Career self-efficacy as a moderator of the relation between occupational stress and strain

JOURNAL

OF VOCATIONAL

BEHAVIOR

41, 79-88 (1992)

Career Self-Efficacy as a Moderator of the Relation between Occupational Stress and Strain TAMAO MATSUI Department of Law, Surugadai University,

Saitama, Japan

AND MARY-LOU Japan Studies Program,

ONGI.ATCO

College of Liberal Arts. De La Salle University. Manila, Philippines

Self-efficacy in Holland’s (1973. 1985) three environments (i.e., conventional. investigative, and enterprising), three sources of occupational stress (i.e., role overload. responsibility, and role insufficiency), and four types of strain (i.e., vocational, interpersonal, psychological, and physical) were assessedfor 435 Japanese female office workers. Total self-efficacy in the three environments moderated the relationship between stress and strain differently depending upon the nature of stress. Subjects with low self-efficacy reported higher degrees of vocational strain to the extent that role overload and responsibility were salient. In contrast, subjects high in self-efficacy reported higher degrees of interpersonal and physical strain to the extent that role insufficiency was salient. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. Q 1992 Academic press. IIK

Since Betz and Hackett (1981) and Hackett and Betz (1981) introduced the concept of self-efficacy expectations (Bandura, 1977, 1986) into career development research, an increasing number of investigations using this concept have been published. Yet, the major areas of career self-efficacy research have primarily been limited to college students’ career choice and educational performance behavior. Lent and Hackett (1987) advocated research on career self-efficacy in relation to career adjustment as an expanded base for research. This study was supported by the Surugadai University Research Fund. The authors express their appreciation to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. Correspondence concerning this paper and reprint requests should be addressed to Tamao Matsui. Department of Law. Surugadai University. Hanno, Saitama 357. Japan. 79 OOol-8791/92$.5.Ml Copyright 0 IW2 hy Academic Press. Inc All rights of reproduct& in any form reserved

80

MATSUI AND ONGLATCO

Bandura (1977, 1986) defined self-efficacy expectations as one’s belief of being able to cope with specific tasks and situational demands. Based on experimental studies (e.g., Bandura & Adams, 1977; Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977; Bandura, Adams, Hardy, & Howells, 1980; Bandura, Reese, & Adams, 1982; Bandura, Taylor, Williams, Mefford, & Barchas, 1985), Bandura (1986) postulated that self-efficacy operates as a cognitive mechanism through which perceived controllability reduces stress reaction. Yet, few investigations have attempted to confirm this mechanism in work settings. Using Japanese female office workers as subjects, this study tests two hypotheses concerning the moderating effects of career self-efficacy expectations on the relation between occupational stress and strain. Occupational stresses occur primarily as a result of poor person-environment fit and are major producers of psychological and physiological strain (French, 1976). Osipow and Spokane (1983, 1987) specified six types of environments as major sources of occupational stress: role overload, role insufficiency, role ambiguity, role boundary, responsibility, and physical environments. We chose to focus on three forms of occupational stress for two reasons. First, a preliminary interview with female employees working in the companies indicated that many women complained that they were expected to accomplish too many simple, routine tasks during the day. Some women complained that they were expected to assume too much responsibility by their superiors. Osipow and Spokane define role overload as occurring in an environment in which job demands exceed employees’ potentials, while responsibility occurs in an environment in which employees have a great deal of responsibility for their performance. Second, Osipow and Davis’s (1988) study indicated that role overload, responsibility, and role insufficiency had significant effects on strain when the effects of other variables were ruled out. Role insufficiency occurs in an environment in which an employees’ potential exceeds job requirements (Osipow & Spokane, 1983, 1987). Hypothesis 1 predicts that women with low career self-efficacy expectations would experience higher degrees of strain on their job to the extent that role overload and responsibility are salient. Highly self-efficacious women, equipped with the knowledge that they have the capability to handle heavy job demands, should be able to develop strategies to cope with these demands. These strategies can involve changing the degree of effort exerted, allocating the time needed to complete tasks, and so forth. Thus, the impact of role overload and responsibility on strain should be minimum for these women. On the other hand, women with low selfefficacy expectations should tend to submit to the pressure brought about by the heavy work demands. Since such women feel that they are not capable to perform the task at hand, they should fail to focus on how to cope with the heavy work demands and react emotionally which amplifies the strain they feel on the job.

