Highlight, copy & paste to cite:

Sadri, G., & Marcoulides, G. A., (1994). The Dynamics of Occupational Stress: Proposing and Testing a Model, Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 2(1), 1-19.

The Dynamics of Occupational Stress: Proposing and Testing a Model

Goluaz Sadri & George A. Marcoulides


The present study tested a model of occupational stress in which personality (Type A behaviour and locus of control) and coping strategies were predicted to precede and determine the perception of job stressors which, in turn, were proposed to have an impact on the mental and physical well being of the individual and his/her job satisfaction. Data were collected from 235 professionals employed in diverse companies within the Southern Orange County area. Participants in the study completed the Occupational Stress Indicator which consists of 167 variables, designed to measure personality, coping, organisational stressors, well being and job satisfaction. The proposed model was tested using a structural equation modeling approach. A variety of tests were employed to assess the fit of the model. The cumulative results show that the proposed model fairly accurately accounts for the observed variability in the data. Implications for conceptualising and coping with the dysfunctional outcomes associated with workplace stress are discussed.


Occupational stress has shown itself to be a ubiquitous organisational problem: stress-related expenses currently total more than $150 billion annually, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) rates stress as one of the ten leading work-related diseases (Minter, 1991). Over the past five years, stress-related disability claims in the United States have risen by approximately 700% and the direct cost of resolving a single stress claim is estimated at between $10,000 and $15,000 (Stevens, 1992). Not surprisingly, much research has been devoted to the topic of occupational stress. In a review of the literature, Ganster and Schraubroeck (1991) found over 300 articles on work and stress published in academic journals alone over the past ten years. They suggest that the inclusion of articles published in practitioner journals would contribute several hundred more to this figure.

Recent research on occupational stress has led to the formulation of several theories about the factors that affect stress. Stress may be defined as a situation wherein factors interact with a worker to change (ie disrupt or enhance) his/her psychological and/or physiological condition, such that the person is forced to deviate from normal functioning (Beehr and Newman, 1978). Much of the research on stress adopts an interactionist perspective where stress is seen as a product of the relationship between a person and his/her environment (Caplan, Cobb, French, Van Harrison & Pinneau, 1975; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1987; Lazarus, 1991; Stogdill, 1974). In these interactionist models, person variables include both aspects of individual personality (eg Type A behaviour, Locus of Control, Negative Affectivity) and methods of coping (eg exercise, drinking, social support), while environmental variables are depicted as a range of potential stressors. The eventual outcome of the person — environment interaction is likely to affect, in turn, both the person and his/her environment (Beehr & Newman, 1978; Cooper, 1986; Cooper & Eaker, 1988; Cooper & Payne, 1978; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1987; Robbins, 1993).

It appears that most research on occupational stress, while suggesting some important theoretical models, continues to be problematic because of methodological constraints. For example, the majority of the research on coping with stress has focused on coping with daily life stressors which has limited relevance for the organisational setting (Mayes, Johnson, Sadri & Loukides, 1992). Occupational stress should be studied within the context of the individual’s belief system, the organisation in ‘which he/she works, and the environment outside of the organisation (Heck & Marcoulides, 1989). Marcoulides and Heck (1993) suggest that research needs to examine how relevant personality variables interact with organisational factors to mould behaviour on the job. Critics also point out the methodological problems associated with testing models using inappropriate sampling and statistical procedures (Cohen & Edwards, 1988).

The purpose of this paper is to propose and test a theoretical mode] concerning the specifics of the occupational stress process. The present study attempts to enhance our understanding of the dynamics of the workplace by examining how certain individual and organisational variables affect perceptions of occupational stressors and how they affect stress-related outcomes. The study also attempts to address some of the methodological problems associated with previous occupational stress studies.

Theoretical Model to be Examined

The model to be examined in this study has been posited a priori to determine the specifics of the dynamics of occupational stress. The proposed model draws on the original model of occupational stress presented by Cooper and Baglioni (1988) and Robertson, Cooper & Williams, (1990). Cooper and Baglioni (1988) found empirical support for an indigenous model of stress, where personality and coping strategies preceded and determined the perception of job stressors which, in turn, had an impact on the mental well—being of the individual. Although the study by Cooper and Baglioni is the first to attempt to model the stress process, there are a number of methodological problems with the study: first, the generalisability of the results is limited due to the use of an all-female sample; second, only one aspect of personality (Type A behaviour) was measured (although extensions of the model to include other personality variables such as locus of control were suggested); third, the study tested only one of the potential outcomes of stress (mental health), although previous research suggests that stress may also result in physiological outcomes, as well as work-related attitudes and behaviours (DeFrank & Cooper, 1987; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1987; Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987; Murphy, 1988). The present study, therefore, not only addresses these methodological concerns hut also extends the original occupational stress model first presented by Cooper and Baglioni (1988) and Robertson et al, (1990).

