Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Job Stressors and Their Effects on Physical Health, Emotional Health and Job Satisfaction in a University
Jagdish 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 a
University", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 32 Issue: 1, pp.59-78, https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239410051853
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239410051853
Downloaded on: 26 March 2019, At: 01:57 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 20 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 6994 times since 2006*
Downloaded by DIPONEGORO UNIVERSITY At 01:57 26 March 2019 (PT)
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:501757 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products 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.
Introduction
Despite a significant increase in research on stress[1], researchers and people
Downloaded by DIPONEGORO UNIVERSITY At 01:57 26 March 2019 (PT)
interested in stress are still not in agreement about the meaning and nature of
stress. Stress has been variously defined as a response to challenging events[2],
as an event that places demands on the individual[3], as an environmental
characterisitic which poses a threat to the individual[4], and as a realization by
the individual that he/she is unable to deal adequately with the demands placed
upon him/her[5,6]. The nature and effects of stress might be best understood by
saying that some environmental variables (stressors), when interpreted by the
individual (cognitive interpretation), may lead to stress. The stress experienced
by the individual may cause strains and long-term negative effects. Whether or
not the individual experiences stress and its effects depends, among other
things, on the individual characteristics such as social support, hardiness, type
A behaviours, and coping strategies[7,8]. Thus, stressors are objective events,
stress is the subjective experience of the event, and strain is the maladaptive
response to stress[9, p. 42].
One important part of our lives which causes a great deal of stress is our job
or our work. Work-related stress is of growing concern because it has significant
economic implications for the organizations through employee dissatisfaction,
lowered productivity and lowered emotional and physical health of the
employees[10]. It has been argued that organizational and extraorganizational
stressors lead to stress through cognitive appraisal which, in turn, leads to poor
emotional health, poor physical health, and behaviours which harm the
organizations[10,11]. Given the research findings that job stressors cause stress,
the terms “stress” and “stressors” will be used interchangeably in the present
article.
There is a fair degree of agreement on the variables that act as organizational
stressors. Cooper et al.[11-13] have identified intrinsic job factors (e.g. poor
working conditions and work overload), role in organizations (e.g. role conflict and
Research reported in this article was supported by an Australian Research Council Small Grant
to the author. I would like to thank Michael Forsyth for his assistance with data collection and Journal of Educational
Administration Vol. 32 No. 1. 1994,
some data analysis. Thanks are also due to Edward Campbell for his assistance with data pp. 59-78. © MCB University Press,
analysis. 0957-8234
Journal of role ambiguity), career development (e.g. lack of promotion policies and job
Educational security), poor relationships at work, and organizational culture (e.g. politics in
organizations and lack of participation in decision-making) as organizational
Administration stressors. Matteson and Ivancevich[10] have also identified similar job factors as
32,1 job stressors. Not only do various stimuli at work act as stressors, various things
that happen to people outside their work environment may also contribute to their
60 work stress. These extraorganizational stressors include factors such as family
problems, 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:
● lower emotional health which is manifested as psychological distress,
depression and anxiety;
● lower physical health which is manifested as heart disease, insomnia,
Downloaded by DIPONEGORO UNIVERSITY At 01:57 26 March 2019 (PT)
Measures
Personal particulars. Staff were asked to complete a personal particulars form.
This form inquired about participants’ sex, age, etc. (see “Participants”).
Journal of Job stressors. Based on organizational stressors identified by researchers[10-
Educational 13] a job stressors questionnaire was constructed by the author (Table I). The
Administration questionnaire contained 21 statements about job satisfaction and significance,
job clarity, job feedback, working conditions, workload, job security, promotion
32,1 opportunities, politics and culture at the university, interpersonal relations at
work, and university reorganization. Two questions on university
62
Given below are a number of statements which characterize a variety of jobs. Indicate the
extent to which each statement applies to your job by circling one of the answers given
opposite each statement.
Not at all Somewhat Completely
true true true
Procedure
Approval for the project was obtained from the Ethics Committees at the three
campuses of the University of New England. Following the approval, the project
was advertised in the staff newspapers published on the three campuses. In Stress and
May 1992 all staff employed by the university were sent a covering letter, a Health in
personal particulars form and the battery of questionnaires designed to assess University Staff
job stressors, general stressors, physical health, and emotional health (see
Participants and Measures). Reminders, requesting all staff to send the
completed questionnaires back to the author, were published in staff
newspapers on the three campuses. The completed questionnaires received 65
within approximately four months were included in data analysis.
