Work Stress and Women’s
Health: Occupational
Status Effects1
Interest in work stress, employee satisfaction and
health has grown considerably over the past two
decades. Much of this work has been conducted
under a stress-strain framework (Cooper and
Payne, 1988) and accumulating research findings
have increased our understanding of this complex
phenomenon (Schabracq et al., 1996; Cooper,
1996). Most of the published literature on work
stress and health is based on the experiences of
men (Offermann and Armitage, 1993). Although
this situation is gradually changing, women’s
health has received relatively little research atten-
tion (Nelson and Burke, 2000a, b). Messing
(1997) suggests two reasons for the historical
neglect of women’s occupational health issues:
women’s jobs are safer than men’s and health
problems identified among women workers result
from their being unfit for the job or unneces-
sary complaining. With increasing in numbers
of women in the labor force, it is critical that
more attention be given to understanding the
effects of work stress and women’s health.
Women may also have different work stress and
health issues than men (Langan-Fox, 1998). For
example, Collins et al. (1997) suggest that
women may be uniquely affected by work con-
ditions (e.g., exposure to chemicals and repro-
ductive health), disproportionately affected (work
and family roles) or differently affected (women’s
experience of workplace stress).
This research examines the relationship of
work stress and women’s health, utilizing a
diverse sample of women respondents. This is
Ronald J. Burke is Professor of Organizational Behavior,
School of Business, York University. His research
interested focus on organizational restructuring and
downsizing.
Journal of Business Ethics 37: 91–102, 2002.
© 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Ronald J. Burke
important as previous work has emphasized the
work experiences of managerial and professional
women (see Burke and McKeen, 1994; Burke,
1996). This sample also permitted a preliminary
examination of occupational status effects, linking
more traditional work stress research with the
fields of medical sociology and epidemiology.
Work stressors women face
Davidson and Cooper (1983, 1992), in two
books on managerial women and stress, found
that managerial women felt isolated at work,
exhibited Type A behavior, and experienced
greater strain than did men. Extra pressures on
managerial women included lack of self-confi-
dence and subtle forms of discrimination. The
study confirmed the impression that working
women still carry the major burden of home and
family problems (Hochschild, 1997). Hochschild
(1997) estimates, based on major time-use
studies, that women in dual career families work
an extra month of 24 hour days each year
compared to men. This extra time is spent on
what she terms “second shift” work, work
outside paid employment such as housework,
home management, and childcare. Together,
these studies suggest that managerial women may
experience more stress than men and that the
sources of stress are gender-related; that is, related
to the expected and actual roles of women in
society, and to the fact that, despite progress,
executive women still occupy minority status in
organizations. There are some stressors, however,
that may be particularly important for working
women. These include organizational politics,
tokenism, barriers to achievement, overload,
92 Ronald J. Burke
social-sexual behavior, work/home conflict, and
organizational restructuring and downsizing.
Occupational status, social class and health
Most of the research on work stress and health
has involved managerial and professional women.
There is, however, an emerging body of work
examining social class and health, sometimes
including measures of occupational status and
work stress, that covers a greater range of occu-
pations. Social class refers to the underlying
structure of industrialized societies in which
many social and economic characteristics, such
as employment conditions, level of pay, housing
quality and prestige tend to vary. The term
“socio-economic status” refers to social position
and blurs the distinction between two concepts:
economic circumstances (income and wealth) and
prestige (status).
Pearlin (1989) suggested that greater vulnera-
bility to stress exists in social roles reflecting “the
unequal distribution of resources, opportunities
and self-regard” (p. 245). Inequalities in income,
occupation and education, all indicators of social
class, are recognized as major determinents of
individuals mental health (Veenstra, 2000;
Humphries and van Doorslaer, 2000; Diez-Roux
et al., 2000).
Aston and Lavery (1993) collected data from
women in managerial or professional occupations
and in clerical occupations. Managerial women
reported more intrinsic rewards, and extrusic
fewer intrinsic concerns, and higher on self-
esteem. However no differences were found
in depression, quality of life and symptoma-
tology.
Kempen et al. (1999) examined the moder-
ating effect of level of education as an indicator
of socio-economic status on the relationships
between chronic medical morbidity and six
domains of health-related quality of life (physical
function, role function, social function, health
perceptions, bodily pain and mental health) in a
large (N = 5279) community-living elderly
sample. Level of education was significantly
related to each of the other seven measures. In
addition, level of education produced addictive
effects in multiple regression analyses with most
of the other measures.
Borooah (1999) examined the relationship
between occupational class and health inequality
in large samples of men and women in Britain.
Respondents were placed into three categories
(professional, managerial or technical; skilled
manual or non-manual; semi- or unskilled).
Those who were skilled had higher illness rates