Figure 1 presents the proposed theoretical predictive model of occupational stress outcomes. The proposed model specifies four factors relating to criteria and data that we hypothesize to directly influence an individual’s stress-related outcomes, As recommended by Harris and Schaubroeck (1990), multiple observed indicators were used to measure all of the latent variables included in the model. There are three sets of latent variables included in the model. These are labelled as (i) Precursors of Stress, (ii) Stressors and (iii) Outcomes.

Figure 1
Proposed Model of Link between Personality, Coping, Stressors & Outcomes
Proposed Model of Link between Personality, Coping, Stressors & Outcomes

Precursors of Stress

There are three latent variables that are considered precursors of stress. These are Type A behaviour, locus of control and coping. It is suggested that personality (Type A behaviour and locus of control) and methods of coping determine the perception of job stressors.

Type A behaviour. Type A behaviour is characterised by a chronic sense of time urgency and an excessive competitive drive (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974). There is an established link between the Type A behaviour pattern and both perceptions of stress and stress-related outcomes. Froggatt and Cotton (1987) found that Type As created significantly more stress than Type Bs by increasing the volume of workload imposed on themselves when completing a fairly simple task. Zylanski and Jenkins (1970) showed that Type As placed themselves in more stressful work environments. Type A employees also work longer hours, take on more overtime, report higher levels of workload, greater supervisory responsibilities, and more role conflict than Type B individuals (Ganster, Sime & Mayes, 1989). Cumulatively, the research on Type A behaviour suggests that Type A individuals experience time pressures because they underestimate the time that is required to accomplish tasks; tend to work quickly and to show impatience and decreased work performance if forced to work slowly; ignore, suppress or deny physical or psychological symptoms while working under pressure, and report such symptoms only when the work is finished; work harder and experience physiological arousal when a task is perceived as challenging; express hostility and irritation in response to a challenge or threat; and need to be in control of the immediate environment to such an extent that a lack of control may elicit a hostile competitive response (Chesney & Rosenman, 1980). Furthermore, Type A behaviour, and specifically the hostility and anger that is associated with Type A behaviour, has been found to be related to heart disease (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974; Williams, 1989).

Locus of Control. Locus of control (LOC) is a dichotomous variable with individuals who believe that they are masters of their fate, they are labelled as internals while those who believe that their lives are reliant on luck, chance, fate or powerful others are classified as externals (Rotter, 1966). Research comparing internals with externals has shown that individuals who rate high in externality are less satisfied with their jobs, have higher absenteeism rates, are more alienated from the work setting, and are less involved in their jobs than are internals (Spector, 2987). A number of studies imply that internals perceive their jobs to be less stressful than do externals (Gemmill & Heisler, 1972; Anderson et al, 1977). LOC has also been linked to stress-related outcomes. Marino and White (1985) found that internals reported fewer psychological strains resulting from job specificity. Fusilier, Ganster & Mayes, (1987) found that role conflict was more strongly related to somatic complaints among externals. Storms and Spector (1987) found that blue-collar workers with an external LOC were significantly more likely to respond to normal organisational frustrations with aggression, sabotage or withdrawal than were internals.

There is a distinction in the literature on LOC between state and trait measures of control (Parkes, 1984). Trait measures like that designed by Rotter represent a generalised belief about the extent to which important outcomes are controllable (Rotter, 1966). The measure used in the present study represents a state measure, or a subjective appraisal of control of the individual’s work situation and has demonstrated a relationship with important aspects of the individual’s work experience and well-being (Rees & Cooper, 1992).

Coping Methods. “Coping refers to behavior that protects people from being psychologically harmed by problematic social experience, a behaviour that importantly mediates the impact that societies have on their members” (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978). For the present project, six methods which people commonly adopt to cope with work stress are measured: (i) social support (the degree to which individuals rely on others as a means of coping with stress); (ii) task strategies (the degree to which individuals cope through strategies directed at reorganising their work, such as planning ahead, setting priorities, and delegating); (iii) logic (coping through attempts to be rational and handle situations in an objective manner); (iv) home and work relationship (the extent to which home is viewed as a refuge, and the existence of interests and activities that a person engages in outside of work); (v) time (the individual’s use of time eg whether he/she deals with problems immediately rather than stalling); (vi) involvement (the degree to which the individual forces himself/herself to come to terms with reality, through strategies like recognising his/her limitations, being able to release tension and concentrating on specific problems).

