The Macroeconomic Context of Job Stress

Author(s): Rudy Fenwick and Mark Tausig

Source: Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 35, No. 3 (Sep., 1994), pp. 266-282
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2137280
Accessed: 01-04-2019 10:45 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to Journal of Health and Social Behavior

This content downloaded from 113.210.65.127 on Mon, 01 Apr 2019 10:45:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Macroeconomic Context of Job Stress*

RUDY FENWICK
MARK TAUSIG
University of Akron

Journal of Health and Social Behavior 1994, Vol. 35 (September):266-282

Using data from the 1973-1977 Quality of Employment Panel Study, we test a
model that conceptually links research on macroeconomic causes of stress with
research on job structure causes of stress among employed workers. Results from
LISREL 7 (Joreskog and Sdrbom 1989) indicate that, while both macroeconomic
and job structure variables have significant cross-sectional and longitudinal effects
on stress, the macroeconomic effects are almost entirely indirect in their effect on
job structures. In particular, higher occupational unemployment rates increased
stress and lowered life satisfaction indirectly through reduced decision latitude and
increased job demands. Overall, results suggest that macroeconomic changes,
such as recessions, can affect individual stress because they lead to changes in
routine job structures that represent increased and continued exposure to stressful
conditions.

In this study we describe and test a model
that relates structural features of the macro-
economy to the everyday job experiences of
workers and to their individual feelings of
stress and related feelings of life satisfaction.
In doing so we follow Pearlin's (1989)
argument that the sociological study of the
stress process entails an examination of ". . .
the presence of similar types and levels of
stress among people who are exposed to
similar social and economic conditions
(Pearlin 1989:242).
Presently, in separate research traditions,
both macroeconomic structures and job struc-
tures have been shown to have direct effects
on stress. An "economic stress" literature
emphasizes the direct relationship between
aggregate features of the economy and
aggregate indicators of mortality and morbid-
ity. In contrast, a "work stress" literature
documents a relationship between characteris-
tics of jobs (which are viewed as stressors)
and the health of individual workers. This
paper seeks to synthesize and go beyond these
literatures by assessing the manner in which
macroeconomic structure and change affect
individual levels of stress via effects on
working conditions that are themselves re-
lated to stress. We argue that macroeconomic
structure and change play an important role in
creating the concrete work environments
which routinely affect worker exposure to
stressful work conditions.

*The data utilized in this paper were made

available by the Inter-University Consortium for
Political and Social Research. The data for the
Quality of Employment Panel Study, 1973-1977,
were originally collected by Robert P. Quinn and
Graham Staines for the Employee Standards
Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor.
The authors wish to thank Ralph Catalano, David
Dooley, Ronald Kessler, Arnold Linsky, McKee
McClendon, James Wells, and the anonymous
reviewers for their comments and suggestions on
an earlier version of this paper. Address correspon-
dence to Rudy Fenwick, Department of Sociology,
University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-1905.
Economic Stress Research
Research by Brenner (1976, 1984, 1987)
Marshall and Funch (1979) and especially
Catalano, Dooley, and their associates (Cata-
lano and Dooley 1977, 1979; Catalano,
Dooley, and Jackson 1985; Dooley and
Catalano, 1984; Catalano, Rook, and Dooley
1986) has described a relationship between
features of the macroeconomy (generally,
unemployment rates) and indicators of stress-

