Parcurgeti articolul si realizati un reaction paper (comentariu).

Pentru realizarea acestui comentariu se va lua parcurge si suportul de curs care va va oferi posibilitatea sa integrati informatia din cadrul articolului. Comentariul va reflecta opinia dvs referitoare la cercetarea intreprinsa in cadrul articolului si la rezultatele obtinute, precum si eventualele limite ale metodei de cercetare utilizata. Comentariul trebuie sa fie redactat utilizand un limbaj stiinfitic (se va utiliza formularea impersonala) si nu trebuie sa depaseasca 1 pagina A4 (caractere de 12, Times New Roman, scris la 1 rand). Trimiterea articolului se va face prin intermediul optiunii Trimite referat.

Work & Stress, April /June 2005; 19(2): 101 /120

Lay representations of workplace stress: What do people really mean when they say they are stressed?

GAIL KINMAN1, & FIONA JONES2

Department of Psychology, University of Luton, Luton, UK & 2School of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
1

Abstract An individuals beliefs in relation to stress are likely to affect their perceptions, and hence their workrelated actions (such as absenteeism). In this paper, lay representations of work stress were investigated utilising semi-structured interviews with 45 individuals from a range of occupations. The meaning of occupational stress, its antecedents and outcomes, and ways by which it may be managed were examined. Dominant factors were established through the use of thematic content analysis. Similarities and differences were found between lay and professional discourses on work stress. Results indicate that lay representations of occupational stress are multi-faceted. Little consensus was found in how participants interpreted the concept: a diverse range of personal, environmental, and societal factors was highlighted. A different (and arguably more complex) range of definitions of job stress and the manner in which it impacts on individuals was revealed than has been reported in previous studies. The causes of stress at work were perceived as being predominantly organisational, but the impact of stress on the employee was more salient than organisational outcomes. Paradoxically, secondary and tertiary stress management techniques were thought to be more effective than interventions designed to prevent stress at work. Interviewees with line management responsibility were more likely to emphasise individual responsibility for managing stress, most others maintained that the individual and the organisation are equally responsible. The potential value of examining lay representations of job stress to the discipline of Occupational Health Psychology is discussed and suggestions for future research are made.

Keywords: lay representations, work stress, stress management, stress outcome, content analysis

Introduction The non-specificity of the stress concept A substantial body of research has accumulated on occupational stress. It is now generally acknowledged that stress is the product of an imbalance between appraisals of environmental demands and individual resources (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; MacKay, Cousins, Kelly, Lee & Caig, 2004) and that stressors (i.e. environmental demands) should be operationally differentiated from strains (i.e. responses to these demands) (Jones & Bright, 2001). Nevertheless, stress is still subject to numerous explanations from diverse academic perspectives, and a clear distinction between stressors and strains is not always made. The lack of consensus amongst researchers in the field is illustrated by the findings of a study

Correspondence: Gail Kinman, Department of Psychology, University of Luton, Luton, Bedfordshire LU1 3JU, UK. E-mail: gail.kinman@luton.ac.uk ISSN 0267-8373 print/ISSN 1464-5335 online # 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd DOI: 10.1080/02678370500144831

102

G. Kinman & F. Jones

conducted by Jex, Beehr and Roberts (1992) who analysed articles published in six eminent journals in the field of organisational behaviour over a period of several years. Jex et al. indicate that stress was defined in several ways: as a stimulus from the environment, as a response to environmental stimuli, and as a stimulus-response relationship. In 14 per cent of articles reviewed, however, the terms stress or stressful were either not defined or could not be fitted into any recognisable theoretical framework. Owing to the lack of clarity that continues to surround the meaning of stress, the continued usefulness of the construct has been questioned (e.g. Briner, 1996; Briner, Harris & Daniels, 2004). Nonetheless, research activity in the field has continued to grow (Jones & Bright, 2001). It could be argued that the lack of specificity of the stress concept might be attractive to researchers, as diverse definitions and approaches can be adopted and a wide range of potential stressors, strains and intervening variables operationalised under its heading. The concept of stress is not only of academic interest: its increasing salience in modern Western society as a metaphor for human misfortune, dissatisfaction and suffering has been documented (Helman, 1997; Mulhall, 1996). Barley and Knight (1992) argue that the rise in popularity of stress amongst the general public is largely attributable to its broad-based explanatory value, as it can be invoked to account for a variety of negative environmental factors, feeling states, physical sensations and cognitions. Although stress has now become part of the everyday language of the workplace, little is known about lay representations of the concept. What do people actually mean when they say that they are stressed by their jobs? To what extent do lay theories of work stress overlap with the dominant models and theories utilised by academics? This study aims to examine lay representations of the nature of occupational stress, its antecedents and outcomes, and ways by which work stress can be effectively managed. Knowledge of these issues has potential utility in the field of occupational health psychology by providing insight into how people make sense of their work-related wellbeing and, therefore, guiding the measurement and management of job stress. Lay representations of stress Lay theories are conceptualised by Furnham (1988) as the common sense explanations people provide for aspects of social behaviour. Their function is to establish cause-andeffect relationships which enables one to apportion blame, praise or responsibility (p. 9). Research that has examined lay representations of miscellaneous psychological phenomena suggests that they are not nave and deterministic beliefs but complex and multi dimensional (Furnham, 1988). It has been argued that insight into lay representations of health and illness is potentially valuable (see Helman, 1985), but knowledge of how individuals interpret the concept of stress has particular utility in the field of health psychology. There is evidence to suggest that stress has become an important lay construct for explaining the aetiology of ailments ranging from fatigue and menopausal symptoms to hypertension and coronary heart disease (e.g. Aaronson & Pallikkathayil, 2003; Conboy, Domar and OConnell, 2001; French, Marteau, Senior & Weinman, 2002; Parker, Finkel & Indice, 1993). The salience of stress as a perceived cause of illness is emphasised in an interview study conducted by Blaxter (1997) where participants considered it to be a more important predictor of health than healthy behaviours (p. 752). The literature on health beliefs suggests that lay theories of healthrelated concepts predict help-seeking, compliance with medical advice and other health behaviours. Petrie and Weinman (1997) maintain that stress is now so widely accepted as a