Much of the research on coping with job stress has viewed coping as a response to a stressor (Folknian & Lazarus, 1980; Latack, 1986; Havlovic & Keenan, 1991) and the context of the coping event clearly has an effect on the method of coping that a person adopts. However, there is some evidence that rather than being merely a response to an environmental stimulus, coping is an active and ongoing force that shapes what will occur during subsequent coping episodes (Cohen & Edwards, 1988). Dolan and White (1988) found that individuals were relatively consistent in the strategies they adopted to cope with everyday stressors. Fleishman (1984) provided evidence to link aspects of personality to coping methods: he found that the personality variable of self-denial affected the use of emotion-focused coping, and nondisclosure reduced advice-seeking. Laboratory studies show that avoidance strategies can reduce stress reactions to such things as cold, radiant heat or noise (Chaves & Barber, 1976). Thus, the model presented in Figure 1 suggests that there are likely to be individual differences in the methods that people adopt to cope with given situations and that the coping alternatives that are perceived to be available to each person will affect his/her subsequent perception of stressful events. For example, it is generally recognised that the mere existence of social support networks (irrespective of whether or not they are used) serve to act as a buffer against stress (House, 1981; Jayaratne, Himle & Chess, 1988; Cummings, 1990).


The present study is concerned with a range of environmental factors, in the workplace and at the work-nonwork interface, which have been linked to stress-related outcomes (Caplan et a!, 1975; Cooper, 1986; Cooper & Marshall, 1976; Frew & Bruning, 1987. Jackson, & Schuler, 1985; Parasuraman & Alutto, 1984; Rizzo, House & Lirtzman, 1970; Schuler, 1980; Van Sell, Brief & Schuler, 1981). The present paper examines six potential workplace stressors. These include stress arising from: (i) factors intrinsic to the job eg having too much work to do, and having to work long hours; (ii) a lack of power and influence, ambiguity, conflicting tasks and demands arising from multiple roles that the individual plays; (iii) relationships with other people, such as coping with office politics, having to supervise others, lack of support from colleagues and lack of encouragement from superiors; (iv) how valued people feel and whether or not they are satisfied with their opportunities for advancement at work; (v) the structure or climate of an organisation, in terms of inadequate guidance from superiors, poor quality training and development programmes, evidence of discrimination or favouritism; (vi) the home/work interface, which may include things like having to take work home, or the inability to forget about work when the individual is at home.


The consequences which have generally been linked to the experience of stressful events are typically categorised under the headings of physiological, psychological and behavioural outcomes (Beehr & Newman, 1978; Cooper & Marshall, 1976; Steffy & Jones, 1988). The present study examines all three stress-related outcomes. Physiological symptoms included in this study include headaches, indigestion, shortness of breath, increases in blood pressure, feelings of exhaustion. Psychological manifestations of stress examined in the present study include aspects of mental health (such as an inability to think clearly, feeling restless, irritability) and work-related attitudes (ie job satisfaction). Job satisfaction is presented as an outcome of the stress process in numerous models (Cooper, 1986; Cooper & Payne, 1978; Robbins, 1993). Five aspects of satisfaction with the job are considered in the present project. These include satisfaction with: (i) opportunities for growth and one’s perception of the extent to which one’s efforts are valued; (ii) aspects of the job itself (eg job security); (iii) aspects of organisation design and structure, such as communication flow; (iv) aspects of organisational processes (eg style of supervision); and (v) relationships with others at work (peers, superiors, subordinates). Behavioural stress symptoms measured in the study include changes in eating, drinking, smoking patterns and sleeping patterns.



Data were collected from 235 individuals, all in professional positions, employed in diverse companies within the Southern Orange County area. Approximately 40% of the data was collected as part of a series of university management education seminars that the participants attended. The remaining 60% was collected from respondents at four different worksites for research purposes, including two manufacturing companies, a waste management organisation and an insurance company. The response rate across these four sites averaged at 57%. Cumulatively, 53% of the sample are male and 47% female. The median age of the sample was between 21 and 36 (79%); 17% were aged between 37 to 55; 2% were under 2] and 2% over 55. In terms of marital status, 44% were married; 43% single; 7% divorced; 1% separated and the remaining 5% cohabiting.


Participants in the study responded to a questionnaire consisting of 167 variables designed to measure the impact of personality, coping and organisational variables on stress-related outcomes. All variables were measured using the Occupational Stress Indicator (OSI) which has been shown to be reliable and related to managerial and professional occupations (Cooper & Marshall, 1976; Sloan & Williams, 1988; Kirkcaldy & Hodapp, 1989; Schuler, 1980). The OSI is made up of six questionnaires, which measure different dimensions of stress: Type A behaviour; locus of control; coping strategies; workplace stressors; job satisfaction and current state of health. The questionnaire took approximately 35 minutes to complete. Descriptions of the observed variables grouped according to the constructs they are posited to measure are provided in Appendix A. The observed variables are paraphrased from the original questionnaire used in the study; for further details, see Cooper et al (1988).