266

This content downloaded from 113.210.65.127 on Mon, 01 Apr 2019 10:45:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOB STRESS
related poor health (psychiatric hospital
admissions, cardiovascular illness, mortality).
The argument is derived from a human
ecology approach in which changes in
unemployment rates, for example, increase
risk of exposure to negative work and
financial-related events or reduce social
tolerance of deviant behavior. Either greater
exposure to stressors or reduced tolerance
lead to higher observed aggregate rates of
morbidity or mortality (Catalano 1989).
However, studies conducted at an aggregate
level run the risk of committing an "ecologi-
cal fallacy" (Catalano and Dooley 1983) in
which it might erroneously be assumed that
persons experiencing greater morbidity are
also those who were exposed to the economic
stressor (i.e., unemployment).
To deal with this problem, individual level
studies attempt to document a relationship
between the direct experience of unemploy-
ment, which is seen as a stressor, and greater
physical and mental distress (Pearlin and
Schooler 1978; see Liem and Rayman [1984]
and Jahoda [1988] for summaries). At the
individual level, however, the ecological
context (unemployment rates) disappears.
Most studies examine either the effects of
unemployment on the unemployed, or they
compare matched samples of employed and
unemployed workers.
Catalano et al. (1986) have attempted to
retain the ecological link to individual out-
comes by suggesting that workers' percep-
tions of employment security are affected by
unemployment rates and that perceived em-
ployment insecurity will be related to in-
creased help-seeking. They suggest that in
contracting economies management may seek
ways to increase productivity, thereby modi-
fying work structures. However, they do not
empirically examine this hypothesis. Instead,
they focus on the perceptions of workers-
perceived employment security- as these are
affected by economic conditions (unemploy-
ment rates).
Brenner (1987) suggests that, when mac-
roeconomic conditions force a firm to reduce
its labor force, remaining employees will
experience fear of employment loss and
destruction of careers as well as increased
work stress resulting from lower tolerance
for error, closer supervision by management
(with loss of autonomy), demand for higher
levels of productivity, and possibly de-
creases in wages or promotion opportunities.
This content downloaded from 113.210.65.127 on Mon, 01 Apr 2019 10:45:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
267
Again, however, the mechanism for explain-
ing individual outcomes is not empirically
examined.
Work Stress Research
There is, however, a separate research
literature on the relationship between work
structure and health that focuses on the
individual. By and large this literature
employs a stress-illness model that relates
workplace stressors to health outcomes
(Holt 1982). Stressors examined include
those in the physical work environment,
organizational properties or work, and those
arising from job change and relationships
with supervisors and co-workers. (House
1980; Selye 1976; Kahn 1974; Kasl 1978;
Karasek 1979, 1989; Karasek and Theorell
1990).
Two models of the etiology of stress in
the workplace are used to explain why these
stressors arise (Baker 1985). The Person-
Environment Fit model proposes that strain
develops when there is a discrepancy
between characteristics of the work environ-
ment and individual characteristics (French,
Caplan, and Harrison 1982). A "good" fit
reduces the perception of strain among
workers. The Job Demands-Control Model
argues that inadequate structural capacity
(e.g., control over use of time and decision-
making) needed to meet job demands leads
to perceptions of strain that are, in turn,
predictive of physiological and psychological
distress (Karasek, 1979; Karasek and Theo-
rell 1990). Empirical assessments of both
the person-environment fit model and the
job demands-control model indicate that
occupation and work environment (i.e.,
demands-control/structural models) are the
principal sources of observed variations in
stress rather than individual characteristics
(Baker 1985).
Neither of these two models is specifically
concerned with the origins of work structures
nor with the way in which the relationship
between job demands, decision latitude, and
occupations are established (Johnson 1989).
Moreover, the few studies that use longitudi-
nal data do not assess the effect of changes in
work conditions on health (Karasek 1989),
although House et al. (1986) did examine
changes in "job stress" for their effects on
mortality.
268 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Macroeconomic Origins of Stressful Jobs
In our view, the economic stress and work
stress approaches can be linked by arguing
that macroeconomic forces affect not only
exposure and vulnerability to life events
associated with economic change, particularly
increased unemployment, but also the level of
stress resulting from the structure of and
changes in work roles. Stressful jobs are not
randomly distributed throughout the econ-
omy; rather, they are products of macroeco-
nomic structures and forces such as the
economic sector and organizational structure
of firms in which the jobs are located and,
perhaps most fundamentally, the economic
markets in which firms and workers compete.
In keeping with the focus of much of the
previous economic stress literature (e.g.,
Brenner 1976, 1984; Brenner and Mooney
1983; Catalano and Dooley 1977, 1979,
1983), we emphasize in this paper the
importance of labor markets, especially as
measured by unemployment rates. This em-
phasis is also consistent with a basic assump-
tion in much of the literature on work and
inequality-that it is through labor markets
that the other macroeconomic forces have
their effect on the job structures and rewards
of individual workers (Kalleberg and Berg
1987:48-49; Kalleberg 1989).
Moreover, these arguments have a longitu-
dinal dimension in that changes in the market
positions of workers and firms increase or
reduce the stressful characteristics of jobs.
Most significantly, economic downturns (re-
cessions) lead to deterioration of market
situations for both. In these situations the
survival of firms may be threatened, forcing
them to reduce production costs by laying off
some workers and restructuring the jobs of
their remaining workers in order to maintain
levels of productivity and profits (Starrin et
al. 1989). Such restructuring may include
speed-ups or work overload due to reduced
staffing, reduced margins of error in output,
and relaxation of rules governing worker
safety and health (Brenner and Mooney
1983). In general, this restructuring is de-
signed to pass the increased vulnerability of
the firm on to its workers. With higher
unemployment rates and thus in a weaker
market position, workers lack the ability to
resist restructuring. For these workers, re-
structuring may mean jobs with increasingly
stress-producing characteristics.
This content downloaded from 113.210.65.127 on Mon, 01 Apr 2019 10:45:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
METHODOLOGY
Causal Model
The causal model for assessing the effects of
macroeconomic and job structures on stress is
presented in Figure 1. Following the above dis-
cussion, we hypothesize that the causal rela-
tionships are both cross-sectional and longitu-
dinal. Job structures are functions of
macroeconomic and organizational structures
and processes -as well as individual character-
istics such as race and gender, which we will
treat as control variables in testing this model
(see below for the discussion of variables and
measurement). In turn, stress measures are func-
tions of these macroeconomic and individual
variables, as well as the job structure measures.
The Time 2 (T2) measures of stress and job
structures are also functions of their respective
Time 1 (TI) measures. The macroeconomic and
individual variables are assumed to be observed
single item exogenous variables at both TI and
T2.' This model is developed from both the eco-
nomic stress and work stress literatures. Each
literature emphasizes different causal paths to
stress. The economic stress literature (e.g., Bren-
ner and Mooney 1983; Catalano and Dooley
1977, 1979; Catalano et al. 1986) emphasizes
the direct cross-sectional and longitudinal paths
from the macroeconomic variables to stress,
while the work stress literature (e.g., Karasek
1979, 1989; Karasek and Theorell 1990; House
1980; House et al. 1986; Kasl 1978) empha-
sizes the direct paths from job structures to stress
Our model assumes that both types of paths are
significant, but also assumes that the effects of
macroeconomic variables on job structures are
significant, as are their indirect effects on stress
through job structures.
Data
Data used to test this model are from the
1973-1977 Quality of Employment Survey
Panel Study. This longitudinal study represents
a national probability sample of those in the
U.S. labor force 16 years of age or older, work-
ing 20 hours or more a week for pay, as of
1973. Those respondents re-interviewed for the
1977 survey also had to be in the labor force
working 20 or more hours a week for pay. For
our analysis there were 830 such respondents.
Because of sample attrition-especially, respon-
dents exiting the labor force-and because of
 JOB STRESS 269

FIGURE 1. Causal Model Predicting Stress From Macroeconomic Job Structure and Control
Variables
TIME 1 TIME 2
(1973) (1977)

MACROECONOMIC MACROECONOMIC
STRUCTURE 1 AND STRUCTURE
CONTROL VARIABLES 2 VARIABLES1

JOB STRUCTURES3 JOB STRUCTURES3

STRESS4 S 4

Macroeconomic structures m
co-workers), economic sector
2 Control variables measured
and T2 is measured at T2.
3 Job structures measured at TI and T2 are job security, decision latitude, and job demands.
4 Stress and life satisfaction are measured at TI and T2.

new entrants into the labor force, the study ispercent at the time of the first wave
interviews in 1973 to 8.5 percent in 1975, and
not entirely representative of the U.S. labor force
in 1977. In particular, the sample overrepre- was still at 7.0 percent at the time of the
sents the percentage of respondents in higher- second wave interviews in 1977.
skilled occupations-e.g., professionals, man-
agers and administrators, and craft workers-
while underrepresenting those in lower-skilled Variables and Measurement
categories-e.g., non-farm labor and service
workers. The sample also overrepresents male Macroeconomic variables. As suggested
workers. above, the most fundamental macroeconomic
Despite this limitation, however, the panel variable potentially affecting job structures
data provide important information to test the and individual stress is the unemployment
model. The QES is one of the few national rate. Here, the unemployment rate is mea-
longitudinal studies of the American labor sured in each of ten broad occupational
force that provides in-depth information on categories used by the U.S. Census Bureau:
job structures as well as psychological (1) professional and technical; (2) managers
functioning. Moreover, it provides before and and administrators; (3) sales workers; (4)
after information on the effects on workers of clerical; (5) craft and kindred; (6) operatives,
the mid-1970s (1975-1976) recession, the except transport; (7) transport equipment
most severe (at the time) since the Great operators; (8) non-farm laborers; (9) service
Depression. Unemployment rose from 4.9 workers; and (10) farm workers (U.S. Bureau

