A Comparative Study of Perceived Job Stressor ... - Wiley Online Library

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2002, 51 (3), 446–457

A Comparative Study of Perceived Job Stressor Sources and Job Strain in American and Iranian Managers

Blackwell Oxford, APPS 0269-994X July 0 1 3 Original AMERICAN SPECTOR, 51 Applied © 00 International 2002 UK Psychology: Article Science COOPER, AND Association IRANIAN LtdanAND International for managers aguilar-vafaie Applied Review Psychology, 2002

Paul E. Spector* University of South Florida, USA

Cary L. Cooper University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, UK

Maria E. Aguilar-Vafaie Tarbiat Modarres University

Des échantillons de chefs d’entreprise aux USA et en Iran ont été comparés quant aux pressions au travail (contrainte, orientation du rôle du responsable/ tâche, travail/maison et le support à ne pas travailler), cinq agents tenseurs (la dissatisfaction au travail, la tension mentale, la tension physique, l’intention de quitter le travail et l’absentéisme) et le sentiment de contrôle (LOC) au travail. Comme attendu, les chefs d’entreprise iraniens étaient davantage externes et davantage sous pression sur les cinq types d’agents stressants. Les américains ont montré de plus fortes corrélations entre les agents stressants. Les relations entre pression et tension au travail étaient similaires dans chacun des échantillons et dans les deux échantillons le LOC interne était associé à un niveau de stress plus bas. Bien que la statut marital n’ait pas été associé au stress au travail et aux agents stressant chez les américains, de fortes relations existent chez les iraniens. Samples of Iranian and US managers were compared on four sources of job pressure (constraints, managerial role/tasks, home/work, and nonwork support), five strains (job dissatisfaction, mental strain, physical strain, intention of quitting the job, and absence), and work locus of control. As expected Iranian managers were more external and were higher on pressure and on all five job strains. Americans showed higher intercorrelations among strains except for absence, whereas Iranians had higher correlations among sources of pressure. Relations between pressure and job strains were similar across

* Address for correspondence: Paul E. Spector, Department of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, USA. Email: [email protected] © International Association for Applied Psychology, 2002. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

AMERICAN AND IRANIAN MANAGERS

447

both samples, and in both samples internal locus of control was associated with lower strain. Although marital status was not associated with job stressors and strains among Americans, it showed strong relations among Iranians.

INTRODUCTION Stress in general and workplace stress in particular has been recognised as a major health problem in Western society, with estimated costs to society of hundreds of $billions per year (Cartwright & Cooper, 1997). Many reviews can be found relating a variety of stressful job conditions or job stressors to a variety of employee health-related outcomes or job strains, both physical and psychological (e.g. Beehr, 1995; Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Jex, 1998; Jex & Beehr, 1991). However, almost all of this research has been conducted in the Western, English-speaking world, predominantly the US and UK, and to a lesser extent Australia and Canada. Relatively few studies have investigated job stress in other cultures. Most cross-national studies available have been done in Confucian Asian countries, such as China and Japan (e.g. Lu, Tseng, & Cooper, 1999; Shanfa, Sparks, & Cooper, 1998; Sin & Cheng, 1995; Siu & Cooper, 1998). Almost totally neglected are Moslem countries in the Middle East. Our purpose was to contrast the experience of job stress of a typical American sample with their counterparts in the Middle Eastern country of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IR Iran). Compared to the US, IR Iran is characterised as being collectivistic and high in power distance (Bierbrauer, Meyer, & Wolfradt, 1994; Ronen & Shenkar, 1985). Iranians can be quite external in their locus of control, attributing control of events to forces outside of themselves (Boyacigiller & Adler, 1991; House, Hanges, RuizQuintanilla, Dorfman, Javidan, Dickson, & Gupta, 1999). Control itself has been linked to perceptions of both job stressors and job strains (Ganster & Fusilier, 1989). Spector, Cooper et al. (2001) in their comparison of 24 countries found that at the country mean level, collectivism was associated with externality in locus of control. Furthermore, countries in which people were external tended to score high in job strains. Combining these findings with the general control literature, we would expect that Iranians would perceive less control, leading to the first hypothesis: Hypothesis 1: Iranians will be more external in their work locus of control than Americans. Because Iranians are more external than Americans, we would expect their perceptions of the workplace and their strains to differ, leading to the second hypothesis: Hypothesis 2: Iranians will perceive more stressors and experience more job strain than Americans. In the US it has been well established that perception of job stressors is associated with reports of both attitudinal variables (job dissatisfaction © International Association for Applied Psychology, 2002.

