Occupational Health, Stress, Turnover
Other research on outcomes of stress on work behavior
A meta-analysis by Darr and Johns (2008) found that there was a weak positive association between stress and absence. They found support for this association being mediated by physical and psychological symptoms such that stress was positively related to physical and psychological symptoms which were in turn related to absence. Armon, Shirom, Shapira, and Melamed (2008), for example, found in a prospective study that burnout predicted new cases of insomnia over an 18 month period.
Theory of Stress in Organizations
Along similar lines, the conceptualization of stress in organizations presented by Schuler (1980) posits that stress exists when a person is confronted with demand, constraint, or opportunity for being, having, or doing what he or she desires, which leads to psychological, physical, and behavioral symptoms as well as efforts to reduce stress and its deleterious effects.
Where are hazardous work conditions a big problem?
And hazardous working conditions are a particularly problematic issue in developing countries as evidenced by the 2013 Rana Plaza building collapse in Bangladesh killing 1,127 garment workers and injuring 2,500. Thus, there is still significant room for improvement on a worldwide basis.
Coping with Stressors
As noted above, theories of work stress that emphasize cognitive appraisal often posit that stress not only influences strains and illness but also triggers coping efforts directed at the sources of stress. Strategies for coping with work-related stress have been discussed (e.g., Dewe, O'Driscoll, & Cooper, 2010; Latack & Havlovic, 1992), and various frameworks have been presented that distinguish basic forms of coping, such as control, escape, and symptom management (Latack, 1986) and rational task-oriented behavior, emotional release, distraction, passive rationalization, social support (Dewe & Guest, 1990). Some discussions take a more focused approach by addressing how people cope with specific sources of work-related stress, such as job loss (Latack, Kinicki, & Prussia, 1995) and work-family conflict (Wiersma, 1994). Although coping with work stress has been addressed from a theoretical standpoint, relatively few studies of work stress have provided a detailed analysis of how people cope with stress.
Pittsburg Survey and Illinois Survey
Crystal Eastman (Eastman, 1910). Her research examined several industries and numerous individual cases of accident, injury and death, including detailed descriptions of the stances surrounding such incidents. It was the Pittsburg Survey that served as a model for the analysis of work conditions in relation to worker safety and health, and inspired thousands of related investigations over the next several decades. The Pittsburg Survey along with public awareness of poor work conditions, resulting from the accounts of Upton Sinclair (1906), led to one of the first workers compensation protection laws in the United States (i.e., the 1910 New York State law), but that act was shortly overturned in 1911. Alice Hamilton, known as the Illinois Survey, from 1910 to 1911. The Illinois Survey was the first comprehensive documentation of how workplace hazardous exposures led to occupational diseases (Hamilton, 1943). Hamilton's work provided the foundation for the fields of industrial hygiene, occupational medicine, and toxicology in the United States.
Cybernetic Theories of Work-Related Stress
Cummings and Cooper (1979) and Edwards (1992) frame stress as a discrepancy between perceptions and important desires which lead to psychological and physical symptoms and efforts to resolve perceived discrepancies.
Longitudinal Research is needed to make causal attributions
During the past 50 years, however, designs have been primarily quasi-experimental or correlational. That is, studies have measured constructs and described relationships among stressors, moderators, and strains either at single points or, in limited instances, in longitudinal designs. Few if any unsurmountable ethical issues preclude conducting randomized trials focused on interventions designed to help employees cope with work stressors (i.e., stress management strategies). Unfortunately, however, well-designed randomized trials that would allow one to make causal inferences about stress management strategies remain rare
Two goals of OHP
Elimination of risks to employees safety and health (Quick & Tetrick, 2003) Enhancing the development of and promoting growth and positive experiences (Kelloway, Hurrell, & Day, 2008).
Climate for Sexual Harassment and Stress
Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand, and Magley (1997) proposed that sexual harassment in organizations was a result of organizational characteristics that formed a climate for sexual harassment. This model was extended by Bergman and Henning (2008) in which gender and ethnicity were considered as moderators of the effects of climate for sexual harassment on sexual harassment and of the effects of sexual harassment on health. Support was found for the proposed moderating effects of gender on the relation between climate for sexual harassment and sexual harassment with the relation being stronger for women than men but ethnicity was not a moderator; additionally neither gender nor ethnicity moderated the relation between the experience of sexual harassment and health outcomes.
General Safety - Performance Scale
General four-factor model of worker safety performance and a measure (the General Safety- Performance Scale [GSS]) for use in evaluating worker safety training and job performance across jobs and occupational fields (Burke, Sarpy, Tesluk, & Smith-Crowe, 2002). The factors of the GSS are using personal protective equipment, engaging in work practices to reduce risk, communicating safety and health information, and exercising employee rights and responsibilities. In comparison to measures of the general concepts of safety compliance and safety participation that were originally introduced under the labels of "carefulness" and "initiatives" by Andriessen (1978), the GSS has been used somewhat less frequently in the field of applied psychology.
Health and Wellbeing
Health refers to optimal functioning (Hofmann & Tetrick, 2003; Tetrick, 2002; Tetrick, Quick, & Quick, 2005) Not limited to protecting workers from illness and accidents or restoring health but also deal with the promotion of health, well-being and flourishing (Hofmann & Tetrick, 2003; Macik-Frey, Quick, & Nelson, 2007; Schaufeli, 2004) Explicitly consider and promote healthy work places as contexts where people may use their talents and gifts to "achieve high performance, high satisfaction, and well-being" (Quick, 1999, p. 82) An individual approach has to be complemented by the collective one, paying attention to promote healthy organizations and to analyze cross-level interactions (Peiró, 2008) Time perspective needs to be considered in a more comprehensive manner combining short vs. long term goals and outcomes (Hofmann & Tetrick, 2003) and a proactive and anticipatory approach is needed to enhance prevention (Peiró, 2008) the dynamics of risk prevention and health promotion is required Explicit attention to work phenomena outside the work place (such as unemployment, work-family issues, cultural context, etc.) and finally, the broader societal context including legislation, policies, juridical issues, and the role of social agents deserve attention (Brotherton, 2003)
Teams and Safety
High-performance work systems are an organization-level construct describing a cluster of human resource management practices emphasizing, among other things, group cohesion, members' sense of belongingness, and information sharing. This bundle of practices has been shown to account for 33% of the variance in injury rates across organizations. In addition, a recent literature review of the teamwork-safety relationship led to similar conclusions suggesting that member-member and member-supervisor cooperation and communication, as well as team cohesion is consistently related to safety performance in high risk environments (Turner & Parker, 2003).