This content downloaded from 113.210.65.127 on Mon, 01 Apr 2019 10:45:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
270 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

of the Census 1978). Each respondent was ness, dissatisfaction, and "alienation" among
assigned the rate of unemployment for his workers (Blauner 1964; Hodson 1984; Spen-
or
her occupational category that had existed ner 1983), and to increasing intraorganiza-
two years prior to the times of the surveys - tional conflict (Lincoln 1978). We measure
1971 rates for the 1973 survey and 1975 rates size as the natural log of the number of em-
for the 1977 survey. This was done to account ployees working at the respondents' work-
for the lagged effects of unemployment rates sites. The natural log is used instead of the
on stress-related outcomes that have been absolute number because the effects of orga-
found in prior research, with two years nizational size on structure, attitudes, and be-
appearing to be about the optimal lag time havior generally has been found to best fit the
(Brenner and Mooney 1983; Brenner 1987. log function (Stolzenberg 1978).
Other macroeconomic variables that affect Job Structures. Three job structures are an-
job structures and thus the potential for stressalyzed as intervening variables in our model.
include the economic sector of firms, the Each is measured identically at Ti and T2. Job
presence of unions, and the size of the security is measured by a single item asking the
workplace. The economic sector of the firms respondent to evaluate the "security" of their
for which respondents worked was deter- current job. The other job structures, decision
mined by the Census Bureau's 1970 Industry latitude and job demands, are measured indi-
Code. Firms were assigned to one of three rectly through multiple indicators (see Appen-
sectors: (1) periphery, (2) core, or (3) state dix A for the individual items used). These mea-
(see Hodson 1978). These sectors differ as to sures are derived from the job demands-control
the level of concentration and centralization model developed by Karasek (1979).2 Decision
of capital, the organization of production, and latitude is defined by Karasek as the "working
market situations. In the periphery, produc- individual's potential control over tasks and .
tion is organized for low-profit, competitive conduct during the working day" (1979:289-
markets. Firms are vulnerable to the large 90), and includes items which reflect evalua-
number of competitors and to rapid market tions of various aspects of the respondent's job,
changes. Thus, job structures lack stability such as the degree to which they feel the job
and security (Lincoln and Kalleberg 1985). In requires high levels of skill, they learn new
contrast, in the core, production is organized things, and the work is nonrepetitious and cre-
for oligopolistic, high-profit markets, while inative, as well as the degree to which the job
the state sector it is organized by the state allows for freedom and ability to have input
itself; i.e., goods and services are produced about how the job is done. The job demands
directly by the public sector or by private dimension measures "the psychological stres-
capital under contract with the state. Both sors involved in accomplishing workload"
sectors reflect protected market situations (1979:291), and includes respondents' evalua-
with stable and secure job structures, such as tions of how much their jobs require working
job ladders and internal labor markets, that hard and fast, whether they are allowed time to
help reduce worker vulnerability to economic finish the tasks, and whether or not they are
change (Lincoln and Kalleberg 1985). subject to conflicting job demands. Our analy-
Likewise, unions may protect workers fromsis focuses on these dimensions of job struc-
some of the stressful job effects of economictures primarily because they are concerned with
change through collective bargaining agree- the social, rather than the physical aspects of
ments and grievance procedures (Brenner jobs (Karasek 1979), and because they have
1987). Union membership is measured by been found to be remarkably consistent dimen-
whether or not the respondent was a member sions with consistent effects on outcomes
of a labor union or employee association at (Karasek 1979, 1989; Karasek and Theorell
the time of the interviews. 1990).
Larger firms, because of their greater eco- Stress Outcomes. Our dependent variables,
nomic resources and control over markets, may stress and satisfaction, are also measured
also reduce their employees' vulnerability to indirectly through multiple-and identical-
economic change (Edwards 1979). Paradoxi- indicators at TI and T2. Stress measures the
cally, however, organizational (workplace) sizepsycho-physiological symptoms associated
increases the bureaucratic structure of jobs with anxiety, such as sweating hands, pound-
(Stolzenberg 1978), and is related to loss of ing heart and lack of energy (Mirowsky and
job control, increasing isolation, powerless- Ross 1989). Items used in the stress construct

This content downloaded from 113.210.65.127 on Mon, 01 Apr 2019 10:45:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOB STRESS
are modified versions of those originally
developed for the Health Opinion Survey
(MacMillan 1957). While questions have
been raised about the validity of such
measures as indicators of specific psycholog-
ical disorders (Dohrenwend and Dohrenwend
1969; Wheaton 1978), they are used here to
indicate symptoms of general distress, not
specific disorders. Satisfaction measures re-
spondents' general feelings about their
present (at the time of the interview) lives.
Eight items using the semantic differential
format are used to probe feelings that one's
life is interesting, enjoyable, full, and worth-
while (or the opposite). These items are
derived from the work of Gurin, Veroff, and
Feld (1960) and Campbell et al. (1976). The
satisfaction construct is sometimes thought to
be a dimension of well-being (Campbell et al.
1976), and therefore the opposite pole from
stress (Mirowsky and Ross 1989). However,
in this analysis satisfaction will be treated
simply as an indicator of the extent to which
respondents' expectations match their experi-
ence. When the match is poor-i.e., when a
respondent is dissatisfied-it means they feel
life is miserable, empty and discouraging, if
not stressful (see Appendix A).
Control Variables. We have included age,
gender, race (White/non-White), and years of
education to control for the effects of
individual characteristics on job structures
and stress (Hankin 1990; Kessler and Neigh-
bors 1986; Mirowsky and Ross 1989). These
variables are measured exogenously at T1.
We have also included a measure of job
change between TI and T2 to control for the
effects of occupational mobility on job
structure change, since changing job struc-
tures are partly due to respondents changing
jobs. By controlling for this individual
mobility we are able to measure the pure
effects on and by changes in job structures per
se. This measure is dichotomous: it groups
those who either changed employers or who
changed jobs within their old firms versus
those working in the same jobs in the same
firms. It is measured exogenously at T2.
ANALYSIS
Table 1 presents the means and standard
deviations for the variables in our model
along with the results of t-tests for mean
differences in their measurements between TI
This content downloaded from 113.210.65.127 on Mon, 01 Apr 2019 10:45:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
271
and T2. (Correlations are not presented, but
are available from the authors upon request.)
We also present the unemployment rates for
each occupational category used to describe
this component of macroeconomy. (Because
every respondent in a category is assigned the
same rate, there are no standard deviations
and no t-tests.) As indicated by the t-test
results, these data reveal a number of
significant changes between 1973 and 1977.
The overall unemployment rate increases by
almost 50 percent, while respondents move
into jobs in the core and out of the periphery,
and out of unions. Job security declines while
job demands increase. Respondents' stress
increases while their life satisfaction de-
creases. Overall, except for the increase in
core sector employment, these changes are
representative of the trend toward greater
economic uncertainty that characterized the
1970s (Blumberg 1980; Bluestone and Harri-
son 1982).
Causal Relationships
The heart of our analysis is exploring the
causal relationships-total, direct, and indi-
rect effects-among these macroeconomic
(and individual) job structure and stress/
satisfaction variables as depicted in Figure 1.
First, we analyze the overall (total) effects of
macroeconomic (and individual) variables on
stress and satisfaction using LISREL 7
maximum likelihood procedures (applied to
covariance matrices) to estimate a linear
structural equation model which omits the
intervening job structure variables (Jbreskog
and Sorbom 1989).
Macroeconomic Effects. Table 2 presents
the unstandardized coefficients from simulta-
neous equations based on this model. The
first two equations present the Tl (1973)
cross-sectional results. Among macroeco-
nomic variables, 1971 occupational unem-
ployment rates have significant but modest
effects on both 1973 satisfaction and stress,
and these effects are in the directions
expected: higher unemployment rates reduce
satisfaction and increase stress. Also, as
expected, satisfaction declines with work-
place size and is greater among state sector
workers. Among the individual control vari-
ables, female workers have greater stress than
males and stress declines with years of
education.
The next two equations present the longitu-
272 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

TABLE 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Variables in the Model (N = 830)