448

SPECTOR, COOPER, AND AGUILAR-VAFAIE

and intention of quitting the job) and health strains (physical symptoms and psychological discomfort such as work anxiety) (e.g. see Cartwright & Cooper, 1997; Jex & Beehr, 1991). Western models of job stress suggest a causal process whereby exposure to job stressors induces strains (Jex, 1998). The extent to which these Western models fit other cultures is open to question. In addition to the testing of the two hypotheses, we compared correlations between job stressors and strains to see if they were similar across our two samples. Our study provides a comparison of a US sample of managers with their counterparts in the Middle Eastern country of IR Iran.

METHOD

Participants Participants in this study were 207 Iranian and 120 US managers. It was decided to study managers because we felt it was important to keep the nature of the jobs as equivalent as possible, and the manager job seemed to be universal across countries in which people work for organisations. Furthermore, it is expected that managers experience a reasonable level of job stress, as their job involves both contact with others and responsibility. The IR Iran sample was 67 per cent male, had a mean age of 39.6 (SD = 6.1), 74 per cent were married, and 72 per cent had at least a BA degree. The US sample was 55 per cent male, had a mean age of 43.9 (SD = 10.9), 72 per cent were married, and 42 per cent had BA degrees or beyond. Thus the Iranian sample was more male, slightly younger, and more educated than the US.

Measures In both nations the same questionnaire was used, including the Occupational Stress Indicator-2 (OSI2), a 90-item scale that assesses job strains, sources of stress, personality, and coping (Cooper & Williams, 1996), the Work Locus of Control Scale, WLCS (Spector, 1988), and additional questions, including demographics. The WLCS has 16 items intended to assess employee beliefs about control at work in general, as opposed to their particular job. Half the items are written in each direction, external vs internal. Six response choices range from strongly disagree to strongly agree. High scores represent externality and low scores internality. Spector (1988) reports internal consistency (coefficient alpha) of 0.75 to 0.85 across six US samples, with all but one in the 0.80s. The OSI2 is a 90-item short form of the OSI (Cooper, Sloan, & Williams, 1988). Each subscale contains a subset of the items from the corresponding full OSI. Most available reliability and validity data concern the longer version (e.g. Robertson, Cooper, & Williams, 1990). Subscales of job © International Association for Applied Psychology, 2002.


449

satisfaction, physical strain, and psychological strain were of interest here as strains. Job satisfaction was assessed with 12 items concerning the organisation and the work itself. Respondents were asked to indicate their satisfaction with each item, with six response choices ranging from very much dissatisfaction to very much satisfaction. Psychological strain was assessed with 12 items asking about psychological reactions at work. All items had six response choices, but the choices varied across items. For example, item 4 “Are there times at work when you feel so exasperated that you sit back and think to yourself that ‘life is all really just too much effort?’ ” had choices ranging from Never to Often. Physical strain was assessed with 6 items concerning physical or somatic symptoms, such as shortness of breath or muscle trembling. There were six response choices ranging from Never to Very frequently. For all three scales, high scores represented high levels of well-being, that is, high satisfaction, low psychological strain, or low physical strain. Robertson et al. (1990) reported coefficient alpha reliabilities for the original OSI of 0.85, 0.88, and 0.78, respectively. Forty items assessed perceived sources of job pressure ( job stressors). The original OSI collapsed the pressure items into 8 subscales. However, Sparks, Cooper, Spector et al. (1999) found that with the short form, several of these subscales had poor reliabilities. Based on a factor analysis they devised four new scales of constraints on the job (pressure from things that make doing a job difficult), managerial role and tasks (e.g. taking risks or having to do something distasteful), work/home conflict (e.g. having to take work home), and nonwork support (e.g. spouse’s attitude toward the participant’s career). Sparks et al. (1999) reported internal consistency reliabilities for the four scales across 22 nations as 0.80 to 0.92, 0.71 to 0.88, 0.68 to 0.85, and 0.70 to 0.83, for constraints, managerial role, home/work, and nonwork support, respectively. The lower reliabilities were for non-English language samples. Additional questions asked demographics (age, education, gender, and marital status), absence (days in the past three months), and intention of quitting the job (high scores represented strong intentions).