Lay representations of workplace stress

103

cause of disease that the mere perception of the presence of a psychosocial stressor can affect the interpretation of symptoms and the decision to seek health care (p. 38). From the studies reviewed above, the tendency to attribute illness to stress appears to have become commonplace: the implications of these attributions for health and disease are considerable. Some studies suggest highlighting similarities and differences between lay and professional discourses on stress (e.g. Clark, 2003). It is acknowledged, however, that to some extent these theories are mutually reinforcing (Pollock, 1988). There is some evidence that the lack of consensus amongst stress researchers as to the precise meaning of the stress concept is also found in lay representations of the phenomenon. An analysis of data obtained from three interview studies that explored lay conceptualisations of life stress and illness reveals considerable variation in how the concept is understood. Participants utilised a number of varied and creative metaphors when describing stress: such as, a heavy weight pressing down on the individual; a state of tension such as a wire that is taut and could suddenly snap; a speeding up of physiological processes that leads to physical breakdown; a malfunctioning of the body as a machine; the body being under siege; a gradual wearing out of the bodys defence systems; the depletion of essential internal resources or reserves; and the build up of pressure that needs to be released in some manner (Helman, 1985; Hodgetts & Chamberlain, 2000; Pollock, 1988). Interviewees tended to highlight the stressful nature of contemporary life as an explanation for ill health. More specifically, Pollocks interviewees generally believed that stress had increased (and would continue to do so) in response to a pathogenic society, a faster pace of life, greater pressure to achieve, more materialism and the erosion of social support networks. The majority maintained that stress was unavoidable and, consequently, little could be done to reduce or manage it. Work was considered to be a significant source of stress, but certain sectors were thought to be particularly at risk from stress-related illness: most notably, the paradigm heart-attack case was the pressurised executive (p. 382). The pervasiveness of this belief, and its implications for health, is illustrated in a more recent study conducted by Clark (2003). Interviews conducted with patients who had recently experienced mycardial infarction revealed that stress (especially work stress) was considered as having a more influential causal role than other factors such as smoking, poor diet and lack of exercise. Lay representations of occupational stress Research suggests that people are more likely to attribute the stress or strain that they experience to the work environment than other life domains (McCormick, 1997; Warr & Payne, 1983). Considerably more insight has, however, been gained into individuals explanatory models of life stress and health than lay representations of occupational stress. As research reviewed in this paper suggests that representations of stress held by individuals inform their attitudes and actions, an investigation of lay theories of work stress and its relationship with employee wellbeing has the potential to inform policy and practice relating to how stress is managed in organisations. Employees are likely to draw on a number of sources when forming their opinions about work stress, including organisational policies and practices, the trade union movement and the media. Many organisations now provide secondary and tertiary interventions of different kinds that aim to counsel stressed individuals and/or educate employees about stress and how best to manage it. In general, such programmes conceptualise stress as an individual problem that must be dealt with by the employee rather than the organisation (Wainwright & Calnan, 2002). Alternatively, trade unions have created a discourse of stress as an occupational hazard that is structural and not attributable to

104

G. Kinman & F. Jones

personal incapacity (Hepburn & Brown, 2001). As Barley and Knight (1992) argue, stress claims are especially useful in the labour movement as a way of gaining public support by carefully articulating rhetorics of deprivation in the fight for better terms and conditions for its members (p. 19). Primary stress management interventions are, therefore, advocated by this sector. The media is also responsible for popularising the concept of work stress and promoting dominant stereotypes (Harkness et al., 2005). Self-help books on managing stress have proliferated and are widely read by the lay public. Whereas these texts focus almost exclusively on the individual as the agent of change, a diverse range of stress management strategies is endorsed, for example: enhancing organisational and goal setting skills, acquiring stress resilience, transforming a negative perspective on work into a more positive and fulfilling attitude, and maximising work-life balance. Studies that examine how health issues are portrayed in popular culture suggest that opinion is commonly blended with facts derived from research (Carlson, Li & Holm, 1997). The media obtains factually based information on occupational stress from a number of sources including government bodies, academic studies and authorities on stress. Research funded by the UK Health and Safety Executive and other agencies frequently concludes that work environments are becoming more stressful, and that a high proportion of employees are experiencing stress-related illness (e.g. Jones & Hodgson, 1998). League tables of the most stressful occupations have also been compiled (Johnson, Cooper, Cartwight, Donald, Taylor & Millet, 2005). Such findings are promulgated by the media and frequently expounded upon by media-friendly stress experts. In particular, cases where employees (often from the public sector) have been awarded high levels of compensation for stressrelated incapacity receive considerable media exposure (Wainwright & Calnan, 2002). Although little is known about the general message promulgated by the media in the UK, Lewig and Dollard (2001) recently conducted a content analysis of the newsprint media portrayal of occupational stress in Australia. Work stress was represented as an economically costly epidemic that is primarily due to unfavourable workplace conditions rather than an individual failure to cope with pressure (p. 179). Articles reviewed placed particular emphasis on stress experienced by public sector employees such as teachers. A range of physical and psychological outcomes of stress was highlighted. The views presented were somewhat contradictory in that stress was portrayed in the press as a motivating force (and therefore a good thing) that could be reduced or eliminated through a range of strategies (implying that stress is inherently damaging). Lewig and Dollard conclude by commenting upon the paucity of research into lay representations of work stress, and recommending that more studies should be conducted to examine how employees themselves perceive the concept. Diverse, potentially contradictory, messages regarding the nature of stress and how it should be managed are likely to be disseminated by the various sources outlined above. Some variation in lay representations of workplace stress was therefore anticipated in the present study. To date, only three studies can be located that have examined lay representations of occupational stress. Cross-sectional research conducted by Furnham (1997) involved 134 workers indicating their levels of agreement with a series of statements about stress at work. Respondents emphasised the behavioural consequences of occupational stress (e.g. impaired productivity and performance) more frequently than psychological strains, although anxiety, depression and fatigue were also highlighted. A number of what Furnham termed intra-individual factors (such as willpower), and inter-individual strategies