1973 1977 t-value

Variables X SD X SD

Age (years) 37.59 12.03

Femalea .29 .46
Non-Whitea .10 .30
Education (years) 12.53 2.96
Job Changea .47 .50
Unemployment Rate 4.42 2.70 6.49 3.90 15.45***
(1971, 1975)
Professional and Technicalb 2.90 3.70
Managers and Administratorsb 1.60 3.00
Sales Workersb 4.30 5.80
Clericalb 4.80 6.60
Craft and Kindredb (operatives, 4.70 8.30
except transport ) 7.60 14.70
Transportation Equipment
Operatorsb 4.70 8.50
Non-farm Laborersb 10.80 15.60
Service Workersb 6.30 8.60
Farm Workersb 2.60 3.50
Size (natural log) 4.28 2.10 4.34 2.05 .68
Corea .59 .48 .65 .48 3.30***
Statea .12 .32 .11 .31 - 1.18
Uniona .32 .47 .28 .45 - 2.93**
Job Security 3.28 .94 3.19 .90 - 2.42*
Decision Latitudec 2.91 .64 2.94 .55 1.73
Job Demandsc 2.71 .52 2.88 .51 8.22***
Stressc 1.59 .51 1.84 .52 12.40***
Satisfactionc 5.89 .98 5.67 .98 - 6.28***

a Mean represents percentage of respondents in the particular category.

b Occupation-specific unemployment rates are from the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1978).
c Simple additive scales were constructed for these variables in this table since LISREL 7 does not compute means
and standard deviations for latent constructs.
* p ? .05; ** p < .01; *** p .001.

dinal results for T2 (1977). By including
(controlling for) Ti measures for both macro-
economic and stress/satisfaction in these
equations, the effects of the macroeconomic
variables measured at T2 on the T2 stress/
satisfaction variables are the equivalent of the
effects of change per se net of their initial
levels (Kessler and Greenberg 1981:9-11).
The most noteworthy of these longitudinal
effects involve T2 (1975) unemployment rates
on T2 (1977) satisfaction and stress. These
results indicate that increases in occupational
unemployment rates between 1971 and 1975
led to reductions in respondents' life satisfac-
tion and increases in their levels of stress in
1977, over their initial pre-recession levels of
1973. However, no other macroeconomic
variable has effects on T2 satisfaction or
stress, and among individual control vari-
ables, only age has an effect-positive-on
satisfaction. T2 satisfaction and stress are also
and most significantly products of their initial
TI measures.
The Role of Job Structures. The above
results point out that overall unemployment
rates and changes in those rates affect the
stress and satisfaction of employed individu-
als. But to what extent are these effects
mediated by the structure of jobs and/or the
level of insecurity that high unemployment
levels produce? To answer we again use
LISREL 7 techniques to estimate a linear
structural equation model which includes
these job structure measures as intervening
variables-the full model depicted in Figure
1. Results are presented in Table 3.
The first three equations in Table 3 present
the 1973 cross-sectional effects of macroeco-
nomic and individual variables on job struc-
tures. Overall, these exogenous variables
explained substantially more variance in
respondents' decision latitude (R2 = .370)
than in job security (R2 = .056) or job
demands (R2 = .044). All variables except
core sector employment had significant ef-
fects on decision latitude, while no macroeco-

This content downloaded from 113.210.65.127 on Mon, 01 Apr 2019 10:45:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOB STRESS 273

TABLE 2. Unstandardized Coefficients from Simultaneous Equations Predicting Satisfaction and

Stress from Macroeconomic and Control Variables, 1973 and 1974.

Dependent Variables

Satisfaction 73 Stress 73 Satisfaction 77 Stress 77

Independent Variable (1) (2) (3) (4)

Age .002 .001 .007*** .002

(.002) (.002) (.002) (.002)
Female - .038 .187*** - .049 .047
(.079) (.042) (.066) (.039)
Non-White - .040 .089 - .113 .010
(.139) (.073) (.114) (.067)
Education (years) - .002 - .029*** .002 - .004
(.014) (.007) (.013) (.007)
Unemployment 71 -.018* .013* -.010 -.011
(.009) (.006) (.015) (.010)
Size 73 -.053** -.003 .004 .001
(.017) (.009) (.019) (.011)
Core 73 .103 .018 .119 -.013
(.083) (.044) (.083) (.049)
State 73 .264* -.021 -.046 -.034
(.133) (.070) (.157) (.092)
Union 73 -.052 -.037 .023 -.002
(.081) (.042) (.083) (.049)
Job Change .041 .027
(.060) (.035)
Unemployment 75 -.026** .008*
(.010) (.004)
Size 77 -.020 .006
(.019) (.01 1)
Core 77 -.067 -.076
(.084) (.049)
State 77 .213 -.084
(.156) (.091)
Union 77 .019 -.022
(.085) (.050)
Satisfaction 73 .491*** -.009
(.041) (.074)
Stress 73 .019 .639***
(.020) (.063)

R 2 .026 .063 .320 .448

* p . .05; ** p ? .01;
Note: Numbers in parentheses are standard errors; x2= 2460.65, with 890 d.f.; GFI = .883; N = 830.

nomic variable had significant effects on job
demands. As expected, high 1971 unemploy-
ment rates are related to lower job security
and decision latitude, while workplace size
presented an apparent trade-off between
desirable job structures: increasing job secu-
rity but reducing decision latitude. Employ-
ment in either core or state sectors increased
security, and state sector employees also had
greater decision latitude. Union members had
lower decision latitude than non-union em-
ployees, which was perhaps a reflection of the
standardization (or rigidity) of work rules in
unionized worksites (Kochan, Katz, and
McKensie 1986; Edwards 1979). Among the
individual control variables, both age and
years of education increased decision latitude,
but also job demands. Female and non-White
respondents, not surprisingly, had lower job
security and decision latitude.
Equations (4) and (5) are the structural
equations for 1973 satisfaction and stress with
the 1973 job structure variables included.
These equations are almost identical, both in
overall variance explained in the dependent
variables and in the independent variables
which had significant effects. Decision lati-
tude increased life satisfaction and lowered
stress, while job demands reduced satisfaction
and increased stress. Job security increased
satisfaction, but had no effect on stress. With
these job structure variables included in the
equations, the significant overall effects of
macroeconomic variables found in Table 2

This content downloaded from 113.210.65.127 on Mon, 01 Apr 2019 10:45:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 274 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

TABLE 3. Unstandardized Coefficients from Simultaneous Equations Predicting Satisfaction and

Stress from Macroeconomic, Job Structure, and Control Variables, 1973 and 1977.