Measurement Equivalence For the eight multi-item scales ( job satisfaction, mental strain, physical strain, sources of pressure, and work locus of control) we compared withinscale factor structures. Variance/covariance matrices among items from each scale for each country were computed. Corresponding matrices were compared for equivalence using LISREL 8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1992). Across the eight comparisons, fit was only fair. For example, the Goodness of Fit Index ranged from 0.72 to 0.88, with a median of 0.82. The Incremental Fit Index was better, ranging from 0.79 to 0.92, with a median of 0.86. One should take these results with caution, however, considering the © International Association for Applied Psychology, 2002.

450


rather small sample sizes for this sort of analysis. In a similar comparison of 8 diverse countries with New Zealand, using larger samples and 4 of the same measures, Spector, Cooper et al. (in press) found much better fit, even between countries/languages as different from English as Chinese, Japanese, Polish, and Slovenian.

Procedure The original questionnaire was written in English. The OSI was developed in England and the WLCS in the US. It was translated into Farsi for the Iranian sample. The back translation technique was used of going from English to Farsi and then independently back to English to assure equivalence. Data collection procedures were designed to assure a wide variety of managers, with questionnaires distributed both by mail and in person, and with the US sample, employed university students were asked to have their managers complete the questionnaire and return them to the researchers by mail. All surveys were completed anonymously. With the US sample, questionnaires were returned via mail using postage paid return envelopes.

RESULTS Descriptive statistics for the 10 variables in the study (four sources of pressure, five strains, and work locus of control) are in Table 1. Included for each sample were means, standard deviations, ranges, and coefficient alphas as an indicator of internal consistency. In addition, one-way ANOVAs were conducted using PROC GLM in SAS, as tests of the two hypotheses. Shown TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics and Mean Differences for the Iranian and US Samples Variable

Job satisfaction Mental strain Physical strain Quit intention Absence Constraints Role/tasks Home/work Support Work loc

IR Iran

US

Mean

SD

Range

Alpha

Mean

SD

Range

Alpha

48.2 45.2 23.4 3.2 1.4 47.9 30.8 18.8 16.3 48.0

8.8 7.3 6.6 1.6 2.1 11.4 6.6 4.9 4.7 9.9

22/68 19/62 6/35 1/6 0/8 14/69 8/42 9/29 5/27 21/70

0.82 0.55 0.81 na na 0.89 0.73 0.67 0.66 0.74

49.8 52.2 27.6 2.5 0.6 38.5 27.9 15.9 12.7 37.7

9.8 10.2 6.0 1.3 1.0 11.3 6.6 5.1 5.3 10.6

16/66 20/71 6/36 1/6 0/5 12/65 8/44 5/28 5/27 16/66

0.91 0.86 0.84 na na 0.91 0.82 0.81 0.84 0.86

* Means were significantly different (one-way ANOVA) at P < 0.05.

© International Association for Applied Psychology, 2002.

R2 0.006 0.14* 0.09* 0.04* 0.05* 0.15* 0.05* 0.08* 0.11* 0.19*

Variable 1 Job satisfaction 2 Mental strain 3 Physical strain 4 Quit intention 5 Absence 6 Constraints 7 Role/tasks 8 Home/work 9 Support 10 Work loc

1

0.21*a 0.19* −0.33*a −0.17* −0.13a −0.21* 0.02 0.08 −0.51*

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.45*

0.25* 0.60*

−0.68* −0.42* −0.19*

− 0.18* − 0.22* − 0.14 0.11

−0.45* −0.32* −0.36* 0.29* 0.15

− 0.08 − 0.38* − 0.33* − 0.04 0.16 0.44*

− 0.12 − 0.23* − 0.22* 0.22* − 0.14 0.41* 0.41*

− 0.03 − 0.20* − 0.30* 0.02 0.02 0.47* 0.41* 0.49*

− 0.34* − 0.42* − 0.40* 0.23* − 0.02 0.30* 0.16 0.15 0.15

0.11a −0.17*a 0.05 −0.22* −0.15 −0.18* −0.27* −0.19*a

− 0.35* − 0.51*a 0.13 − 0.09 0.14 0.33* − 0.31*

0.41*a 0.00a 0.12 −0.14 −0.22* 0.42*

− 0.37* − 0.17 − 0.34* − 0.52*a 0.33*a

0.70*a 0.76*a 0.67*a 0.00a

0.69*a 0.53* 0.09

0.69*a − 0.09

Note: Iranian sample is below the main diagonal and the US sample is above the main diagonal. * P < 0.05; a Iranian correlation is significantly different than the corresponding US correlation, using a z-test for independent correlations.