Occupational Health Psychology
Occupational Health Psychology (OHP) in the mid-1990s as a distinct field. OHP applies psychological theory and research for the purpose of improving the quality of work life for workers and to protecting and promoting the safety, health, and well being of workers Raymond, Wood, and Patrick (1990) are generally recognized as the first to apply the term "occupational health psychology" to the study of work environment factors contributing to employee health and well-being from this multidisciplinary perspective.
Institutes for advancing OHP
The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health was established in the United States in 1970, while in Europe, the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions was created in 1975 and the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work in 1996
What is Recovery?
The concept of need for recovery from the demands of work recognizes that work expends individuals' physiological and psychological resources and that these resources need to be replenished after work in order for individuals to be able to return to work the following day (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007; Sonnentag & Zijlstra, 2006). Failure to recover to prestressor levels prior to returning to work results in fatigue and a reduction in well-being.
Critical Incident Technique
The critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954). Although initially used within personnel selection to develop selection tests for individual difference characteristics considered important for success in different types of work, it also was extensively used in the development of selection and training programs for safety-critical work. It continues to be used for accident analysis investigations.
Research on Recovery
The recovery experiences of psychological detachment from work, relaxation, mastery experiences, and freedom from nonwork hassles (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2006; Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, 2008) have been shown to be related to enhanced sleep quality, positive activation rather than negative activation, serenity, reduced fatigue, and well-being. These effects have been observed for evening recovery experiences as well as vacation effects. Therefore, recovery experiences have been related to employees' well-being as a function of on-the-job effects and off-the-job activities
Ergonomics and Human Factors
The study of individuals and groups in relation to such equipment became known as engineering psychology or ergonomics (Singleton, 1967)—both viewed as subfields of human factors. Focusing on equipment design to achieve better fit with operator capabilities and limitations, this approach was used to increase human reliability and reduce system failure modes (Swain, 1964). Ergonomic research in Britain expanded its scope from accident prevention to operator health and occupational stress reduction (Singleton, 1967). In the late 1960s, systems theory was adopted in Europe and called man-machine systems and system ergonomics (Singleton, 1974). More recent and important contribution from an engineering or ergonomics perspective is the work of Melamed and on the development of a comprehensive measure to assess adverse work and environmental conditions. Known as the Ergonomic Stress Inventory, it has been shown to predict occupational injuries over a 2-year period across thousands of workers in 21 factories and six industries (Melamed, Yekutieli, Froom, Krital-Boneh, & Ribak, 1999). A notable and integrated behavioral approach to the study of safe work is the Safety Diagnosis Questionnaire, a standardized measure for assessing work context and work tasks (see Hoyos & Ruppert, 1995).
Differences between Stressors, Perceived Stress and Strains
The term "stress," in particular, has multiple meanings, referring to a condition or event in the situation, the person's reaction to the situation, or the relationship between the person and situation (Hobfoll, 1989; Jex, Beehr, & Roberts, 1992; McGrath, 1970). For this reason, stress research often differentiates: Stressors (conditions and events causing subsequent reactions) Perceived stress (perception and appraisal of the stressors) Strains (psychological, physiological, and behavioral outcomes).
Three major domains of OHP
The work environment The individual The interface between work and nonwork relative to employees' safety, health and well-being
Physical Health at Work
There is a literature that links exposure to elements in the work environment to the development of illnesses such as cancer, pulmonary diseases, and cardiovascular diseases for example (e.g., Belkic, Landsbergis, Schnall, & Baker, 2004).
Demands-Control Model and Stress (Employee-Employer Relationships)
Karasek, 1979 Stress has been often conceptualized from the perspective of (mis)fit between demands and control or demands and resources of the individual
Antecedents of Occupational Stress
Kelloway and Day (2005) wrote about building healthy workplace and summarized what constituted unhealthy ones. Six categories of stressors in the work environment that are related to ill-health of employees: (1) work overload and too great a work pace (2) Role stressors including role conflict, role ambiguity, and interrole conflict (3) Career concerns such as job insecurity, fear of job obsolescence, under- and over-promotion, and lack of career development (4) Timing of work to include rotating shifts and night shifts (5) Poor interpersonal relationships including lack of support from supervisor and peers, workplace aggression, bullying, and incivility (6) Jobs whose content is too narrow or individuals have too little control and autonomy
Research on Transformational Leadership and Safety Climate
Kelloway, Mullen, and Francis (2006) found that transformational leadership was positively related to safety climate and safety consciousness (i.e., safety knowledge and safety behavior) and passive leadership were negatively related to both safety climate and safety consciousness. But leadership and safety consciousness did not have a direct effect on safety performance where safety climate did have a direct effect on safety performance reducing the number of negative safety events and injuries
First examination of Stress in JAP
Laird (1933) experimentally examined the effects of loud noise (an organizational stressor) and noted that loud noise appeared to cause somatic complaints (a strain). Laird wrote that "with the more intense noises muscular stiffness was noted, especially in the neck and legs" (p. 328) and speculated that the stiffness was due to an accumulation of lactates, given that "[n]either of these groups of muscles was used during the work period . . ." (p. 328). Laird's examination of work stressors and strains associated with the industrial age was followed by others, but the number of publications was relatively small for another 30 or so years at which point (the mid to late 1960s) the rate of publications increased substantially.