Results
Data analysis was carried out using the SPSS package[19] on the mainframe
computer at the University of New England-Armidale.
Scoring
Downloaded by DIPONEGORO UNIVERSITY At 01:57 26 March 2019 (PT)
Job stress, job stress category (low, medium, or high), general stress, general
stress category (low, medium, or high), psychological distress, manifest anxiety,
negative effect, absence from work, doctor visits, illness, and physical health
scores were calculated for each respondent as detailed in the Measures
subsection above. The answer to the question on work hassles in the general
stress questions was used as another measure of work stress. The average
response to the remaining five hassles questions was also calculated. This was
used as the measure of extraorganizational stress or non-work stress. Non-work
stress scores were divided into low, medium, and high categories in the same
way as the scores for the general stress. Mean and standard deviations for all
scores are given in Table II.
Job Stressors
The number of job characteristics which acted as job stressors was calculated
for each respondent. A job characteristic included in a job stressor question was
counted 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 (completely
true) to the question “I am overworked”, being overworked was counted as a job
stressor. Results indicated that 82 per cent of the respondents experienced more
than seven job stressors, 51 per cent of the respondents experienced more than
11 job stressors, 23 per cent of the respondents experienced more than 14 job
stressors, and 6 per cent of the respondents experienced more than 17 job
stressors.
Emotional health
Psychological Negative Manifest
distress effect anxiety
Downloaded by DIPONEGORO UNIVERSITY At 01:57 26 March 2019 (PT)
Physical health
Table II.
Mean and Standard Absence Doctor Physical
Deviations of Stress, from work visits health Illness
Health, and Job Mean 1.60 1.57 2.08 1.44
Dissatisfaction SD 0.97 0.78 0.86 0.44
Variables
aspects of the workplace, and non-work stress was a measure of stress due to
extraorganizational factors. Tables III, IV and V show the percentage of staff in
each subgroup of each category who reported low, medium, and high job stress.
Stress levels among respondents in different categories were analysed through
one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). In ANOVAs stress scores served as
dependent variables and subgroups for each category served as independent
variables. Results of ANOVAs are reported so as to provide an overview of any
differences 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 stress
scores for various subgroups are shown in Tables VI, VII, and VIII. Though
ANOVAs were also applied to the six job stress factor scores of staff belonging
to various subgroups, the mean job stress factor scores are not tabulated since
such a tabulation would have required a large number of tables.
Sex
Subgroup Male Female Permanent Temporary Full-time Part-time
Campus
Non-faculty- Armidale- Armidale- Armidale- Armidale-
Armidale Arts Sciences Economics Education
Campus Qualifications
Below- Post-
Lismore Orange Trade SLC HSC Graduate graduate
Table IV.
Percentages of Staff Low 26.3 25.4 20.8 15.4 28.8 19.1 25.1
with Low, Medium and Medium 58.8 63.5 64.2 67.0 59.3 62.8 59.6
High Job Stress High 15.0 11.1 15.1 17.6 11.9 18.0 15.2
According to Age,
Campus, and Total number 160 63 159 91 118 183 446
Qualifications
ANOVAs showed that males and females did not experience differential job
stress. Also, males and females did not experience differential stress due to job
significance, interpersonal dealings at work, work conditions, and university
reorganization. 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 versus
1.94).
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 more
stress due to job significance than older staff (for example 1.86 for 31-40 age
group versus 1.74 for the over-50 age group); younger staff also reported more
stress as a result of work politics than older staff (for example, 2.12 for the
under-30 age group versus 1.89 for the over-50 age group) and they reported
more 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, older
staff reported more stress than younger staff as a result of workload (for
Stress and
Job-type
Health in
Senior Below Senior technical Below senior
lecturer senior officer or technical University Staff
Subgroup or above lecturer Research above officer
Job-type
Admin. Admin. Below
officer officer admin.
Downloaded by DIPONEGORO UNIVERSITY At 01:57 26 March 2019 (PT)
Ethnic background
White Other- Other-
Australian Asian African non-English English Aboriginal
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 group
versus 1.94 for the under-30 age group).