− 0.30*a



TABLE 2 Correlations Among Variables in the Study

451

452


are both F tests to compare corresponding means for both samples, as well as an R 2 as an indicator of magnitude of effect. Hypothesis 1 was supported in that Iranians would be more external in their work locus of control than Americans. As can be seen in the table, the Iranian mean was over 10 points higher in the external direction than the US, accounting for 19 per cent of the variance. Support was also found with all but one variable (job satisfaction) for Hypothesis 2. Iranians were significantly higher on job stressors (sources of pressure) and on strains, as indicated by lower mental strain and physical strain scores, and higher absence, and intention of quitting the job. Correlations among all 10 variables for each sample are in Table 2. The Iranian sample is below the main diagonal, and the US sample is above the main diagonal. Comparisons of corresponding correlations were conducted with a z-test for independent correlations. The table is organised so the first five variables are strains, the next four are sources of pressure, and the last is work locus of control. Most of the correlations were statistically significant, with the US having somewhat more significance than the Iranian sample, despite the smaller sample size. In general, the job strains tended to intercorrelate, as did the sources of pressure. About half of the correlations between pressure sources and strains were significant (10/20 for IR Iran and 11/20 for the US). Locus of control tended to correlate more with strains than sources of pressure for both samples. Of the 45 correlations, 18 showed significant differences between samples. Correlations among the job strains tended to be higher in the US sample for all but absence, which was higher for Iranians. For example, mental and physical strain correlated 0.60 in the US, but only a nonsignificant 0.11 for IR Iran. Conversely, absence correlated −0.51 with physical strain in the IR Iran sample, but was a nonsignificant −0.14 in the US sample. Correlations among the sources of pressure were considerably higher for the IR Iran sample, ranging from 0.53 to 0.76 raising concerns of poor discriminant validity. In the US the range was from 0.41 to 0.49, and in all but one case the Iranian correlations were significantly higher. Relations of pressure to strains showed only three differences out of 20 between the two samples, with the Iranian sample higher in one case. With absence overall, the Iranian sample tended to have higher correlations than the US, with four of nine significantly so. The US sample had two of nine absence correlations significant with the largest −0.22. The Iranian sample had seven of nine significant, with the largest −0.52. Finally, locus of control showed no consistent differences between the two nations. In the four of nine cases where correlations were significantly different, IR Iran was higher on two, absence and home support, and lower on two, mental strain and constraints. © International Association for Applied Psychology, 2002.


453

TABLE 3 Relations of Demographic Variables with Stress-Related Variables Variable

Job satisfaction Mental strain Physical strain Quit intention Absence Constraints Role/tasks Home/work Support Work loc

IR Iran

US

Gender

Age

Collegea

Marital statusb

Gender

Age

Collegea

Marital statusb

0.11 0.24* −0.30* 0.07 0.17* −0.14 −0.10 −0.17* −0.31* −0.15

0.05 −0.05 −0.05 0.02 0.01 −0.12 −0.08 −0.15 −0.01 −0.14

−0.10 −0.09 −0.07 −0.09 −0.16* −0.16 −0.06 0.05 0.02 −0.13

−0.11 0.07 −0.32* 0.16* 0.39* −0.32* −0.23* −0.32* −0.52* 0.29*

−0.08 −0.04 −0.11 0.06 0.17 −0.01 0.10 −0.04 −0.13 −0.13

−0.06 0.07 0.04 −0.10 −0.10 −0.03 0.08 −0.12 −0.11 0.05

−0.06 −0.15 0.21* 0.22* 0.06 0.21 −0.05 −0.02 0.03 −0.06

−0.01 −0.15 0.01 0.04 −0.02 0.01 −0.00 −0.09 −0.08 −0.03

Notes: a 1 = College education, 2 = No college education; b 1 = Married, 2 = Not married; * P < 0.05.

Correlations were also computed between each of four demographic variables (gender, age, college degree, and marital status) for both countries. Table 3 shows that for the US there was almost no relation of demographics with the four stressors and six strains in the study. There were two of 40 exceptions, which could be attributable to Type 1 error. For the Iranian sample, gender was significantly related to five and marital status to eight of 10 variables. Female Iranians reported more physical strain and absence, and less mental strain than males. Females had higher scores on home/work and nonwork support stressors. Married Iranians reported less physical strain, intention of quitting, and absence, as well as lower stressors across all four scales.