Lay representations of workplace stress

105

(such as seeking professional help) were cited as the most effective ways of managing workplace stress. As respondents were not given the opportunity to rate the efficacy of structural strategies, the extent to which lay people believe that organisations are responsible for alleviating occupational stress in their employees could not be established from this study. This omission is surprising as surveys of various occupations suggest that employees may place a strong emphasis on organisational responsibilities for the avoidance and alleviation of occupational stress (e.g. Kinman, 1996; Moran & Colliss, 1995). Research conducted by Dewe and ODriscoll (2002) examined the views of 540 New Zealand managers on the outcomes of workplace stress, the extent to which their organisations were responsible for managing it, and the effectiveness of various interventions. Open-ended questions and questionnaires were utilised. Unlike Furnhams study, perceptions of the effectiveness of structural as well as individual stress management strategies were assessed. Respondents indicated that job stress manifested itself in various ways including emotional and erratic behaviour, physiological changes, absenteeism and impaired motivation, morale and performance. Interestingly, whereas most interviewees maintained that employees had little or no control over the factors that might induce workplace stress, 51 per cent considered that the individual had quite a lot or total responsibility for dealing with stress-related problems. These findings concur with research by Daniels (1996) suggesting that managers find secondary and tertiary approaches more appropriate than strategies and interventions designed to proactively manage stress. Sharpley and Gardner (2001) interviewed 36 senior managers (predominantly male) from large and highly successful Australian organisations about their understanding of work stress and its impact on employees. Findings suggest that over half of the managers interviewed perceived stress to be a response to workplace events and almost a third as a stimulus or the events themselves. Only one participant referred to stress as a combination of reactions and events that implied a stimulus-response relationship. Similar to Dewe and ODriscolls findings, participants believed that workplace stress had an adverse impact on employees health and functioning and on the efficiency of the organisation. Although managers thought that stress management training should be made available to all staff, the strategies and interventions they favoured were unspecified. The views expressed were somewhat contradictory, however, as many interviewees maintained that employees who admitted experiencing work-related stress and/or who participated in stress management training risked being labelled weak and unable to cope with the demands of the job. The findings of a study conducted by Harkness et al. (2005) suggest that employees believe that disclosing stress at work is likely to be perceived by management as an expression of vulnerability, weakness or incompetence. It has been suggested that lay representations of work stress held by employees are likely to differ from those of employers. Barley and Knight (1992) maintain that managers will tend to utilise a stress rhetoric that emphasises internal factors or individual failings, whereas individuals with lower occupational status will refer to the concept in terms of untenable environmental features. The studies by Sharpley and Gardner (2001) and Dewe and Driscoll (2002) described above suggest that managers may favour an individualised conceptualisation of stress and how it should be managed but, as yet, Barley and Knights hypothesis remains largely untested. Researchers are in general agreement that work stress is a serious problem in many contemporary organisations that requires management at individual and the organisational levels (Cooper & Cartwright, 1994). It is frequently maintained, however, that the majority

106

G. Kinman & F. Jones

of stress management interventions are ineffective (e.g. Reynolds & Briner, 1994). The beliefs that individuals hold about stress are likely to influence how they perceive it in the workplace, the manner in which they respond to it, how they disclose it, and how they manage it in themselves and others. Consequently, insight into employees interpretations of the stress concept could facilitate the development of more successful interventions. With few exceptions, research that has examined lay theories of stress has focused on life stress and its relationship with health and disease. Clearly, stress can refer broadly to a wide range of acute events (such as bereavement and relationship breakdown) and chronic factors (such as poverty and interpersonal conflict) (Goldberger & Breznitz, 1993). Whilst the studies reviewed above may well have encompassed concepts of work stress, this cannot be assumed and has certainly not been made explicit. In order to investigate how people make sense of their wellbeing in relation to their work, representations should be elicited that are restricted to the workplace context. As a result of the few existing studies on lay theories of work stress some knowledge has been gained, but the representations provided in the literature are predominantly from a managers perspective. There is reason to believe the views held by managers may differ from those of employees with no line management responsibility (Barley & Knight, 1992). Only one study has examined lay theories of occupational stress held by a more heterogenous group of employees (Furnham, 1997); however, this study made a priori assumptions about the nature of work stress that essentially constrained participants explanations. It has been argued here that individuals obtain their knowledge about the concept of work stress from a range of sources that may promote diverse perspectives. The present study aims to extend previous research discussed above by examining lay representations of work stress through a more inductive framework utilising an occupationally heterogenous sample. The research reported here set out explore areas that have the potential to aid further understanding of employees beliefs about stress and the ways by which it should be managed. More specifically it examined views on: the meaning of work stress; the incidence of workplace stress; the features of work and/or individual characteristics that cause work stress; the signs and symptoms that suggest that an employee is experiencing stress at work and the ways by which stress can be successfully managed. This study also aimed to examine Barley and Knights (1992) proposition that the stress rhetoric of managers and those without line management responsibility will differ. The extent to which lay representations of occupational stress reflect the dominant theories and variables operationalised in work stress research will also be explored, and the implications of the findings of this study for stress measurement and management examined. Method Participants Lay representations of work stress were obtained from semi-structured personal interviews with 45 working adults. Twenty participants were female and ages ranged from 29 to 59 (mean 0/45 years, SD 0/14.4 years). A range of occupations was represented (e.g. solicitor, college lecturer, manager, secretary, journalist and caretaker). Participants were recruited by using purposive sampling via personal and professional connections (Maxwell, 1996). Twenty participants had line management responsibility (for numbers ranging from one employee to over 100).

Lay representations of workplace stress Measures

107

The questions utilised in this study were developed to obtain lay opinions on issues relating to the meaning, causes, consequences and management of occupational stress. The questions were open in structure, free of psychological jargon and were designed to be neutral rather than value-laden or leading (Smith, 1995). The questions that initiated discussion on each topic were as follows: 1. What do you think the term occupational stress means? 2. Some people think there is more work stress around nowadays? To what extent do you agree with this view? 3. Are there any particular jobs or working conditions that you think are more stressful than others? If so, what are they, and why do you think they more stressful? 4. Are there any particular types of people that you think would be more likely to suffer from stress? If so, what types of people are they, and why do you think they are more stressed than others? 5. If somebody was experiencing stress at work, what would be the signs? 6. A number of things can be done to help people manage stress at work. If people are stressed at work what do you think can be done about it? Procedure The questions were piloted with a small sample to ascertain that they were understandable and elicited a free response. Participants were assured of confidentiality and anonymity. Although it was acknowledged that they might have first-hand experience of occupational stress, interviewees were asked to express their opinions on the concept of stress in general , rather than disclosing their personal experiences. Interviews lasted 30 /40 minutes and were audio-taped and transcribed. Analysis Interview data was subjected to computer-based thematic content analysis by NuD*IST data analysis software (Gahan & Hannibal, 1998). As recommended by Neuendorf (2002), individual questions were used as the basic unit of analysis (or main theme areas) and categories and sub-categories were developed from each theme. The themes and categories derived from the data are described in the results section and quotes are provided by way of illustration. Where appropriate, descriptive statistics (such as frequencies of key terms) are used in order to produce a quantitative component to the analysis. To ensure reliability, a proportion of the data (c. 15 per cent) was analysed by another researcher: an acceptable level of concordance was achieved (K 0/.78). Results What does occupational stress mean? Responses to this question were assigned to one of three categories depending on whether participants had described stress as a stimulus, a response, or a stimulus-response relationship (see Figure 1). One-third of interviewees (N 0/15) conceptualised occupational stress as a stimulus arising from negative conditions in the workplace, for example: Stress is being overworked and not having enough hours in the day.