Lazarus' Theory (et al., 1984, 1966)
Lazarus' theory reinforced the importance of subjective factors in the stress process and asserted that the effects of potential stressors on well-being were largely determined by how they were cognitively appraised by the individual. Lazarus distinguished two forms of cognitive appraisal: (a) primary appraisal, which determined whether a potential stressor was viewed as harmful, threatening, or challenging (b) secondary appraisal, which considered what individuals might do to manage the stressful transaction. Lazarus' work also placed particular emphasis on the ways in which individuals cope with stress (e.g., Lazarus, 1993; Lazarus, Averill, & Opton, 1974). Lazarus contrasted coping styles, which are individual differences that characterize how people cope, with coping processes, which focus on the particular approaches people use to manage stressful transactions between the person and situation. This work stimulated the development of measures designed to assess the variety of processes by which people cope with stress, of which the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988) became the most widely used.
Effects of Leader Visibility on Safety Performance
Luria, Zohar, and Erev (2008) investigated the effect of leader visibility on safety performance. The more visible the supervisor (leader) was the greater the interaction between the supervisor and the employees on safety-related behaviors and subsequently the greater safety performance. Department-level effects were found such that in departments where supervisors were more visible there were more safety-related exchanges between supervisors and employees and higher levels of safety performance.
Intervention Research in Occupational Stress
Most were individual based rather than organizational based Van der Klink, Blonk, Schene, and Van Dijk (2001) Semmer (2003, 2006) points out that attention should not only focus on the design of the interventions, but also on the process. Careful documentation of the process during the intervention is needed followed by subgroup analyses to better understand the situation and conditions of the different individuals within an intervention's targeted group. Richardson and Rothstein (2008) reported significant medium to large effects of interventions on psychological rather than on physiological or organizational outcomes. Again, cognitive-behavioural programs produced larger effects than relaxation or organizational interventions. However, when other interventions were included (e.g., multimodal) the cognitive-behavioural interventions effect was reduced.
Occupational Safety
Much of the safety literature has focused on physical safety and more specifically accidents and acute injuries rather than cumulative injuries and occupational illnesses arising from long-term exposure to toxins and pathogens OHP has advanced this approach to safety by extending the conceptualization of safety to include psychosocial factors in the work environment that facilitate safe behavior or discourage or create barriers to safe behavior.
Effect of Mutuality and Reciprocity in PSYCONES study
Mutuality refers to agreement on the promises and commitments shaping the content of the psychological contract Reciprocity is defined as agreement on the fulfillment of the mutual commitments. Mutuality and reciprocity both had a significant influence on the outcomes mentioned above, after controlling for country sector and a broad array of organizational, individual and work related variables. However, when three fairness measures (HRM practices, a direct measure of fairness perception and violation of the contract) were included in the analyses, mutuality and reciprocity often were not significant
Individual-Level Stressors
individual differences that have been identified as relevant to the experience of stress: resilience, tolerance for ambiguity, and perceptions of control (Parkes, 1994).
Meta Analysis on Safety Climate Safety Performance Link
meta-analysis of the relationship between safety climate and safety performance (Clarke, 2006) found that a positive safety climate was related to safety compliance defined as adherence to safety rules and regulations and also with safety participation defined as engaging in safety behaviors that went beyond simple adherence to safety procedures such as helping coworkers and promoting the safety program. The results of this meta-analysis found that a positive safety climate was more strongly related to safety participation behaviors than with the compliance behaviors. Clarke (2006) suggests that there may be additional moderators of the relations found between safety climate and safety performance. One moderator Clarke (2006) proposed was whether safety climate was assessed at the individual level (psychological climate) or at the group/unit or organization-level. She posited that specific leadership practices and priorities, group processes, and strength of the safety climate may moderate the relation between safety climate and safety performance; however, there were insufficient numbers of studies to examine these potential moderators. More research in these areas may enhance our understanding of the mechanism by which safety climate affects accidents.
Other research on accident-proneness
"intellectual capabilities and aptitudes, perceptual-motor abilities, physical capabilities such as strength and endurance, current health status, susceptibilities to disease,..." which contribute to accident involvement (Smith, Karsh, Carayon, & Conway, 2003, p. 39). This differential accident liability approach posits that the few people who are involved in accidents are actually a shifting population; therefore, selection decisions made on the notion of accident proneness become less useful over time. Meta-Analytic Results: the number of individuals involved in repeated accidents is higher than what would be expected by chance compared to the distribution of the number of individuals in the population involved in accidents. This meta included a lot of non-work samples (Visser, Pijl, Stolk, Neeleman, & Rosmalen, 2007)
The Differences Between Personal Safety and Process Safety
"personal" safety versus operational or process safety. Traditional safety research, like that published over the years in this journal and reviewed here, has focused primarily on personal safety (unsafe behavior, injuries, accidents and so forth). Over the last 20 years, however, there has been an increasing recognition and discussion concerning process or operational safety— particularly in comparison to personal safety. The Baker Commission's (U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, 2007) investigation of British Petroleum's Texas City accident clearly emphasized the distinction between process and personal safety and concluded that indicators of personal safety do not necessarily provide evidence of process safety. The Baker Commission report continued that Process Safety Management applies "management principles and analytical tools to prevent major accidents rather than focusing on worker occupational health and safety issues, such as fall protection and personal protective equipment" (p. 19; see also CCPS, 1992). Process safety hazards arise from the processing activities and involve the escape of toxic substances, fires, explosions, or the like. Personal safety hazards, on the other hand, impact individuals and might involve falls, trips, pinching of hands and fingers, electrocutions, vehicle accidents, and similar individual accidents and injuries (Hopkins, 2007).
Consequences of Occupational Stress Review Article
(Beehr & Newman, 1978). This literature review based on theory and empirical work concluded that occupational stress resulted in the following consequences on individuals' health: anxiety, tension, depression, dissatisfaction, boredom, somatic complaints, psychological fatigue, feelings of futility, inadequacy, low self-esteem, cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal disorders, dispensary visits, and drug use and abuse (including alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine). Beehr and Newman's (1978) framework and review also suggested that occupational stress resulted in feelings of alienation, psychoses, anger, repression, suppression of feelings and ideas, loss of concentration, respiratory problems, cancer, arthritis, headaches, bodily injuries, skin disorders, physical/physiological fatigue or strain, death, over- or under-eating, nervous gesturing, pacing, risky behavior (e.g., reckless driving, gambling, aggression, vandalism, stealing, poor interpersonal relations (with friends, family, coworkers), and suicide or attempted suicide although at the time there had not been empirical evidence to support these consequences. Work-related consequences at the time were changes in quantity of work, decreases in the quality of job performance and increases or decreases in withdrawal behaviors (absenteeism, turnover, and early retirement). Other organizational consequences that they suggested based on their theoretical analysis, although lacking empirical evidence at the time, were changes in profits, sales, earnings, changes in ability to recruit and retain quality employees, changes in ability to obtain raw materials, increase or decrease in control over environment, changes in innovation and creativity, changes in quality of work life, increase or decrease in employee strikes, changes in level of influence of supervisors, and grievances
Person-Environment (P-E) Fit Theory of Job Stress
(French, Caplan, & Van Harrison, 1982) Distinguishes objective person and environment factors from their subjective counterparts and emphasizes the fit between the subjective person and environment as the key determinant of psychological, physiological, and behavioral strains along with coping and defense mechanisms.
Theory of Role Stress
(Kahn & Quinn, 1970; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964) Examines how characteristics of organizational roles (e.g., conflict, ambiguity, overload) are perceived and experienced as stressors by role incumbents, leading to affective and physiological symptoms as well as coping responses. The first article in our JAP sample that used the word "role" with respect to role stress theory was House and Rizzo (1972). This study used measures of role conflict and role ambiguity as criteria when evaluating a measure of organizational climate. As such, this study deviates from the typical design, in which role stress is cast as a predictor of outcomes such as well-being. The distinction of being the first role stress study to include stressors and strains belongs to Hamner and Tosi (1974), who examined the link between role stress and indices of well-being among 61 high-level managers
Lewin's Proposition that Leaders Create the Climate
(Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939). The connection between leaders and climate has been explained using both group- and organizational-level mechanisms. First, at the group level, there often is a social learning process that occurs whereby group members repeatedly observe the kinds of behavior likely to be recognized or rewarded by their supervisor (Dragoni, 2005). Second, there is a gate-keeping and sense-making process in which leaders communicate and interpret organizational priorities to group members. This communicative and interpretative process has been called informing behavior (Gonzalez-Roma, Peiro, & Tordera, 2002), or mediation behavior (Kozlowski & Doherty, 1989), and the fact that it is being offered by the local leader promotes socially shared climate perceptions among group members (i.e., group-level climate).
Multilevel Safety Climate
A multilevel climate model was tested in a study involving 36 companies and 401 work groups (Zohar & Luria, 2005). Consistent with the model, the measurement of safety climate referenced both organizational and group-level subscales. The results demonstrated global alignment between organizational and subunit safety climate and that the relationship between organizational-level climate and individual safety outcomes was fully mediated by subunit climate. More interestingly, however, the results also revealed considerable group-level variance within the different organizations resulting from local managerial discretion. The amount of variability observed was predicted by variables that put a limit on subunit leader discretion such as the strength of organizational level climate and the degree of formalization within the organization. As these organizational variables increased, thereby limiting managerial discretion, the variance in between-groups climate variance decreased as did within group variability.
General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS)
A subsequent landmark is the work of Selye (1936), who described reactions to stress in terms of the general adaptation syndrome (GAS), which referred to the nonspecific response of the body to any demand. According to Selye, the GAS comprised three stages that included alarm, resistance, and exhaustion—the first two of which involved attempts to adapt to the demand, and the third indicating depletion of adaptive energy. Like Cannon, Selye focused on physiological responses to stress, such as changes in adrenaline, cortisol, and other hormones
More Involved Training Leads to Better Outcomes
As the training method required more active participation on behalf of the trainee, workers demonstrated greater knowledge acquisition, and experienced fewer accidents, illnesses, and injuries (Burke et al., 2006; although see Robson et al., 2010). More recently, a meta-analysis of 113 safety training studies published between 1971 and 2008 found support for an expected interaction between the level of worker involvement in safety training and hazardous event/exposure severity in the acquisition of safety knowledge and promotion of safe work behavior (Burke et al., 2011). Burke et al. (2011) found that high trainee involvement (e.g., through hands on or simulation training) was more effective than less trainee involvement (e.g., in lecture- or computer-based instruction) when hazardous event/exposure severity was high, whereas higher and lesser modes of trainee involvement had comparable levels of effectiveness when hazardous event/exposure severity was low.
Research on Organizational Climate for Sexual Harassment and Health Outcomes
Bergman and Henning (2008) also suggested that the climate for sexual harassment may be extended to climates for bullying and workplace violence and, in fact, Kessler, Spector, Chang, and Parr (2008) have provided support for the concept of an organizational climate for violence
Bhagat (1983) Model of Stressful Life Events
Bhagat (1983) proposed a model of the effects of stressful life events on individual performance, satisfaction, and adjustment in organizational settings and developed a checklist that distinguished potentially stressful events associated with job and personal domains (Bhagat, McQuaid, Lindholm, & Segovis, 1985).
Theories of Stress in Work COntexts
Bhagat's Theory (1983) Frameworks Focusing on Life Stressors as Ongoing rather than Acute Models that consider characteristics of the job and stress Theory of Role Stress Cybernetic Theories of Work-Related Stress Theories that Emphasize Cognitive Appraisal
Measurement of Safety
Burke et al. (2002), for example, developed a four-factor model of safety outcomes which has been widely used in public health and other applied fields to evaluate interventions. Another widely used outcome distinction is between safety compliance and safety participation, labels proposed by Griffin and Neal (2000). They defined safety compliance as behaviors associated with safe work practices (e.g., using safe procedures for handling hazardous materials), whereas safety participation focused on behaviors supporting the overall safety of the organization (e.g., volunteering for safety-related tasks).
Dialogic Learning Perspective of Safety Training
Burke, Scheuer, and Meredith (2007) and Burke, Holman, and Birdi (2006) argued that typical behavioral modeling and practice fall short. They suggest that applying a dialogic learning perspective to the development of safety skills and behaviors enhances safety training. The dialogic learning perspective includes structured interpersonal dialogue and intra-personal dialogue (i.e., reflection) and leads to greater understanding. This dialogue thus can increase the effectiveness of safety training. Empirical tests of Burke and colleagues' propositions relative to the usefulness of dialogic learning theory are needed to more clearly demonstrate the mechanism(s) by which dialogue may increase training effectiveness as well as the effect size of dialogue on training effectiveness relative to other components of safety training.
Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory
Hobfoll (1989) This theory posits that stress occurs when resources the individual considers valuable are threatened, lost, or foregone. Resources in COR theory refer to objects, conditions, and personal characteristics that are valued in their own right or because they can help the individual achieve or protect other valued resources. Has two principles involving the protection of resources: Primacy of Resource Loss: This principles states that it is more harmful for individuals to lose resources compared to when there is a gain of resources Resource Investment: This principle of COR states that people will tend to invest resources in order to protect against resource loss, to recover from losses, and to gain resources.Within the context of coping, people will invest resources to prevent future resource losses. From theses there have been four corollaries that can be applied to resource changes 1. Individuals with higher resources will be set up for gains in resources. Similarly, individuals with fewer resources are more likely to experience resource losses. 2. Initial resource loss will lead to resource loss in the future. 3. Initial resource gains will lead to resource gains in the future. 4. A lack of resources will invariable lead to defensive attempts to conserve the remaining resources. COR theory was initially framed as an alternative to appraisal-based theories, such as Lazarus' transactional theory, by placing greater emphasis on the objective environment as a determinant of stress.
Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS)
Holmes & Rahe, 1967 A checklist that comprised 43 stressful life events. Scores on the SRRS were weighted by the amount of readjustment each event was deemed to require and summed to derive an overall measure of life stress. The SRRS has been used in numerous studies (Dohrenwend, 2006), although its relationships with mental and physical symptoms were generally modest, with correlations rarely exceeding .30.
Meta Analysis of Work Characteristics influencing Well-Being
Humphrey, Nahrgang and Morgeson's (2007) meta-analysis did find that work context (physical demands, working conditions and ergonomics) was negatively related to well-being and role perceptions. This relation was primarily due to working conditions and physical demands. Further, work context did predict stress and burnout beyond that accounted for by motivational characteristics and social characteristics.
Occupational Disease
Illness resulting from conditions associated with employment, such as prolonged and repeated overexposure to certain products or ingredients.
Individual Level Stressors and Person-Environment Fit
In addition to specific individual differences, there is a large literature on person-environment fit which recognizes the interaction between individual characteristics such as values, attitudes, preferences, abilities and characteristics of the work environment (Edwards & Rothbard, 2005). A lack of fit according to the person-environment fit model or a mismatch between chronic regulatory focus and state regulatory focus (Higgins et al., 2003) as mentioned above can result in stress.
Personality Predicts Safety Behavior
In particular, Beus, Dhanani, and McCord (2015) found that among broad personality traits, agreeableness and conscientiousness had the strongest relationships with safety-related behavior. At the facet-specific level, Beus et al. found that sensation seeking, impulsiveness, altruism, and anger were meaningfully associated with safety-related behavior, with only sensation seeking having a stronger relationship than its parent trait (extraversion).
Burnout and Burnout Contagion and Stress
Individuals may work in organizations or work units where burnout experiences are generalized among their members thus becoming a collective phenomenon. This contextual factor posits individuals working in it to be at higher risk of burnout, essentially through a social comparison process (Buunk, Zurriaga, & Peıró, 2009; Carmona, Buunk, Peiró, Rodriguez, & Bravo, 2006). Bakker and Schaufeli (2000) found that perceived burnout complaints of coworkers was the most important predictor of both individual and unit-level burnout, supporting their hypothesis that burnout is contagious Emotional contagion from one colleague to another can account for individual levels of burnout as well as group levels of burnout (Bakker, Le Blanc, & Schaufeli, 2005; Bakker, Schaufeli, Sixma, & Bosveld, 2001)
Moderators Between Job Stress and Outcomes
Job stress have examined moderator variables that can influence relationships between stressors, perceived stress, and outcomes. These variables include individual differences such as personality (Parkes, 1994), locus of control (Marino & White, 1985), self-esteem (Ganster & Schaubroeck, 1991), and Type A behavior pattern (e.g., Edwards, Baglioni, & Cooper, 1990, and the JAP monograph Ganster, Schaubroeck, Sime, & Mayes, 1991) as well as contextual variables, particularly social support (House, 1981; Viswesvaran, Sanchez, & Fisher, 1999).