SELF-EFFICACY

AND STRESS

81

Thus, demanding work environments characterized by role overload and responsibility should threaten women who perceive themselves to be less capable of performing tasks at hand. The impact of role overload and responsibility on strain should thus be salient for women with low career self-efficacy expectations compared to women with high career selfefficacy expectations. Hypothesis 2 predicts that women with high career self-efficacy expectations would experience higher degrees of strain on their job to the extent that role insufficiency is salient. When role insufficiency occurs, women with high self-efficacy should experience strain since, despite their assessmentthat they are capable of performing well, they are not expected to make full use of their potential. As a result, these women will feel constricted due to the limited opportunities to use their abilities. Thus. an environment characterized by role insufficiency should be frustrating for those who perceive themselves to be capable of performing well. The impact of role insufficiency on strain should thus be salient for women with high career self-efficacy expectations compared to women with low career self-efficacy expectations. METHOD

Subjects and Procedure

The subjects were 435 full-time female employees working at the main offices of four Japanese companies located in Tokyo. These subjects were obtained from the pool of subjects used in a previous study (Matsui, & Onglatco, 1991). Questionnaires were distributed to subjects through the section chiefs of the four companies. Subjects were informed that the purpose of the research was to collect data on how they perceived their jobs and themselves. They were asked to fill out the questionnaire anonymously in their home, to enclose their completed questionnaire in the envelope specially prepared to keep their responses secret, and to send it to the first author through their companies. The average return rate was 83%. Most of the subjects engaged in clerical office work. Subjects ranged in age from 18 to 40 years, with a mean of 26.0 years. About 24% were high school graduates, 34% were 2-year college graduates, and 42% were graduates from universities or graduate schools. About 90% of the subjects were unmarried. Measures Career self-efficacy expectations. Subjects were provided with lists of 30 discrete work tasks and asked to indicate on a Spoint Likert scale (1 = entirely unsure, 5 = completely sure) their degree of confidence in their capability to successfully accomplish each task. The task lists consisted of

82

MATSUI

AND

ONGLATCO

five tasks for each of Holland’s (1973, 1985) six model environments, i.e., realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and conventional environments. The tasks listed were the same as those used by Matsui and Onglatco (1991). Examples of the tasks used are: “Assembling a machine” (realistic), “Extrapolating a tendency through analyses of data of cultural phenomena” (investigative), “Making a design using symbols and letters” (artistic), “Consulting with others about their problems” (social), “Leading a group to attain goals” (enterprising), and “Writing a document in accordance with a prescribed plan” (conventional). A previous study (Matsui & Tsukamoto, 1991) found that the sum of self-efficacy in the environments corresponding to Holland’s three-letter codes associated with respective occupation was highly predictive of self-efficacy in the occupation. The coefficient o reliability for this measure was .82. Test-retest reliability was unknown. For further information concerning the psychometric properties of the scale, refer to Matsui and Onglatco (1991). A principal factor analysis (six-factor model) with varimax rotation indicated that the medians of the loadings of the six environmental item responses on Factors 1 to 6 were .72, .40, .79, .45, .75, and .64, respectively. The eigenvalues for the six factors were 7.09, 3.65, 2.65, 1.68, 0.80, and 0.76, respectively. Although the instrument lists work tasks corresponding to the six environments, the sum of the average scores of self-efficacy in the conventional, investigative, and enterprising environments was calculated as the index of career self-efficacy. This was done because most subjects engaged in clerical office work and Holland’s three-letter code for the office worker occupation is Conventional-Investigative-Enterprising. Occupational stress. Scales were developed to assessperceived occupational stress pertaining to role overload, responsibility, and role insufficiency. Each scale contained five descriptions. The role overload scale measured the extent to which subjects believed they were expected to accomplish too many tasks during the day (e.g., “I have to take tasks home with me”). The responsibility scale measured the extent to which subjects felt a great deal of responsibility for their work (e.g., “My poor performance on my work causes others’ poor performance”). The role insufficiency scale measured the extent to which subjects believed that their abilities and interest were inappropriate to the job requirements (e.g., “I do not feel that I live up to my talents on my work”). Subjects were asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all applicable, 5 = highly applicable) the degree of applicability of each description to themselves. The average score of the five-item responses for each scale was computed as the index of role overload, responsibility, and role insufficiency, respectively. Higher scores indicated higher degrees of stress experienced. Coefficient (Yreliabilities were .88, .87, and .87, respectively. Test-retest reliabilities were unknown.