108

G. Kinman & F. Jones

OCCUPATIONAL STRESS

33 % (n=15) A STIMULUS: i.e. negative conditions in the workplace

47% (n=21) A STIMULUS-RESPONSE relationship: i.e. an interaction between working conditions and individual factors

20% (n = 9) A RESPONSE: i.e. various health and performance-related factors

e.g. general pressure, heavy workload, unsatisfactory physical environment

Affective response: i.e. departure from optimum psychological functioning

Physical response: i.e. departure from physical health

Cognitive response: e.g. inability to think clearly

A combination of affective, physical and cognitive responses

Figure 1. Beliefs regarding the meaning of occupational stress.

Other participants (N 0/9) described workplace stress as a response to environmental pressures. This view of occupational stress represented a deviation from a desired physical, emotional and/or cognitive state, for example: It (occupational stress) is used when people feel ill, discontented at work, have got health symptoms, emotional symptoms. It is usually used when they are not how they want to be . Owing to the variance found within this category, this data was further sub-divided into psychological/emotional, physical, cognitive and behavioural outcomes of stress. Workplace stress was described in emotional or psychological terms: It is a mental thing-something that is in peoples heads. An emotional thing / not a physical pressure . The specific affective experiences of anxiety, tension, depression, discontentment, confusion and frustration were invoked. Interviewees also referred to stress as a result of apprehension and perceived threat: I would say stress stems from fear / fear of inadequacy, fear of not being able to cope, fear of not being able to meet up to somebody elses expectations of you at work . And: It (stress) is used when people feel threatened: their job is threatened, they are threatened / not physically, but their way of life is under threat . Work stress was also thought to be synonymous with other affective experiences such as: not knowing which way to turn and feeling out of control. Participants also referred to workplace stress as a departure from physical wellbeing; headaches, backache, digestive problems and hypertension were among the symptoms highlighted. One interviewee maintained that workplace stress was a disease entity in its own right: . . . a type of illness really that needs some sort of treatment in extreme cases. Some interviewees who conceptualised workplace stress as a response interpreted it as an impairment in cognitive functioning: i.e. the inability to gain perspective and/or to think in a logical

Lay representations of workplace stress

109

manner, for example: (Stress is) . . . being unable to concentrate very well on what you are doing . Finally, stress was described as a combination of psychological, physical and cognitive responses, for example: Occupational stress means tension, anxiety, some mental problems, lack of concentration, plus physical things as well. The majority of interviewees (N 0/21), however, described occupational stress in terms that imply stimulus-response conditions, for example: I would say stress is related to anxiety brought about by a whole series of pressures at work. This group frequently highlighted the role of appraisal in the perception of, and response to, stress at work, for example: I think it (stress) means a point at which people cant cope: either their day-to-day experience doesnt match their expectations or their past experience. Occupational stress / a negative or positive phenomenon? Initially, most participants (N0/36) described occupational stress in negative terms. However, in response to a subsequent probe that asked interviewees whether they believed that stress was necessarily a bad thing, a considerable majority (N 0/38) maintained that a certain degree of stress is unavoidable, whilst some indicated that stress at work could have positive outcomes: A certain amount of pressure at work, a certain number of deadlines to work to, a certain amount of difficulties, are actually good things. And: If you go through life and everything runs smoothly it would be a bit mundane. You wouldnt keep going if some days you didnt have a bit of stress. I think it keeps people motivated . It was suggested that experiencing work stress could drive employees to implement necessary lifestyle changes: Work stress is a sign that things are getting on top of you. It is not a bad thing getting stressed out because it allows you to re-evaluate your job and helps you make decisions about what you want from your life. Several interviewees distinguished between damaging stress and motivating stress. The notion of a demarcation between these different types of stress was frequently invoked, but where this line was drawn was thought to be subject to individual differences: Quite a lot of people in very different ways seem to say that they need a certain amount of stress or a certain amount of adrenaline to be able to function well, but others crumble at the slightest amount of pressure. And: I think you have got to be a fairly strong character in order to cope with stress and not let it affect you badly, but I think some people can and some people thrive on it. The impact of acute and chronic stress at work was also differentiated, for example: As long as you can turn things around positively in the short term then that is healthy, but if it is too much all the time then it just grinds you down and you end up being useless at everything . Only seven participants (c. 15 per cent of the sample) believed occupational stress was wholly damaging. One interviewee strongly expressed the opinion that the notion of positive stress was actively promoted by employers to serve the interests of organisations not their employees: The idea that a certain amount of stress is good for you is a management-speak cliche . I dont think stress is good for you / if it is good for you then it is not stress. Has occupational stress increased? A considerable majority of the sample (N0/41) alleged that stress at work had reached epidemic proportions in recent years. The most common target for blame was an unhealthy society or social changes in general that had resulted in, for example, a faster pace of life and increased acquisitiveness. Greater expectations on the part of employees and/or employers was also blamed for the recent intensification of stress (mentioned by almost 50 per cent of interviewees: N 0/ 18). This viewpoint is illustrated by one interviewees comments: Stress is something that has been created out of modern society

110

G. Kinman & F. Jones

whereby people expect an awful lot more of themselves than they did previously-increased demands to be an all-encompassing being . The changing nature of work was also thought to be responsible for the recent escalation in the incidence of workplace stress (cited by over half the sample: N 0/29). The most common explanation related to organisational downsizing and reduced levels of job security, for example: The nature of work has changed / it has moved from a calmer atmosphere, where there were more people to do the job and more sharing of tasks, towards fewer people doing more things, often for less reward . The introduction of new technology was also thought to have led to increased stress: People have to respond quicker now-with things like email etc. there is no time to think and reflect on your actions any more. Everything is instant . Reference was made to the old days where people were more relaxed at work and, if someone was unhappy in their present position she or he had a choice of other jobs. This perspective is illustrated by one interviewee who commented on the intensified pace of work nowadays compared to the conditions that her father had enjoyed: He had a very responsible Senior Civil Service job, but was only expected to work from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., he got a lunch hour and he never used to bring work home. Nowadays lunch is for wimps and you are not expected to fit everything into normal working hours. The role of the media was emphasised in raising the profile of stress and educating the public about the phenomenon: Stress is more in the spotlight. A few years ago, you never heard about it-you read about it all the time now and see programmes about it on TV. For some, the increased media exposure was positive, as it helped people to recognise signs of stress in themselves and decide what remedial action to take. For others, however, the term was over-used and the increase in stress claims was considered symptomatic of a culture of blame inherent in contemporary Western society: Stress is a much-abused word that is used far too much / people say Oh, I have got stress rather than talking about the real problem . What are the most stressful aspects of work? Interviewees were asked whether they considered any particular working conditions or jobs to be particularly stressful. Almost one-third of participants (N0/14) maintained that all jobs were potentially stress inducing: I dont think there is any type of work that is more demanding than any other. Stacking shelves can be stressful if you are asked to do too many, the product is too heavy, there is a boss breathing down your neck, or the time-scale is too tight . The remaining interviewees tended to argue that some jobs were intrinsically high in stress; these tended to involve working under conditions of physical danger, responsibility for the welfare of others, and dealing with people who are themselves experiencing stress. Interviewees responses relating to the stressful aspects of work were categorised into individual factors and structural factors. Organisational stressors accounted for the majority of statements made in response to this question (78 per cent). A number of individual explanations for work stress (such as personality) were also provided, which accounted for the remaining proportion of statements. Table I provides details of the sub-themes found within each category, together with the total number of statements made within each subtheme. A wide range of working conditions was considered stressful. Job insecurity was most commonly cited as a work stressor: The fact is jobs are very hard to come by. No job these days is secure and the trouble is that no one knows when they will be made redundant and what will happen to them when this occurs. The stress of mundane and unchallenging work with low utilisation of skills was more frequently cited than highly pressured managerial jobs with line-management responsibility. One interviewee commented: The stereotypical stressful job