Dependent Variables

Security 73 Decision 73 Demand 73 Satisfaction 73 Stress 73

Independent Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Age .003 .005*** .002* - .003 .000

(.003) (.001) (.001) (.003) (.002)
Female - .145* - .276*** .010 .190* .147***
(.072) (.038) (.038) (.081) (.044)
Non-White - .590*** - .200** - .049 .145 - .018
(.128) (.061) (.068) (.136) (.023)
Education (years) - .002 .030*** .020** - .002 - .018
(.013) (.006) (.007) (.019) (.014)
Unemployment 71 -.036* -.061*** -.011 -.028 .005
(.017) (.009) (.009) (.019) (.006)
Size 73 .042** -.046*** -.008 -.024 -.001
(.016) (.008) (.008) (.017) (.009)
Core 73 .201** -.057 -.011 .128 .021
(.077) (.036) (.040) (.080) (.043)
State 73 .332** .117* -.036 .135 -.047
(.124) (.058) (.065) (.130) (.070)
Union 73 .036 -.094** -.037 .005 -.034
(.074) (.035) (.039) (.078) (.042)
Job Change

Unemployment 75

Size 77

Core 77

State 77

Union 77

Security 73 .080* .006

(.032) (.017)
Decision 73 .771*** -.336***
(.115) (.112)
Demand 73 -.254*** .136*
(.056) (.063)
Satisfaction 73

Stress 73

Security 77

Decision 77

Demand 77

R2 .056 .370 .044 .143 .113

Dependent Variables

Security 77 Decision 77 Demand 77 Satisfaction 77 Stress 77

Independent Variable (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Age .002 - .002 - .005* .006* .001

(.003) (.002) (.002) (.003) (.002)
Female .084 - .106** - .033 .004 - .046
(.072) (.038) (.039) (.081) (.044)
Non-White -.340** -.014 - .074 .119 - .011
(.122) (.051) (.061) (.115) (.068)

(continued)

This content downloaded from 113.210.65.127 on Mon, 01 Apr 2019 10:45:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOB STRESS 275

TABLE 3. (continued)

Dependent Variables

Security 77 Decision 77 Demand 77 Satisfaction 77 Stress 77

Independent Variable (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Education (years) - .014 .001 .015* .006 .009

(.012) (.005) (.006) (.012) (.007)
Unemployment 71 .006 .012 .014 - .008 .012
(.019) (.008) (.009) (.018) (.011)
Size 73 -.022 .007 -.013 -.013 -.011
(.020) (.008) (.010) (.019) (.011)
Core 73 -.052 .018 -.064 .088 -.014
(.088) (.037) (.044) (.083) (.049)
State 73 - .157 - .001 - .084 - .078 - .060
(.166) (.069) (.082) (.155) (.091)
Union 73 -.137 .001 .035 .047 .009
(.088) (.037) (.044) (.082) (.048)
Job Change -.184** .003 -.029 .042 .017
(.063) (.026) (.031) (.059) (.034)
Unemployment 75 -.018 -.025*** .010* -.010 .004
(.010) (.004) (.005) (.010) (.004)
Size 77 .039* -.033*** .010 .001 .014
(.019) (.008) (.010) (.019) (.011)
Core 77 .074 -.018 -.021 -.066 .071
(.089) (.037) (.044) (.083) (.048)
State 77 .239 .067 -.012 .166 .067
(.164) (.068) (.081) (.153) (.089)
Union 77 .066 -.042 .011 .020 -.021
(.090) (.037) (.044) (.094) (.053)
Security 73 .177*** .002 .021 .010 .012
(.030) (.012) (.014) (.027) (.016)
Decision 73 .265** .455*** .060 .227* -.178**
(.100) (.055) (.046) (.113) (.067)
Demand 73 -.088 .024 .419*** -.215* .111
(.092) (.041) (.067) (.114) (.068)
Satisfaction 73 .475*** .018
(.042) (.021)
Stress 73 - .022 .628***
(.074) (.063)
Security 77 .038 .003
(.024) (.014)
Decision 77 .537*** -.349***
(.122) (.077)
Demand 77 - .422*** .163*
(.113) (.069)
R2 .085 .476 .258 .372 .506
* p c .05; ** p c .01; * p c .001.
Note: Numbers in parentheses are standard errors; x2= 6097.02 with 2755 d.f.; GFI = .847; N = 830.

"wash out": none had significant direct no lagged effects of TI macroeconomic

effects. Gender was the only exogenous
variable with direct effects: females had
greater stress, but also greater satisfaction
than males. This last effect is net the higher
insecurity and lower decision latitude among
female workers-job structures which, in
turn, were related to lower satisfaction.
Equations (6) through (8) present the
longitudinal results for T2 (1977) job struc-
tures regressed on Ti and T2 macroeconomic
variables, as well as their own Ti measures
and the control variables. These results show
variables on T2 job structures. However, T2
(1975) unemployment rates were related to
decreased decision latitude and increased job
demands in 1977, while T2 size was related
to higher job security but lower decision
latitude. These effects are consistent with
those at Ti, and since they are net of their Ti
levels, they can be interpreted as the effects
of changes in these macroeconomic variables
on changes in job structures.
Among the individual control variables,
non-Whites had lower job security in 1977,

This content downloaded from 113.210.65.127 on Mon, 01 Apr 2019 10:45:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
276 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
while females had lower decision latitude.
Years of education increased job demands,
while age reduced demands. Except for this
last relationship, which is opposite T1, the
longitudinal effects of the individual variables
were similar to their cross-sectional effects.
Respondents who changed jobs between Ti
and T2 reported lower job security-not
surprisingly-but job change had no effects
on other job structures. Each of the T2 job
structures is also affected by its Ti measure,
but by no other TI job structure. As at TI, the
model is better at explaining variance in
decision latitude (R2 = .476) than in job
demands (R2 = .258) or job security (R2 =
.085).
The longitudinal structural equations for
1977 satisfaction and stress are presented in
(9) and (10). Overall, the model explains a
substantial amount of variance in each
measure (R2 = .372 and .506, respectively).
However, none of the macroeconomic or
control variables had significant effects, with
the exception of age, which marginally
increased satisfaction. Decision latitude and
job demands, on the other hand, had
consistently significant effects. Both initial
levels (1973) and especially subsequent
changes (1977) in decision latitude were
positively related to changes in satisfaction
and negatively related to changes in stress
(1977). The 1973 level of job demands was
negatively related to changes in satisfaction.
Changes in demands (1977) were also nega-
tively related to changes in satisfaction and
positively related to changes in stress (1977).
These 1977 measures were also strongly
related to their own 1973 measures, but there
were no cross-lagged effects between the two
measures.
Decomposition of Indirect Effects. To-
gether, results from Tables 2 and 3 are
consistent with our argument that the
effects of macroeconomic structures and
processes on the stress and satisfaction of
workers are indirect via their effects on job
structures. Macroeconomic variables, espe-
cially unemployment rates, had significant
overall cross-sectional and longitudinal ef-
fects on stress/satisfaction (Table 2). They
also had significant effects on job structures
(Table 3). However, once these job structures
were introduced as intervening variables, the
direct effects of macroeconomic variables on
stress/satisfaction disappeared (Table 3).
These arguments are strengthened by the
This content downloaded from 113.210.65.127 on Mon, 01 Apr 2019 10:45:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
results in Table 4, which presents the
unstandardized coefficients by decomposing
the total effects of the model's exogenous
variables into their direct (Table 3) and
indirect effects. These results show that,
when decomposed, the significant effects of
macroeconomic variables on stress and satis-
faction were, without exception, indirect, and
in the directions expected. (Indeed, some of
the indirect effects are larger than the total
effects due to trivial, nonsignificant direct
effects in directions opposite those of the
indirect effects). The effects of 1971 and
1975 unemployment rates on 1973 and 1977
stress and satisfaction, respectively, were
entirely indirect through their effects on job
structures; i.e., higher unemployment rates
led to more "dissatisfying" and "stressful"
job structures. Likewise, increasing size led
to more dissatisfying jobs at both times, while
state sector employment in 1973 led to more
satisfying jobs in 1973. State employment in
1973 also had a lagged indirect effect on
satisfaction in 1977, as did 1971 unemploy-
ment rates. These lagged effects, however,
were not only through job structure variables
at Ti and T2, but also through Ti stress and
satisfaction.
Indirect effects were also important for the
individual control variables. Education had
significant indirect effects on satisfaction and
stress at Ti and satisfaction at T2, despite
insignificant total effects. Likewise, the
effects of age and race on Ti satisfaction
were indirect despite the lack of significant
total effects. On the other hand, the effect of
age on T2 satisfaction was direct. Gender
differences had both significant direct and
indirect effects. Females were per se (direct
effect) more satisfied than males in 1973, but
were employed in less satisfying jobs (indi-
rect effect). As a result, there were no overall
primary
(total effect) gender differences in satisfac-
tion. At the same time, females experienced
more stress, both directly and through the
structures of their jobs. By 1977, however,
gender differences in stress were a product of
gender differences in job structures.
Although this decomposition does not
specify which, if any, of the specific job
structures was most important in mediating
macroeconomic and individual effects, re-
examination of the direct effects in Table 3 is
suggestive of the important role of decision
latitude. Overall, decision latitude was the job
structure most determined (largest explained
 JOB STRESS 277
TABLE 4. Total, Dire
Variables on 1973 an