SELF-EFFICACY

AND STRESS

83

A principal factor analysis (three-factor model) with varimax rotation indicated that the medians of the loadings of the role overload, responsibility, and role insufficiency item responses on Factors 1 to 3 were 66, .72, and .77, respectively. The eigenvalues for the three factors were 5.95, 2.53, and 0.54, respectively. Strain. Based on Osipow and Spokane’s (1983) model, scales assessing vocational, interpersonal, psychological, and physical strain were developed. Each scale contained five descriptions. The vocational strain scale measured the extent to which subjects were having problems in work quality or output (e.g., “Recently, I make errors and mistakes on my work”). The interpersonal strain scale measured the extent of disruption in interpersonal relationships (e.g., “Recently, I quarreled with my family members”). The psychological strain scale measured the extent of psychological adjustment (e.g., “Recently, I have been irritable”). The physical strain scale measured complaints about physical illness (e.g., “Recently, I have felt dizzy”). Subjects were asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all true, 5 = highly true) the extent to which each description was true to themselves. The average score of the fiveitem responses for each scale was computed as the index of vocational. interpersonal, psychological, and physical strain, respectively. Higher scores indicate higher degrees of strain experienced. Coefficient (Y reliabilities were .88, .87, .80, and .73, respectively. Test-retest reliabilities were unknown. A principal factor analysis (four-factor model) with varimax rotation indicated that the medians of the loadings of the vocational, interpersonal, psychological, and physical strain item responses on Factors 1 to 4 were .70, .58, .59, and .56, respectively. The eigenvalues for the four factors were 5.58, 1.60, 1.46, and 0.76, respectively. RESULTS Table 1 presents intercorrelations of the variables used in this study along with respective means and standard deviations. Age was related negatively to role insufficiency and vocational, psychological, and physical strain. Thus, role insufficiency was the major source of occupational stress for younger subjects and they experienced higher degrees of vocational, psychological, and physical strain compared to older subjects. Educational level was related positively to self-efficacy, role overload, responsibility, and vocational strain. This suggests that companies assign jobs with high role overload and responsibility to women with higher educations, and that this was the major source of strain for these women. Self-efficacy was related positively to role overload and responsibility and negatively to role insufficiency, whereas it had negative or no relations to strain. These findings indicate that women with high self-efficacy generally perceived their job to be stressful, but they experienced less strain. The three

-.Ol .lO - .Ol -.08 - .15 - .14 .14 - .21 - .13

0.83 0.85

1.71

0.99 0.87

0.85

0.85 0.69 0.86 0.88

2.60 2.22

9.41

2.68 2.11

2.84

2.93 2.00 2.74 3.02

1. Age” 2. Educationb

3. Career self-efficacy

4. Role overload 5. Responsibility

6. Role insufficiency

7. 8. 9. 10.

3

.08

-.35 Strain - .12 - .02 -.19 -.05

Stressor .16 .15 39 .ll

.18

.12 -.09 .05 .05

-

2

.74

.55 .19 .26 .30

- .27

-

4

.62 .23 .30 .30

-.31

-

5

-.lO .07 .34 .13

-

6

.33 .46 .32

7

NOM. N = 435. r = >.09 is p < .O5; r = >.12 is p < .Ol. a I = 20 years old or less, 2 = 21-25 years old, 3 = 26-30 years old, 4 = 31-35 years old, and 5 = 36 years old or more. h 1 = high school graduate, 2 = 2-year college graduate, 3 = university graduate, 4 = graduate from graduate school.