Lay representations of workplace stress

Table I. Categories of percived occupational stressors. Type of stressor Environmental stressors (78% of overall statements made) Job insecurity Time pressures/deadlines Work overload Boring and repetitive work Lack of support Responsibility for welfare of others Lack of job control Lack of resources Conflict with manager/co-workers Dealing with stressed people Long working hours Physical danger or risk Role ambiguity Management jobs High expectations of other people Organisational change Lack of reward/appreciation Lack of training or guidance High powered job New communication technology Poor management Conflict with colleagues Dealing with difficult people Lack of equal opportunities Open-ended jobs Poor management Physical surroundings Skills not recognised/utilised Individual stressors (22% of overall statements made) Personality Role conflict/work-home spill-over High expectations of self Lack of person/environment fit Cannot meet personal standards Feeling trapped Feeling inadequate Feeling undervalued Lack of achievement Over involvement Poor time management skills 25 10 6 5 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 20 22 17 12 12 11 11 11 10 10 9 7 7 6 6 6 5 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Number of statements in category

111

is managers working 12 hour days, but in reality stress is often to be found in the frustration that people experience when they are in low level jobs where they are bored and not reaching their potential . Lack of job autonomy was also highlighted as stressful in relation to low status jobs: Not having any control and being bossed around and pushed around and treated with little respect is stressful for people. As can be seen in Table I, individual (as opposed to organisational) explanations for occupational stress comprised 22 per cent of the total statements made. Personality characteristics of the employee were most commonly specified, for example: Some people

112

G. Kinman & F. Jones

almost invite stress upon themselves, whereas others are somehow able to ride through whatever happens with no difficulty. The roles of high self-expectations and a poor fit between the individual and the organisation in generating work stress were also emphasised: Some people set such high standards for themselves that they can never really achieve . And: It could be that you and the job dont match-you are a square peg in a round hole . What are the outcomes of occupational stressors? Interviewees maintained that work stress affected employees in various ways. Statements in response to this question were allocated into four categories: psychological, behavioural, physical and cognitive. As can be seen in Table II, the psychological consequences of stress, most notably anxiety, were most commonly emphasised (29 per cent of total statements made in response to this question). The negative impact of work stress on physical health was also commonly highlighted by interviewees (23 per cent of statements made). Stress was thought to result in physical
Table II. Categories of perceived outcomes of occupational stressors. Outcomes Psychological outcomes (29% of total statements made) Tension/anxiety/worry Depression/unhappiness Sleeplessness Lack of motivation Nervous breakdown Personality change Apathy Behavioural outcomes (26% of total statements made) Irritability/being argumentative Marital difficulties Absenteeism Less sociable Early retirement Complaining Physical outcomes (23% of total statements made) Poor physical health Tiredness Aches and pains Blood pressure Digestive problems Heart disease Cognitive outcomes (22% of total statements made) Poor standard of work/making mistakes Poor concentration Irrational thoughts/lack of perspective Less organised Difficulty prioritising Confusion 20 10 6 2 2 2 16 10 7 5 5 2 18 14 6 8 2 2 26 10 7 7 4 2 2 Number of statements

Lay representations of workplace stress

113

illness in general and tiredness, aches and pains and digestive problems in particular. More serious physical health problems such as heart attacks and hypertension were mentioned less frequently. A further 26 per cent of statements related to behavioural outcomes of occupational stress, with irritability with co-workers and family most frequently cited as well as reduced levels of sociability. The impact of stress at work on work-life balance in general, and personal relationships in particular, was emphasised: for example, often peoples work performance is the last to suffer because of the pressure of losing their job-so the home life and the social life suffer before the work does. And: If you take the job home with you, you live it all the time / you cant relax at home when you are with your family and friends. The role stress experienced by working mothers was also reflected upon by one interviewee: It must be very stressful trying to be everything at the same time. Women trying to be mums, trying to be wives, trying to be working better than other people. Another participant, however, challenged this perspective: When I read the papers and I see women talking about the problems they have combining work and children, I think well, millions of women all over the world do it and have done it for centuries / so why is it called stress now? It should perhaps be mentioned that these both of these interviewees were female and both had children. Workplace stress was also thought to impact on the employees cognitive functioning (22 per cent of statements) leading to a reduction in performance, difficulties concentrating and irrational and disordered thinking. The cumulative nature of work stress was emphasised where a negative impact in one domain can lead to disruptions in functioning in others: this
Table III. Stress management strategies. Strategies Individual strategies (76% of statements made) Time management/personal organisation Self analysis/inward/introspection Counselling/disclose emotions Exercise Look after yourself (diet, sleep) Hobbies/interests/leisure Depends on the individual (what works) Change your reaction/attitude Medication/medical advice Change jobs Control own workload Relaxation Talk to your manager Slow down Dont get too involved Organisational strategies (24% of statements made) More control, info and knowledge Organisational in general Reduce workload Job enrichment/involvement Investigate sources Change work More resources Lower expectations 6 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 9 8 7 6 5 5 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 Number of statements

114

G. Kinman & F. Jones

viewpoint was exemplified by one interviewee: Stress at work can be a vicious circle. People worry that they worry and find themselves waking up at 2 a.m. and cant get back to sleep. Then if they havent had a good nights sleep through worry, their health suffers and their performance is worse. The management of occupational stress Table III presents the methods of stress management that were mentioned by participants. More statements were made relating to individually focused strategies (76 per cent) than organisational interventions to manage stress. As can be seen, a range of secondary or tertiary strategies was believed to be beneficial, such as developing more effective organisational skills, self-examination and counselling. Nominating introspection as the most constructive method of managing stress, one participant observed: People dont ask themselves simple questions-one should look inwardly and say why am I stressed? Do I eat properly? Did I go to bed at a reasonable time last night? Did I get enough sleep? There is a whole load of factors involved in creating stress. I think before you start shouting out you have to look in . Further individually focused strategies that were highlighted included taking regular exercise, pursuing interests and hobbies, alternative remedies, and taking medication. Primary strategies for managing stress were mentioned less frequently: these included increasing job control, reducing workload and enriching jobs. Almost half of the sample (N0/22) asserted that the employee should be the sole focus of change, whereas a small minority of interviewees (N0/6) believed that stress should be managed solely by the organisation. Amongst the latter group, some concern was expressed that emphasising individual responsibility for dealing with work stress was likely to have deleterious consequences for the individual, for example: I think the causes of workplace stress are often structural and it adds to the stress of people to make them think that if they go on a stress management course that is the end of their problem. That is damaging. Over one-quarter of the sample (N 0/12) alleged that it was the joint responsibility of the employee and the organisation to manage workplace stress: It is a two way thing, the person needs to be able to cope and the job needs to be cope-able with . Within this group, opinions were expressed that the range of options available for the employee to manage stress was dependent on the level of control she or he has over the nature of her or his work: Some people are able to change their lives, or do less work. Other less fortunate people are trapped where they are without any choice . Several interviewees in this category indicated that if the job cannot be made less stressful, the individuals reaction to the situation should be changed. The importance of finding some sort of catharsis in other areas of life was emphasised: If work factors cant be changed, you could have a release mechanism / it helps to have some sort of safety valve if there arent any alternatives. The remaining interviewees (N 0/ 5) maintained that occupational stress was unavoidable under current working conditions and that nothing could be done to manage it. One such respondent (a female solicitor) indicated that stress was a price that individuals had to pay for success at work: The more money you earn the more stress you are under / you dont get something for nothing ! The impact of occupational status on lay representations of work stress Interviewees without line management responsibility tended to describe stress either in terms of a stimulus arising from untenable job conditions or a stimulus-response relationship. Conversely, management grades were more likely to refer to the concept as

Lay representations of workplace stress

115

an individual response (x2 0/13.51, p B/.001). Furthermore, for participants with line management responsibility, managing stress was generally believed to be an individual concern, not the responsibility of the organisation: this group indicated that secondary and tertiary strategies were more salient. Interviewees from the lower grades of employment maintained that successful stress management would involve a combination of individual and organisational strategies (x2 0/14.94, p B/.01). Discussion In accordance with research that has investigated lay theories of other psychological phenomena (e.g. Furnham, 1988), the representations of occupational stress found in the present study are not nave beliefs about cause and effect, but sophisticated and multi faceted. No clear consensus was found in how work stress was interpreted: participants referred to a diverse array of personal, environmental, and social factors when defining the concept and placed different weighting on the roles these factors play in the antecedents and outcomes of stress. Parallels were apparent between the lay accounts revealed here and theories of stress that have been developed in the scientific literature. A different (and arguably more complex) pattern of definitions was found in the present study than in previous investigations of lay theories of the impact of life stress in general (Helman, 1985; Pollock, 1988). Studies of managers representations of work stress conducted by Dewe and ODriscoll (2002) and Sharpley and Gardner (2001) suggest that they tend to refer to the concept in rather simplistic terms as either a stimulus (a stressor : i.e. the demands of the working environment) or a response (a strain: i.e. a physical, psychological and/or behavioural reaction to these demands). Although interviewees in the present study described the phenomenon in this manner, the most common definition of work stress found here referred to it in terms of an interaction or transaction. Accordingly, the views represented in this study are a more accurate reflection of contemporary theorising where work stress is generally seen as residing neither solely in the individual nor in the environment but in the transaction between the two (Dewe & ODriscoll, 2002, p. 156). Differences between the representations of work stress held by managers and those without management responsibility (and the implications of these differences for research, policy and practice) will be examined further below. In accordance with Lewig and Dollard (2001), who examined newspaper coverage of the phenomenon, work stress was perceived to be positive and functional as well as a negative feature of the workplace. Some insight into this ambiguity has been provided in the present study. Interviewees frequently referred to a boundary between beneficial and damaging stress: where this line was drawn was believed to be subject to individual and environmental factors. In some cases, work stress was also believed to be protective and functional, as its presence could signify that a change of lifestyle was necessary. Again, such a view corresponds with a transactional approach where individual appraisal is an inextricable part of the stress process. In differentiating between positive and negative stress, some participants distinguished between the impact of acute and chronic work stressors: in the short term, stress was portrayed as a positive factor that could help the individual to attain peak performance. Over the long term, however, experiencing stress at work was generally believed to erode the individuals physical and/or psychological integrity. This reflects the prevailing view amongst researchers that chronic work stressors are likely to result in ill health. The finding that work stress can be viewed in positive as well as negative terms

116

G. Kinman & F. Jones

should be contrasted with the tendency amongst researchers to conceptualise the phenomenon in wholly negative terms. Interviewees almost invariably maintained that work stress had become endemic, and that the pathogenic nature of contemporary life was to blame. Such views support those expressed in an interview study conducted by Pollock in 1988 that examined lay representations of the relationship between life stress and health. A number of additional explanations for the increase in workplace stress were revealed in the present study, however, that provides more insight into the phenomenon. These encompassed individual, organisational and societal factors including unrealistic self-expectations, increasing demands from employers, a faster pace of work and a general rise in job insecurity. In accordance with Lewig and Dollard (2001) the findings of the present study highlight the role of the media in raising awareness of occupational stress and in promoting dominant ideologies of the phenomenon. Insight has been gained, however, into how working people view representations of the stress concept that are disseminated by the media. Some interviewees maintained that the term has become over-used and somewhat abused; the media and a general culture of blame inherent in contemporary society were thought to be responsible. Such views are in contrast with those reported by Harkness et al. (2005), where female clerical workers believed that the attention paid to stress by the media was generally a positive factor. The marked emphasis on socio-cultural aspects of work stress found in this study stands in contrast with the individualistic and essentialist perspective that underpins much research in the field of occupational stress. Such findings lend support to Barley and Knight (1992) and Reynolds and Briner (1994) who assert that, as stress does not arise in a political and ideological vacuum, it cannot be investigated in a meaningful way by abstracting the individual from her or his cultural context. Analysis of the findings of previous studies of how work stress is represented by employees suggests that the stereotypical stressed individual is a business executive who is experiencing chronic work overload (Pollock, 1988; Furnham, 1997; Lewig & Dollard, 2001). Although the stressful nature of work underload has been acknowledged (see Jex, 1998), research in the field of occupational stress commonly portrays high workload and intensive work pace as the most significant stressors experienced in contemporary organisations (e.g. Sparks, Cooper, Fried, and Shirom, 1997). In the present study, an individual working in an under-stimulating job with little autonomy was generally believed to be more at risk of job stress. Such views are consistent with Karaseks job strain model (Karasek, 1989), and also with research findings of the Whitehall Study that utilises this model (Bosma, Marmot, Hemingway, Nicholson, Brunner & Stansfeld, 1997). The findings of the present study may indicate that recent psychological research on occupational stress has had a demonstrable impact on lay theorising-possibly through media dissemination of research findings. It is clear, however, that lay representations of work stress will not remain static but will reflect the rapidly changing demands faced by employees in contemporary working environments. The recent growth of the service sector may mean that the low levels of job autonomy and lack of skill utilisation inherent in this work have recently become more salient sources of strain to the lay public than overloaded executives. Although the causes of occupational stress were perceived as being predominantly organisational (as opposed to individual), in accordance with Furnham (1997) the impact of stress on the employee was more frequently emphasised than organisational outcomes. Some organisationally relevant consequences were salient, however: one-quarter of interviewees nominated absenteeism as a likely outcome of occupational stress, and one-half emphasised its negative impact on performance. Interestingly, Furnham (1997) did not include these

Lay representations of workplace stress

117

factors in his study of lay representations of occupational stress stating that people do not readily mention them (p. 77). Perceptions of a strong causal link between work stress and ill health were commonly expressed. Interviewees were more likely to associate the concept with minor psychosomatic complaints such as headaches and fatigue, than more serious conditions such as hypertension and coronary heart disease. This is surprising, as recent research that has examined causal attributions held by patients with coronary heart disease suggests that stress (particularly work overload and type of occupation) is one of the most common explanations for the onset of the disorder (Clark, 2003; Petrie & Weinman, 1997). Research findings that associate chronic work stressors with cardiovascular problems are also well publicised by the British Heart Foundation and the American Heart Association, and by health care providers. It is possible that individuals who are diagnosed with life-threatening disorders engage in post hoc rationalisations as to the likely cause of their illness, and stress at work is a popular target for blame. This notion should be further explored. Depression and anxiety were most commonly nominated as the potential outcomes of job stress. The more specific (but non-clinical) affective states of boredom, frustration, guilt and fear were also thought to be synonymous with the experience of occupational stress, as were emotionally-laden judgements such as feeling exploited, inadequate and out of control. These findings support and extend those of exploratory research by Gourlay, et al., (1998) who investigated the subjective experiences associated with feeling stressed at work. Briner (1996) maintains that labelling an individual as stressed is essentially meaningless since the concept is so vague. He argues that insight into the range of affective phenomena associated with the stress concept is likely to provide greater insight into the relationship between work and wellbeing than the amorphous construct of stress. The results of the present study suggest that the popularity of the stress concept may be attributable to how it can be utilised to express dissent or distress whilst avoiding the overt expression of more complex emotions and feeling states that may be perceived as pathological (and thus socially unacceptable). This would imply that the stress concept serves a useful purpose for workers who may value its non-specificity as suggested by Barley and Knight (1996). The popularity of the term stress suggests that individuals will continue to utilise it in order to describe their everyday experiences and feelings. Rather than abandoning the stress concept altogether, a fruitful avenue for research may be to examine how and why individuals use this label to describe themselves and others in various occupational contexts and what they actually mean when they use it. As the present study finds the perceived causes of workplace stress to be predominantly organisational, it might be expected that structural strategies to proactively manage stress at work would be favoured. Surprisingly, however, a significant majority of interviewees highlighted the effectiveness of secondary forms of stress management (where the burden of responsibility is placed on the individual rather than the organisation). It appears that whilst organisations are believed to be mainly responsible for engendering stress in their employees, it is the employees responsibility to deal with it. This implies that stress should not be prevented (primary intervention) but the symptoms of strain should be treated. In this sense, the views of this heterogenous sample of workers reflect those held by a group of managers recently surveyed by Dewe and ODriscoll (2002). They are, however, counter to those expressed in research conducted by Harkness et al. (2005), where female clerical wokers perceived stress management training (such as employee assistance programmes and counselling) to be irrelevant and unrealistic.

118

G. Kinman & F. Jones

Some evidence was found to support Barley and Knights proposition (1992) that lay theories of stress will differ according to occupational status. Individuals with line management responsibility were more inclined to emphasise individual responsibility for managing stress, but few interviewees from the lower grades favoured a purely structural approach. It was generally maintained by employees without line management responsibility that the individual and the organisation are equally responsible for dealing with stress at work. The findings of this study suggest that gaining insight into lay representations of stress at different levels of the organisational hierarchy is potentially useful to occupational health psychologists. The beliefs and attitudes that individuals hold shape their expectations and resultant behaviour (Furnham, 1997, p.68). Managers beliefs and attitudes regarding work-related stress and its impact on employees will determine the culture of the organisation and inform its policies and practices on dealing with stress, whereas employees beliefs and attitudes will determine which policies and practices are likely to be resisted and which may be successful. Lay representations of stress could augment, and potentially enrich, audits of occupational health by providing insight into the stress culture of an organisation, together with the attitudes of employees towards different strategies for managing stress. This may help employers design and introduce interventions that are more congruent with managers and employees representations. Although some general themes were revealed in this study, the idiosyncratic nature of definitions of stress found here, together with perceptions of its situational determinants and outcomes, challenge current approaches to theorising about stress in terms of general elements and common perceptions. It could be argued that stress has evolved into a flexible concept with a marked ideological component that can be employed to support whatever position individuals and institutions wish to adopt. This suggests that future research should adopt a more nomothetic perspective that examines personal constructions of stress by individuals and within particular working contexts. The challenges inherent in such an approach are, however, acknowledged. In particular, future research should further examine the structure of lay representations of the relationship between work stress and health. The individual uses lay beliefs, not only to interpret the nature of the threat a particular illness may pose, but also to determine the type of action she or he might use to mitigate this threat. Lay representations of workplace stress, therefore, are likely to have a profound impact on the individuals perceptions and experience of health symptoms and on determining the type of remedial action that she or he might take. The manner in which an individual conceptualises occupational stress may also influence their work-related actions, such as absenteeism, seeking promotion and turnover intentions. Finally, health and human resource professionals should be aware of the nature and variety of lay conceptions and meanings of stress. Indeed, representations of work stress and its management should be investigated in these groups. The term is frequently used in health-care and occupational settings without regard for the powerful (and varied) connotations it may hold for the individual. References
Aaronson, L., Pallikkathayil, L., & Crichton, F. (2003). A Qualitative Investigation of Fatigue Among Healthy Working Adults. Western Journal of Nursing Research , 25 , 419 /434. Barley, S. R., & Knight, D. B. (1992). Toward a Cultural Theory of Stress Complaints. Research in Organisational Behaviour , 14 , 1 /48. Bosma, H., Marmot, M., Hemingway, H., Nicholson, A., Brunner, E., & Stansfeld, S. (1997). Low job control and risk of coronary heart disease in Whitehall II (prospective cohort) study. British Medical Journal , 314 , 558 /565.