Dependent Variables

Satisfaction 73 Stress 73
Independent Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect
Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Age .002 - .003 .005** .001 .000 .001
(.002) (.003) (.002) (.002) (.002) (.001)
Female - .038 .190* - .228*** .187*** .147*** .041**
(.079) (.081) (.041) (.042) (.044) (.016)
Non-White - .040 .145 - .185** .089 - .018 .107
(.139) (.136) (.58) (.073) (.023) (.073)
Education (years) - .002 - .018 .016** - .029*** .001 - .030***
(.014) (.014) (.006) (.007) (.002) (.007)
Unemployment 71 -.018* .028 -.046*** .013* .005 .008*
(.009) (.019) (.009) (.006) (.006) (.004)
Size 73 -.053** -.024 -.029*** -.003 .001 -.004
(.017) (.017) (.008) (.009) (.009) (.004)
Core 73 .103 .128 -.024 .018 .021 -.004
(.083) (.080) (.032) (.044) (.043) (.012)
State 73 .264* .135 .129* -.021 -.047 .027
(.133) (.130) (.052) (.070) (.070) (.019)
Union 73 -.052 .005 -.057 -.037 .034 -.003
(.081) (.078) (.032) (.042) (.042) (.012)
Job Change

Unemployment 75

Size 77

Core 77

State 77

Union 77

Dependent Variables

Satisfaction 77 Stress 77

Independent Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect

Variable (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Age .008** .006* .002 .003 .001 .002
(.003) (.003) (.002) (.002) (.002) (.002)
Female - .067 .004 - .071 - .166*** - .046 - .120***
(.073) (.081) (.052) (.043) (.044) (.034)
Non-White (.091) .119 -.028 .065 - .011 .076
(.128) (.115) (.081) (.075) (.068) (.054)
Education (years) .003 .006 - .004 - .022** - .009 - .013*
(.013) (.012) (.008) (.008) (.007) (.006)
Unemployment - .010 .012 - .022* - .009 - .008 - .001
(.016) (.018) (.011) (.011) (.011) (.008)
Size 73 -.022 -.013 -.008 .004 -.011 -.007
(.020) (.019) (.012) (.012) (.011) (.008)
Core 73 .169 .088 .082 .026 .014 .040
(.091) (.083) (.050) (.053) (.049) (.033)
State 73 .086 -.078 .164* -.040 -.060 .020
(.167) (.155) (.084) (.098) (.091) (.055)
Union 73 -.003 .047 -.050 -.027 .009 -.036
(.090) (.082) (.048) (.053) (.048) (.032)
Job Change .049 .042 .007 .027 .017 .010
(.060) (.059) (.020) (.035) (.034) (.012)
(continued)

This content downloaded from 113.210.65.127 on Mon, 01 Apr 2019 10:45:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 278 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

TABLE 4. (continued)

Dependent Variables

Satisfaction 77 Stress 77

Independent Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect

Variable (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

Unemployment 75 -.026** -.010 -.017*** .008* -.004 .012***

(.010) (.010) (.004) (.004) (.004) (.003)
Size 77 -.021 .001 -.021** -.006 .014 -.009
(.019) (.019) (.008) (.011) (.011) (.006)
Core 77 -.064 -.066 .002 .076 .071 .005
(.084) (.083) (.028) (.049) (.048) (.016)
State 77 .215 .166 .050 .082 .067 .016
(.156) (.153) (.052) (.091) (.089) (.031)
Union 77 .020 .045 -.025 -.021 -.011 -.010
(.090) (.084) (.028) (.053) (.049) (.017)

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

Note: Direct and indirect effects may not add up to total effect because of rounding. Numbers in parentheses are
standard errors.

variance and most direct effects) by macro-
economic and individual variables and, in
turn, had significant effects on satisfaction
and stress at both times. Job demands, in
contrast, while also having consistent effects
on satisfaction and stress, was not predicted
as well by the model-especially the macro-
economic variables. Job security was pre-
dicted by a number of variables but had only
one significant effect itself-on Ti satisfac-
tion.
CONCLUSION
In this paper we have attempted both to
clarify the relationship between macroeco-
nomic structure and individual stress and to
illustrate one way in which the sociological
study of stress can be usefully developed.
Clarification required linking together-
theoretically and methodologically-argu-
ments from the "economic stress" and "job
stress" literatures, a link heretofore not
explicitly made. In much of the previous
"economic stress" literature, the link between
macroeconomic change and individual stress,
mortality, and morbidity was made through
actual or potential life events, such as
unemployment and related financial events
(Brenner 1976, 1984; Catalano and Dooley
1977, 1979, 1983; Catalano, Rook, and
Dooley 1986). Although illuminating, this
link does not present the entire picture. Our
results indicate that macroeconomic changes
also affect individual stress because they lead
to changes in routine, day-to-day job struc-
tures that represent increased and continued
exposure to stressful conditions. This would
appear to be a more general situation applying
to all workers. Whether consciously or not,
firms appear to pass any increased uncertainty
in the marketplace to their workers in the
form of increased job demands, decreased
decision latitude, and increased job insecu-
rity. Because of the deteriorating labor market
situation (i.e., higher unemployment) work-
ers become less able to resist this restructur-
ing. Thus, even if individuals are not laid off
or subject to negative financial events, their
well-being is affected by changes in day-to-
day exposure to stressful conditions because
their job structures become more stressful.
These findings are precisely in line with
Pearlin's (1989) suggestion that the sociolog-
ical study of stress must explicitly incorporate
the effects of economic and institutional
context on individual health. In the case at
hand we use elements of the macroeconomic
context to explain the job structures that
individuals may find stressful. Given that
work is a central role for most adults, the
capacity to explain how the general macro-
economic context affects the job structure
context and, in turn, individual health,
demonstrates the way in which sociological
structures affect health and affirms the utility
of studies specifically aimed at describing this
process.
Our findings also suggest that we have not
exhausted the potential utility of this ap-
proach. For example, the independent effects
of gender on various elements within our
model clearly suggest that we need to account

