TRABAJO DE INVESTIGACIÓN
PROGRAMA DE DOCTORADO INTERUNIVERSITARIO DE
PSICOLOGÍA DE LAS ORGANIZACIONES Y DEL TRABAJO
Stressors, Coping and Distress:
The Role of Gender in Work Stress
CURSO 2002-2003
Alumna:
M. Gloria González-Morales
Directores:
José M. Peiró Silla
Isabel Rodríguez Molina
AGRADECIMIENTOS
Me gustaría agradecer a José M. Peiró el tiempo y esfuerzo que ha dedicado a
orientarme en el inicio de esta carrera, y sobre todo la confianza que ha depositado en mi y
en mi trabajo desde el primer momento.
Agradezco a Isabel Rodríguez todas las páginas leídas, las sugerencias realizadas y
el tiempo dedicado a desarrollar un trabajo cuyo tema nos apasiona a ambas. Espero que
podamos seguir juntas avanzando en la misma dirección.
Quiero agradecer a Esther Greenglass su colaboración en la elaboración de este
trabajo, ha sido un honor poder contar con ella tanto en su faceta investigadora como
personal.
Gracias a Lina Fortes-Ferreira, puesto que sin el trabajo que ha compartido de
manera desinteresada conmigo durantes estos dos años no hubiera logrado escribir este
artículo, el cual es fruto de nuestra labor conjunta.
Agradezco a Isabel Martín la increíble labor que supuso recoger los datos utilizados
en este trabajo, y su inestimable ayuda en el seguimiento de los mismos.
Y como no, he de expresar mi agradecimiento por el apoyo de todos mis
compañeros becarios y ayudantes de Facultad, el cual hago extensible a todos los miembros
de la UIPOT.
Toronto, 16 de Julio de 2003
Gender in work stress
Running head: THE ROLE OF GENDER IN WORK STRESS
Stressors, Coping and Distress:
The Role of Gender in Work Stress
M. Gloria González-Morales
Universidad de Valencia
1
Gender in work stress
2
Abstract
Several studies have highlighted the importance of considering gender as a key variable in work
stress research. However, a great amount of research on work stress has been developed only
with male samples. When research has been carried out with mixed samples, women coping
styles are regarded from a negative standpoint in most cases. In that way, it has been suggested
that coping strategies that are related to feminine gender role are less beneficial and more related
to psychological distress than coping strategies associated with the male gender role. The present
study examines the role played by gender in the relationship between stressors, coping strategies
and distress. In this task, six different types of occupational stressors and a global score of
perceived stressors, have been considered. In addition, we have controlled the possible
confounding effect of organizational status in a sample of 461 employees from several Spanish
financial companies. ANCOVA analyses show that women use social support & leisure
strategies more frequently than men, whereas there are not gender differences in the use of direct
action coping. Results from the hierarchical regressions performed (one for each stressor) point
out a moderating effect of gender in the relation between coping strategies and distress. On the
one hand, the use of social support & leisure strategies is only beneficial for women. On the
other hand, direct action strategies are more beneficial for men than for women. This differential
effect appears in all the regression equations, thus this pattern does not depend on the type of the
perceived stressor included in the equation. The three-way interaction (stressor x coping x
gender) entered in the regression equations was not significant. Therefore, the level of the
stressors does not moderate gender differences in the relationship between coping and distress.
Findings are discussed in base of the reviewed literature and theoretical and practical
implications in the organizational context are posed.
Key words: work stress, gender, coping, social support, psychological distress
Gender in work stress
3
Introduction
When understanding certain phenomena in organizations such as job dissatisfaction, low
productivity rates and high levels of absenteeism and turnover, work stress become a central
explaining variable. It is well established in the literature that there is a positive relationship
between work-related stressors and distress, which leads to those negative organizational
outcomes (Cooper & Payne, 1988; Cooper, Kirkcaldy & Brown, J., 1994; Moyle & Parkes,
1999; Parkes, 1990; Parker & Sprigg, 1999). But this association is not as simple as it seems.
Transactional perspective (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) views stress as a process which results
from the transaction between the individual and his or her environment. Coping appears to be a
key factor in this process, and it can be defined as changing cognitive and behavioural efforts to
manage demands that are appraised as stressful ones (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). It will be
explained that in this person-environment transaction, gender, as a personal attribute, plays an
important role in the whole process.
Coping
In coping literature, several strategies have been distinguished. It has led to the
formulation of taxonomies that, in general, establishes two broad types of coping named in
different ways by different authors: active-passive, control-avoidance, problem focused-emotion
focused, and direct action-palliative. In general, the first pole of these dimensions (active,
control, problem focused and direct action) refers to “…attempts to respond to a situation of
threat with the aim of removing the threat…”; and the second pole (passive, avoidance, emotion
focused and palliative) aims to “…reducing the emotional discomfort” (Dewe, 1989).
In this parsimonious approach to coping in two separated types, it has been established
that direct action strategies are related to higher levels of well-being and therefore, to less
Gender in work stress
4
psychological symptoms (Causey & Dubow, 1993;Compas, Malcarne & Fondacaro, 1988; Ebata
& Moos, 1991; Glyshaw, Cohen & Towbes, 1988; Sandler, Tein & West, 1994; Wills, 1986).
On the other hand, emotion focused or palliative strategies are less effective than direct
action ones (Billing & Moos, 1981, Bhagat et al., 1995; Greenglass, 1993, 1995). However, the
revised studies do not show consistent results. This can be due to the heterogeneous types of
coping that have been included into the broad category of palliative coping (Bowman & Stern,
1995). So, avoidance strategies, which are included in this palliative category, are associated
with higher levels of symptoms (Armistead, et al., 1990; Blalock & Joiner, 2000; Causey &
Dubow, 1993; Cooper, Russell, Skinner, Frone & Mudar, 1992; Wills, 1986); whereas, some
studies have shown a functional role of emotion focused strategies (e.g. Parkes, 1990). In this
way, problem reappraisal has been considered as a palliative strategy, but empirical studies have
found that this kind of strategy is associated with low distress levels and positive adjustment
(Parkes, 1990; Strentz & Auerbach, 1988, Vaillant, 1976).
In the same way, items related to social support have been included in that broad category
of palliative coping. However, when social support coping is isolated from the palliative coping
measures, it becomes an important factor in the promotion of health (Belle, 1987, Cohen &
Syme, 1985; Greenglass, Fiksenbaum & Burke, 1996). Social support is defined as a source of
emotional resources (feelings of belonging, intimacy, improved sense of self worth and sense of
control) (Greenglass, 2000) and practical/informational resources (financial assistance, goods or
advice and guidance) (Himle et al, 1989). Given the empirical support of the benefits of this type
of coping, it is remarkable that only “few theories have integrated social support into their
theoretical constructions of coping” (Greenglass, 2000 p. 47). Greenglass (2002) points out that
there are several advantages in linking social support literature with coping literature: it is
Gender in work stress
5
possible to theoretically link these two areas that were conceptually distinct before and it
enlarges the conceptualization of coping behavior towards a more interpersonal one.
As social support has been neglected in the coping research scope, other neglected idea in
coping literature includes leisure as a form of coping with stress that is related to well-being
(Iwasaki, 2001). Theoretical and empirical literature supports the view in which leisure can
contribute to ventilate stress, and enhance and maintain physical and psychological health (e.g.,
Caltabiano, 1994, 1995; Coleman, 1993; Driver, Brown,&Peterson, 1991; Hull&Michael,1995;
Iso-Ahola & Park, 1996; Iwasaki & Smale, 1998; Zuzanek, Robinson,& Iwasaki, 1998).
Coleman and Iso-Ahola (1993) stated that leisure-generated social support can act as a buffer
against stress. Moreover, there is accumulated evidence that shows that leisure is social in nature
(e.g., Crandall, 1979; Kelly, 1983; Larson, Mannell, & Zuzanek, 1986; Orthner, 1975; Rapoport
& Rapoport, 1975; Samdahl & Kleiber, 1988). These explanations of leisure as a social coping
strategy may allow us to conceptualize a joined vision of social support and leisure as a
beneficial and interpersonal form of coping.
The role played by gender in coping-distress process
Taking into account that personal attributes such as gender can influence work stress
processes (Gianakos, 2000, 2002), it is important to note that a great amount of this research has
been developed only with male samples (Hall, 1989; Lundberg, 1998, Skues & Kirkby, 1995;
Swason, Piotrkowski, Keita & Becker, 1997). When the growing participation of women in the
workforce led researchers to add female subjects in their samples, few of them changed the male
standard assumptions in which they based their research. As a result, women have been often
viewed from the standpoint of deficiency (Long & Cox, 2000). Otherwise, the inclusion of
gender in work stress research should be viewed as an opportunity for a better exploration and
Gender in work stress
6
understanding of the processes involved in this issue (Greenglass, 1995). From this perspective,
gender is understood as a social-psychological construct defined by factors that derive from the
social context, and not as a simple demographic variable.
Two different approaches try to explain the relations between gender, coping and distress.
In the first one, coping is seen as a mediator that transmits the influence of gender to distress, in
the way that: “a person’s gender… may lead to a style of coping that either protects an
individual from developing certain symptoms or increases the likelihood of certain
symptoms”(Lengua and Stormshak, 2000). This perspective implies, in first place that there are
gender differences in the use of each type of coping. Secondly, it suggests that the “male
tendency” to control one’s feelings is more adaptive than the corresponding “female tendency”
to express one’s feelings (Greenglass & Noguchi, 1996).
It has been found, in several studies, that women use more palliative coping than men do
(Billing & Moos, 1981; Endler and Parker, 1994; Folkman and Lazarus, 1980; Pearlin and
Schooler, 1978; Ptacek, Smith and Dodge, 1994; Stone & Neale, 1984). This category of coping
is the one less related to well-being in stress literature, as indicated above. However, it has also
been remarked that not all the coping forms included in this broad category have a low adaptive
value. Take the case of the positive benefits of social support coping. It is reported that women
request (Belle, 1987; Ptacek, Smith and Dodge, 1994; Trocki & Orioli, 1994) and receive more
support than men (Ashton & Fuehrer, 1993; Burda, Vaux & Schill, 1984; Butler, Giordano &
Neren, 1985). They are also more influenced by social context (Hobfoll & Stokes, 1988) and
employ more coping forms involving interpersonal relationships than their male counterparts
(Norcross, Diclemente, and Prochaska, 1986). Thus, social and interpersonal coping forms as
social support and leisure strategies will be more frequently used by women. (Hypothesis 1.1)
Gender in work stress
7
In relation to direct action coping, there is no consistent evidence about the existence of
gender differences. There are findings that point out a greater use of direct action coping among
men (Endler and Parker, 1994; Folkman and Lazarus, 1980; Pearlin and Schooler, 1978; Ptacek,
Smith and Dodge, 1994; Stone & Neale, 1984; Trocki & Orioli, 1994) whereas other studies find
a greater use of direct action strategies among women (Parasuraman & Cleek, 1984; Vitaliano et
al. 1985; Gianakos, 2000, 2002), there are also studies that do not find any difference between
women and men in the use of this way of coping (Hamilton & Fagot, 1988; Havlovik & Keenan,
1995). This inconsistent evidence could be due to the differences on status, power and type of
jobs held by women and men in the different studies (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Hobfoll,
Dunahoo, Ben-Porath & Monnier, 1994). Empirical research has demonstrated that when
education, occupation, type of organization, and position are controlled, few differences are
found (Greenglass, 1988; Korabik & Van Kampen, 1995; Long, 1990; McDonald & Korabik,
1991a). Hence, organizational status and occupation will be controlled in order to test if direct
action coping is used to the same extent by male and female subjects (Hypothesis 1.2).
This first perspective about the relation between gender, coping, and distress suggested
that the “male type coping” (related to direct action) is more beneficial than the “female type
coping” (related to the expression of feelings). However, it has been pointed the importance of
not considering palliative coping mechanism as a broad category, and the need of distinguishing
adaptive coping efforts (e.g. social support and leisure strategies) from others that could be less
adaptive ones. In addition, there is a second perspective that defines gender as a moderator that
affects the relation between coping and distress, consequently, “different strategies may be more
or less effective for men and women” (Lengua and Stormshak, 2000).
Gender in work stress
8
This differential effect of gender is explained on the basis of the match between the
gender role of the coping behavior and the gender of the coper. Women and men have been
socialized in different roles. Women have been educated in a nurturant and emotional role that
encourages them to care about people, express emotions and seek for social support (Pearlin &
Schooler, 1978; Rosario, Shinn, Morch & Huckabee, 1988). Taking into account that women are
more involved in the interpersonal aspects, the study of social support as a coping strategy allows
a positive valuation of female coping styles. In contrast, contemporary men have been socialized
and expected to develop action skills (risk-taking, assertiveness, calmness in the face of danger,
etc.) (Burke, 2002); in addition, men are not allowed to express emotions or “weakness” because
they are expected to be strong and invulnerable (Greenglass & Noguchi, 1996). These socialized
roles imply a use of different coping strategies depending on gender: each person may use the
strategy that fits better with his or her socialized gender role. This may lead to a proficient use
that makes the gender-related coping strategy more adaptive than the other available strategies.
This becomes clearer if we also define each gender-related strategy in proper way, without
mixing them into broad and non-adaptive categories of coping such as palliative coping.
There are some empirical studies that support the socialization idea. Feldman et al.,
(1995) found that, in response to problems in the family, adolescent coping via turning to
religion and via seeking out friends, which are behaviors consistent with the feminine gender
role, were associated with poor adult adaptation for young men. On the other hand, young
women who had coped in that way reported good adult adaptation. Stein and Nyamathi’s (1999)
findings with impoverished and minority populations, pointed out that avoidant coping predicted
drug use among men, but not among women. In relation to burnout, Welsch’s (1999) findings
showed that a frequent use of emotional coping reinforced the positive association between job
Gender in work stress
9
stress and burnout in male participants, but not in their female counterparts. Emmerik (2002)
found that a supportive departmental climate and practical assistance in the department reduced
emotional exhaustion and especially female academic staff benefited from these types of coping
assistance at the aggregate level.
In the social support research, it has been reported that women make more effective use
of their social support network to cope with stress and strain (Etzion and Piners, 1981;
Greenglass et al. 1998). Greenglass’ studies showed that social support coping helps in the
development of other adaptive coping strategies, only in the case of women. For instance, female
subjects, compared to their male counterparts, were better in using interpersonal support to
incorporate other cognitive coping forms and “to lessen their reliance on less effective strategies”
(Greenglass, 1993, p. 91). Similar findings are reported in Fiksenbaum & Greenglass (2000):
social support increased the use of other adaptive types of coping (instrumental coping, internal
control and preventive coping) and decreased the less effective coping strategies (wishful
thinking). These beneficial effects of social support appeared only in the female sample. This
gender pattern is also found when social support is directly related with distress: women who
reported more family support not only relied less on avoidance coping but also showed less
depressed mood and physical symptoms, whereas similar effects were not observed in men
(Cronkite and Moos, 1984). In organizational settings, Perrewe & Carlson (2002) reported in
their results that, when social support was high, women reported more work satisfaction, more
family satisfaction, and less family interference with work, than their male counterparts. Finally,
Christie and Shultz´s (1998) results indicated that emotional social support was a positive
predictor of job strain only in the case of men; this finding suggests that the use of coping
strategies not matched with the gender role may even be harmful. Hence it is expected that
Gender in work stress 10
beneficial effects of social support and leisure coping will be higher for women than for men
(Hypothesis 2.1).
So far no mention has been made in the literature about the effect of gender in relation to
the benefit of direct action coping forms. However, from the perspective of the match between
the gender role of coping and the gender of the coper, it may be expected that direct action
coping will be more positively related to well- being in men than in women. This hypothesis is
based in the fact that direct solving efforts are more associated with the male gender role. Thus,
it is expected that men obtain more profit from the strategies in which they have been trained
since the childhood. There is also another issue that may have some influence on the
effectiveness of direct action strategies used by each gender in organizational settings:
stereotypes. In male-dominated professions, sex is a salient stimulus that triggers stereotypes
about the minority group members that affect how they are perceived and evaluated (Korabik,
1997). Heilman (1995, p.8) stated that “even when she produces the identical product as a man, a
woman’s work is often regarded as inferior. There is a great deal of evidence that attests to the
fact that women’s achievements are viewed in a way that is consistent with stereotype-based
negative performance expectations and their work is devalued simply because they are women.”
In the same way, not only performance is perceived with the stereotype filter: direct action
strategies developed by women, in order to manage the sources of pressure, may not lead to the
same results as strategies carried out by their male counterparts. When a direct action strategy is
developed, a change in the source of stress is expected that diminishes the stressful situation and
alleviates the experienced distress. Because of sources of stress are part of an organizational
setting, they are comprised into the climate and the culture of the organization. In several cases,
the change in the stressor not only depends on the actions of the individual but also on a response
Gender in work stress 11
of the environment to those actions (Fielden & Cooper, 2002). In that case, a determined social
context, such as the organizational one, may response to direct action coping under the influence
of social categorization processes such as stereotypes. In that way, the impact of men and
women’s efforts in the organization may depend on the stereotyped vision of each gender, which
has negative effects on the feminine part. Thus, taking these two explanations, gender role
socialization and stereotypes, as a whole, we expect that direct action strategies will have a more
beneficial effect for men than for women (Hypothesis 2.2).
Perceived stressors and coping
It should be understood that specific coping strategies are not adaptive to every situation
and that contextual factors are an important part of the whole stress process. (Bowman & Stern,
1995; Cohen, 1987; Forsythe & Compas, 1987; Lazarus & Folkman,1984; Koeske, Kirk &
Koeske 1993; Parkes, 1994). Mattlin et al (1990) found that the effectiveness of particular types
of coping strategies depended on the objective nature of the situations in which they were used.
Considering the level of the perceived stressor, the use of problem focused coping has
been related to moderated work demands (Parkes, 1986) and the beneficial effects of this kind of
coping appeared only when the perceived severity of stressors was low (Parasuraman & Hansen,
1987). In relation to the type of the stressors, Osipow & Davis (1988) found that social support
reduced the negative impact of role insufficiency, role boundary, role ambiguity, role overload
and responsibility but it did not reduced the negative impact of stressors related with the physical
environment. Recreation coping (leisure activities) also reduced the negative impact of role
ambiguity, overload and responsibility stressors on strain. Finally, rational/cognitive coping
(organizing workloads, establishing priorities and working through problems) was related with
the reduction of the impact of role overload and responsibility stressors on strain. Day &
Gender in work stress 12
Livingstone (2001) reported interactions between negative coping styles (venting on emotions
and denial/disengagement) and some of the different work stressors of the study (lack of job
stimulation, role ambiguity, and responsibility on others, and acute work stressors). Positive
styles (problem focused, positive emotion-focused and seeking social support) did not interact
with any stressor. Finally, Shimazu & Kosugi (2003) hypothesized that active coping would be
effective in the case of every stressor (cognitive demand, overload, role ambiguity and
insufficient authority). However, this effect would become weaker in the more effortful
situations (role ambiguity and insufficient authority perceived stressors) because may appear
negative secondary effects (cognitive fatigue, pathogenic physiological responses and
interference with health maintenance), which are due to the prolonged use of active coping.
Their data supported their hypothesis: the beneficial effect of active coping is weaker in the
effortful cases. They also found that social support was related to greater levels of distress only
in the effortful situations, and resignation and restraint coping predicted higher levels of distress
in the four groups of stressors considered.
As it can be seen, different coping strategies can be more or less related to distress
depending on the level and/or type of perceived stressors. In sum, direct action strategies seem to
be more beneficial when levels of perceived stressors are low. In addition, there are few
differential effects of direct action coping depending on the type of stressor. Social support &
leisure strategies are more related to distress when dealing with certain type of stressors like role
stress and overload, however, there are studies that did not find this type of interactions. Thus,
empirical data do not give a definitive view about the relationships between stressors and coping
in individual outcomes. Latack & Havlovic (1992) suggest a situational specificity middle-range
approach in coping research, which should identify categories or types of stress situations from
Gender in work stress 13
organizational research. In addition, there is no information about the possible effects of the
inclusion of individual variables such as gender. Hence, we will test if the differential pattern of
gender on coping -distress relation differs depending on the type and/or level of the perceived
stressor (hypotheses 3.1 and 3.2). The direction of the expected effects of level or type of stressor
is exploratory, because the addition of the gender variable in this study opens a new approach to
the stressors-coping issue.
The present study
This paper aims to clarify the relationship between gender, coping and distress looking at
the mediator effect of coping and the moderator effect of gender. Likewise, by tackling these two
different perspectives, it takes into account the possible interactive effect of work stressors, in a
male type organizational setting.
First of all, it is important to notice that we have controlled the main confounding factor
when analyzing gender differences in organizational settings: organizational status. It is central
to control aspects such as differences in the occupational roles that are still present, despite the
growing participation of women in the workforce (Rodriguez, 1998), because women have not
achieved organizational status positions comparable to those hold by men (Phillips & Imhoff,
1997). In that low status context, women have few opportunities to develop direct action
strategies; other forms of coping are used instead to face the emotion-oriented demands that are
often confronted in these low status positions (Hobfoll et al., 1994). Actually, if organizational
status is not controlled, it is impossible to know if the findings of differences are due to the
gender or are a confounding effect of the organizational status (Colwill, 1995, Holm, 2001).
Due to the fact that models of stress and coping were developed primarily on men
without consideration of women’s roles and experiences (Greenglass & Noguchi, 1996), this
Gender in work stress 14
study will take into consideration the role of interpersonal aspects in coping efforts that are
tightly related to women’s social lives. In addition, we have decided not to include emotionfocused or palliative coping forms in this work because we want to focus our study in positive
health-related coping efforts. Furthermore, as Hobfoll et al. (1994) point out “emotion-focused
coping may perhaps never be disentangled for the emotional outcomes of coping” (p.53). When
responding a coping questionnaire it is expected that people report how they are responding to
cope with the stressor but it is possible that what they report is how they are responding to the
outcome of stress. (Stone, Greenberg, Kennedy-Moore & Newman, 1991). Therefore, the coping
strategies that we will take into consideration in this study are: direct action and social support
seeking & leisure strategies.
In sum, taking into account the issues exposed, and based in the reviewed literature, the
following hypothesis have been formulated:
The first approach reviewed states that, depending on the gender, persons will use
different coping strategies. Thus, controlling for the possible confounding effect of status:
1.1 Women will use more social support & leisure strategies than men do.
1.2 Gender differences in the use of direct action strategies will be explored..
Concerning the moderating hypothesis of gender, the utilization of the different types of
strategies will lead to different personal outcomes depending on the gender of the coper:
2.1 The use of social support & leisure coping will have a more beneficial effect for
women than for men. (Gender x Social support & leisure)
2.2 The use of direct action coping will have a more beneficial effect for men than for
women (Gender x Direct action).
Gender in work stress 15
In addition, it is interesting to tackle the role played by the different type and level of perceived
work related stressors:
3.1 Differential effects depending on gender in the relationship coping-distress may be
moderated by the level of perception of work related stressors (Gender x Social support
& leisure x Stressor) (Gender x Direct action x Stressor).
3.2 The type of the analyzed work related stressors may determine the finding of gender
differential effects.
Method
Sample
Participants were 461 employees of Spanish financial organizations. We have studied a
homogeneous sample, in a male dominated sector, in order to control the confounding effects of
socioeconomic status and occupational sector.
The sample was composed by 72% (n=332) men and 28 % (n=129) women. It should be
noted that this unbalanced distribution reflects the real composition of the population of workers
in this particular organizational setting. It is important to analyze demographic data separately
for each sex. As table 1 shows, the most part of the women (81.4%) was placed in the 21-36
years old group of age. The 97% of men was distributed in the two main groups of age: 2136(41.6%) and 37-55(55.9%). The 45% of women was married or living with their couples, and
a great part of men, 80.4%, was in this group. The 70% of men and 35.8% of women had
children. Finally, when female participants had a couple, the couple always worked, but when
male participants had a couple, 23.6% of the couples did not work at all.
--------Please, insert about here table 1-------
Gender in work stress 16
Attending to work-related demographic data, table 1 shows that more than the half of
women and the 36% of men had the highest degree of graduate studies. A minority of women
(21.3%) held medium-high positions, whereas this status was held by more than the half of the
male participants (56.7%). Percentages in perception of career promotion were very similar
between genders. Finally, the mean of tenure in the organization was 13.9 years for men and 6.6
for women.
Procedure
Managers of human resources departments of several banking institutions were contacted
and asked for the voluntary participation of the workers of their organizations. Once the
objectives of the study and the instructions of the questionnaires were personally explained to the
individuals, questionnaires were applied. When it was possible, participants filled the
questionnaires in the presence of a researcher; when not, questionnaires and stamped envelopes
were delivered personally. We requested the participants to mail the answered document. This
way the anonymity was assured.
Measures
Socio-demographic variables. The age was measured in four intervals: less than 21 years
old; 21 to 36 years old; 37 to 55 years old; more than 55 years old. Gender was coded with the
values of 1 for man and 0 for woman. The measure of Marital Status was codified as a dummy
variable, with the value of 1 for those workers who live with their couples (married or not), and 0
for those who do not.
Finally, organizational status was measured using two questions of the instrument: How
many people do you take charge of, directly or indirectly? And, how many people do depend on
Gender in work stress 17
you directly? Thus, we established two levels of status: if the answer to both questions is “none”,
then the worker is in the lowest status (value= 0 in organizational status variable). If the question
to the first question is the same or higher than the second, then the worker is in the medium-high
status (value 1 in organizational status variable).
Work related stressors. The Occupational Stress Indicator (OSI) (Cooper, Sloan &
Williams, 1988) is the measure of stress most cited in the period between 1991 to 1996 (Vagg &
Spielberger, 1998, p. 296). Despite having applied all the scales of Spanish version of the OSI,
this study only considered the ones referred to psychological distress and sources of stress, as
well as several items of the scale of coping. “Sources of Pressure” scale (61 items) measures 6
different types of stressors: factors intrinsic to the job (=.69) (9 items, examples: "Having too
much work to do", “too much or too less variety in my job”); job role stressors (=.78) (11 items,
examples: "Ambiguity in the nature of the work to perform", ”Changes in the way I have to do
my work”); relationship with other people stressors (=.72) (10 items, examples: “I feel I’m
isolated”, ”other people do not use my time properly”); career and achievement stressors
(=.74) (9 items, examples: "Being undervalued", ”Lack of career promotion”); organizational
structure and climate stressors (=.82) (11 items, examples: “There is discrimination and
favoritism”, ”The structure and design of the organization”) and home/work interface stressors
(=.82) (11 items, examples: "Take work to do at home", ”Developed my professional career
with the cost of my family”). We have also measured a global score of stressors, by taking into
account the 61 items as a whole (=.95).The participants registered their perception of work
stress in a Likert scale that varies between 1 (certainly it is not a source of pressure) and 6
(certainly it is a source of pressure).