than those who were skilled who, in turn, had
higher illness rate than those occupying man-
agerial professional/technical positions.
Bartley et al. (1999a) examined the relation-
ship of two different but highly correlated
measures of social position and cardiovascular
risk factors. Bartley and his colleagues had
two measures of social position, one based on
employment relations, the other based on general
social advantage and lifestyle. Social inequality
has several dimensions, so it is important to use
distinct measures of each. It is also vital to clearly
specify the hypotheses which link specific dimen-
sions of some position and circumstances to
health. They found that for men, the two social
position measures were related to most of the
behavioral, physiological and psychosomatic risk
factors for heart disease: risks were higher in
those with less favorable employment conditions
and lower levels of general social advantage and
living standards. Similar patterns were present for
women as well.
Muntaner et al. (1998) analyzed data from two
large U.S. surveys in a study of social class, assets,
organizational control and the prevalence of
common groups of psychiatric disorders. In one
survey of 8098 respondents, they report a
negative relationship between financial and
physical assets and mood, anxiety, alcohol and
drug disorders. The second survey also revealed
a negative relationship between financial and
physical assets and anxiety, alcohol and drug dis-
orders. The second survey also showed that lower
level supervisors presented higher rates of depres-
sion and anxiety disorders than higher level
managers. Inequalities in assets and organizational
control, as well as commonly used measures of
social class, were associated with specific psychi-
atric disorders.
Bartley et al. (1999b), in a sample of British
 Work Stress and Women’s Health
women, examined the relationship of two
indicators of social position with health.
One indicator used five categories (profes-
sional/administrative, routine non-manual, self
employed, skilled manual workers, non-skilled
manual workers). The second indicator was a
rating of social and material advantage and
lifestyle. They found a strong relationship
between social position and self-assessed health
using data from 1984 and 1993. They found a
stronger relationship with health for the general
social and material advantage scale than for the
employment conditions measure in both years as
well.
The present study
This study builds on some of the features of con-
temporary work stress and health research and
extends this work in potentially useful ways.
Most previous work in this area has involved
men; the present study focuses on women’s
experiences. In addition, the respondents cover
a wider socio-economic and occupational
spectrum, with much of the previous work
concentrating on professional and managerial
women. Finally, the range of work stressors has
been expanded to include work stressors more
likely to be experienced by women working
in lower occupational status positions (e.g.,
features of the physical work environment
such as air quality, temperature) and demands
of a physical nature (e.g. bending, standing,
lifting).
A research framework was developed to guide
both the selection of variables and data analysis.
In this framework, predictors of women’s satis-
faction and health are specified in a particular
order. The first block of predictors were personal
demographic characteristics (e.g., age, level of
education). The second block of predictors com-
prised work situations characteristics (e.g., size of
employer, tenure in current job). These two
blocks of predictors included measures previously
found to be related to satisfaction and health.
They served as control variables before consid-
ering the relationship of the third block of
predictors, i.e., work stressors, with women’s
93
satisfaction and well-being. The important
question was whether the work stressors would
have significant relationships with satisfaction
and well-being, controlling for individual
demographic and work setting characteristics.
Measures of work-family conflict were then
added as a fourth block, to determine whether
these would explain significant increments in
variance in the work satisfaction and well-being
indicators controlling for individual and work
setting characteristics and work stressors. The
diversity of the sample made the use of such
controls critical in examining the job demands
and health relationship. Indicators of satisfaction
and well-being were representative of most
research in this area and included job satisfaction,
psychosomatic symptoms and days of illness.
Procedure
Data collection involved two approaches; a survey
of nine occupational groups and a series of
drop-offs. The survey targeted occupations in
which women workers predominated such as
health care workers, teachers, childcare workers
and sales and advertising managers. These women
represented a cross-section of the occupations in
which most Ontario women work, as well as
some non-traditional occupations, and covered
both the private and public sectors as well as
unionized and non-unionized workplaces. The
survey was sent out to about 13 000 working
women using mailing lists from a number of
sources. The survey resulted in a response rate
of 20.4%, 2564 surveys returned by the closing
date. Respondents had two months to complete
and return the surveys in pre-addressed, postage
paid envelopes.
The drop-offs were left in day-care centres and
women’s centres across the province where a
variety of women could pick-up and drop off
surveys at their convenience. Six hundred and
seventy surveys were distributed to various
centres across Ontario. A total of 121 drop off
surveys were returned, a response rate of approx-
imately 18 percent.
This approach resulted in a large diverse
sample of Ontario working women participating
94 Ronald J. Burke