DISCUSSION The questions addressed in this paper concerned whether Iranian managers would differ from their US counterparts in levels of perceived job stressors and strain, as well as work locus of control. Furthermore, would relations among these variables differ. Literature discussed in our introduction suggested that Iranians tend to be collectivistic, which would be expected to be associated with externality in locus of control. This externality was expected to be associated with higher perceived stressors and higher job strains. We found support for both of these hypotheses. Iranians tended to be more external than Americans (Hypothesis 1), and they scored higher in job stressors (sources of pressure) and showed more strain (except for job satisfaction). © International Association for Applied Psychology, 2002.

454


A second purpose was to compare correlations among job stressors and strains to see if Western findings from the US would generalise to the Middle East. To some extent we found generalisability, but 40 per cent of corresponding correlations were significantly different between the samples. With the exception of absence, the US sample demonstrated stronger relations among strains. In particular, job satisfaction vs quitting intention, and mental vs physical strain are highly correlated for Americans. For Iranians, these strains are more independent, as the relation between the physical and psychological strains was a nonsignificant 0.11. However, absence showed a different pattern. It was related to physical strain and quitting intention for Iranians, but not for Americans. Conversely, absence related to job satisfaction and mental strain for Americans, but not for Iranians, although these corresponding correlations did not differ significantly. The Iranians showed poor discriminant validities among the pressure scales, compared to the Americans. In addition there were a great deal of missing data for the IR Iran sample on these scales, e.g. about a third of respondents failed to complete the constraints and managerial role items. A larger number completed the other two pressure scales. Reliabilities for three of the four scales (all but constraints) were also considerably lower for the Iranian sample. Clearly, additional investigation is needed to determine the reason for these differences. It is possible that these items tend to be more threatening to Iranians, and they either adopt a halo or fail to complete them at all. Alternatively, the nature of job stressors might be different in IR Iran, underscoring the need to develop new scales in other cultures, rather than exporting our American and British scales. Relations between sources of pressure and strains tended to be similar across the two nations. In half the cases, individuals who perceived more pressure tended to experience more strains. Of course, with the crosssectional nature of our design, it is not possible to draw conclusions about underlying causal processes. However, our results are suggestive that the job stressor–strain connection might generalise, although the precise nature of the stressors and strains might tend to differ. Work locus of control tended to relate well to job strains. Internals in both countries tended to report less strain, more job satisfaction, and less intent to quit. Only for the Iranians, however, did externals report more absence. For both nations there again is consistency in that belief in control was associated with better well-being. This study illustrates that there are both similarities and differences in results when managerial job stress was compared between IR Iran and the US. Americans reported themselves to be higher in well-being and lower in sources of pressure. This may reflect better health in the US, perhaps due to a combination of economic and social factors. It also might reflect that perceptions differ due to differences in beliefs about collectivism and © International Association for Applied Psychology, 2002.


455

control, i.e. Iranians who perceive lower control perceive more stressors and experience more strain. Of course, there is a methodological possibility that cultural interpretation of items, and possible tendencies to distort or embellish might have produced these results. Triandis (1995) noted that people in Middle Eastern countries have a tendency to embellish responses and make extreme responses. However, an inspection of the scale means for both countries in relation to the possible range of scores did not show that Iranians were more extreme. For example, with work locus of control, the possible range was from 16 to 96, with the middle of the scale at 56. The US sample was further from the middle at 37.7 than the Iranian at 48. One further caution should be noted with these data because they were all from a cross-sectional self-report questionnaire design. Certainly we cannot draw causal conclusions from observed relations in this study, so one cannot conclude that job stressors lead to strains in both countries. However, since the major variable of country was not assessed via questionnaire, we can draw inferences that there were country differences, although as noted, the underlying mechanisms are not clear. Another concern is with mono-method bias, but an inspection of the correlations in Table 2 shows that a third of the correlations from both samples were nonsignificant, suggesting that there was not an underlying bias inflating all correlations for either Americans or Iranians, although it is certainly possible that there were some variable-specific biases across certain combinations of variables, such as social desirability. Overall, our results suggest that the underlying processes of job stress might be similar across both English-speaking Western culture and at least one Middle Eastern culture. Although intercorrelations among job stressors and among job strains differed, both samples showed similar job stressor (pressure) to strain relations, and work locus of control to strain relations. However, it seems likely that the precise nature of the job stressors and strain reactions are culture specific, at least to some extent. Certainly more studies are needed comparing a variety of nations with the US and other English-speaking, Western countries to provide a more complete picture of how culture affects the job stress process.