Occupational Stress
Occupational stress has been one of the core mechanisms, if not "the" core mechanism, by which the work environment has been understood to negatively affect workers' health and well-being. Certainly, many of the early contributors to OHP were researchers who demonstrated a link between work, stress, and health (e.g., Robert Karasek, Lennart Levi). Despite the fact that Selye (1976) described stress as being both positive and negative (e.g., eustress and distress, respectively), the occupational stress literature has more frequently examined employee ill-health as indicated by anxiety, depression, and psychosomatic complaints than considering positive health (e.g., optimal functioning and flourishing).
Integrating Personal and Process Safety
One effort that starts to move toward this integration is Vogus, Sutcliffe, and Weick's (2010) recent paper focused on safety culture in health care. The authors propose three specific activities— enabling, enacting, and elaborating—that help create a positive safety culture. Within each of these phases, there is work both from a process safety and more personal-safety focused perspective that help inform the way in which these three activities could be enacted. Having a well-developed picture of managing the full spectrum of safety—both personal and process safety—could help facilitate the extension of findings from this body of work to other industries.
Hawthorne Studies and OHP
One might argue that the health and well-being of workers has been of concern to industrial and organizational psychologists since the studies carried out at the Western Electric Company at Hawthorne (Mayo, 1933; Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939) or Taylor's (1911) work; however, these early works were primarily focused on productivity, performance, and efficiency and were not explicitly concerned with workers' health and well-being. Perhaps as a result of the findings of the Hawthorne studies, researchers and theorists in both the United States and Europe began to expand the focus on employee behavior from a relatively myopic, short-term perspective on performance to take a more holistic perspective of human potential both in the short run as well as a longer term perspective.
Organizational Wellness Programs
Organizational wellness programs are included as an individual-level factor that seeks to improve employees' health because they typically are based on individual participation and focus on the individual. It could be argued, however, that they are actually an organizational-level phenomenon in that they are typically offered to all employees and reflect organizational policies and practices. Organizational wellness programs are not monolithic, but typically they focus on fitness, nutrition and weight management, smoking cessation, health education, and stress management. These programs are believed to increase productivity, enhance morale, and reduce absenteeism (Parks & Steelman, 2008; Shurtz, 2005). Parks and Steelman (2008) as mentioned above found that that participating in organizational wellness programs was related to decreased absenteeism and increased job satisfaction.
Research on Safety Climate and Safety
Probst, Brubaker, and Barsotti (2008) examined organizational-level safety climate's effect on organizational injury rate underreporting. They found that organizations with poorer safety climates had substantially higher rates of under-reporting of occupational injuries. Therefore, safety climate appears to affect organizations' 'behavior' as well as individual employees' behavior and may reflect an organizational culture in which safety of employees may or may not be valued. Studies indicate that a positive safety climate enhances the effect of interventions designed to promote safe work behavior and reduce accidents and injuries at multiple levels (Smith-Crowe, Burke, & Landis, 2003).
Regulatory Focus Theory
Regulatory Focus Theory, posits that individuals can take a prevention or promotion perspective relative to a given goal (see Tetrick & Ford, 2008, for a review). A prevention focus is characterized as seeking to avoid pain and loss with individuals taking a vigilance orientation. A promotion focus, on the other hand, is characterized as seeking gains and approaching a task eagerly. Higgins (1997) proposed regulatory focus as a malleable characteristic reflecting a state in which individuals strategies are prevention or promotion focused. In fact, he suggested that the two foci are independent such that one could be pursuing a promotion focus and a prevention focus simultaneously. Subsequently, Higgins (2002, 2006) proposed that in addition to the state regulatory focus, individuals have a chronic regulatory focus where they tend to approach goals or adopt strategies for achieving goals with a prevention focus or promotion focus.
Individual Differences Affect the Outcome of Stressors
Research showed that the relationship between life events and outcomes depended on event timing and magnitude as well as the undesirability and perceived control over the events (Mullen & Suls, 1982; Thoits, 1983; Vinokur & Selzer, 1975). As such, this research began to underscore the essential role of individual differences in the stress process, a theme that permeated subsequent theoretical work.
Safety Climate and Safety Voice
Tucker, Chmiel, Turner, Hershcovis, and Stride (2008) examined one component of safety participation as defined by Clarke (2006)—that of employee safety voice which was defined as speaking out against unsafe working conditions. They found that coworker support for safety was an important social influence on speaking out about safety issues with coworker support for safety mediating the relation between perceived organizational support for safety and voice.
Models that consider characteristics of the job and stress
Reviews of job stress research by Cooper and Marshall (1976) and Beehr and Newman (1978) were seminal publications presenting frameworks that identified various job characteristics considered sources of stress. These frameworks also include individual differences that can modify the effects of job stressors, many of which overlap with those examined in psychological stress research. Karasek (1979; Karasek & Theorell, 1990) developed a model that focused on two key job characteristics, job demands and job decision latitude, predicting that mental strain is the product of high demands coupled with low decision latitude. Along similar lines, Frankenhaeuser and colleagues (Frankenhaeuser & Gardell, 1976; Frankenhaeuser & Johansson, 1986) established a program of research that examined stress in terms of job demands relative to worker control in industrial settings, with particular emphasis on psychobiological outcomes. Analogously, the challenge-hindrance approach to job stress (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000; LePine, LePine, & Jackson, 2004) classifies work-related demands and circumstances as challenges or hindrances based on whether they bring about gains or losses for the employee.
Safety Training
Safety training is considered by many managers to be an important, if not the most important, activity for improving workplace safety (Huang, Leamon, Courtney, Chen, & DeArmond, 2007). Safety training programs, to date, have relied heavily on reinforcement theory, social learning and action regulation theory, and stage theories of learning.