TABLE I
Demographic characteristics

Year of birth N % Racial/Ethnic N %

1930–1950 0694 27.5 First Nation 0017 00.7

1951–1960 0832 33.0 Black 0021 00.9
1961–1970 0770 30.5 East Asian 0012 00.5
1971–1980 0226 09.0 South Asian 0013 00.5
Middle Eastern 0008 00.3
South East Asian 0004 00.2
Current marital European/White 2323 97.9
Married/partner 1856 72.9
Separated/Divorced 0245 09.6 Number of children
Widowed 0028 01.1 0 0582 25.8
Never married 0404 15.8 1 0398 17.6
2 0839 37.2
3 0308 13.7
Job title 4 or more 0128 05.7
CEO 0071 03.0
Manager 0277 11.5 Other dependents
Professional 0096 04.0 Yes 0186 07.7
Teacher 0462 19.2 No 2227 92.3
Health care 0345 14.3
Childcare 0809 33.6 Personal income
Office 0159 06.5 $10 000 or less 0158 06.8
Sales 0028 01.2 $10 000–$29 999 0891 38.6
Non-traditional 0161 06.7 $30 000–$49 999 0712 30.8
$50 000–$79 999 0403 17.5
$80 000–$100 000 0065 02.5
Level of education $100 000 or more 0080 03.1
Less than HS 0066 02.6
Completed HS 0170 06.7 Family income
Some tech/Aat 0242 09.5 Less than $10 000 0061 02.9
Completed tech/CAAT 0827 32.6 $10 000–$29 999 0232 11.0
Some university 0305 12.0 $30 000–$49 999 0427 20.3
Completed university 0456 18.0 $50 000–$79 999 00007.6 33.6
Post-grad 0473 18.0 $80 000–$100 000 0334 15.9

in the study (see Table I). The downside Measures2

however, is that it was impossible to determine
the extent to which those participating consti-
tuted a representative sample of those women. In
addition, the low response rate (about 18%)
suggests that caution be used when interpreting
the results.
Personal demographics
Personal demographic characteristics were
measured by a number of single items. These
included: age, level of education, marital status,
number of children, personal income and
number of jobs currently had where you work
for pay.
 Work Stress and Women’s Health
Work situation characteristics
Work setting characteristics were measured by a
number of single items. These included: job
tenure, size of employing organization, hours
worked per week and
Work stressors
Respondents indicated the extent to which
twenty work demands caused them stress at their
place of work (α = 0.87). Responses were made
on a three-point scale (1 = a major cause, 2 = a
minor cause, 3 = not a cause). Items included:
unpredictable demands on your time, problems
with co-workers, lack of control over what you
do, inadequate equipment and problems with
supervisors.
Physical demands
Respondents indicated how typical ten physical
demands were of their job (α = 0.66). Responses
were made on a three point scale; 1 = yes, most
of the time; 2 = yes, once in a while; 3 = no).
Items included: standing for long periods of time,
repetitive physical motions; and having limited
opportunities to move about.
Job insecurity
Job insecurity was measured by three items (α =
0.71). Respondents indicated their agreement
with each item on a four-point scale (1 =
strongly agree, 4 = strongly disagree. Items
included: My job security is good, and My
company will downsize in the near future
(reversed).
Hazards
Respondents indicated how often they had been
exposed to three physical health hazards at work
over the past month (α = 0.60). Responses
were made on a five-point scale (1 = everyday,
95
3 = About once a week, 5 = Never). Items
included: radiation at work (e.g., VDTs, X-rays,
microwaves, etc.) and liquid or airborne chemi-
cals such as paints, solvents or gases.
Harassment
Respondents indicated how often each of six
incidents had happened to them at work over the
past year (α = 0.81). Responses were made on
a five-point scale (1 = everyday, 3 = About once
a week, 5 = Never). Items included offensive
jokes or remarks, being sworn at or yelled at and
physical abuse such as being pushed, spit at and
so on.
Global work stress
Global work stress was measured by two items
(α = 0.62). One item assessed how stressful their
job was – the things they do; the other item
assessed how stressful the work environment is –
the people you work with, your supervisor and
so on. Responses were made on a four-point
scale (1 = very stressful, 4 = not at all stressful).
Psychosomatic symptoms
Respondents indicated how often they had each
of eight symptoms over the past month (α =
0.74). Responses were made on a five-point scale
(1 = every day, 3 = About once a week, 5 =
never). Items included stomachaches, back
problems, headaches and trouble sleeping.
Global job satisfaction
Two areas of global job satisfaction were
measured (α = 0.60). One assessed satisfaction
with your job – the things you do; the second
assessed satisfaction with the environment in
which you do your job – the people you work
with, your supervisors and so on. Responses were
made on a four-point scale (1 = very satisfied,
4 = very dissatisfied).
96 Ronald J. Burke
Work-related psychosomatic symptoms
Respondents indicated how often they experi-
enced eight symptoms as a result of work (α =
0.79). Responses were made on a five-point scale
(1 = everyday, 3 = About once a week, 5 =
Never). Items included stomachaches, back
problems, headaches and arthritis/pains in your
joints.
Work-family conflict
Work-family conflict were assessed by three
single items. One item asked respondents to
indicate how many hours per week they spent
doing things for their household, including
cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping, doing
laundry and dishes, doing repairs, paying bills,
making arrangements and, caring for children.
A second item using a four-point scale (1 =
often, 4 = never) asked whether family or
personal responsibilities/problems at home ever
made it difficult for them to do their job. The
third item, also using a four-point scale (1 = very
easy, 4 = difficult) asked respondents in their job,
how easy was it to make arrangements to deal
with family or personal responsibilities/problems
at home.
Work stressors, work-family conflict and
women’s health
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were
undertaken in which the indicators of women’s
health were separately regressed on the four
blocks of predictors. Predictors were entered in
a specified order. Table II presents the results of
these analyses. Individual measures having
independent and significant relationships with
particular health outcomes within blocks
accounting for significant amounts or increments
in explained variance, are also indicated with
accompanying βs. The following comments are
offered in summary.
First, all four blocks of predictors accounted
for significant amounts or increments in
explained variance on levels of psychosomatic
symptoms reported during the past month. Single
women indicated higher levels of psychosomatic
symptoms, and those with less formal education
reporting more symptoms. Women who had
lower personal incomes reported more
psychosomatic symptoms; those working more
hours per week reported more psychosomatic
symptoms. Women reporting more work stres-
sors indicated higher levels of psychosomatic
symptoms. Women in more physically
demanding jobs also reported more psychoso-
matic symptoms. And women reporting greater
family-work conflict indicated higher levels of
psychosomatic symptoms during the past month.
Second, two of the four blocks of predictors
(personal demographics and work stressors)
accounted for significant amounts or increments
in explained variance on global job satisfaction.
Women reporting more work stressors indicated
less job satisfaction. Women reporting greater job
insecurity indicated less job satisfaction; those in
jobs exposing them to more physical hazards
indicated less job satisfaction; and those reporting
more harassment in their workplaces indicated
less job satisfaction.
Third, all four blocks of predictors accounted
for significant amounts or increments in
explained variance on work-related psychoso-
matic symptoms. Single women and women
working more hours per week reported more
work-related psychosomatic symptoms. Women
indicating more work stressors, women in
jobs having greater physical demands, women
reporting more harassment in their workplaces,
women in jobs exposing them to more physical
hazards, and women reporting greater family-
work conflict indicated higher levels of psycho-
somatic symptoms.
Fourth, two of the four blocks of predictors
(work situation characteristics and work stressors)
accounted for significant increments in explained
variance on days of illness during the past year.
Women having longer job tenure and women in
jobs exposing them to greater physical demands
reported more days of illness.
A few more general observations are worth
noting. First, the four blocks of predictors
accounted for more variance on the measures of
job satisfaction and psychosomatic symptoms
 Work Stress and Women’s Health 97