This content downloaded from 113.210.65.127 on Mon, 01 Apr 2019 10:45:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOB STRESS
for the way in which other macroeconomic
conditions (e.g., occupational segregation)
differentially affect exposure and vulnerabil-
ity to stressors that originate in the macro-
economy. Given the large body of literature
on gender, work, and health, consideration of
macroeconomic structure will clearly extend
our ability to explain the relationship between
gender and well-being. Linking the economic
stress and job stress literatures in this way
will allow us to reexamine numerous other
observations about the relationship between
work and health.
NOTES
1. T2 macroeconomic and control variables are as-
sumed to be correlated with, rather than caused
by, macroeconomic and control variables at T 1.
This assumption is necessitated by the categor-
ical measurement of some of these variables -
core and state economic sectors and union mem-
bership (see discussion of variable measurement
in the text) -and because such variables violate
assumptions of normality of distribution and con-
stant variance when treated as dependent, or en-
dogenous, variables (Joreskog and Sdrbom 1989).
This content downloaded from 113.210.65.127 on Mon, 01 Apr 2019 10:45:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
279
2. We have used the exact items Karasek (1979)
used to measure decision latitude and job
demands. However, where Karasek con-
structed his measures by computing respon-
dents' mean scores on each individual item,
we have estimated the relationships between
individual items and unobserved constructs by
using the maximum likelihood technique in
LISREL 7. However, despite the difference in
measurement techniques, our results support
those of Karasek: items assumed to measure
decision latitude do, in fact, load significantly
on that construct, while those assumed to
measure job demands load significantly on
that construct (see Appendix A). Karasek also
found that the interaction between these
dimensions-a variable he termed job strain-
had significant effects on his measures of
stress (Karasek 1979, 1990). We did not test
for this interaction effect in our LISREL
model, since it violates LISREL's assumptions
of linear measurement. However, OLS regres-
sion equations using this job strain measure to
predict stress and satisfaction were not signif-
icantly different from equations using the
separate measures of decision latitude and job
demands.
 APPENDIX
Measurement Model for Latent Variables in the Models.

19

S
Latent Variable and Observed Variable Lambda

Security (Eta,, Eta6)

I. "The job security is good." 1.oooa *0
Decision Latitude (Eta2, Eta7)
I . "My job requires that I keep learning new things."
2. "My job requires a high level of skills." b
3. "My job requires that I do the same things over and o
4. "My job requires that I be creative." 1.5
5. "I have the freedom to decide what I do on the job
6. "It is basically my own responsibility to decide how my job get
7. "I have a lot of say about what happens on my jo
8. "I am given a lot of freedom to decide howlI do my own w
Job Demands (Eta3, Eta8)
I . "My job requires that I work very fast." 1.o
2. "My job requires that I work very hard."
3. "I have too much work to do everything well
4. "I have enough time to get the job done. " b
5. "I am not asked to do excessive amounts of work.",
6. "I never seem to have enough time to get everything done on m
7. "I am free from the conflicting demands that other people mak
Satisfaction (Eta4, Eta9)C
"Here are some words and phrases which we would like you to use to describe how yo
feel about your present life. ..
I. "Boring . . . interesting" 1.oooa .
2. "Enjoyable . . . miserable " .988
3 . "Useless . . . worthwhile" .758
4 . "Friendly . . . lonely" b 1.042
5 . "Full . . . empty, 1.059 .04
6 . "Discouraging ..,. hopeful" .843
7 . "Disappointing . . . rewarding" b1.0
8 . "Brings out the best in me . . . doesn't give me a chan
Stress (Eta5, Eta10)
"...how often each (physical condition) has happened to you in the last year"
I . "Trouble breathing or shortness of breath" 1
2. "Pains in my back or spine" .835
3. "Becoming very tired in a short time" 1.
4. "Feeling my heart pounding or racing"
5. "Hands sweating so that they feel damp and clamm
6. "Feeling nervous or fidgety and tense" 1.
7. "Poor appetite" b.677 .0
8. "Never have any pep or energy" .21
aFixed coefficient.
bReversed cod

This content downloaded from 113.210.65.127 on Mon, 01 Apr 2019 10:45:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOB STRESS 281