REFERENCES Beehr, T.A. (1995). Psychological stress in the workplace. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Bierbrauer, G., Meyer, H., & Wolfradt, U. (1994). Measurement of normative and evaluative aspects in individualistic and collectivistic orientations: The Cultural Orientation Scale (COS). In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. © International Association for Applied Psychology, 2002.

456


Boyacigiller, N.A., & Adler, N.J. (1991). The parochial dinosaur: Organizational science in a global context. Academy of Management Review, 16, 262–290. Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C.L. (1997). Managing workplace stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cooper, C.L., Sloan, S.J., & Williams, S. (1988). Occupational Stress Indicator management guide. Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson. Cooper, C.L., & Williams, S. (1996). Occupational Stress Indicator Version 2.0. Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson. Ganster, D.C., & Fusilier, M.R. (1989). Control in the workplace. In C.L. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology 1989 (pp. 235–280). Chichester: John Wiley. House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A., Dorfman, P.W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M., & Gupta, V. (1999). Culture influences on leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE. Advances in Global Leadership, 1, 171–233. Jackson, S.E., & Schuler, R.S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 16–78. Jex, S.M. (1998). Stress and job performance: Theory, research, and implications for managerial practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jex, S.M., & Beehr, T.A. (1991). Emerging theoretical and methodological issues in the study of work-related stress. In G.R. Ferris & K.M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 9, pp. 311–364). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1992). LISREL VIII: A guide to the program and applications. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software. Lu, L., Tseng, H.J., & Cooper, C.L. (1999). Managerial stress, job satisfaction and health in Taiwan. Stress Medicine, 15, 53–64. Robertson, I.T., Cooper, C.L., & Williams, J. (1990). The validity of the Occupational Stress Indicator. Work & Stress, 4, 29–39. Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10, 435–454. Shanfa, Y., Sparks, K., & Cooper, C.L. (1998). Occupational stress in workers and managers in steelworks in China. International Journal of Stress Management, 5, 237–245. Sin, L., & Cheng, D. (1995). Occupational stress and health among business executives: An exploratory study in an Oriental culture. International Journal of Management, 12, 14–25. Siu, O.L., & Cooper, C.L. (1998). A study of occupational stress, job satisfaction and quitting intention in Hong Kong firms: The role of locus of control and organizational commitment. Stress Medicine, 14, 55–66. Sparks, K., Cooper, C.L., Spector, P.E., Bernin, P., Dewe, P. Lu, L., Miller, K., Renault de Moraes, L., O’Driscoll, M., Pagon, M., Pitariu, H., Poelmans, S., Radhakrishnan, P., Russinova, V., Salamatov, V., Salgado, J., Sanchez, J.I., Shanfa, Y., Shima, S., Siu, O.L., Stora, J.B., Teichmann, M., Theorell, T., Vlerick, P., Westman, M., Widerszal-Bazyl, M., & Wong, P. (1999). The price of economic development: A 22 nation study of occupational stress in male and female managers. Unpublished manuscript. University of Manchester Institute for Science and Technology, UK. © International Association for Applied Psychology, 2002.


457

Spector, P.E. (1988). Development of the Work Locus of Control Scale. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 335–340. Spector, P.E., Cooper, C.L., Sanchez, J.I., O’Driscoll, M., Sparks, K., Bernin, P., Büssing, A., Dewe, P., Hart, P.M., Lu, L., Miller, K., Renault de Moraes, L., Ostognay, G.M., Pagon, M., Pitariu, H., Poelmans, S., Radhakrishnan, P., Russinova, V., Salamatov, V., Salgado, J.F., Shima, S., Siu, O.L., Stora, J.B., Teichmann, M., Theorell, T., Vlerick, P., Westman, M., Widerszal-Bazyl, M., Wong, P.T.P., & Yu, S. (2001). Do national levels of individualism and internal locus of control relate to well-being: An ecological level international study. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 22, 815–832. Spector, P.E., Cooper, C.L., Sanchez, J.I., Sparks, K., Bernin, P., Büssing, A., Dewe, P., Hart, P.M., Lu, L., Miller, K., Moreas, L.R., O’Driscoll, M.P., Ostognay, G.M., Pagon, M., Pitariu, H., Poelmans, S., Radhakrishnan, P., Russinova, V., Salamatov, V., Salgado, J.F., Shima, S., Siu, O.L., Stora, J.B., Teichmann, M., Theorell, T., Vlerick, P., Westman, M., Widerszal-Bazyl, M., Wong, P.T.P., & Yu, S. (in press). A 24 nation /territory study of work locus of control, well-being and individualism: How generalizable are western work findings. Academy of Management Journal. Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