Analysis: Structural Equation Modeling & Parameter Estimation

Structural equation modeling is a statistical technique that can be used in theory development because it enables a researcher to propose and subsequently test theoretical propositions about the interrelationships among variables in a multivariate setting (Heck, Larsen & Marcoulides, 1990). A structural model can be viewed as a guide that allows one to determine the relative strength of each latent and observed variable included in explaining a desired set of outcomes. Structural equation modeling can be used to estimate and test a variety of theoretical models, including those with measurement errors. In the structural equation approach, one attempts to fit the variance-covariance matrix implied by the theoretical model to the observed sample variance-covariance matrix. One of the goals of the analysis in this study was to estimate the relative strength of the proposed variables in explaining the stress process and to assess how much variance in the outcomes can be accounted for by the theoretical model. The estimation of the asymptotic matrix needed for the solution requires the use of a listwise deletion of cases (ie any case with missing data is eliminated). Therefore, the final model included 209 individuals with complete survey responses. Following Joreskog and Sorbom (1993) recommendations for categorical data, the weighted least squares (WLS) fitting function was used to estimate the parameters of the proposed model. As Joreskog and Sorbom (1993) indicate, WLS provides better estimates of goodness-of-fit measures whenever categorical data are involved and a departure from normality may be present.


The proposed model was tested using LISREL VIII (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993). Tables I and 2 present the LISREL parameter estimates of the proposed model. These estimates are indices that represent the contribution of each observed and latent variable to the model. While the estimates provide important information that can be used to examine the interrelationship among variables, they do not provide any indication of the assessment of the proposed model. Because we a 1riori proposed a model to be tested, our initial interest lies in the assessment of the model fit. Once the model fit is determined, then the importance of the parameter estimates can be evaluated. Without an adequate model fit, the proposed model would have to be reconceptualised.

Table 1
Parameter Estimates of Proposed Occupational Stress Model
Variable Construct Estimate
Y2 0.89
Y3 0.85
Y4 0.82
Y5 0.94
Y6 0.70
Y8 0.82
Y9 0.69
Y10 0.88
Y11 0.80
Y12 HEALTH 0.83
Y13 0.72
X1 TYPE A 0.34
X2 0.68
X3 0.97
X4 LOC 0.64
X5 0.55
X6 0.41
X7 COPING 0.61
X8 0.52
X9 0.20
x10 0.4
X11 0.49
X12 0.67


Table 2
Parameter Estimates for Structural Equations of Constructs
Stressors Job satisfaction Health Type A Locus Coping
Stressors - - - 0.37 0.51 0.02
Job satisfaction 0.07 - - -0.32 -0.67 0.26
Health 0.26 - - 0.27 0.59 -0.38

Several statistical and practical indices can be used to determine the fit of the data to the model. Statistical criteria include the goodness of fit index (GFI), the root mean square residual (RMR), and the ratio of the chi-square to degrees of freedom (χ2/df). Practical criteria include the Bentler and Bonett (1980) normed index (BB1) and the comparative fit index (CFI) (Bentler, 1990). Selection of these indices to test the model was based on their widespread use (Marsh, Balla & McDonald, 1988).

Table 3 presents the criteria describing the fit of the proposed stress model. The assessment of the fit of the model is also revealed by examining the goodness of fit index (GFI = 0.93), the root mean square residual (RMR = 0.08), and the ratio of the chi-square to the degrees of freedom (χ2/df = 510.45/261 = 1.95), the normed index (BBI = .93) and the comparative fit index (CFI = .94). It is generally recognised that GFI, BBI and CFI values above or equal to .90 indicate a satisfactory model fit. For this model these indices all suggest a reasonably good model fit. The GFI, BBI and CFI can all be considered measures of the relative amount of variance and covariance in the data accounted for by the proposed model. On the other hand, the root mean square residual is a measure of the average unexplained variances and covariances in the model. This index should be close to zero if the data fits the model. The observed RMR is 0.08, indicating that very few of the variances and covariances are unexplained by the proposed model. A ratio of the chisquare to the degrees of freedom ranging from 1 to 5 also indicates a reasonable fit of the model, although recent research indicates that this ratio should be closer to 2 (Byrne, 1989; Wheaton, Muthen, Aiwin & Summers, 1977). In this study the observed ratio is 1.95. Finally, parameter estimates with t-ratios that are greater than 2 are considered to provide evidence that the parameter is significantly different from zero and important to the proposed model. Estimates of the direct and indirect effects of the variables in the model were also tested through t tests (not tabled), and all parameters were found to be significant (p < .01). Given the variety of tests that were used to assess the fit of the model, we would consider that the model fairly accurately accounts for the observed variability in the data.