Vocational Interpersonal Psychological Physical

1

SD

M

Variable

Intercorrelation

TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Relevant Variables

.40 .26

8

.56

9

8 5:

%

2

%

SELF-EFFICACY

AND STRESS

85

types of stress generally were related significantly to the four types of strain, as expected. Twelve two-step hierarchical multiple regressions were performed to determine the moderating effects of career self-efficacy on the relation between stress and strain (Baron & Kenny, 1986). In the first analysis, vocational strain was regressed on age, educational level, self-efficacy, and role overload in step 1, then on the four variables and the interaction term between self-efficacy and role overload in step 2. The change in R’ was then tested. If self-efficacy moderates the relation between role overload and vocational strain, the variance in vocational strain accounted for by the step 2 interaction term should be significant. Similar analyses were performed replacing role overload with responsibility and role insufficiency as independent variables and replacing vocational strain with interpersonal, psychological, and physical strain as dependent variables, thereby totaling 12 two-step hierarchical multiple regressions. Table 2 summarizes the results of these analyses. For role overload, R* change was significant for vocational strain. The B coefficient for the interaction term was negative (B = - .55). Thus, subjects with low career self-efficacy expectations experienced higher degrees of vocational strain to the extent that role overload was salient. Similarly, for responsibility, R* change was significant for vocational strain and the B coefficient for the interaction term was negative (B = - .45). Thus, subjects with low career self-efficacy expectations experienced higher degrees of vocational strain to the extent that responsibility was salient. These findings support Hypothesis 1. For role insufficiency, R2 change was significant for interpersonal and physical strain and the B coefficients for the interaction terms were positive (B = .68 and B = 66, respectively). Thus, subjects with high career self-efficacy expectations experienced higher degrees of interpersonal and physical strain to the extent that role insufficiency was salient. This supports Hypothesis 2. DISCUSSION

One contribution of this study lies in its identification of career selfefficacy as a moderator of the relation between stress and strain in work settings. Bandura (1986) postulated that self-efficacy operates as a cognitive mechanism through which perceived controllability reduces stress reactions. Lent and Hackett (1987) suggested that perceived ability to cope with stressful tasks might be a mediator of certain career-related outcomes such as occupational stress. Yet, the moderating mechanism of career self-efficacy for the relation between stress and strain in work settings has rarely been addressed with some exceptions (e.g., Bhagat & Allie, 1989). This study demonstrated that career self-efficacy moderated the relation

86

MATSUI AND ONGLATCO

TABLE 2 Summary of Two-Step Hierarchical Multiple Regressions Testing Moderating Effects of Self-Efficacy on Relation between Occupational Stress and Strain Stressor

Strain”

Role overload

Vocational Interpersonal Psychological Physical

Responsibility

Vocational Interpersonal Psychological Physical

Role insufficiency

Vocational Interpersonal Psychological Physical

Step lb Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step I Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

R’

F(1, 429) for AR’

.37 .38 .07 .08 .15 .15 .I1 .12 .42 .43 .09 .09 .17 .17 .lO .lO .07 .07 .03 .05 .15 .16 .03 .05

5.71 3.77 0.10 1.45 3.92 2.47 0.21 0.01 0.09 7.51 3.57 7.21

P

.02 .08 .32 .20 .05 .lO .50 .60 .40 .Ol .07 .Ol

Note. N = 435.

a The dependent variable in all analyses. b Independent variables in Step 1 for all analyses were age, educational level, self-efficacy , and stressor. ’ Independent variables in Step 2 for all analyses were those included in Step 1 plus the interaction between self-efficacy and the stressor.

between occupational stress and strain differently depending upon the nature of the stress. Women with low career self-efficacy expectations reported higher degrees of vocational strain to the extent that they perceived that role overload and responsibility were salient. These women may have failed to develop strategies to cope with the heavy work demands and reacted emotionally, which amplified the vocational strain they felt. In contrast, women with high career self-efficacy expectations reported higher degrees of interpersonal and physical strain to the extent that they perceived that role insufficiency was salient. These women perceive themselves as having the capability to handle heavy job demands. An environment characterized by role insufficiency may prevent them from mak-