TABLE II
Work stressors, work-family conflict and women’s health

Women’s health R R2 ∆R2 P

Psychosomatic last month (N = 1063)

Personal demographics 0.18 0.03 0.03 0.001
Marital status (–0.07)
Education (0.07)
Personal income (0.08)
Situational characteristics 0.24 0.06 0.02 0.001
Hours worked (–0.07)
Work stress 0.46 0.21 0.15 0.001
Work stressors (0.19)
Physical demands (0.17)
Work-family conflict 0.48 0.23 0.02 0.001
FWC (0.11)

Global job satisfaction (N = 1128)

Personal demographics 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.05
Situational characteristics 0.13 0.02 0.01 NS
Work stress 0.55 0.30 0.28 0.001
Work stressors (–0.45)
Job insecurity (–0.11)
Hazards (–0.07)
Harassment (0.07)
Work-family conflict 0.55 0.30 0.00 NS

Work-related psychosomatic (N = 973)

Personal demographics 0.17 0.03 0.03 0.001
Marital status (–0.06)
Situational characteristics 0.26 0.07 0.04 0.001
Hours worked (–0.11)
Work stress 0.66 0.44 0.37 0.001
Work stressors (0.29)
Physical demands (0.24)
Harassment (0.14)
Hazards (0.11)
Work-family demands 0.67 0.45 0.00 0.05
FWC (0.06)

Days Ill last year (N = 1045)

Personal demographics 0.11 0.01 0.01 NS
Situational characteristics 0.16 0.03 0.02 0.01
Job tenure (0.11)
Work stress 0.22 0.05 0.02 0.001
Physical demands (–0.10)
Work-family conflict 0.23 0.05 0.00 NS
98 Ronald J. Burke

than on days of illness. Second, three of the four
blocks of predictors (personal demographics,
work situation characteristics, work stressors) had
significant relationships with three or more of the
health outcomes. Third, work stressors accounted
for considerably more explained variance on the
health outcomes than did the other blocks of pre-
dictors. The measures of work stressors and
physical demands had significant and indepen-
dent relationships with three of the four health
outcomes.
Occupational status and personal
demographics
status occupations indicated lower levels of
formal education lower levels of personal and
family income, held a greater number of current
jobs and worked fewer hours per week. Other
significant correlations further added to our
understanding of the occupational status measure.
Thus, women in low status occupations were
more likely to indicate disability status, were
younger, were less likely to be currently married,
yet spent more hours per week on household
duties and responsibilities. Occupational status
had no relationship with visible minority status,
parental status, tenure in present job or organi-
zational size.

Table III presents the correlations between the
measure of occupational status and a number of
personal demographic characteristics and work
situation factors. Almost two-thirds of these cor-
relations were significantly different from zero
(p < 0.001). It should be noted that the sample
sizes were large (about 2000) and many of the
personal and work situation characteristics were
themselves significantly correlated.
Some of the significant correlations are con-
sistent with the operationalization of the occu-
pational status measure. Thus, women in lower
Occupational status and work experiences
The correlations between the measure of occu-
pational status and a number of work experiences
are presented in the top half of Table IV. All but
one of the eight correlations were significantly
TABLE IV
Occupational status, work experiences and health
Occupational
statusa

Work experiences
TABLE III
Job stress 0.20***
Occupational status and personal demographics
Harassment 0.11***
Hostile work environment 0.11***
Personal demographics Occupational statusa
Job insecurity 0.16***
Physical hazards 0.19***
Visible minority 0.03
Physical demands 0.34***
Disability status 0.10***
Air quality 0.00***
Level of education –0.43***
Temperature 0.13***
Martial status 0.09***
Parent status 0.00
Work outcomes
Hours household 0.08***
Personal income –0.52*** Job satisfaction 0.16***
Family income –0.40*** Days of work missed 0.15***
Age 0.17***
Number of jobs 0.11*** Health outcomes
Organization size 0.02 Days of illness 0.14***
Job tenure 0.02 Psychosomatic symptoms – work 0.13***
Hours worked –0.22*** Psychosomatic symptoms 0.09***

*** p < 0.001. *** p < 0.001

a a
Ns range from 1982 to 2381. Ns range from 1874 to 2328.
 Work Stress and Women’s Health
different from zero (p < 0.001). It should be
noted that the work experience measures them-
selves were themselves significantly correlated in
the majority of cases.
Women working in lower status jobs indicated
high levels of job stress, more harassment in their
workplaces, a more hostile, harassing work envi-
ronment, greater job insecurity, greater exposure
to physical hazards at work, greater physical
demands (e.g. bending, lifting) in their jobs, and
less comfortable workplace temperatures. Job
status had no relationship with measures of air
quality and ventilation.
Occupational status, work satisfactions
and health
The bottom half of Table IV shows the correla-
tions between the job status measure and both
work and health outcome, all five correlations
were significantly (p < 0.001). Again, it should
be noted that these outcome measures ere them-
selves significantly correlated.
Women in lower status jobs indicated less job
satisfaction and higher levels of absenteeism in
the preceding year. In addition, they reported
more psychosomatic symptoms, more work-
related psychosomatic symptoms and more days
of illness in the preceding year.
Occupational status, work satisfaction and
health
Table V shows the results of regression analyses
in which four work satisfaction and health
indicators were regressed on three blocks of pre-
dictors (individual demographics, work situation
characteristics, occupational status). The impor-
tant question here was whether the measure of
occupational status would account for significant
increments in explained variance on these four
outcome measures, controlling for personal
demographic and work situation characteristics.
The occupational status measure was found to
account for significant increments in explained
variance in each analysis. Women in lower occu-
pational status positions indicated poorer general
99
health in the month preceeding the survey,
poorer work related health, more days of illness
in the preceding year and lower levels of work
satisfaction.
The measure of occupational status explained
relatively small amounts of variance in these
outcomes however. This finding was consistent
with the relatively low correlations between the
occupational status measure and work experi-
ences and health (see Tables III and IV).
Conclusions and implications
The empirical study reported here had several
objectives. These included: extending the study
of work stress and health to women, employing
a diverse sample of women respondents beyond
the more commonly studied managerial and
professional levels, and exploring the effects of
occupational status on the work and health rela-
tionship.
Work stressors and women’s health
This study examined the relationship of several
work stressors with measures of satisfaction and
well-being in a large sample of employed women.
The findings were supportive of a research frame-
work developed to guide the study and were
consistent with previous conclusions. That is,
work stressors had negative relationships with
levels of job satisfaction and positive relationships
with self-reported psychosomatic symptoms and
days of illness (see Table II).
These findings extended our understanding of
job demands and women’s health by including
considerable numbers of women in low occupa-
tional status jobs and introducing work stressors
that assessed aspects of the physical environment
as well as physical demands present in these jobs.
These extensions to the more traditional con-
sideration of work stressors and health produced
interesting results. First, work stressors resulting
from the physical demands within jobs as well
as physical hazards posed to job incumbents
emerged as important predictors of women’s
satisfaction and health. These work stressors are
100 Ronald J. Burke

TABLE V
Occupational status, work satisfaction and health

R R2 ∆R2 P

General health – last month (1533)

Ind. demographics 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.001
Marital (–0.07)
Work situation 0.18 0.03 0.02 0.001
Hours worked (–0.12)
Number of jobs (–0.07)
Job tenure (–0.06)
Occupational status (–0.08) 0.19 0.04 0.00 0.010

Work satisfaction (N = 1665)

Ind. demographics 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.010
Marital (0.08)
Work situation 0.14 0.02 0.01 0.010
Job tenure (0.07)
Occupational status (0.15) 0.19 0.03 0.01 0.001

Work related health (N = 1362)

Ind. demographics 0.13 0.02 0.02 0.010
Marital (–0.07)
Work situation 0.24 0.06 0.04 0.001
Hours worked (–0.19)
Job tenure (–0.12)
Number of Jobs (–0.05)
Occupational status (–0.13) 0.26 0.07 0.01 0.001

Days Ill (N = 1540)

Ind. demographic 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.050
Work situation 0.14 0.02 0.01 0.010
Job tenure (0.09)
Occupational status (0.13) 0.17 0.03 0.01 0.001

rarely included in job demands research. Second,
these findings highlighted the need to devote
more research attention to women (and men) in
lower occupational status jobs. There seems to
have been a trend away from these occupations
toward more examination of managerial and pro-
fessional jobs.
A combination of factors seemed to converge
on women in these lower occupational status
positions. These included personal demographics
(lower education, lower income), work stressors
(harassment, physical demands, physical hazards)
and well-being (low job satisfaction, more psy-
chosomatic symptoms and more days of illness).
Occupational status and women’s health
The present study also examined the influences
of occupational status on women’s work experi-
ences, work satisfactions and health. Consistent,
though moderate effects, of occupational status
 Work Stress and Women’s Health
were found (see Tables III and IV). First, there
was support for the occupational status measure
used in the research. That is, relationships of
particular personal demographics likely to be
associated with occupational status (i.e., educa-
tion, income) were evident.
In addition, as expected, women in lower
occupational status jobs indicated less satisfaction
at work and poorer emotional and physical
health. One potential explanation for these
findings lies in the work experiences reported
by women in low status jobs. These women
reported more negative work experiences,
ranging from heightened job insecurity and work
stress to a more hostile and hazardous workplace.
Thus there seemed to be a constellation of factors
operating in the work lives and family lives of
women in lower status jobs that posed potential
health risks to them.
A large body of research evidence exists in the
fields of medical sociology and epidemiology
highlighting the role played by occupational
status and social class in explaining levels of
satisfaction and health (Pearlin, 1989; Borooah,
1999). Researchers and policy makers interested
in gender, work stress and health need to expand
their samples to include women in jobs having
lower occupational status to fully understand the
nature and magnitude of women’s health
concerns and the focus at potential remedial
actions.
We need more research on work and health
among women. More attention must also be paid
to women who work in jobs other than man-
agerial and professional ones. We need to include
measures of work conditions, how the work is
experienced and measures of a variety of well-
being and health indicators in this research as
well. This is important if we are to understand
the broader relationships of social class and
health.
There is also a need to be aware of and link
our research in work and well-being to an
increasing and well conducted body of scholar-
ship produced by others interested in health
(medical sociologists, epidemologists).
101
Notes
1
Preparation of this manuscript was supported in
part by the School of Business, York University. The
research was funded by the Ontario Workplace Health
and Safety Agency and the Ontario Disease Panel. I
thank the Centre for Health Studies, York University
and the Institute for Social Research, York University,
for making the data available. Graeme Macdermid
assisted with data analysis. Sandra Osti prepared the
manuscript.
2
All measures were developed specifically for the
study.
References
Aston, J. and J. Lavery: 1993, ‘The Health of Women
in Paid Employment: Effects of Quality of
Work Role, Social Support and Cynicism and
Psychological and Physical Well-being’, Women and
Health 20, 1–25.
Bartley, M., A. Sacker, D. Firth and R. Fitzpatrick:
1999a, ‘Understanding Social Variation in
Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Women and Men:
The Advantage of Theoretically Based Measures’,
Social Science & Medicine 49, 831–846.
Bartley, M., A. Sacker, D. Firth and R. Fitzpatrick:
1999b, ‘Social Position, Social Roles and Women’s
Health in England: Changing Relationships
1984–1993’, Social Science & Medicine 48, 99–116.
Borooah, V. K.: 1999, ‘Occupational Class and the
Probability of Long-term Limiting Illness’, Social
Science & Medicine 49, 253–266.
Burke, R. J.: 1996, ‘Work Experiences, Stress and
Health Among Managerial and Professional
Women’, in M. J. Schabracq, J. A. M. Winnubst
and C. L. Cooper (eds.), Handbook of Work and
Health Psychology (Wiley, New York), pp. 205–230.
Burke, R. J. and C. A. McKeen: 1994, ‘Work and
Career Experiences and Emotional Well-being
of Managerial and Professional Women’, Stress
Medicine 10, 65–79.
Collins, B. S., R. B. Hollander, D. M. Koffman, R.
Reeve and S. Seidler: 1997, ‘Women, Work and
Health: Issues and Implications for Worksite Health
Promotion’, Women & Health 25, 3–18.
Cooper, C. L.: 1996, Handbook of Stress, Medicine and
Health (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL).
Cooper, C. L. and R. Payne: 1988, Causes, Coping
and Consequences of Stress at Work (John Wiley, New
York).
102 Ronald J. Burke
Davidson, M. J. and C. L. Cooper: 1983, Stress and
the Woman Manager (St. Martin’s Press, New York).
Davidson, M. J. and C. L. Cooper: 1992, Shattering
the Glass Ceiling (Paul Chapman, London).
Diez-Roux, A. V., B. G. Link and M. E. Northridge:
2000, ‘A Multi-level Analysis of Income Equality
and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors’, Social
Science & Medicine 50, 673–688.
Hochschild, A. R.: 1997, The Time Bind
(Metropolitan Books, New York).
Humphries, K. H. and E. van Doorslaer: 2000,
‘Income-related Health Inequality in Canada’,
Social Science & Medicine 50, 663–672.
Kempen, G. I. J. M., E. I. Brilman, A. V. Ranchor
and J. Ormel: 1999, ‘Morbidity and Quality of Life
and the Moderating Effects of Level of Education
in the Elderly’, Social Science & Medicine 49,
143–150.
Langan-Fox, J.: 1998, ‘Women’s Careers and
Occupational Stress’, in C. L. Cooper and I. T.
Robertson (eds.), International Review of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology (John Wiley, New
York), pp. 273–304.
Messing, K.: 1997, ‘Women’s Occupational Health:
A Critical Review and Discussion of Current
Issues’, Women & Health 25, 39–55.
Muntaner, C., W. W. Eaton, C. Diala, R. C. Kessler
and P. D. Sorlie: 1998, ‘Social Class, Assets,
Organizational Control and the Prevalence of
Common Groups of Psychiatric Disorders’, Social
Science & Medicine 47, 2043–2054.
Nelson, D. L. and R. J. Burke: 2000a, ‘Women,
Work Stress and Health’, in M. J. Davidson and
R. J. Burke (eds.), Women in Management (Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, CA), pp. 177–191.
Nelson, D. L. and R. J. Burke: 2000b, ‘Women
Executives: Individual and Organizational Health
Issues’, Academy of Management Executive 14,
107–121.
Offermann, L. R. and M. A. Armitage: 1993,
‘Stress and the Woman Manager: Sources, Health
Outcomes, and Interventions’, in E. Fagenson
(ed.), Women in Management: Trends, Issues, and
Challenges in Managerial Diversity (Sage Publications,
Newbury Park, CA).
Pearlin, L. I.: 1989, ‘The Sociological Study of Stress’,
Journal of Health and Social Behavior 30, 241–256.
Schabracq, M. J., J. A. M. Winnubst and C. L.
Cooper: 1996, Handbook of Work and Health
Psychology (John Wiley, New York).
Veenstra, G.: 2000, ‘Social Capital, SES and Health:
An Individual-level Analysis’, Social Science &
Medicine 50, 619–630.
York University,
Faculty of Administrative Studies,
4700 Keele Street,
M3J 1P3,
North York,
Ontario, Canada