Table 3
Goodness of Fit Indices
Index Value
Goodness of fit Index 0.93
Chi-Square: degrees of freedom ratio 1.95
Root Mean Square Residual 0.08
Normed Fit Index 0.93
Comparative Fit Index 0.94


The aim of this paper was to enhance our understanding of the dynamics of workplace stress by examining the influence of personality and coping strategies on the perception of job stressors and in turn, their combined impact on the well-being and job-related attitudes of the individual. Results from the study support the model which we proposed to test (shown in figure 1). We found that personality (Type A behaviour and LOC) determine the perception of stressors and subsequently affect the mental and physical well-being of the individual and his/her job satisfaction. The methods of coping adopted were found not to affect the perception of stressors but they were found to have an impact on the health and attitudes of respondents. The fit of the proposed model lends support to the assertion that the variables affecting occupational stress can be determined and measured. The findings that emerge from the present study raise a number of important issues in terms of how organisations conceptualise and attempt to cope with the stress that their employees experience.

There has typically been some ambiguity associated with interpretations of stress-related outcomes: managerial personnel often see stress as a function of maladaptive personal lifestyles whereas labour representatives view stress as a consequence of organisational structure and design (Neale, Singer, Schwartz & Schwartz, 1982). This study shows that stress is a function of both individual and organisational factors and implies that attempts to cope with the problem need to focus on the environment as well as the individual.

One of the most significant findings from the present results is the emergence of LOC as the strongest predictor of perceptions of stress and outcomes. Respondents who indicated a more external LOC also indicated a higher incidence of workplace stressors, lower levels of satisfaction with their jobs, and showed higher levels of mental and physical ill-health. While this is consistent with the existing literature on LOC (Anderson et al, 1977; Fusilier et al, 1987; Gemmill & Heisler, 1972; Spector, 1987), it is important to emphasize that the LOC scale contained in the OSI is a state measure. It examines feelings of control over the work environment as opposed to generalised feelings of control. Clearly, there is much that organisations can do to give people more control over their immediate work environment. For example, managers can provide more information to employees on relevant issues such as assessment procedures, company policies and regulations, organisational change and how this is likely to affect individual employees. Previous studies have shown that attempts to increase worker control over the work environment through participation in decision making, increased job autonomy and increased autonomy over work schedules has resulted in positive individual and organisational outcomes (Jackson, 1983; Marcoulides & Heck, 1993; Pierce & Newstrom, 1983; Wall & Clegg, 1981).

The role which coping plays in the occupational stress model examined here is also interesting: while methods of coping appear to have little effect on the perception of job stressors, they do positively affect the job satisfaction of the individual and tend to prevent ill-health. The three best indicators of coping were, involvement, social support and task strategies. In the present context, involvement includes recognising one’s limitations, attempting to make one’s work more interesting, and concentrating on specific problems. Task strategies include planning ahead and setting priorities. These are all elements which can easily be taught to employees as part of a stress management workshop. While the existence of social support networks outside of the workplace are beyond the control of the organisation, there are a number of factors which are within the control of the organisation and open to variation. Managers can make themselves more accessible to discuss work-related issues and problems. Problems not associated with the workplace can be referred to the appropriate counselling services and Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs). Research on the benefits of such programmes again shows very positive results in terms of the mental and physical health of the employee and his/her work behaviour (Cooper & Sadri, 1991; Cooper, Sadri, Allison & Reynolds, 1990).

The present results indicate that increases in perceptions of stress have a significant effect on the mental and physical ill-health of the individual. If organisations do not attempt to minimise the negative impact of work stress, it is likely to result in severe outcomes for both employee and employer. The types of stressors examined in this study seem appropriate for managerial and professional occupations. Five of the six sources of workplace stress measured by the OSI significantly contributed to perceptions of distress for the present sample, namely, factors intrinsic to the job, aspects of the managerial role, relationships with other people, career and achievement, organisation structure and climate. The home/work interface, while still viewed as an important potential source of stress, was not as pertinent as the other five factors. For stress management and prevention, organisations need to identify the particular sources of stress which affect their workforce and then take appropriate action (Murphy, 1988). Measures like the OSI appear to have reasonable validity for such purposes.

Results from the present study also indicated that Type A behaviour plays an important role in the model of stress. For the present sample, Type A’s experienced more pressure, lower job satisfaction, and higher levels of ill-health (mental and physical). Again, this corroborates previous findings on Type A behaviour (Froggatt & Cotton, 1987; Ganster et a!, 1989; Zylanski & Jenkins, 1970). In terms of stress management, employees may be encouraged to try to limit the dysfunctional aspects of their Type A behaviour (eg high competitiveness, high hostility). Since most organisational psychologists now accept the importance of environmental and situational factors as determinants of behaviour (Robbins, 1993), we suggest that an organisation can assist in this process by fostering a culture that is more collaborative than competitive.

While it has been suggested that all methods of stress management have the same basic objective of assisting people to minimise their dysfunctional experiences (Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987), there are different ways of categorising such techniques. For example, stress management may be individual-focused (refers to actions taken by individuals) or organisational-focused (refers to actions taken by management). DeFrank and Cooper (1987) list the following individual- focused strategies: relaxation techniques, cognitive strategies, biofeedback, meditation, exercise, EAPs, time management; and the following organisation-focused strategies: adapting organisation structure, selection and placement, training, altering physical and environmental job characteristics, emphasizing health concerns and resources, job rotation. An alternative way of conceptualising stress management strategies is whether the technique emphasizes stressor reduction (primary), stress management (secondary), or a curative approach such as counselling (tertiary) (Murphy, 1988). A systematic approach to minimising stress at all levels (ie primary, secondary and tertiary), is likely to be most productive for today’s diverse workforce. Results from the present research suggest that primary, organisation-focused strategies such as increasing the level of worker control over the environment are likely to lead to the most positive long-term outcomes.

The present study has shown that covariance modelling techniques can provide significant insights into the dynamics of the stress process. Further research of this nature is needed, utilising additional variables. In terms of personality, other variables which may be of relevance here include hardiness and negative affectivity. Additional outcome variables which might be included in the present model include aspects of work behaviour (turnover, absenteeism, productivity) as well as additional attitudinal measures (such as self-esteem and self-efficacy). Furthermore, to extend the generalisability of the model tested in this study, future research needs to test the model with samples drawn from a number of different countries.


Anderson, C.R., Hellriegel, D. & Slocum, J.W., (1977), Managerial response to environmental induced stress, Academy of Management Journal, 6, pp. 260-272.

Beehr, T.A. & Newman, J.E., (1978), Job stress, employee health, and organisational effectiveness: a facet analysis, model and literature review, Personnel Psychology, 31, pp. 665-699.

Bentler, P.M., (1990), Comparative fit indices in structural models, Psychological Bulletin, 107, pp. 238-246.

Bentler, P. & Bonett, D., (1980), Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures, Psychological Bulletin, 88, pp. 588-606.

Byrne, B.M., (1989), A primer on LISREL, Springer-Verlag, New York.

Caplan, R.D., Cobb, S., French, J.R.P., Van Harrison, R. & Pinneau, SR., (1975), Job Demands and Worker Health, HEW Publication No. (NIOSH), pp. 75-160, Washington D.C.

Chaves, J.F. & Barber, T.X., (1976), Acupuncture analgesia: a six-factor theory, in M. Weisenberg & B. Tursky (Eds.) Pain: New Perspectives in Therapy and Research, Plenum, New York.

Chesney, M.A. & Rosenman, R.H., (1980), .Type A behavior in the work setting, in C.L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.) Current Concerns in Occupational Stress, John Wiley, London.

Cohen, S. & Edwards, J.R., (1988), Personality characteristics as moderators of the relationship between stress and disorder, in R.J. Neufeld (Ed.) Advances in the Investigation of Psychological Stress, John Wiley, New York.

Cooper, C.L., (1986), Job distress: recent research and the emerging role of the clinical occupational psychologist, Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 39, pp. 325-331.

Cooper, C.L. & Baglioni Jr, A.J., (1988), A structural model approach toward the development of a theory of the link between stress and mental health, British Journal of Medical Psychology, 61, pp. 87-102.

Cooper, C.L., Cooper, R.D. & Eaker, L.H., (1988), Living with Stress, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.

Cooper, C.L. & Marshall, J., (1976), Occupational sources of stress: a review of the literature relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill-health, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 49, pp. 11-28.

Cooper, C.L. & Payne, R., (1978), Stress at Work, John Wiley, London.

Cooper, C.L. & Sadri, C., (1991), The Impact of Stress Counselling at Work. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 6, 7, pp. 411-423.

Cooper, C.L., Sadri, C., Allison, T. & Reynolds, P., (1990), Stress Counselling in the Post Office, Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 3, 1, pp.3-11.

Cooper, C.L., Sloan, S.J. and Williams, S., (1988), Occupational Stress Indicator Management Guide, NFER-Nelson, Oxford, England.

Cummings, R.C., (1990), Job stress and the buffering effect of supervisory support, Group and Organization Studies, March, pp. 92-104.

DeFrank, R.S. & Cooper, C.L., (1987), Worksite stress management interventions: their effectiveness and conceptualization, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2, pp. 4-10.

Dolan, C.A. & White, J.W., (1988), Issues of consistency and effectiveness in coping with daily stressors, Journal of Research in Personality, 22, pp. 395-407.

Fleishman, J.A., (1984), Personality characteristics and coping patterns, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 25, pp. 229-244.

Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R.S., (1980), An analysis of coping in a middle- aged community sample, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, pp. 219-239.

Frew, D.R. & Bruning, N.S., (1987), Perceived organisational characteristics and personality measures as predictors of stress/strain in the work place, Journal of Management, 13, pp. 633-646.

Friedman, M. & Rosenman, R.H., (1974), Type A Behavior and Your Heart, Times Books, New York.

Froggatt, K.L. & Cotton, J.L., (1987), The impact of Type A behavior pattern on role overload-induced stress and performance attributions, Journal of Management, 13, pp. 87-90.

Fusilier, M.R., Canster, D.C. & Mayes, B.T., (1987), Effects of social support, role stress, and locus of control on health, Journal of Management, 13, pp. 87-98.

Ganster, D.C. & Schraubroeck, J., (1991), Work stress and employee health, Journal of Management, 17, 2, pp. 235-271.

Ganster, D.C., Sime, W.E. & Mayes, B.T., (1989), Type A behavior in the work setting: a review and some new data, in A.W. Siegman & T.M. Dembroski (Eds.) In Search of Coronary-Prone Behavior: Beyond Type A, Erlbaum, Hilisdale, New Jersey.

Gemmill, G.R. & Heisler, W.J., (1972), Fatalism as a factor in managerial job satisfaction, job strain, and mobility, Personnel Psychology, Summer, pp. 241-250.

Greenhaus, J.H. & Parasuraman, S., (1987), A work-nonwork interactive perspective of stress and its consequences, in M. Ivancevich & D.C. Garister (Eds.) Job Stress: From Theory to Suggestion, The Howarth Press, New York.

Harris, M.M. & Schaubroeck, J., (1990), Confirmatory modeling in organizational behavior/human resource management issues and applications, Journal of Management, 16, pp. 337-360.

Haviovic, S.J. & Keenan, J.P., (1991), Coping with stress: the influence of individual differences, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, pp. 199-212.

Heck, R.H. & Marcoulides, G.A., (1989), Examining the generalizability of administrative personnel allocation decisions. The Urban Review, 21, 1, pp. 51-62.

Heck, R.H., Larsen, T.J. & Marcoulides, G.A., (1990), Instructional leadership and school achievement: validation of a causal model, Educational Administration Quarterly, 26, 2, pp. 94-125.

House, J.J., (1981), Work Stress and Social Support, Addison Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

Jackson, S.E., (1983), Participation in decision making as a strategy for reducing job-related strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, pp. 3-19.

Jackson, S.E. & Schuler, R., (1985), A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, pp. 16-78.

Jayaratne, S., Himle, D. & Chess, W.A., (1988), Dealing with work stress and strain: is the perception of support more important than its use? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24, pp. 191-202.

Joreskog, K.G. & Sorbom, D., (1993), LISREL VIII, User’s Reference Guide, Scientific Software, Chicago, I.llinois.

Kirkcaldy, B.D. & Hodapp, V., (1989), Individual differences and subjective stress and dissatisfaction at work, Studia Psychologica, 1, pp. 27-40.

Latack, J.C., (1986), Coping with job stress: measures and future directions for scale development, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, pp. 377-385.

Lazarus, R.S., (1991), Psychological stress in the workplace, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, pp. 1-13.

Marcoulides, G.A. & Heck, R.H., (1993), Organizational culture and performance: proposing and testing a model. Organization Science, 4, pp. 209-225.

Marino, K.E. & White, SE., (1985), Departmental structure, locus of control and job stress: the effect of a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, pp. 782-784.

Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.R. & McDonald, R.P., (1988), Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factory analysis: the effects of sample size, Psychological Bulletin, 103, 3, pp. 391-410.

Matteson, M.T. & Ivancevich, J.M., (1987), Individual stress management interventions: evaluation of techniques, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2, pp. 24-30.

Mayes, B.T., Johnson, T.W., Sadri, G. & Loukides, Z., (1992), Coping behavior as a function of personality, role stressors and job hassles, Academy of Management Annual Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Minter, S.G., (1991), Relieving workplace stress. Occupational Hazards, April, pp. 39-42.

Murphy, L.R., (1988), Workplace interventions for stress reduction and prevention, in C.L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.) Causes, Coping and Consequences of Stress at Work, John Wiley, London.

Neale, MS., Singer, J.A., Schwartz, G.E. & Schwartz, J.I., (1982), Conflicting perspectives on stress reduction in occupational settings: A systems approach to their resolution, Cincinnati: Report to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Parasurman, S. & Alutto, J.A., (1984), Sources and outcomes of stress in organizational settings: toward the development of a structural model, Academy of Management Journal, pp. 330-350.

Parkes, K.R., (1984), Locus of control, cognitive appraisal, and coping in stressful episodes, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, pp. 655-668.

Pearlin, L.I. & Schooler, C., (1978), The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, pp. 2-21.

Pierce, J.L. & Newstrom, J.W., (1983), The design of flexible work schedules and employee responses: relationships and processes. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 4, pp. 247-262.

Rees, D.W. & Cooper, C.L., (1992), The Occupational Stress Indicator locus of control scale: should this be regarded as a state rather than trait measure? Work and Stress, 6, 1, pp. 45-48.

Rizzo, J.R., House, R.J. & Lirtzman, S.I., (1970), Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, pp. 150-163.

Robbins, S.P., (1993), Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies and Applications, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

Robertson, I.T., Cooper, C.J. & Williams,J., (1990), The validity of the occupational stress indicator, Work and Stress, 4, 1, pp. 29-39.

Rotter, J.B., (1966), Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement, Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, pp. 1-28.

Schuler, R.S., (1980), Definition and conceptualization of stress in organisations, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, pp. 184-215.

Spector, P., (1987), Interactive effects of perceived control and job stressors on affective reactions and health outcomes for clerical workers, Work and Stress, 1, pp. 155-162.

Steffy, B.D. & Jones, J.W., (1988), Workplace stress and indicators of coronary-disease risk, Academy of Management Journal, 31, pp. 686-698.

Stevens, H.J., (1992), Stress in California, Risk Management, July, pp. 38-43.

Stogdill, R.M., (1974), Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Practice, Free Press, New York.

Storms, P.L. & Spector, P.E., (1987), Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral reactions: the moderating effect of locus of control, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, pp. 227-234.

Van Sell, M., Brief, A.P. & Schuler, R.S., (1981), Role conflict and role ambiguity: integration of the literature and directions for future research, Human Relations, 34, pp. 43-71.

Wall, T.D. & Clegg, C.W., (1981), A longitudinal study of group work redesign, Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, pp. 31-49.

Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D.F. & Summers, G.G., (1977), Assessing reliability and stability in panel models, in D.R. Heise (Ed.), Sociological Methodology (pp. 84-136), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California.

Williams, R., (1989), The Trusting Heart: Great News About Type A Behavior, Times Books, New York.

Zylanski, S.J. & Jenkins, C.D., (1970), Basic dimensions within the coronary-prone behavior pattern, Journal of Chronic Diseases, 22, pp. 781-795.

Appendix A

Observed Variables Included in Study

Type A Behaviour (14 items — 3 subscales)
Xl: Attitude to living eg ambition, desire for career progression
X2: Style of behaviour eg impatience when listening to another
X3: Ambition eg competitiveness

Locus of Control (12 items — 3 subscales)
X4: Control over organisational forces eg importance of upper management
X5: Control over management processes eg influence of hard work on performance appraisals
X6: Individual influence eg belief in luck, chance, fate

Coping Methods (28 items — 6 subscales)
X7: Social support eg seeking advice from superiors
X8: Task strategies eg reorganising work
X9: Logic eg attempting to approach problems objectively
X10: Home and work relationships eg activities outside of work
X11: Time management eg forcing oneself to slow down
X12: Involvement eg recognising one’s limitations

Stressors (61 items — 6 subscales)
Y1: Factors intrinsic to the job eg having too much to do
Y2: The managerial role eg lack of power and influence
Y3: Relationships with other people eg having to supervise others
Y4: Career and achievement eg overpromotion
Y5: Organisational structure and climate eg inadequate guidance from superiors
Y6: Home/work interface eg having to take work home

Job Satisfaction (22 items — 5 subscales)
Y7: Satisfaction with achievement, value and growth eg how much one’s efforts are valued
Y8: Satisfaction with the job itself eg job security
Y9: Satisfaction with organisational design and structure eg communication flow
Y10: Satisfaction with organisational processes eg style of supervision
Y11: Satisfaction with personal relationships eg peers

Current State of Health (30 items — 2 subscales)
Y12: Mental health eg changes in self-confidence at work
Y13: Physical health eg sleeplessness