Lay representations of workplace stress

119

Briner, R. B. (1996). Stress talk: sociocultural approaches to understanding organisational stress. Proceedings of the BPS Occupational Psychology Conference , January, Eastbourne, UK. Briner, R. B. (1997). Beyond stress and satisfaction: alternative approaches to understanding psychological wellbeing at work. Proceedings of the BPS Occupational Psychology Conference , January, Blackpool, UK. Briner, R. B., Harris, C., & Daniels, K. (2004). How do work stress and coping work? Toward a fundamental theoretical reappraisal. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling , 32 , 223 /234. Calnan, M. (1987). Health and Illness: The Lay Perspective . London: Tavistock. Carlson, E. S., Li, S., & Holm, K. (1997). An analysis of menopause in the popular press. Health Care for Women International , 18 , 557 /564. Clark, A. M. (2003). Its like an explosion in your life. . .: Lay perspectives on stress and myocardial infarction. Journal of Clinical Nursing , 12 , 544 /553. Conboy, L., Domar, A., & OConnell, E. (2001). Women at mid-life: Symptoms, attitudes and choices, an Internet based survey. Maturitas , 38 , 129 /136. Cooper, C. L., & Cartwright, S. (1994). Healthy mind; healthy organisation / a proactive approach to occupational stress. Human Relations , 47 , 455 /471. Daniels, K. (1996). Why arent managers concerned about occupational stress? Work and Stress , 10 , 352 /366. Dewe, P., & ODriscoll, M. (2002). Stress management interventions: what do managers actually do? Personnel Review, 31 , 143 /165. French, D., Marteau, T., Senior, V., & Weinman, J. (2002). The structure of beliefs about the causes of heart attacks: a network analysis. British Journal of Health Psychology, 7 , 463 /479. Furnham, A. (1988). Lay Theories: Everyday Understanding of Problems in the Social Sciences . Oxford: Pergamon Press. Furnham, A. (1997). Lay theories of work stress. Work and Stress , 11 , 68 /78. Gahan, C., & Hannibal, M. (1997). Doing Qualitative Research Using QSR NuD.IST. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Goldberger, L., & Breznitz, S. (2004). Handbook of Stress (2nd Edn). New York: Free Press. Gourlay, C., Briner, R., Jones, F. (1998). How was your day? Understanding the specic affective experiences of feeling stressed and satised. Proceedings of the BPS Occupational Psychology Conference , January. Eastbourne, UK. Harkness, A. M. B., Long, B. C., Bermbach, N., Patterson, K., Jordan, S., & Kahn, H. (2005). Talking about work stress: Discourse analysis and implications for stress interventions. Work & Stress , 19 , 121 /136. Helman, C. G. (1988). Culture, Health and Illness . London: Butterworth Heinemann. Hepburn, A., & Brown, S. (2001). Teacher stress and the management of accountability. Human Relations , 54 , 691 /715. Jex, S. M. (1998). Stress and Job Performance: Theory, Research and Implications for Managerial Practice . London: Sage. Jex, S., Beehr, T., & Roberts, C. (1992). The meaning of occupational stress items to survey respondents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77 , 623 /628. Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., Donald, I., Taylor, P., & Millet, C. (2005). The experience of workrelated stress across occupations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20 , 178 /187. Jones, F., & Bright, J. (2001). Stress: Myth, Theory and Research . London: Prentice Hall. Kasl, S. (1995). Methodologies in stress and health research: past difculties, present dilemmas, future directions. In S. Kasl, & S. Cooper (Eds.), Research Methods in Stress and Health Psychology. New York: Wiley. Kinman, G. (1996). Occupational Stress and Health Among Lecturers Working in Further and Higher Education . London: NATFHE Publications. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Psychological stress in the workplace. In P. Perrewe (Ed.), Handbook on Job Stress . USA: Select Press. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping . New York: Springer. Lewig, K. A., & Dollard, M. F. (2001). Social construction of work stress: Australian newsprint media portrayal of stress at work, 1997 /98. Work & Stress , 15 , 179 /190. McCormick, J. (1997). An attribution model of teachers occupational stress and job satisfaction in a large educational system. Work and Stress , 11 , 17 /32. MacKay, C. J., Cousins, R., Kelly, P. J., Lee, S., & McCaig, R. H. (2004). Management Standards and workrelated stress in the UK: Policy background and science. Work & Stress , 18 , 91 /112. Masse, R. (2000). Qualitative and quantitative analysis of psychological distress: methodological complimentarity and ontological commensurability. Qualitative Health Research , 10 , 411 /423. Maxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach . London: Sage. Moran, C. C., & Colless, E. (1995). Perceptions of work stress in Australian reghters. Work and Stress , 9 , 405 / 415.

120

G. Kinman & F. Jones

Mulhall, A. (1996). Cultural discourse and the myth of stress in nursing and medicine. International Journal of Nursing Studies , 33 , 455 /468. Neuendorf, K. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook . California: Sage. Petrie, K. J., & Weinman, J. A. (1997). Illness representations and recovery from myocardial infarction. In K. J. Petrie, & J. A. Weinman (Eds.), Perceptions of Health and Illness . Amsterdam: Harwood. Pollock, K. (1988). On the nature of social stress: Production of a modern mythology. Social Science & Medicine , 26 , 381 /392. Reynolds, S., & Briner, R. B. (1994). Stress management at work: With whom, for whom and to what ends? British Journal of Guidance and Counselling , 22 , 75 /89. Sharpley, C., & Gardner, J. (2001). Managers understanding of stress and its effects in the workplace. Journal of Applied Health Behaviour , 3 , 24 /30. Smith, J. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In J. Smith, R. Harre, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking Methods in Psychology. London: Sage. Sparks, K., Cooper, C., Fried, Y., & Shirom, A. (1997). The effects of hours of work on health: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 70 , 391 /408. Wainwright, D., & Calnan, M. (2002). Work Stress: The Making of a Modern Epidemic . Buckingham: Open University Press. Warr, P., & Payne, R. (1983). Affective outcomes of paid employment in a random sample of British workers. Journal of Occupational Behaviour , 4 , 91 /104.