There was a significant difference in job stress, and job stress factors 1, 2, 3
and 6 among staff from different campuses and faculties. Overall, Armidale-
Education staff reported more stressors than other staff at Armidale and staff
on other campuses. Non-faculty-Armidale staff reported the next highest stress.
There was no significant difference in job stress experienced by staff on the
three campuses. In terms of job stress factors, non-faculty-Armidale staff
reported more stress due to job significance than other staff (for example, 1.88
for 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
Journal of politics stressors than other staff (for example, 2.08 for non-faculty-Armidale
Educational staff versus 1.88 for Armidale-Arts staff). Armidale-Arts staff, followed by the
Administration Armidale-Education staff, reported more stress as a result of university
reorganization than other staff (for example, 2.31 for Armidale-Arts staff versus
32,1 1.78 for Lismore staff).
Staff below senior lecturer level reported more job stress than other staff.
70 They were followed, in job stress levels, by support staff and staff below senior
technical officer level. Support staff reported more stress due to job significance
than most other staff (for example, 1.93 for support staff versus 1.62 for
research staff). Staff below senior lecturer level, staff below senior technical
officer level, and staff below administrative officer 2 level were next in line in
Downloaded by DIPONEGORO UNIVERSITY At 01:57 26 March 2019 (PT)
Age (years)
Subgroup Under-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Over-60
Campus
Non-faculty- Armidale- Armidale- Armidale- Armidale-
Armidale Arts Science Economics Education
Campus Qualifications
Post-
Table VII. Lismore Orange Trade Below-SLC HSC Graduate graduate
Means and Standard
Deviation of Job Stress Mean 1.72 1.69 1.74 1.79 1.70 1.75 1.71
According to Campus, SD 0.31 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.28
Age, and Qualification
Stress and
Senior lecturer Below senior Senior technical Below senior
Subgroup or above lecturer Research officer or above technical officer Health in
University Staff
Mean 1.67 1.80 1.65 1.74 1.77
SD 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.30 0.28
Ethnic background
White Other- Other- Table VIII.
Downloaded by DIPONEGORO UNIVERSITY At 01:57 26 March 2019 (PT)
terms of stress due to job significance. Staff above senior lecturer level reported
higher workload stress than all other staff (for example, 2.46 for staff above
senior lecturer versus 1.71 for staff below senior technical officer). Staff below
senior lecturer level, staff above administrative officer 4 level, and staff at
administrative officer 2-4 level were next in line in terms of workload stress.
Support staff, followed by staff below senior technical officer and staff below
administrative officer 2 level, reported more work politics stressors than other
staff (for example, 2.25 for support staff versus 1.66 for staff above senior
lecturer level). There was no significant difference in stress due to interpersonal
dealings at work among staff in different jobs at the university. Research staff,
followed by staff below senior lecturer level and staff below senior technical
officer, 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 stress
due to university reorganization than other staff (for example, 2.20 for support
staff versus 1.71 for library staff). Staff above senior technical officer level and
staff above senior lecturer level were next in line in terms of stress due to
university reorganization.
There was a trend for temporary staff to report more job stress than
permanent staff. As far as job stress factors were concerned, the only
meaningful difference was where temporary staff reported more stress due to
work conditions than permanent staff (2.07 for temporary staff versus 1.66 for
permanent staff). Full-time and part-time staff did not report significantly
different job stress levels. On job stress factors, the only significant difference
was in relation to workload, where full-time staff reported more workload
Journal of stressors than part-time staff (2.07 for full-time staff versus 1.81 for part-time
Educational staff).
Administration There was no significant difference in job stress between staff who
supervised the work of others and staff who did not. In relation to job stress
32,1 factors, non-supervising staff were more stressed due to the job significance
factor than supervising staff (1.85 versus 1.77), Supervising staff reported more
72 workload 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. In
relation 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 were
Downloaded by DIPONEGORO UNIVERSITY At 01:57 26 March 2019 (PT)
on top-of-the-scale (1.84 versus 1.78), and there was a trend for those who were
on top-of-the-scale to report more workload stress than those who were not on
top-of-the-scale (2.09 versus 2.01). Finally, staff who were not on top-of-the-scale
reported 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. In
relation to job stress factors there were not many clear-cut trends. One trend
that emerged was that staff from other English backgrounds reported more
workload stress than staff of some other backgrounds (2.17 for other English
staff versus 1.95 for Asian, African, and other non-English staff).
Qualifications did not have an effect on job stress. Staff with postgraduate
qualifications, followed by graduate staff, reported more workload stressors
than other staff (for example, 2.26 for postgraduate staff versus 1.68 for HSC
staff). Staff with trade qualifications, followed by those with below-SLC and
HSC qualifications, reported more work politics stressors than other staff (for
example, 2.16 for trade staff and below-SLC staff versus 1.84 for postgraduate
staff). Staff with below-SLC qualifications reported more stress due to
interpersonal 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 more
work conditions stressors than other staff (for example, 1.79 for graduate staff
versus 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 difference
was 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 health
hassles, financial hassles, family hassles, social hassles, and environmental
hassles. ANOVA revealed that females reported more non-work stress than
males and younger respondents had more non-work stress than respondents
who were over 50 years old. In general, there was no significant difference in
relation to non-work stress among staff working on different campuses and
different faculties. Staff employed as senior lecturer or above reported less non-
work stress than staff in other jobs.
There was no significant difference between permanent and temporary staff, Stress and
but part-time staff reported more non-work stress than full-time staff. Non- Health in
supervising staff reported more non-work stress than supervising staff. Staff University Staff
who were on top of the salary scale in their job were no different from those who
were not on top of the salary scale in relation to non-work stress. In relation to
ethnic background, staff of aboriginal background reported more non-work
stress than all other staff. In general, staff who had postgraduate qualifications 73
reported less non-work stress than all other staff. Disabled staff reported more
non-work stress than non-disabled staff.
work, doctor visits, physical health and illness), and job dissatisfaction
measures. To determine if correlations between job stress, and health and
dissatisfaction measures were mainly due to non-work stress, partial
correlations, controlling for non-work stress, were computed. These
correlations 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 low
emotional health, low physical health, and high job dissatisfaction. The
relationship between job stress, and health and job dissatisfaction remained
significant even after controlling for non-work stress.
The relationship between stress, and health and job dissatisfaction was
further analysed through multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). In these
MANOVAs job stress and non-work stress categories served as the three levels
of the independent variable, and health and job dissatisfaction measures served
Absence Job
Psychological Negative Manifest from Doctor Physical Illness dissatis-
distress effect anxiety work visits health faction
Job
significance 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***
Table XI. Work conditions 0.20*** 0.27*** 0.17*** 0.07* 0.07* 0.25*** 0.21*** 0.31***
Inter-correlations
University
between Job Stress reorganization 0.20*** 0.20*** 0.21*** 0.02 0.01 0.14*** 0.10*** 0.15***
Factors and Health and
Job Dissatisfaction * p < 0 .05; ** p < 0 .01; *** p < 0 .001
Measures
Discussion Stress and
Job Stress and Job Stress Factors Health in
Job stress was assessed through 21 job-related statements. Results showed that University Staff
82 per cent of the respondents experienced more than seven job stressors and 51
per cent of the respondents experienced more than 11 job stressors. Further
analysis of job stressors was carried out by calculating the percentage of
respondents who gave a high stressor rating to each job stressor question. This 75
analysis revealed that 41 per cent of the respondents reported that they did not
get regular feedback; 12 per cent of the respondents reported that their
workplace conditions were unsatisfactory; 34 per cent of the respondents
reported that they were overworked; 32 per cent of the respondents reported
that they were expected to do too much in too little time; 14 per cent of the
respondents reported that they did not have a secure job; 41 per cent of the
respondents reported that there were not enough promotion opportunities for
Downloaded by DIPONEGORO UNIVERSITY At 01:57 26 March 2019 (PT)
them; 35 per cent of the respondents reported that that they had not achieved
the position they had hoped to achieve; 25 per cent of the respondents reported
that politics determined who got ahead in their department; 19 per cent of the
respondents reported that that they had little scope for contributing to decision
making in their department; 21 per cent of the respondents reported that that
they did not have the necessary infrastructure or equipment at work; 28 per
cent of the respondents reported that that they were not sure how recent
reorganization would affect them; and 32 per cent of the respondents reported
that that events related to amalgamation had produced too many changes in too
short a time. These descriptive results and the results in Tables III, IV and V
indicated that many staff experienced a significant number of stressors and a
high degree of stress at their workplace.
Analysis of job stress and stress due to job stress factors in different
subgroups revealed that, in many cases, respondents belonging to different
subgroups experienced differential job stress and stress due to job stress
factors. It is worth remembering that job stress was the average score over 21
stressors whereas job stress factor scores were scores averaged over a smaller
number of questions. Thus, as one would expect, there were a number of
instances where the overall job stress in subgroups within a category was not
significant but there were significant differences in stress caused by job stress
factors. For example, there was no significant difference in job stress between
males and females, but males reported more workload stress than females, and
females reported more stress due to work politics than males.
Results showed that, in general, younger staff reported more job stress than
older staff. This may be because as people get older they become more
experienced and more worldly-wise[10]. In addition, older employees have often
reached a stage where career development is not their major concern, and hence
a number of job characteristics which may cause stress to younger staff, who
have their career ahead of them, do not cause stress to older staff.
The results of stress in staff across different campuses and across different
faculties of the Armidale campus were revealing. Generally, staff in the Faculty
Journal of of Education, Nursing, and Professional Studies were more stressed than other
Educational staff. They were followed, in the level of stress, by staff who did not belong to
Administration any of the faculties in Armidale. The latter group comprised administrative
staff, support staff, and library staff. It is worth remembering that the
32,1 University of New England had undergone an amalgamation about four years
ago and many staff had felt the effects of amalgamation. The amalgamation
76 involved a college at Orange, a college at Lismore, a college at Armidale, and a
university at Armidale. It might be argued that amalgamation produced
maximum changes for staff who had previously belonged to the college at
Armidale before undergoing a complete amalgamation with the university at
Armidale. Staff at Lismore and Orange had also become part of the university,
but these campuses functioned as autonomous units. Most of the staff at the
previous college at Armidale belonged to the Faculty of Education, Nursing and
Professional Studies, and the greatest change due to amalgamation for these
Downloaded by DIPONEGORO UNIVERSITY At 01:57 26 March 2019 (PT)
References
1. Staw, B.M., “Organizational Behaviour: A Review and Reformulation of the Field’s
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, and
Disease, Vol. 1, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1971, pp. 53-60.
7. Nowack, K.M., “Coping Style, Cognitive Hardiness, and Health Status”, Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, Vol. 12 No. 2, 1989, pp. 145-58.
8. Nowack, K.M., “Initial Development of an Inventory to Assess any Health Risk”, American
Journal of Health Promotion, Vol. 4 No. 3, 1990, pp. 173-80.
Journal of 9. Pratt, L.I. and Barling, J., “Differentiating between Daily Events, Acute and Chronic
Stressors: A Framework and its Implications”, in Hurrell, J.J., Jr, Murphy, L.R., and Sauter,
Educational S.L. (Eds), Occupational Stress: Issues and Developments in Research, Taylor and Francis,
Administration New York, NY, 1988, pp. 41-53.
32,1 10. Matteson, M.T. and Ivancevich, J.M., Controlling Work Stress: Effective Human Resource
and Management Strategies, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA, 1987.
11. Cooper, C.L. and Marshall, J., Understanding Executive Stress, Macmillan Press, London,
78 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, Taylor
and 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.
Downloaded by DIPONEGORO UNIVERSITY At 01:57 26 March 2019 (PT)
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 User’s 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.
This article has been cited by:
1. FarringtonShelley Maeva, Shelley Maeva Farrington, LillahRiyaadh, Riyaadh Lillah. 2019. Servant leadership and job satisfaction
within private healthcare practices. Leadership in Health Services 32:1, 148-168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Roberto Capasso, Maria Clelia Zurlo, Andrew P. Smith. 2018. Stress in Factory Workers in Italy. Psychology and Developing Societies
30:2, 199-233. [Crossref]
3. Gillian Vesty, VG Sridharan, Deryl Northcott, Steven Dellaportas. 2018. Burnout among university accounting educators in
Australia and New Zealand: determinants and implications. Accounting & Finance 58:1, 255-277. [Crossref]
4. Roberto Capasso, Maria Clelia Zurlo, Andrew P. Smith. 2018. Ethnicity, work-related stress and subjective reports of health by
migrant workers: a multi-dimensional model. Ethnicity & Health 23:2, 174-193. [Crossref]
5. Daphna Hacker. Crying on Campus 281-299. [Crossref]
6. Hossein Jenaabadi, Mahmood Reza Miri, Parviz Reza Mirlatifi. 2017. Correlation of Workaholism with Job Stress and Job Burnout
in Nurses. Journal of Health Promotion Managment 6:4, 20-25. [Crossref]
7. Marianna Marinaki, Alexander-Stamatios Antoniou, Nikos Drosos. 2017. Coping Strategies and Trait Emotional Intelligence of
Academic Staff. Psychology 08:10, 1455-1470. [Crossref]
8. Vathsala Wickramasinghe. 2016. The mediating effect of job stress in the relationship between work-related dimensions and
Downloaded by DIPONEGORO UNIVERSITY At 01:57 26 March 2019 (PT)
career commitment. Journal of Health Organization and Management 30:3, 408-420. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Issah Eliasu, Abubakari Abdul Razak, Wuptiga Jatuat. 2016. State of academic facilities and its influence on teachers job stress in
Tamale polytechnic. African Journal of Business Management 10:2, 24-31. [Crossref]
10. Kirsti Sarheim Anthun, Siw Tone Innstrand. 2016. The predictive value of job demands and resources on the meaning of work
and organisational commitment across different age groups in the higher education sector. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management 38:1, 53-67. [Crossref]
11. Dodi W. Irawanto, Noermiyati, Diana Primasari. 2015. The Effect of Occupational Stress on Work Performance of Female
Employees: Study in Indonesia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation 11:4, 336-345. [Crossref]
12. Norfadzilah Jusoh, Rosli Abu Bakar, Ahmad Rasdan Ismail, Tanti Zanariah Shamshir Ali. 2015. Computational Analysis of
Thermal Building in a No-uniform Thermal Environment. Energy Procedia 68, 438-445. [Crossref]
13. Lakhwinder Singh Kang, Harpreet Sidhu. 2015. Identification of Stressors at Work: A Study of University Teachers in India.
Global Business Review 16:2, 303-320. [Crossref]
14. Kostadin Kushlev, Elizabeth W. Dunn. 2015. Checking email less frequently reduces stress. Computers in Human Behavior 43,
220-228. [Crossref]
15. Shohreh Kolagari, Mansoureh Zagheri Tafreshi, Maryam Rassouli, Amir Kavousi. 2014. Psychometric Evaluation of the Role
Strain Scale: The Persian Version. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal 16:9. . [Crossref]
16. Anthony H. Winefield. Job Stress in University Academics 1-21. [Crossref]
17. May-Chiun Lo, Ramayah Thurasamy, Wei Liew. 2014. Relationship between bases of power and job stresses: role of mentoring.
SpringerPlus 3:1, 432. [Crossref]
18. Shannon K. McCoy, Ellen E. Newell, Susan K. Gardner. 2013. Seeking Balance: The Importance of Environmental Conditions
in Men and Women Faculty’s Well-being. Innovative Higher Education 38:4, 309-322. [Crossref]
19. A. Ismail, N.Z. Mohd Fauzi, N.R. Shamsuddin, A. Abd ul Hadi, N. N. Azid, N. Mohd Razali. The analysis of job related stress
and health related quality of life (HRQoL) of lecturers: Using SPSS 16 and Structural Equation Modeling 932-937. [Crossref]
20. 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 67:1, 15-39. [Crossref]
21. Az'lina Abdul Hadi, Norin Rahayu Shamsuddin, Nornadiah Mohd Razali, Nur Niswah Naslina Mohd Azid Maarof, Adriana
Ismail. Exploratory Data Analysis: Health related quality of life among academicians perspective 1-5. [Crossref]
22. Emily Pakivathy Paul, Phua Seok Kheng. 2012. Lecturers' Satisfaction Levels Regarding Job-Related Variables in a Public Tertiary
Institution in Singapore. Journal of Tropical Psychology 2. . [Crossref]
23. Zafir Mohd Makhbul. 2012. Workplace Environment Towards Health and Performance. International Business Management 6:6,
640-647. [Crossref]
24. Vathsala Wickramasinghe. 2012. Supervisor support as a moderator between work schedule flexibility and job stress. International
Journal of Workplace Health Management 5:1, 44-55. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Ahlam B. El Shikieri, Hassan A. Musa. 2012. Factors Associated with Occupational Stress and Their Effects on Organizational
Performance in a Sudanese University. Creative Education 03:01, 134-144. [Crossref]
26. Mohd Kamel Idris, Michael P. O'Driscoll, Marc H. Anderson. 2011. Longitudinal Mediation Effects of Strain on the Relationships
between Role Stressors and Employees' Withdrawal Responses. Stress and Health 27:5, 403-412. [Crossref]
27. Carolyn B. Oxenford, Sally L. Kublenscbmidt. 2011. 14: WORKING EFFECTIVELY WITH PSYCHOLOGICALLY
IMPAIRED FACULTY. To Improve the Academy 30:1, 186-201. [Crossref]
28. Aleksandra Pop‐Vasileva, Kevin Baird, Bill Blair. 2011. University corporatisation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
24:4, 408-439. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
29. Denise K. Gormley, Susan Kennerly. 2011. Predictors of Turnover Intention in Nurse Faculty. Journal of Nursing Education 50:4,
190-196. [Crossref]
30. Mohsen keshavarz, Reza Mohammadi. 2011. Occupational stress and Organizational performance, Case study: Iran. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences 30, 390-394. [Crossref]
31. A.R. Ismail, N. Jusoh, N.K. Makhtar, M.R. Daraham, M.R. Parimun, M.A. Husin. 2010. Assessment of Environmental Factors
and Thermal Comfort at Automotive Paint Shop. Journal of Applied Sciences 10:13, 1300-1306. [Crossref]
32. A.R. Ismail, M.H. M. Haniff, B.M. Deros, M.R.A. Rani, Z.K.M. Makhbul, N.K. Makhtar. 2010. The Optimization of
Environmental Factors at Manual Assembly Worstation by Using Taguchi Method. Journal of Applied Sciences 10:13, 1293-1299.
[Crossref]
Downloaded by DIPONEGORO UNIVERSITY At 01:57 26 March 2019 (PT)
33. A.R. Ismail, M.Y.M. Yusof, K. Sopian, M.R.A. Rani, Z.K.M. Makhbul, N.K. Makhtar. 2010. Optimizing Humidity Level and
Illuminance to Enhance Worker Performance in an Automotive Industry. Journal of Applied Sciences 10:14, 1389-1396. [Crossref]
34. Vathsala Wickramasinghe. 2010. Work-related dimensions and job stress: the moderating effect of coping strategies. Stress and
Health 26:5, 417-429. [Crossref]
35. Ahmad Ismail, Mohd Yusof, Baba Deros, Mat Rani, Muhamad Noor. Optimizing humidity level to enhance worker performance
in automotive industry 421-430. [Crossref]
36. A.R. Ismail, M.H.M. Haniff, M.Y.M. Yusof, M.N.A. Rahman, J.A. Ghani. 2010. Optimization of Several Environmental Factors
to Human Performance by Using Taguchi Method. Industrial Engineering and Management Systems 9:2, 157-164. [Crossref]
37. Lili Zhang. 2010. A study on the measurement of job-related stress among women academics in research universities of China.
Frontiers of Education in China 5:2, 158-176. [Crossref]
38. María Luisa Avargues Navarro, Mercedes Borda Mas, Ana María López Jiménez. 2010. Working Conditions, Burnout and Stress
Symptoms in University Professors: Validating a Structural Model of the Mediating Effect of Perceived Personal Competence.
The Spanish journal of psychology 13:01, 284-296. [Crossref]
39. J.E. Agolla. 2009. Occupational Stress Among Police Officers: The Case of Botswana Police Service. Research Journal of Business
Management 3:1, 25-35. [Crossref]
40. Jennifer A. Lindholm, Katalin Szelényi. 2008. Faculty Time Stress: Correlates Within and Across Academic Disciplines. Journal
of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 17:1-2, 19-40. [Crossref]
41. N. Barkhuizen, S. Rothmann. 2008. Occupational Stress of Academic Staff in South African Higher Education Institutions. South
African Journal of Psychology 38:2, 321-336. [Crossref]
42. Angeliki Lazaridou, Anastasia Athanasoula‐Reppa, Joe Fris. 2008. Stress among Greek and Cypriot university administrators: an
exploratory study. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 30:1, 87-98. [Crossref]
43. Soleiman Ahmady, Tahereh Changiz, Italo Masiello, Mats Brommels. 2007. Organizational role stress among medical school
faculty members in Iran: dealing with role conflict. BMC Medical Education 7:1. . [Crossref]
44. Lucinda Barrett, Peter Barrett. 2007. Current Practice in the Allocation of Academic Workloads. Higher Education Quarterly
61:4, 461-478. [Crossref]
45. Olugbenga Jelil Ladebo. 2006. Perceptions of Organisational Politics: Examination of a Situational Antecedent and Consequences
among Nigeria's Extension Personnel. Applied Psychology 55:2, 255-281. [Crossref]
46. Sylvia Gonzalez, Hinsdale Bernard. 2006. Academic Workload Typologies and Burnout Among Faculty in Seventh-day Adventist
Colleges and Universities in North America. Journal of Research on Christian Education 15:1, 13-37. [Crossref]
47. Mustafa Koyuncu, Ronald J. Burke, Lisa Fiksenbaum. 2006. Work experience and satisfaction of male and female professors in
Turkey: signs of progress?. Equal Opportunities International 25:1, 38-47. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
48. M. Y. Tytherleigh *, C. Webb, C. L. Cooper, C. Ricketts. 2005. Occupational stress in UK higher education institutions: a
comparative study of all staff categories. Higher Education Research & Development 24:1, 41-61. [Crossref]
49. Anthony H. Winefield, Nicole Gillespie, Con Stough, Jagdish Dua, John Hapuarachchi, Carolyn Boyd. 2003. Occupational stress
in Australian university staff: Results from a national survey. International Journal of Stress Management 10:1, 51-63. [Crossref]
50. Carolyn J. Thompson, Eric L. Dey. 1998. Pushed to the Margins. The Journal of Higher Education 69:3, 324-345. [Crossref]
51. Tuntufye S. Mwamwenda. 1997. Occupational Stress among Secretarial Personnel at the University of Transkei. Psychological
Reports 81:2, 418-418. [Crossref]
52. Izabel Soliman, Hani Soliman. 1997. Academic Workload and Quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 22:2, 135-157.
[Crossref]
53. Jagdish K. Dua. 1997. LEVEL OF OCCUPATIONAL STRESS IN MALE AND FEMALE RURAL GENERAL
PRACTITIONERS. Australian Journal of Rural Health 5:2, 97-102. [Crossref]
54. T. S. Mwamwenda, L. A. Monyooe, M. J. Glencross. 1997. Stress of Secondary School Teachers in Transkei, South Africa.
Psychological Reports 80:2, 379-382. [Crossref]
55. TUNTUFYE S. MWAMWENDA. 1997. OCCUPATIONAL STRESS AMONG SECRETARIAL PERSONNEL.
Psychological Reports 81:6, 418. [Crossref]
56. Christopher F. Sharpley, Roisin Reynolds, Alicia Acosta, Jagdish K. Dua. 1996. The presence, nature and effects of job stress on
physical and psychological health at a large Australian university. Journal of Educational Administration 34:4, 73-86. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by DIPONEGORO UNIVERSITY At 01:57 26 March 2019 (PT)
57. Jagdish Dua. 1996. Development of a scale to assess occupational stress in Rural General Practitioners. International Journal of
Stress Management 3:2, 117-128. [Crossref]
58. Jagdish K. Dua. 1995. Retrospective and prospective psychological and physical health as a function of negative affect and
attributional style. Journal of Clinical Psychology 51:4, 507-518. [Crossref]
59. Jagdish K. Dua. 1995. Retrospective and prospective psychological and physical health as a function of negative affect and
attributional style. Journal of Clinical Psychology 51:4, 507-518. [Crossref]
60. Jagdish K. Dua. 1995. Retrospective and prospective psychological and physical health as a function of negative affect and
attributional style. Journal of Clinical Psychology 51:4, 507-518. [Crossref]
61. Christopher F. Sharpley, Jagdish K. Dua, Roisin Reynolds, Alicia Acosta. 1995. The direct and relative efficacy of Cognitive
Hardiness, Type A Behaviour Pattern, Coping Behaviour and Social Support as predictors of stress and ill-health. Scandinavian
Journal of Behaviour Therapy 24:1, 15-29. [Crossref]