SELF-EFFICACY

AND STRESS

87

ing full use of their potential, thereby frustrating them and amplifying interpersonal and physical strain. Role overload and responsibility represent demand stress (Schuler, 1979), while role insufficiency represents opportunity stress (Schuler, 1979). Thus, the findings demonstrated that the effects of demand stress on strain are greatest when career self-efficacy expectations are low and the effects of opportunity stress on strain are greatest when career self-efficacy expectations are high. Osipow and Spokane (1985, 1988) specified four types of coping resources; recreation, social support, self-care, and rational/cognitive coping. They found that these coping resources interacted with occupational stress to reduce strain, and they recommended that organizations train individuals to use these coping mechanisms to cope with stress. The present findings suggest that training which strengthen employees’ self-efficacy expectations with regard to their job duties should be included in stressreduction training programs. The findings also suggest the importance of organizations removing opportunity stress like role insufficiency by means of job enrichment. Role-insufficient environments are frustrating and stressful for employees having high career self-efficacy expectations. Some limitations of the present findings should be addressed. The present conclusions are based on hierarchical multiple regressions in which significant increments in variance of strain accounted for by the interaction term between self-efficacy and stress were observed. However, the increments observed were 1 or 2% at best, thereby limiting their practical significance. The study examined only three of the six sources of stress that Osipow and Spokane (1983) specified. The analyses relied only on the measures obtained from subjects themselves. Thus, it is recommended that future research include some objective measures of stress (e.g., experts’ observation) and strain (e.g., performance ratings and absenteeism). Furthermore, this study used female office workers as subjects. Although previous studies (e.g., Forney, 1982; Osipow & Davis, 1985; Osipow & Davis, 1988) reported no sex differences in the relation between stress and strain, the present findings should be replicated with blue-collar workers and with employees in professional and managerial positions to establish their generalizability. REFERENCES Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning rheory. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A., & Adams, N. E. (1977). Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 287-308. Bandura. A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer. J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating behavioral change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 125-139. Bandura. A., Adams, N. E., Hardy, A. B.. & Howells, G. N. (1980). Tests of the generality of self-efficacy theory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4, 39-66.

88

MATSUI AND ONGLATCO

Bandura, A., Reese, L., & Adams, N. E. (1982). Microanalysis of action and fear arousal as a function of differential levels of perceived self-efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 5-21. Bandura, A., Taylor, C. B., Williams, S. L., Mefford, I. N., & Barchas, J. D. (1985). Catecholamine secretion as a function of perceived coping self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 53, 406-414. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Betz, N. E., & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-efficacy expectations to perceived career options in college women and men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 399-410. Bhagat, R. S., & Allie, S. M. (1989). Organizational stress, personal life stress, and symptoms of life strains: An examination of the moderating role of sense of competence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35, 231-253. Forney, D. S. (1982). Sex and age and the incidence of stress, strain, and burnout among career development professionals. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Maryland, College Park. French, J. R. P. (1976, September). Job demands and worker health. Presented at American Psychological Association Symposium, Washington, DC. Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 326-339. Holland, J. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. New York: PrenticeHall. Holland. J. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lent, R. W., & Hackett, G. (1987). Career self-efficacy: Empirical status and future directions. Journal of Vocational Behavior Monograph, 30, 347-382. Matsui, T., & Onglatco, M. (1991). Instrumentality, expressiveness, and self-efficacy in career activities among Japanese working women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 241-250. Matsui, T., & Tsukamoto, S. (1991). Relation between career self-efficacy measures based on occupational titles and Holland codes and model environments: A methodological contribution. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38, 78-91. Osipow, S. H., & Spokane, A. R. (1983). Manual for measures of occupational stress, strain, and coping. Columbus, OH: Marathon Consulting and Press. Osipow, S. H., & Spokane, A. R. (1987). Occupational stress inventory: Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Osipow, S. H., & Davis, A. S. (1988). The relationship of coping resources to occupational stress and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, I-15. Osipow, S. H., Doty, R. E.. & Spokane, A. R. (1985). Occupational stress, strain, and coping across the life span. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27, 98-108. Schuler, R. S. (1979). Definition and conceptualization of stress in organizations (Working paper 79-50). Columbus: Ohio State University, College of Administrative Science. Received: August 8, 1991