REFERENCES wend. 1969. Social Status and Psychological

Disorder. New York: Wiley and Sons.
Baker, Dean B. 1985. "The Study of Stress at
Dooley, David and Ralph Catalano. 1984. "The
Work." Annual Review of Public Health 6:367-
81. Epidemiology of Economic Stress." American
Journal of Community Psychology 12:387-409.
Blauner, Robert. 1964. Alienation and Freedom:
Edwards, Richard. 1979. Contested Terrain: The
The Factory Worker and His Industry. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. Transformation of the Workplace in the Twenti-
eth Century. New York: Basic Books.
Bluestone, Barry and Bennett Harrison. 1982. The
Deindustrialization of America. New York: French, John R.P., Jr., Robert D. Caplan, and R.
Basic Books. Van Harrison. 1982. The Mechanisms of Job
Blumberg, Paul. 1980. Inequality in an Age Stress and Strain. New York: Wiley and Sons.
of Decline. New York: Oxford University Gurin, Gerald G., Joseph Veroff, and Sheila Feld.
Press. 1960. Americans View Their Mental Health.
New York: Basic Books.
Brenner, M. Harvey. 1976. Estimating the Social
Costs of Economic Policy: Implications for Hankin, Janet R. 1990. "Gender and Mental
Mental and Physical Health, and Criminal Illness." Pp. 183-201 in Research in Commu-
Aggression. Report to the Congressional Re- nity and Mental Health, vol. 6, edited by J.
search Service of the Library of Congress Joint Greenley. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Economic Committee of Congress. Washington, Hodson, Randy D. 1978. "Labor in Monopoly,
D.C. Competitive, and State Sectors of Production."
Politics and Society 8:429-80.
_ 1984. "Estimating the Effect of Eco-
nomic Change on National Mental Health and _ 1984. "Corporate Structure and Job
Social Well-Being." Prepared by the subcom- Satisfaction: A Focus on Employer Characteris-
mittee on economic goals and intergovernmen- tics." Sociology and Social Research 69:22-49.
tal policy of the Joint Economic Committee, Holt, Robert R. 1982. "Occupational Stress." Pp.
U.S. Congress. 419-444 in Handbook of Stress, edited by L.
. 1987. "Relation of Economic Change to Goldberger and S. Breznitz. New York: Basic
Swedish Health and Social Well-Being, 1950- Books.
1980. " Social Science and Medicine 25:183-95. House, James S. 1980. Occupational Stress and
and Anne Mooney. 1983. "Unemployment the Mental and Physical Health of Factory
and Health in the Context of Economic Workers. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social
Change." Social Science and Medicine 17: Research Report Series.
1125-38. , Victor Strecher, Helen L. Metzner, and
Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, W. Ward, Cynthia A. Robbins. 1986. "Occupational
and L. Rogers. 1976. The Quality of American Stress and Health among Men and Women in the
Life. New York: Russell Sage. Tecumseh Community Health Study." Journal
Catalano, Ralph. 1989. "Ecological Factors in of Health and Social Behavior 27:62-77.
Illness and Disease." Pp. 87-101 in Handbook Jahoda, Marie. 1988. "Economic Recession and
of Medical Sociology, fourth edition, edited by Mental Health: Some Conceptual Issues." Jour-
H. Freeman and S. Levine. Englewood Cliffs, nal of Social Issues 44:13-23.
NJ: Prentice Hall. Johnson, Jeffrey. 1989. "Control, Collectivity, and
Catalano, Ralph and David Dooley. 1977. "Eco- the Psychological Work Environment." Pp.
nomic Predictors of Depressed Mood and 55-74 in Job Control and Worker Health, edited
Stressful Life Events." Journal of Health and by S.L. Sauter, J.J. Hurrell, Jr., and C.L.
Social Behavior 18:292-307. Cooper. Chichester, West Sussex, England:
and David Dooley. 1979. "The Economy Wiley and Sons.
as Stressor: A Sectoral Analysis." Review of JTreskog, Karl G. and Dag Sorbom. 1989. LISREL
Social Economy 37:175-87. 7: A Guide to the Program and Applications.
and David Dooley. 1983. "Health Effects Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
of Economic Instability: A Test of Economic Kahn, Robert L. 1974. "Conflict, Ambiguity, and
Stress Hypothesis." Journal of Health and Overload: Three Elements of Job Stress." Pp.
Social Behavior 24:46-60. 47-61 in Occupational Stress. Edited by A.
, David Dooley, and Robert Jackson. 1985. McLean. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
"Economic Antecedents of Help-Seeking: Re- Kalleberg, Arne. 1989. "Linking Macro and Micro
formulation of Time-Series Tests." Journal of Levels: Bringing the Workers Back into the
Health and Social Behavior 26:141-52. Sociology of Work." Social Forces 67:582-92.
, Karen Rook, and David Dooley. 1986. and Ivar Berg. 1987. Work and Industry:
"Labor Markets and Help Seeking: A Test of theStructures, Markets, and Processes. New York:
Employment Security Hypothesis." Journal ofPlenum.
Health and Social Behavior 27:277-87. Karasek, Robert A. 1979. "Job Demands, Job
Dohrenwend, Bruce P. and Barbara S. Dohren- Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain: Implica-

This content downloaded from 113.210.65.127 on Mon, 01 Apr 2019 10:45:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
282 JOURNAL OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

tions for Job Redesign." Administrative Science
Quarterly 24:285-306.
. 1989. "Control in the Workplace and Its
Health-related Aspects." Pp. 129-59 in Job
Control and Worker Health, edited by
S.L. Sauter, J.J. Hurrell, and C.L. Cooper.
Chichester, West Sussex, England. Wiley and
Sons.
and Thres Theorell. 1990. Healthy Work:
Stress, Productivity, and the Reconstruction of
Working Life. New York: Basic Books.
Kasl, Stan V. 1978. "Epidemiological Contribu-
tions to the Study of Work Stress." Pp. 3-48 in
Stress at Work, edited by C.L. Cooper and R.
Payne. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Kessler, Ronald C. and David F. Greenberg. 1981.
Linear Panel Analysis: Models of Quantitative
Change. New York: Academic Press.
and Harold W. Neighbors. 1986. "A
New Perspective on the Relationships Among
Race, Social Class, and Psychological Dis-
tress." Journal of Health and Social Behavior
27:107-15.
Kochan, Thomas A., Harvey C. Katz, and Robert
B. McKensie. 1986. The Transformation of
American Industrial Relations. New York: Basic
Books.
Liem, Ramsay and Paula Rayman. 1984. "Per-
spectives on Unemployment, Mental Health,
in Communities." Psychological Reports 3:325-
29.
Marshall, James R. and Donna P. Funch. 1979.
"Mental Illness and the Economy: A Critique
and Partial Replication." Journal of Health and
Social Behavior 20:259-72.
Mirowsky, John and Catherine E. Ross. 1989.
Social Causes of Psychological Distress. New
York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Pearlin, Leonard I. 1989. "The Sociological Study
of Stress." Journal of Health and Social
Behavior 30:241-56.
and Carmi Schooler. 1978. "The Structure
of Coping." Journal of Health and Social
Behavior 19:2-21.
Selye, Hans. 1976. Stress in Health and Disease.
Woburn, MA: Butterworth.
Spenner, Kenneth. 1983. "Deciphering Prome-
theus: Temporal Change in the Skill Level of
Work." American Sociological Review 48:824-
37.
Starrin, Bengt, Bertil Lunberg, Bosse Angelow,
and Hans Wall. 1989. "Unemployment, Over-
time Work, and Work Intensity." Pp. 261-75 in
Unemployment, Poverty, and Quality of Work-
ing Life: Some European Experiences, edited by
B. Starrin, P. G. Svensson, and H. Winters-
berger. Berlin: World Health Organization,

and Social Policy." International Journal of European Regional Office and the European

Mental Health 13:3-17.
Lincoln, James R. 1978. "Community Structure
and Industrial Conflict: An Analysis of Strike
Activity in SMSA's. " American Sociological
Review 43:199-220.
and Arne L. Kalleberg. 1985. "Work
Organization and Work Commitment: A Study
of Plants and Employees in the U.S. and
Japan." American Sociological Review 50:738-
60.
MacMillan, A.M. 1957. "The Health Opinion
Survey: Technique for Estimating Prevalence of
Psychoneurotic and Related Types of Disorder
Center for Social Welfare Training and Re-
search, Education Service.
Stolzenberg, Ross M. 1978. "Bringing the Boss
Back In: Employer Size, Employee Schooling,
and Socioeconomic Achievement." American
Sociological Review 43:813-28.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1978. Statistical
Abstracts of the United States. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wheaton, Blair. 1978. "The Sociogenesis of
Psychological Disorder: Reexamining the Causal
Issues with Longitudinal Data." American
Sociological Review 43:383-403.

Rudy Fenwick is associate professor of sociology and Director of the Public Policy Certificate Program,
University of Akron, Akron, Ohio. His current research interests include the effects of economic markets
on organizational and job structures, and the political and legislative origins of market restructuring in the
United States and Canada.

Mark Tausig is associate professor of sociology, University of Akron, Akron, Ohio. His current research
involves identifying the effects of various forms of job insecurity on mental health. He is also studying
social influence processes in the social networks of injection drug users.

This content downloaded from 113.210.65.127 on Mon, 01 Apr 2019 10:45:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms