest anxiety was assessed through the manifest anxiety scale developedby Taylor[15]. The scale, consisting of 50 items, has been frequently used for theassessment of anxiety. For each item the respondent indicated if the item wastrue or false as applied to them. Some items were positive (e.g. I do not tirequickly) while others were negative (e.g. I have nightmares every few nights).Each item was scored as 0 (indicating no anxiety) or 1 (indicating anxiety). Theaverage score on the 50 items provided the manifest anxiety score.

Dua[16] argued that the emotional wellbeing of the individual was bestpredicted through negative and positive effect caused to the individual as a

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F TH

E PU

NJA

B A

t 22:

47 2

0 M

ay 2

015

(PT)


64

result of his/her thoughts and day-to-day experiences. Dua constructed a scalewhich measured the degree to which peoples thoughts and day-to-dayexperiences caused them negative and positive effect. Research showed thatthough both the negative and positive effect predicted psychologicalwellbeing[17], negative effect caused by thoughts was the best predictor ofpsychological well-being[18]. In the present project negative effect caused bythoughts, assessed through the thought-related negative effect subscale of thethoughts and real-life experiences scale developed by Dua, was used as anindicator of emotional health. In completing the subscale, subjects indicated thedegree, on a 0-100 rating scale, to which their thoughts about each of the 14items (e.g. family members, friends, colleagues at work and work in general)caused them negative effect. Negative effect was the average rating of distresscaused by thoughts related to the 14 items.

Physical health. Participants completed a questionnaire, devised by theauthor, designed to measure various aspects of self-reported physical health.All the questions in this questionnaire were answered for the past three months.Participants indicated the number of days they were absent from work due to amedical problem (absence from work):

(1) no days;(2) one or two days; (3) three or four days;(4) five to ten days;(5) more than ten days.

Subjects also indicated the number of times they visited a doctor forprofessional medical advice (doctor visits; one, none to five, more than tentimes), and the number of times they suffered from various illnesses:

(1) never;(2) once;(3) twice;(4) three times;(5) four or more times.

The illness question was adapted from Greenberg[cited in 7] and illness scorewas the average of participants self-reported illness in the seven categories(injuries/accidents, infections, respiratory illness, gastrointestinal illness,headaches or migraines, cardiovascular illness, and other illness). Participantsalso indicated their overall physical health (physical health: very bad; bad;neither bad nor good; good; very good).

ProcedureApproval for the project was obtained from the Ethics Committees at the threecampuses of the University of New England. Following the approval, the project

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F TH

E PU

NJA

B A

t 22:

47 2

0 M

ay 2

015

(PT)

Stress andHealth in

University Staff

65

was advertised in the staff newspapers published on the three campuses. InMay 1992 all staff employed by the university were sent a covering letter, apersonal particulars form and the battery of questionnaires designed to assessjob stressors, general stressors, physical health, and emotional health (seeParticipants and Measures). Reminders, requesting all staff to send thecompleted questionnaires back to the author, were published in staffnewspapers on the three campuses. The completed questionnaires receivedwithin approximately four months were included in data analysis.

ResultsData analysis was carried out using the SPSS package[19] on the mainframecomputer at the University of New England-Armidale.

ScoringJob stress, job stress category (low, medium, or high), general stress, generalstress category (low, medium, or high), psychological distress, manifest anxiety,negative effect, absence from work, doctor visits, illness, and physical healthscores were calculated for each respondent as detailed in the Measuressubsection above. The answer to the question on work hassles in the generalstress questions was used as another measure of work stress. The averageresponse to the remaining five hassles questions was also calculated. This wasused as the measure of extraorganizational stress or non-work stress. Non-workstress scores were divided into low, medium, and high categories in the sameway as the scores for the general stress. Mean and standard deviations for allscores are given in Table II.

Job StressorsThe number of job characteristics which acted as job stressors was calculatedfor each respondent. A job characteristic included in a job stressor question wascounted as a job stressor if a respondent gave the answer 2 or 3 to the question.For example, if a respondent gave an answer 2 (somewhat true) or 3 (completelytrue) to the question I am overworked, being overworked was counted as a jobstressor. Results indicated that 82 per cent of the respondents experienced morethan seven job stressors, 51 per cent of the respondents experienced more than11 job stressors, 23 per cent of the respondents experienced more than 14 jobstressors, and 6 per cent of the respondents experienced more than 17 jobstressors.

Inter-correlations among Stress ScoresMany researchers (e.g.[10]) have suggested that dissatisfaction with a job is aconsequence, or manifestation of, stress. In the job stressors questionnaire usedin the present project I included two questions about job satisfaction. Of these,question 1 directly asked respondents about their job satisfaction. Thecorrelations between job stress based on 21 questions and job stress excludingquestion 1 was found to be 0.997, and the correlation between job stress based

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F TH

E PU

NJA

B A

t 22:

47 2

0 M

ay 2

015

(PT)


66

on 21 questions and job stress excluding questions 1 and 20 was found to be0.994. Given such high correlations it was decided that scores based on all 21questions, and the six factors derived from the factor analysis of the 21questions, would be used in data analysis. Intercorrelations of job stress withother stress variables showed that job stress was correlated 0.26 (p < 0.001) withnon-work stress, 0.40 (p < 0.001) with general stress, and 0.59 (p < 0.001) withwork stress. It is interesting to note that job stress as determined through 21questions in the job stressors questionnaire had a high and significantcorrelation with work stress as determined through the question on work-related hassles in the general stressors questions.

Factor Analysis of Job Stressors QuestionnaireParticipants responses to the 21-item job stressors questionnaire weresubjected to a varimax rotation factor analysis. The factor analysis revealed sixfactors, with an eigen value greater than 1, which accounted for 54 per cent ofthe variance. Using a factor loading greater than or equal to 0.50 the six factorswere questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 (factor 1; accounting for 19.7 per cent of thevariance), questions 7 and 8 (factor 2; 10.5 per cent of the variance), questions10, 11, 12 and 13 (factor 3; 7.2 per cent of the variance), questions 15, 16 and 17(factor 4; 6.5 per cent of the variance), questions 5, 9 and 18 (factor 5; 5.3 per centof the variance), and questions 19 and 21 (factor 6; 4.8 per cent of the variance).Questions 6, 14 and 20 (see Table I) were not significantly loaded on any of the

Table II.Mean and StandardDeviations of Stress,Health, and JobDissatisfactionVariables

Job stressVariable Overall Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6

Mean 1.73 1.81 2.04 1.99 1.30 1.72 2.06SD 0.28 0.45 0.74 0.53 0.39 0.48 0.58

General Work Non-work Jobstress stress stress dissatisfaction

Mean 2.65 3.29 2.52 1.76SD 0.62 1.05 0.65 0.59

Emotional healthPsychological Negative Manifest

distress effect anxietyMean 116.20 23.80 0.31SD 26.63 16.41 0.19

Physical healthAbsence Doctor Physical

from work visits health IllnessMean 1.60 1.57 2.08 1.44SD 0.97 0.78 0.86 0.44

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F TH

E PU

NJA

B A

t 22:

47 2

0 M

ay 2

015

(PT)

Stress andHealth in

University Staff

67

factors. The six factors were named job significance (factor 1), workload (factor2), work politics (factor 3), interpersonal dealings at work (factor 4), workconditions (factor 5), and university reorganization (factor 6). Average job stressfactor scores (job stress factor 1 to job stress factor 6) and the category to whichthese scores belonged (low, medium, or high) were determined, for eachrespondent, in the same way as the calculation of the job stress scores anddetermination of the job category.

Stress Differences among Respondents in Different CategoriesLevels of job stress, job stress factors, and non-work stress were investigated inrespondents belonging to different categories, for example, age, sex, andcampus. These stress measures were selected because job stress was an overallmeasure of stress, job stress factors indicated the stress caused by differentaspects of the workplace, and non-work stress was a measure of stress due toextraorganizational factors. Tables III, IV and V show the percentage of staff ineach subgroup of each category who reported low, medium, and high job stress.Stress levels among respondents in different categories were analysed throughone-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). In ANOVAs stress scores served asdependent variables and subgroups for each category served as independentvariables. Results of ANOVAs are reported so as to provide an overview of anydifferences in experienced stressors by staff belonging to various subgroups(e.g. male and female staff, and temporary and permanent staff).

Job stress and job stress factors. Mean and standard deviations of job stressscores for various subgroups are shown in Tables VI, VII, and VIII. ThoughANOVAs were also applied to the six job stress factor scores of staff belongingto various subgroups, the mean job stress factor scores are not tabulated sincesuch a tabulation would have required a large number of tables.

Table III.Percentages of Staff

with Low, Medium andHigh Job Stress

According to Sex, JobTenure, Status,Enrolment and

Disability

SexSubgroup Male Female Permanent Temporary Full-time Part-time

Low 21.6 25.2 24.0 17.9 22.8 27.4Medium 62.4 60.3 61.5 60.7 61.0 62.3High 16.0 14.5 14.5 21.4 16.2 10.4Total number 551 441 865 145 907 106

Not- Top of Not top NotSupervising supervising salary of salary Disabled disabled

Low 23.4 23.0 24.8 21.8 23.0 23.2Medium 62.2 60.5 61.4 61.5 60.7 61.5High 14.4 16.5 13.8 16.8 16.4 15.3Total number 492 522 420 597 61 955

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F TH

E PU

NJA

B A

t 22:

47 2

0 M

ay 2

015

(PT)


68

ANOVAs showed that males and females did not experience differential jobstress. Also, males and females did not experience differential stress due to jobsignificance, interpersonal dealings at work, work conditions, and universityreorganization. However, males reported higher workload stress than females(mean job stress due to workload being 2.11 for males versus 1.96 for females),and females reported more stress due to work politics than males (2.05 versus1.94).

There was a significant effect of age on job stress and job stress factors 1, 2,3, 5, and 6. In general younger staff reported more job stress than older staff.ANOVAs of job stress factor scores showed that younger staff reported morestress due to job significance than older staff (for example 1.86 for 31-40 agegroup versus 1.74 for the over-50 age group); younger staff also reported morestress as a result of work politics than older staff (for example, 2.12 for theunder-30 age group versus 1.89 for the over-50 age group) and they reportedmore stress due to working conditions than older staff (for example 1.80 for 31-40 age group versus 1.59 for the over-50 age group). On the other hand, olderstaff reported more stress than younger staff as a result of workload (for

Table IV.Percentages of Staffwith Low, Medium andHigh Job StressAccording to Age,Campus, andQualifications

Age (years)Subgroup Under-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Over-60

Low 66.7 23.9 18.0 24.9 24.8 36.4Medium 33.3 63.2 64.0 59.1 60.9 59.1High 0 12.9 18.0 16.0 14.3 4.5Total number 6 155 311 369 161 22

CampusNon-faculty- Armidale- Armidale- Armidale- Armidale-

Armidale Arts Sciences Economics Education

Low 22.7 20.2 27.7 30.4 12.8Medium 59.2 64.3 60.1 57.1 67.9High 18.1 15.5 12.2 12.5 19.3Total number 304 129 188 56 109

Campus QualificationsBelow- Post-

Lismore Orange Trade SLC HSC Graduate graduate

Low 26.3 25.4 20.8 15.4 28.8 19.1 25.1Medium 58.8 63.5 64.2 67.0 59.3 62.8 59.6High 15.0 11.1 15.1 17.6 11.9 18.0 15.2Total number 160 63 159 91 118 183 446

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F TH

E PU

NJA

B A

t 22:

47 2

0 M

ay 2

015

(PT)

Stress andHealth in

University Staff

69

example, 2.17 for the over-50 age group versus 1.68 for the under-30 age group)and university reorganization (for example, 2.13 for the over-50 age groupversus 1.94 for the under-30 age group).

There was a significant difference in job stress, and job stress factors 1, 2, 3and 6 among staff from different campuses and faculties. Overall, Armidale-Education staff reported more stressors than other staff at Armidale and staffon other campuses. Non-faculty-Armidale staff reported the next highest stress.There was no significant difference in job stress experienced by staff on thethree campuses. In terms of job stress factors, non-faculty-Armidale staffreported more stress due to job significance than other staff (for example, 1.88for non-faculty-Armidale staff versus 1.72 for Armidale-Economics staff).Armidale-Education staff, followed by Armidale-Arts staff and Lismore staff,reported more workload stress than other staff (for example, 2.36 for Armidale-Education staff versus 1.93 for Armidale-Economics staff). Non-faculty-Armidale staff, followed by the Armidale-Education staff, reported more work

Job-typeSenior Below Senior technical Below senior

lecturer senior officer or technicalSubgroup or above lecturer Research above officer


Job-typeAdmin. Admin. Belowofficer officer admin.

4 or above 2-4 officer 2 Library Support


Ethnic backgroundWhite Other- Other-

Australian Asian African non-English English Aboriginal

Low 23.7 28.6 0 19.4 19.3 50.0Medium 61.3 42.9 100.0 58.1 65.2 25.0High 14.9 28.6 0 22.6 15.5 25.0Total number 776 21 4 31 181 8

Table V.Percentage of Staff withLow, Medium and HighJob Stress According to

Job Type and EthnicBackground

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F TH

E PU

NJA

B A

t 22:

47 2

0 M

ay 2

015

(PT)


70

politics stressors than other staff (for example, 2.08 for non-faculty-Armidalestaff versus 1.88 for Armidale-Arts staff). Armidale-Arts staff, followed by theArmidale-Education staff, reported more stress as a result of universityreorganization than other staff (for example, 2.31 for Armidale-Arts staff versus1.78 for Lismore staff).

Staff below senior lecturer level reported more job stress than other staff.They were followed, in job stress levels, by support staff and staff below seniortechnical officer level. Support staff reported more stress due to job significancethan most other staff (for example, 1.93 for support staff versus 1.62 forresearch staff). Staff below senior lecturer level, staff below senior technicalofficer level, and staff below administrative officer 2 level were next in line in

Subgroup Male Female Permanent Temporary Full-time Part-time

Mean 1.74 1.72 1.72 1.77 1.73 1.70SD 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.27

Not Not-Supervising supervising Top Not top Disabled disabled

Mean 1.72 1.74 1.72 1.74 1.75 1.73SD 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.28

Table VI.Mean and StandardDeviations of Job StressAccording to Sex, JobTenure, Status,Enrolment, andDisability

Age (years)Subgroup Under-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Over-60

Mean 1.44 1.72 1.76 1.73 1.70 1.61SD 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.28

CampusNon-faculty- Armidale- Armidale- Armidale- Armidale-

Armidale Arts Science Economics Education

Mean 1.76 1.74 1.69 1.65 1.80SD 0.29 0.25 0.28 0.26 0.27

Campus QualificationsPost-

Lismore Orange Trade Below-SLC HSC Graduate graduate

Mean 1.72 1.69 1.74 1.79 1.70 1.75 1.71SD 0.31 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.28

Table VII.Means and StandardDeviation of Job StressAccording to Campus,Age, and Qualification

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F TH

E PU

NJA

B A

t 22:

47 2

0 M

ay 2

015

(PT)

Stress andHealth in

University Staff

71

terms of stress due to job significance. Staff above senior lecturer level reportedhigher workload stress than all other staff (for example, 2.46 for staff abovesenior lecturer versus 1.71 for staff below senior technical officer). Staff belowsenior lecturer level, staff above administrative officer 4 level, and staff atadministrative officer 2-4 level were next in line in terms of workload stress.Support staff, followed by staff below senior technical officer and staff belowadministrative officer 2 level, reported more work politics stressors than otherstaff (for example, 2.25 for support staff versus 1.66 for staff above seniorlecturer level). There was no significant difference in stress due to interpersonaldealings at work among staff in different jobs at the university. Research staff,followed by staff below senior lecturer level and staff below senior technicalofficer, reported more work conditions stressors than other staff (for example,2.08 for research staff versus 1.63 for staff below administrative officer 2 level).Support staff, followed by staff below senior lecturer level, reported more stressdue to university reorganization than other staff (for example, 2.20 for supportstaff versus 1.71 for library staff). Staff above senior technical officer level andstaff above senior lecturer level were next in line in terms of stress due touniversity reorganization.

There was a trend for temporary staff to report more job stress thanpermanent staff. As far as job stress factors were concerned, the onlymeaningful difference was where temporary staff reported more stress due towork conditions than permanent staff (2.07 for temporary staff versus 1.66 forpermanent staff). Full-time and part-time staff did not report significantlydifferent job stress levels. On job stress factors, the only significant differencewas in relation to workload, where full-time staff reported more workload

Senior lecturer Below senior Senior technical Below seniorSubgroup or above lecturer Research officer or above technical officer

Mean 1.67 1.80 1.65 1.74 1.77SD 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.28

Admin. officer Admin. officer Below admin.4 or above 2-4 officer 2 Library Support

Mean 1.70 1.71 1.73 1.65 1.80SD 0.26 0.29 0.27 0.29 0.31

Ethnic backgroundWhite Other- Other-

Australian Asian African non-English English Aboriginal

Mean 1.72 1.74 1.87 1.77 1.75 1.70SD 0.28 0.36 0.05 0.33 0.27 0.42

Table VIII.Mean and Standard

Deviations of Job StressAccording to Job

Tenure and EthnicBackground

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F TH

E PU

NJA

B A

t 22:

47 2

0 M

ay 2

015

(PT)


72

stressors than part-time staff (2.07 for full-time staff versus 1.81 for part-timestaff).

There was no significant difference in job stress between staff whosupervised the work of others and staff who did not. In relation to job stressfactors, non-supervising staff were more stressed due to the job significancefactor than supervising staff (1.85 versus 1.77), Supervising staff reported moreworkload stress than non-supervising staff (2.27 versus 1.83), and non-supervising staff reported more work politics stressors than supervising staff(2.10 versus 1.87).

Job stress was not significantly different between staff who were on top-of-the-scale in their job and those who were not on top-of-the-scale in their job. Inrelation to job stress factors, there was a trend for staff who were not on top-of-scale to be more stressed due to the job significance factor than those who wereon top-of-the-scale (1.84 versus 1.78), and there was a trend for those who wereon top-of-the-scale to report more workload stress than those who were not ontop-of-the-scale (2.09 versus 2.01). Finally, staff who were not on top-of-the-scalereported more work conditions stressors than those who were on top-of-the-scale (1.77 versus 1.65). Ethnic background had no effect on job stress. Inrelation to job stress factors there were not many clear-cut trends. One trendthat emerged was that staff from other English backgrounds reported moreworkload stress than staff of some other backgrounds (2.17 for other Englishstaff versus 1.95 for Asian, African, and other non-English staff).

Qualifications did not have an effect on job stress. Staff with postgraduatequalifications, followed by graduate staff, reported more workload stressorsthan other staff (for example, 2.26 for postgraduate staff versus 1.68 for HSCstaff). Staff with trade qualifications, followed by those with below-SLC andHSC qualifications, reported more work politics stressors than other staff (forexample, 2.16 for trade staff and below-SLC staff versus 1.84 for postgraduatestaff). Staff with below-SLC qualifications reported more stress due tointerpersonal dealings at work than other staff. However, these means were low,that is, in the 1.27 to 1.46 range, graduate and postgraduate staff reported morework conditions stressors than other staff (for example, 1.79 for graduate staffversus 1.61 for below-SLC staff). Disability was not associated with job stress.As far as the job stress factors were concerned, the only significant differencewas where disabled staff reported more work politics stressors than non-disabled staff (2.13 versus 1.98).

Extraorganizational stress. Non-work stress was the average rating of healthhassles, financial hassles, family hassles, social hassles, and environmentalhassles. ANOVA revealed that females reported more non-work stress thanmales and younger respondents had more non-work stress than respondentswho were over 50 years old. In general, there was no significant difference inrelation to non-work stress among staff working on different campuses anddifferent faculties. Staff employed as senior lecturer or above reported less non-work stress than staff in other jobs.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F TH

E PU

NJA

B A

t 22:

47 2

0 M

ay 2

015

(PT)

Stress andHealth in

University Staff

73

There was no significant difference between permanent and temporary staff,but part-time staff reported more non-work stress than full-time staff. Non-supervising staff reported more non-work stress than supervising staff. Staffwho were on top of the salary scale in their job were no different from those whowere not on top of the salary scale in relation to non-work stress. In relation toethnic background, staff of aboriginal background reported more non-workstress than all other staff. In general, staff who had postgraduate qualificationsreported less non-work stress than all other staff. Disabled staff reported morenon-work stress than non-disabled staff.

Stress, Health and Job DissatisfactionTable IX shows the intercorrelations between stress measures (job stress, jobstress factors 1 to 6, and non-work stress), and emotional health (psychologicaldistress, negative effect and manifest anxiety), physical health (absence fromwork, doctor visits, physical health and illness), and job dissatisfactionmeasures. To determine if correlations between job stress, and health anddissatisfaction measures were mainly due to non-work stress, partialcorrelations, controlling for non-work stress, were computed. Thesecorrelations are also shown in Table IX. Correlations in Table IX showed that,in general, high job stress and high non-work stress were associated with lowemotional health, low physical health, and high job dissatisfaction. Therelationship between job stress, and health and job dissatisfaction remainedsignificant even after controlling for non-work stress.

The relationship between stress, and health and job dissatisfaction wasfurther analysed through multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). In theseMANOVAs job stress and non-work stress categories served as the three levelsof the independent variable, and health and job dissatisfaction measures served

Table IX.Inter-correlations

between Job Stress andNon-work Stress, and

Health and JobDissatisfaction

Measures

Job Psychological Negative Manifestdissatisfaction distress affect anxiety

Job stress 0.61*** 0.40*** 0.39*** 0.36***Job stress 0.57*** 0.28*** 0.30*** 0.24***(controlling for non-work stress)Non-work stress 0.21*** 0.58*** 0.54*** 0.50***

Absence Doctor Physicalfrom work visits health Illness

Job stress 0.12*** 0.11*** 0.33*** 0.30***Job stress 0.08* 0.03 0.24*** 0.18***(controlling for non-work stress)Non-work stress 0.14*** 0.18*** 0.41*** 0.38***

* p < 0 .05; ** p < 0 .01; *** p < 0 .001

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F TH

E PU

NJA

B A

t 22:

47 2

0 M

ay 2

015

(PT)


74

as the correlated dependent variables. Results (see Table X) supported thecorrelations in Table IX. These results revealed that both the job stress and non-work stress were associated with high job dissatisfaction, more absence fromwork, more doctor visits, more illness, low self-reported physical health, highpsychological distress, more negative effect, and more manifest anxiety.Multivariate effect size for job stress was 0.19 and for non-work stress it was0.17. Similar MANOVAs were performed for job stress factors. TheseMANOVAs showed results similar to those found for job stress. Stress due tojob significance was associated with low emotional health, low physical healthand high job dissatisfaction. Stress due to workload and universityreorganization was not significantly associated with absence from work anddoctor visits, but it was associated with other health measures and jobdissatisfaction. Stress due to work politics and interpersonal dealings at work,and work conditions was associated with all the measures of health and jobdissatisfaction except doctor visits. These results are supported by theintercorrelations between job stress factors, and health and job dissatisfactionmeasures, shown in Table XI.

Dependent variable Job stress Non-work stressF p less than F p less than

Psychological distress 46.72 0.001 144.43 0.001Negative effect 48.52 0.001 108.57 0.001Manifest anxiety 42.78 0.001 120.76 0.001Absence from work 6.89 0.01 13.74 0.001Doctor visits 4.29 0.05 6.50 0.01Physical health 37.50 0.001 53.90 0.001Illness 25.36 0.001 46.59 0.001Job dissatisfaction 161.45 0.001 14.27 0.001

Table X.Results of UnivariateF-tests FollowingMultivariate Analysisof Variance ShowingEffects of Job Stressand Non-work Stress onHealth and JobDissatisfactionMeasures

Absence JobPsychological Negative Manifest from Doctor Physical Illness dissatis-

distress effect anxiety work visits health faction

Jobsignificance 0.33*** 0.27*** 0.30*** 0.10*** 0.07*** 0.22*** 0.22*** 0.07***

Work load 0.18*** 0.17*** 0.15*** 0.05 0.08* 0.16*** 0.22*** 0.12***Work politics 0.22*** 0.19*** 0.19*** 0.16*** 0.09** 0.17*** 0.15*** 0.41***Inter-personal 0.25*** 0.26*** 0.25*** 0.07* 0.08* 0.20*** 0.14*** 0.19***Work conditions 0.20*** 0.27*** 0.17*** 0.07* 0.07* 0.25*** 0.21*** 0.31***Universityreorganization 0.20*** 0.20*** 0.21*** 0.02 0.01 0.14*** 0.10*** 0.15***

* p < 0 .05; ** p < 0 .01; *** p < 0 .001

Table XI.Inter-correlationsbetween Job StressFactors and Health andJob DissatisfactionMeasures

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F TH

E PU

NJA

B A

t 22:

47 2

0 M

ay 2

015

(PT)

Stress andHealth in

University Staff

75

DiscussionJob Stress and Job Stress FactorsJob stress was assessed through 21 job-related statements. Results showed that82 per cent of the respondents experienced more than seven job stressors and 51per cent of the respondents experienced more than 11 job stressors. Furtheranalysis of job stressors was carried out by calculating the percentage ofrespondents who gave a high stressor rating to each job stressor question. Thisanalysis revealed that 41 per cent of the respondents reported that they did notget regular feedback; 12 per cent of the respondents reported that theirworkplace conditions were unsatisfactory; 34 per cent of the respondentsreported that they were overworked; 32 per cent of the respondents reportedthat they were expected to do too much in too little time; 14 per cent of therespondents reported that they did not have a secure job; 41 per cent of therespondents reported that there were not enough promotion opportunities forthem; 35 per cent of the respondents reported that that they had not achievedthe position they had hoped to achieve; 25 per cent of the respondents reportedthat politics determined who got ahead in their department; 19 per cent of therespondents reported that that they had little scope for contributing to decisionmaking in their department; 21 per cent of the respondents reported that thatthey did not have the necessary infrastructure or equipment at work; 28 percent of the respondents reported that that they were not sure how recentreorganization would affect them; and 32 per cent of the respondents reportedthat that events related to amalgamation had produced too many changes in tooshort a time. These descriptive results and the results in Tables III, IV and Vindicated that many staff experienced a significant number of stressors and ahigh degree of stress at their workplace.

Analysis of job stress and stress due to job stress factors in differentsubgroups revealed that, in many cases, respondents belonging to differentsubgroups experienced differential job stress and stress due to job stressfactors. It is worth remembering that job stress was the average score over 21stressors whereas job stress factor scores were scores averaged over a smallernumber of questions. Thus, as one would expect, there were a number ofinstances where the overall job stress in subgroups within a category was notsignificant but there were significant differences in stress caused by job stressfactors. For example, there was no significant difference in job stress betweenmales and females, but males reported more workload stress than females, andfemales reported more stress due to work politics than males.

Results showed that, in general, younger staff reported more job stress thanolder staff. This may be because as people get older they become moreexperienced and more worldly-wise[10]. In addition, older employees have oftenreached a stage where career development is not their major concern, and hencea number of job characteristics which may cause stress to younger staff, whohave their career ahead of them, do not cause stress to older staff.

The results of stress in staff across different campuses and across differentfaculties of the Armidale campus were revealing. Generally, staff in the Faculty

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F TH

E PU

NJA

B A

t 22:

47 2

0 M

ay 2

015

(PT)


76

of Education, Nursing, and Professional Studies were more stressed than otherstaff. They were followed, in the level of stress, by staff who did not belong toany of the faculties in Armidale. The latter group comprised administrativestaff, support staff, and library staff. It is worth remembering that theUniversity of New England had undergone an amalgamation about four yearsago and many staff had felt the effects of amalgamation. The amalgamationinvolved a college at Orange, a college at Lismore, a college at Armidale, and auniversity at Armidale. It might be argued that amalgamation producedmaximum changes for staff who had previously belonged to the college atArmidale before undergoing a complete amalgamation with the university atArmidale. Staff at Lismore and Orange had also become part of the university,but these campuses functioned as autonomous units. Most of the staff at theprevious college at Armidale belonged to the Faculty of Education, Nursing andProfessional Studies, and the greatest change due to amalgamation for thesestaff may have been the cause of their stress.

Staff below senior lecturer level, followed by support staff and staff belowsenior technical officer, reported more job stress than other staff. These resultssuggested that staff in lower jobs were more stressed than staff in higher jobs.

It is important to point out that the personal factor categories were notmutually exclusive. Thus, differences within one category may exist because ofthe effect of another category. For example, differences within job-type categorymay be due to age or vice versa. Stepwise multiple regressions in whichpersonal factor categories served as predictor variables for the prediction of jobstress and scores on job stress factors were applied to the data. One generalconclusion from these multiple regressions was that supervising/not-supervising and job-type factors were the two most common and significantpredictors of stress. In addition, within the job-type category, there was a trendfor staff employed at lower job levels (e.g. staff below senior lecturer level andsupport staff) to be more stressed than staff employed at higher job levels (e.g.staff above senior lecturer level). Thus, it seems that many significantassociations between personal factors and stress (for example, the correlationbetween age and stress) could be explained through the supervising/not-supervising and job-type factors.

Researchers have presented evidence to show that general stress and work-related stress lead to poor physical health, poor emotional or mental health,absenteeism, low morale, and job dissatisfaction[e.g. 10,13]. Poor physicalhealth consequences have been observed in relation to cardiovascular disease,infections, cancer, headaches, and gastrointestinal diseases. However, there is asignificant amount of evidence to suggest that the stress-illness relationshipmay be explained through the personality dimension of negative affectivity,that is, people who show negative affectivity are more likely to be ill[20]. Inrelation to emotional health, researchers have found increased depression andanxiety, and lower psychological wellbeing as a result of both the general stressand work-related stress. The results of the present study supported previousresearch. The present study found that both the high job stress and high non-

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F TH

E PU

NJA

B A

t 22:

47 2

0 M

ay 2

015

(PT)

Stress andHealth in

University Staff

77

work stress were associated with more job dissatisfaction, psychologicaldistress, negative effect, manifest anxiety, absence from work due to illness,doctor visits and illness, and worse physical health.

I must emphasize that the results of the present study are correlational innature and do not indicate any cause and effect relationship between personalfactors and stressors, and stressors and health variables. Establishment of thecause and effect relationships would require longitudinal studies. However, anincreasing amount of research in this area has shown that organizational orwork-related factors act as stressors, that employees in different categoriesexperience different stressors in the same work environment, and that stress isassociated with poor physical health, poor emotional or psychological health,and high job dissatisfaction. The present research identifies stressors andsupports the previously observed relationship, between stress and health, in ahigher-educational setting.

The research reported in the article identifies many higher-educational jobcharacteristics which acted as stressors for staff employed at the University ofNew England. The research also found that staff belonging to differentsubgroups experienced different stressors. I believe that many jobcharacteristics identified as stressors at the University of New England wouldalso be found to act as stressors in other higher education institutions inAustralia, and perhaps, other countries. University authorities should beencouraged to determine the stressors for different subgroups of staff in theiruniversity and then take action to remove the sources of stress from the workenvironment. In the medium to long term such action would produce benefitsfor the institution in terms of improved physical and emotional health,increased job satisfaction, and improved morale of the employees. Thesebenefits would be followed by increased productivity in terms of quality andquantity of work.

References1. Staw, B.M., Organizational Behaviour: A Review and Reformulation of the Fields

Outcome Variables, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 35, 1985, pp. 627-66.2. Selye, H., The Stress of Life, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1976.3. Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoek, J.D. and Rosenthal, R.A., Role Stress: Studies in

Role Conflict and Ambiguity, John Wiley, New York, NY, 1964.4. Caplan, R.D., Co, S., French, J.R.P., Jr, Van Harrison, R. and Pinneau, S.R., Jr, Job Demands

and Worker Health, US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, DC,1975.

5. Lazarus, R.S., Psychological Stress and the Coping Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY,1966.

6. Lazarus, R.S., The Concepts of Stress and Disease, in Levi, L. (Ed.), Society, Stress, andDisease, Vol. 1, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1971, pp. 53-60.

7. Nowack, K.M., Coping Style, Cognitive Hardiness, and Health Status, Journal ofBehavioral Medicine, Vol. 12 No. 2, 1989, pp. 145-58.

8. Nowack, K.M., Initial Development of an Inventory to Assess any Health Risk, AmericanJournal of Health Promotion, Vol. 4 No. 3, 1990, pp. 173-80.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F TH

E PU

NJA

B A

t 22:

47 2

0 M

ay 2

015

(PT)


78

9. Pratt, L.I. and Barling, J., Differentiating between Daily Events, Acute and ChronicStressors: A Framework and its Implications, in Hurrell, J.J., Jr, Murphy, L.R., and Sauter,S.L. (Eds), Occupational Stress: Issues and Developments in Research, Taylor and Francis,New York, NY, 1988, pp. 41-53.

10. Matteson, M.T. and Ivancevich, J.M., Controlling Work Stress: Effective Human Resourceand Management Strategies, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA, 1987.

11. Cooper, C.L. and Marshall, J., Understanding Executive Stress, Macmillan Press, London,1978.

12. Cooper, C.L. and Payne, R. (Eds), Stress at Work, John Wiley, New York, NY, 1978.13. Sutherland, V.J. and Cooper, C.L., Sources of Work Stress, in Hurrell, J.J., Jr, Murphy, L.R.,

and Sauter, S.L. (Eds), Occupational Stress: Issues and Development in Research, Taylorand Francis, New York, NY, 1988, pp. 3-40.

14. Nowack, K.M., Personal Communication, 18 January 1991.15. Taylor, J.A., A Personality Scale of Manifest Anxiety, Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 2, 1953, pp. 285-90.16. Dua, J., Assessment of Positive and Negative Affect as a Result of Thoughts and Real-life

Experiences, Behaviour Change, Vol. 7 No. 2, 1990, pp. 62-5.17. Dua, J. and Price, I., Psychometric Analysis of the Subscales of the Thoughts and Real-life

Experiences Scale, Behaviour Change, Vol. 9 No. 2, 1992, pp. 104-11.18. Dua, J., Role of Negative Affect and Positive Affect in Stress, Depression, Self-esteem,

Assertiveness, Type A Behaviors, Psychological Health, and Physical Health, Genetic,Social, and General Psychology Monographs, in press.

19. Norusis, M.J., SPSS Base System Users Guide, SPSS, Chicago, IL, 1990.20. Watson, D. and Pennebaker, J.W., Health Complaints, Stress and Distress: Exploring the

Central Role of Negative Effectivity, Psychological Review, Vol. 96 No. 2, pp. 234-54.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F TH

E PU

NJA

B A

t 22:

47 2

0 M

ay 2

015

(PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Kostadin Kushlev, Elizabeth W. Dunn. 2015. Checking email less frequently reduces stress. Computers in Human Behavior 43,220-228. [CrossRef]

2. Shohreh Kolagari, Mansoureh Zagheri Tafreshi, Maryam Rassouli, Amir Kavousi. 2014. Psychometric Evaluation of the RoleStrain Scale: The Persian Version. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal 16. . [CrossRef]

3. Anthony H. WinefieldJob Stress in University Academics 1-21. [CrossRef]4. May-Chiun Lo, Ramayah Thurasamy, Wei Liew. 2014. Relationship between bases of power and job stresses: role of mentoring.

SpringerPlus 3, 432. [CrossRef]5. Shannon K. McCoy, Ellen E. Newell, Susan K. Gardner. 2013. Seeking Balance: The Importance of Environmental Conditions

in Men and Women Facultys Well-being. Innovative Higher Education 38, 309-322. [CrossRef]6. Xiaoli Sang, Stephen T.T. Teo, Cary L. Cooper, Philip Bohle. 2013. Modelling Occupational Stress and Employee Health

and Wellbeing in a Chinese Higher Education Institution. Higher Education Quarterly 67:10.1111/hequ.2013.67.issue-1, 15-39.[CrossRef]

7. Emily Pakivathy Paul, Phua Seok Kheng. 2012. Lecturers' Satisfaction Levels Regarding Job-Related Variables in a Public TertiaryInstitution in Singapore. Journal of Tropical Psychology 2. . [CrossRef]

8. Zafir Mohd Makhbul. 2012. Workplace Environment Towards Health and Performance. International Business Management 6,640-647. [CrossRef]

9. Vathsala Wickramasinghe. 2012. Supervisor support as a moderator between work schedule flexibility and job stress. InternationalJournal of Workplace Health Management 5:1, 44-55. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

10. Ahlam B. El Shikieri, Hassan A. Musa. 2012. Factors Associated with Occupational Stress and Their Effects on OrganizationalPerformance in a Sudanese University. Creative Education 03, 134-144. [CrossRef]

11. Mohd Kamel Idris, Michael P. O'Driscoll, Marc H. Anderson. 2011. Longitudinal Mediation Effects of Strain on the Relationshipsbetween Role Stressors and Employees' Withdrawal Responses. Stress and Health 27:10.1002/smi.v27.5, 403-412. [CrossRef]

12. Aleksandra PopVasileva, Kevin Baird, Bill Blair. 2011. University corporatisation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal24:4, 408-439. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

13. Denise K. Gormley, Susan Kennerly. 2011. Predictors of Turnover Intention in Nurse Faculty. Journal of Nursing Education 50,190-196. [CrossRef]

14. Mohsen keshavarz, Reza Mohammadi. 2011. Occupational stress and Organizational performance, Case study: Iran. Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences 30, 390-394. [CrossRef]

15. Vathsala Wickramasinghe. 2010. Work-related dimensions and job stress: the moderating effect of coping strategies. Stress andHealth 26:10.1002/smi.v26.5, 417-429. [CrossRef]

16. A.R. Ismail, N. Jusoh, N.K. Makhtar, M.R. Daraham, M.R. Parimun, M.A. Husin. 2010. Assessment of Environmental Factorsand Thermal Comfort at Automotive Paint Shop. Journal of Applied Sciences 10, 1300-1306. [CrossRef]

17. A.R. Ismail, M.Y.M. Yusof, K. Sopian, M.R.A. Rani, Z.K.M. Makhbul, N.K. Makhtar. 2010. Optimizing Humidity Level andIlluminance to Enhance Worker Performance in an Automotive Industry. Journal of Applied Sciences 10, 1389-1396. [CrossRef]

18. A.R. Ismail, M.H. M. Haniff, B.M. Deros, M.R.A. Rani, Z.K.M. Makhbul, N.K. Makhtar. 2010. The Optimization ofEnvironmental Factors at Manual Assembly Worstation by Using Taguchi Method. Journal of Applied Sciences 10, 1293-1299.[CrossRef]

19. Ahmad Ismail, Mohd Yusof, Baba Deros, Mat Rani, Muhamad NoorOptimizing humidity level to enhance worker performancein automotive industry 421-430. [CrossRef]

20. A.R. Ismail, M.H.M. Haniff, M.Y.M. Yusof, M.N.A. Rahman, J.A. Ghani. 2010. Optimization of Several Environmental Factorsto Human Performance by Using Taguchi Method. Industrial Engineering and Management Systems 9, 157-164. [CrossRef]

21. Mara Luisa Avargues Navarro, Mercedes Borda Mas, Ana Mara Lpez Jimnez. 2010. Working Conditions, Burnout and StressSymptoms in University Professors: Validating a Structural Model of the Mediating Effect of Perceived Personal Competence.The Spanish journal of psychology 13, 284-296. [CrossRef]

22. Lili Zhang. 2010. A Study on the Measurement of Job-Related Stress among Women Academics in Research Universities ofChina. Frontiers of Education in China 5, 158-176. [CrossRef]

23. J.E. Agolla. 2009. Occupational Stress Among Police Officers: The Case of Botswana Police Service. Research Journal of BusinessManagement 3, 25-35. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F TH

E PU

NJA

B A

t 22:

47 2

0 M

ay 2

015

(PT)

24. Jennifer A. Lindholm, Katalin Szelnyi. 2008. Faculty Time Stress: Correlates Within and Across Academic Disciplines. Journalof Human Behavior in the Social Environment 17, 19-40. [CrossRef]

25. Angeliki Lazaridou, Anastasia AthanasoulaReppa, Joe Fris. 2008. Stress among Greek and Cypriot university administrators: anexploratory study. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 30, 87-98. [CrossRef]

26. Lucinda Barrett, Peter Barrett. 2007. Current Practice in the Allocation of Academic Workloads. Higher Education Quarterly61:10.1111/hequ.2007.61.issue-4, 461-478. [CrossRef]

27. Olugbenga Jelil Ladebo. 2006. Perceptions of Organisational Politics: Examination of a Situational Antecedent and Consequencesamong Nigeria's Extension Personnel. Applied Psychology 55:10.1111/apps.2006.55.issue-2, 255-281. [CrossRef]

28. Sylvia Gonzalez, Hinsdale Bernard. 2006. Academic Workload Typologies and Burnout Among Faculty in Seventh-day AdventistColleges and Universities in North America. Journal of Research on Christian Education 15, 13-37. [CrossRef]

29. Mustafa Koyuncu, Ronald J. Burke, Lisa Fiksenbaum. 2006. Work experience and satisfaction of male and female professors inTurkey: signs of progress?. Equal Opportunities International 25:1, 38-47. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

30. M. Y. Tytherleigh *, C. Webb, C. L. Cooper, C. Ricketts. 2005. Occupational stress in UK higher education institutions: acomparative study of all staff categories. Higher Education Research & Development 24, 41-61. [CrossRef]

31. Anthony H. Winefield, Nicole Gillespie, Con Stough, Jagdish Dua, John Hapuarachchi, Carolyn Boyd. 2003. Occupational stressin Australian university staff: Results from a national survey. International Journal of Stress Management 10, 51-63. [CrossRef]

32. Izabel Soliman, Hani Soliman. 1997. Academic Workload and Quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 22, 135-157.[CrossRef]

33. Jagdish K. Dua. 1997. LEVEL OF OCCUPATIONAL STRESS IN MALE AND FEMALE RURAL GENERALPRACTITIONERS. Australian Journal of Rural Health 5, 97-102. [CrossRef]

34. T. S. MWAMWENDA, L. A. MONYOOE, M. J. GLENCROSS. 1997. STRESS OF SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERSIN TRANSKEI, SOUTH AFRICA. Psychological Reports 80, 379-382. [CrossRef]

35. TUNTUFYE S. MWAMWENDA. 1997. OCCUPATIONAL STRESS AMONG SECRETARIAL PERSONNEL.Psychological Reports 81, 418. [CrossRef]

36. Christopher F. Sharpley, Roisin Reynolds, Alicia Acosta, Jagdish K. Dua. 1996. The presence, nature and effects of job stress onphysical and psychological health at a large Australian university. Journal of Educational Administration 34:4, 73-86. [Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

37. Jagdish Dua. 1996. Development of a scale to assess occupational stress in Rural General Practitioners. International Journal ofStress Management 3, 117-128. [CrossRef]

38. Jagdish K. Dua. 1995. Retrospective and prospective psychological and physical health as a function of negative affect andattributional style. Journal of Clinical Psychology 51:10.1002/1097-4679(199507)51:41.0.CO;2-5, 507-518. [CrossRef]

39. Christopher F. Sharpley, Jagdish K. Dua, Roisin Reynolds, Alicia Acosta. 1995. The direct and relative efficacy of CognitiveHardiness, Type A Behaviour Pattern, Coping Behaviour and Social Support as predictors of stress and ill-health. ScandinavianJournal of Behaviour Therapy 24, 15-29. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

NIV

ERSI

TY O

F TH

E PU

NJA

B A

t 22:

47 2

0 M

ay 2

015

(PT)

Documents

09578239410051853