Group and Organizational Level Factors Affecting Employee Stress
Several potential organizational-level or group-level stressors and these stressors tend to affect all employees or groups of employees at least under the assumption that the policies apply equally to all employees Poor organizational financial health may signal job insecurity to employees; poor job design can result in overload, time pressure and under-utilization, and the literature has shown that job insecurity, overload, time pressure, and under-utilization can contribute to individual employees' stress levels (Barling, Kelloway, & Frone, 2004; Quick & Tetrick, 2003, in press). Shiftwork, especially rotating shiftwork, has been long recognized to be a source of stress and ill-health (Smith, Folkard, & Fuller, 2003). Admittedly, policies and practices espoused at the organizational and group levels do not necessarily indicate the enacted policies and practices that individual workers may experience (Schein, 1992) and thus individual-level effects should not be automatically ignored. Recently, occupational stress researchers have specifically posited group-level phenomena; Three of these concepts are the employee-employment relationship in the form of psychological contracts, climate for sexual harassment and burnout contagion.
Research findings on organizational wellness programs
Shurtz (2005) suggested that the return on investment of organizational wellness programs based on health care expenditures ranged from $1.49 to $4.91 Parks and Steelman's (2008) meta-analysis found that participation in an organizational wellness program was positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to absenteeism Some of the challenges in determining the effectiveness of organizational wellness programs are getting employees to participate in the programs, especially the employees who are most in need of the programs being offered, as well as the complexities of conducting evaluation research in organizations (Parks & Steelman, 2008). More evidence of the impact of organizational wellness programs based on strong intervention evaluation designs is needed.
Industrial Psychology Approach to Safety
Sought to identify accident-prone individuals and then to prevent accidents and injuries by not selecting accident-prone individuals (using personality and other stable traits) for jobs where there are identifiable hazards. Hansen (1988) concluded that there was evidence of certain personality and individual characteristics that were associated with accident involvement. These included external locus of control, extroversion, aggression, social maladjustment, general neurosis, anxiety, depression, and impulsivity. Based on the evidence that discredited accident proneness theory, Hansen (1988) did conclude that a differential accident liability approach might be useful, recognizing that there are individual differences that may be related to accidents, but that these individual differences are not necessarily stable over time.
Research on Safety Climate
Subsequent research on safety climate has converged to demonstrate that safety climate does predict safety behavior and accident experience (Johnson, 2007) and management's attitudes towards safety is the key driver of safety climate although safety training also has been demonstrated to be one of the major aspects of safety climate (Evans, Glendon, & Creed, 2007; Huang, Ho, Smith, & Chen, 2005; Lu & Tsai, 2008; Wu, Liu, & Lu, 2007).
Statistical Techniques that Advance Our Understanding of Stress in JAP
Techniques such as mixed-effects models (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992) used in educational settings to study students in classrooms, were easily generalized to research on stress and well-being in occupational settings to model shared group properties. Similarly, variants of mixed-effects models that apply to individual processes over time and allow for longitudinal analyses have also been valuable in examining stress processes (Zapf, Dormann, & Frese, 1996). Other noteworthy statistical developments include the use of polynomial regression in research on the person-environment fit approach to stress (e.g., Edwards & Harrison, 1993) and advances in tests of mediation to examine basic processes underlying models of stress (Edwards & Lambert, 2007; MacKinnon, 2008).
Research on Violation Experiences and Wellbeing
There is evidence showing that violation experiences are followed by employees' negative emotional reactions such as disappointment, frustration, and distress or strain, together with feelings of anger, resentment, bitterness, indignation, and outrage. These feelings may deteriorate well-being and health (Gakovic & Tetrick, 2003). All seven dimensions of the psychological contract considered (content, fulfilment, violation, trust and fairness relative to employers' obligations perceived by the employees plus content and fulfilment concerning employees' obligations to their employers as perceived by themselves) had a significant association with one or more of a broad array of outcomes considered (occupational self-efficacy, positive work-life influence, anxiety, depression, irritation, sick leave, sick presence, accidents, harassment and violence, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intention to quit, perceived performance, general health and life satisfaction). Interestingly enough, violation of the psychological contract was the feature that showed the strongest association with most of the outcomes (Guest & Clinton, 2010; PSYCONES)
Research on Safety Training
There is evidence that safety training can improve workplace safety (e.g., Burke, Sarpy, et al. 2006; Colligan & Cohen, 2004) in a variety of settings and occupational groups such as: Restaurant wait staff (Scherrer & Wilder, 2008) Agricultural workers (Anger et al., 2006) Older workers (Wallen & Mulloy, 2006) Burke, Sarpy, et al (2006) concluded based on their meta-analysis that safety training programs that engaged participants more were more effective. Also proven via an older study. In a series of experiments, Rubinsky and Smith (1973) found that training via an accident simulation for bench grinder work, in comparison to training by the use of written instructions and demonstrations, resulted in significantly fewer unsafe acts.
Which Cultures Promote Better Safety?
There is virtually no research specifically linking broader organizational cultural dimensions to more specific safety culture dimensions and safety outcomes. Although general attributes of the work group (e.g., leader-member exchange) and the organization (Perceived Organizational Support) have between linked to safety outcomes (Hofmann & Morgeson, 1999; Hofmann et al., 2003), there has not to our knowledge been research linking validated measures of organizational culture with safety outcomes. That notwithstanding, however, it could be argued that the deep-level elements of a clan culture (i.e., a culture characterized by collaboration, trust, and open communication) may promote higher safety climate and safety performance than a market culture (i.e., characterized by competition and meritocracy). Similar arguments could be made with regard to having superior safety climate and performance under a hierarchy culture, stemming largely from safety compliance. These and other similar questions have yet to be answered, and we encourage others to take up the task.
Research at the Individual Level for Improving Safety
These interventions rely directly on major motivation theories such as reinforcement, feedback, and goal theory. However, for the most part, they have not engaged self-regulatory theories and instead have drawn heavily on leadership as a mechanism for directing these behaviors (Ford & Tetrick, 2011)
Social Exchange Theory and Stress (Employee-Employer Relationships)
This approach is especially relevant when we aim to analyze employer-employee relationships, organizational support and human resources practices as potential significant source of stress. All these phenomena may have negative health effects when an imbalance in the exchange between employer and employee occurs (Siegrist 1996). Useful because of the role of justice, fairness and reciprocity
Engineering approach to Safety
This approach seeks to first remove hazards; if this is not possible, then to block access to hazards; if this is not possible, then change the physical work environment, especially the tools and/or equipment used; if this still does not block injuries, then warn employees of hazards; and as a course of last resort, train employees on how to avoid hazards.
Research on rising of musculoskeletal injuries
This has been accompanied by increasingly sedentary jobs, especially in the information age. The combination of longer periods of work with little physical activity is expected to result in negative health consequences. Jobs may need to be redesigned to actually increase physical activity (Straker & Mathiassen, 2009) contrary to prior attempts to design physical risks out of jobs by reducing physical work load. Increasing physical activity as long as it doesn't increase the risk of accidents and injuries may enhance well-being. Alternatively, physical activity may need to be enhanced through nonjob related activities such as engagement in health promotion programs.
Three Highly Cited Studies on Social Support
Three highly cited studies of social support were Ganster, Fusilier, and Mayes (1986), Russell, Altmaier, and Van Velzen (1987), and Etzion (1984). Ganster et al. (1986) is noteworthy because the main finding was the absence of a moderating effect for social support. This null finding reflects a tendency for moderating effects to be more elusive than main effects in social support research (and stress research in general). Both Russell et al. (1987) and Etzion (1984) focused on social support as a predictor and moderator of burnout.
Research on Regulatory Focus Theory and Safety
Wallace and Chen (2006) found safety climate was positively related to a prevention regulatory focus and negatively related to a promotion regulatory focus and a prevention regulatory focus was positively related to safety performance. These results suggest that it is possible to activate a prevention regulatory focus to enhance safe behaviors. The literature on regulatory focus suggests that a match between an individual's chronic regulatory focus and the situationally-invoked regulatory focus may result in an enhanced effect of either chronic or state regulatory focus alone (Higgins, Idson, Freitas, Spiegel, & Molden, 2003). Thus, a match on prevention focus would be expected to enhance the effectiveness of safety training and a mismatch might lessen the effectiveness of safety training. To date this aspect of regulatory focus theory has not been empirically examined with respect to safety training.
Stress Research Could Benefit from Physical and Physiological Data Collection
We believe that streams of data from sensors are likely to capture even broader ranges of stressors (e.g., physical exertion, noise, ambient temperature) and strains (e.g., sleep quantity and quality, body temperature, endocrine markers) that will further allow the field to refine knowledge of the stress process (e.g., Dettenborn, Tietze, Bruckner, & Kirschbaum, 2010). At the same time, as sensor-related data progresses, the field is almost certain to require significant theoretical advances to integrate the information into testable, relevant hypotheses.
Safety Climate and Culture
When considering the more general integration of culture and climate, one such model suggested by Zohar and Hofmann (2012) proposes that organizational climate acts as a social- cognitive mechanism for resolving or coping with such complexity. If safety behavior is expected to result in fewer or smaller rewards than on-time delivery or cost-cutting behaviors, a poor safety climate will emerge. Over time the perception that schedule or cost consistently takes priority over safety helps to inform employees that the company's core values prioritize profitability over the formally espoused value of employee safety. According to this model, the various facet-specific climates enacted on the frontlines of organizations constitute a key mechanism allowing employees to interpret deep and surface-level layers of culture. This model proposes that observing the interaction and prioritization of multiple surface-level features over time can help employees gain a gestalt perception regarding what is truly valued, expected, supported, and rewarded (enacted values).
Behavior Based Safety
Work using positive feedback would eventually become recognized as Behavior-Based Safety, with applications of reinforcement theories found to be primarily effective in modifying more routine, task behaviors across different types of safety-related work at the individual and workgroup levels (see Geller, 2001; Sulzer-Azaroff & Austin, 2000).
Looking at Stress over the Work-Life Cycle
Work-life cycle data will allow researchers to test and refine process-related theories about stress, coping, and well-being over extended periods of time (see also, Cummings & Cooper, 1979; Edwards, 1992) and potentially link these processes to medically recognized diseases. That is, despite the expansion of strain-related variables over the last 100 years, few studies link work stressors to hard medical outcomes over time.
Shift Work and Safety Research
Working night shifts have been associated with increased occupational injuries and to some extent occupational illness (Smith, Folkard, Tucker, & Evans, 2011). Shift work may be especially difficult for older workers and although older workers do not experience as many accidents and injuries on the job, when they are injured it takes longer for them to recover. Folkard (2008) expresses a concern about our lack of knowledge of the impact of shift work on older individuals, especially given the aging population and the trend toward people continuing to work longer. This is a significant gap in the literature
Safety Climate
Zohar (1980) pioneered research on safety climate by arguing that employees develop a shared sense of the relative importance of safety in the work environment. Key terms in this definition emphasize that it is a shared, agreed upon cognition regarding the relative importance or priority of acting safely versus meeting other competing demands such productivity or cost cutting. These safety climate perceptions emerge through ongoing social interaction in which employees share personal experiences informing the extent to which management cares and invests in their protection (as opposed to cost cutting or productivity). Zohar (1980) concluded that the most important dimension of safety climate was management's attitudes towards safety. Over time, these microdecisions and other actions or nonactions by management with respect to safety will lead employees to develop gestalt perceptions regarding the relative priority of safety (Zohar & Hofmann, 2012).
Transformational Leadership and Coworker Effects on Safety Climate
Zohar and Tenne-Gazit (2008) found that transformational leadership was positively related to safety climate strength, the extent of agreement among employees within the unit. However, based on social network analysis, they found that the density of the group communication network mediated the relation between transformation leadership and the strength of the safety climate. This supports the importance not only of leadership per se but also the role of coworkers in safety.