Coping. This measure has been operationalizated in two dimensions constituted by
Gender in work stress 18
several items of the coping scales of the OSI questionnaire. The OSI factor structure is
ambiguous, with few empirical studies supporting its factorial structure (Lu et al., 1995;
Williams, 1996). Lyne, Barret, Williams and Coaley (2000) carried out a comprehensive
exploratory psychometric evaluation of the questionnaire and its subscales across three different
samples and, in relation to the coping scale, with 6 dimensions in its original form, they isolated
a parsimonious two-factor solution. The first factor was ‘task-oriented coping’ and the second
one, “could be described as lifestyle coping, with items about seeking social support, and having
interests outside of work.” (Lyne et al., 2000, p. 208) Neither this factorial solution, nor the
original OSI one, was replicated in our sample. Instead, we obtained a factorial solution that did
not make theoretical sense. Therefore, we decided to build two different dimensions from the
OSI original ones attending to the Lyne et al. (2000) factorial solution, and the concept validity
of direct action coping (Lazarus, 1975; Dewe, 1984,1989) and social support seeking and leisure
(Coleman and Iso-Ahola, 1993; Iwasaki, 1999). Thus, the coping strategies were measured by
using a two-dimension scale: social support & leisure coping (8 Items, examples: “I seek for the
greatest amount of social support as possible”; “Enhancing activities and interests outside work”)
and direct action coping (8 Items, examples: “I try to perform my work in a more interesting
way”; “I set up priorities and face problems according to them”). We did not take into account
items related to avoidance, distraction, resignation or adaptation, indirect coping or emotion
venting/suppressing strategies. In this process, the internal consistency of the dimensions
resulted was constantly preserved as an indicator of the reliability of the new scale (.79 for the
direct action coping, and .67 for the social support & leisure dimension). To respond to this
scale, the participants indicated how often they had used that strategy, from 1 (I have never used
it) to 6 (I have used it very frequently).
Gender in work stress 19
Psychological distress. This variable was measured using the “mental illness-health”
scale of OSI questionnaire, comprised of 18 items. To answer this scale, the participants
indicated the level of adequacy of the statements with their psychological state in the past three
months, in a Likert scale with 6 points of response. The meaning of the scale differed in function
of the affirmation presented, always reflecting distress on higher scores and lack of distress on
lower scores. Some examples of this scale are: “As to the work and life in general, you’d
describe yourself as someone who worries excessively with your problems?”, “Are there times,
at work, that the things you have to do are excessive and you feel overwhelmed, making you
think that you are going to ‘blow up’?”. The 72% of the statements are related to work
situations. The internal consistency of this scale in this study was established by an alpha of
Cronbach of .85
Data analysis
Preliminary analyses of the data were made through the attainment of descriptive
statistics (means, standard deviations), correlation analyses and t-tests.
The first group of hypotheses is related to gender differences in the use of coping:
women will use more social support & leisure coping than men and it will be explore if there are
gender differences in the use of direct action strategies. Main data analysis procedures used for
test this first group were 2 ANCOVAs, in which the factor was gender and the covariate was
organizational status (control variable).
The second group of hypotheses expects different patterns depending on gender in the
prediction of psychological distress (more beneficial effects for women when using social
support & leisure coping, hypothesis 2.1, and more beneficial effects for men when using direct
action coping, hypothesis 2.2). The consideration of the possible effects of the levels of
Gender in work stress 20
perception of those sources of pressure (hypothesis 3.1) and the different types of stressors
(hypothesis 3.2), shapes the third group of hypotheses.
In order to test these hypotheses, moderated hierarchical regressions models, which
predicted psychological distress, were designed (see Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Hierarchical
models are a kind of multiple regression analysis in which the variables are introduced by
following a predetermined sequence so that “terms of lower order are partialled from those of
higher order and not vice versa” (Cohen, 1978). Interaction terms were entered after direct
effects, and the product of all constituent variables carried out the interaction. In order to solve
the possible problem of multicollinearity, the scores used in the equations were transformed into
centered scores, by subtracting the value of the mean from the direct scores1. Seven regression
models were designed, one for each source of pressure and the global score of stressors. In this
way, we would be able to test the hypothesis 3.2 that expects that the type of stressors may
determine the finding of moderating effects. In each regression model, two-way interaction terms
represented the moderating effects of gender (hypotheses 2.1, 2.2) and three-way interaction
terms represented the moderating effects of level of perceived stressors (hypothesis 3.1).
Finally, not only organizational status was included as a control variable in the regression
equations. Age and marital status were taken into account as control variables because age has
been significantly related to distress in the literature (Peiró y Salvador, 1993; Rodríguez et al.
2001; Spector, 1997; Sutherland y Cooper, 1998) and marital status has been associated with the
relationship gender-stress (Rodríguez, 1998; Baruch, Biener y Barnett, 1987).
Gender in work stress 21
Results
Descriptive data, correlations and t-tests
Correlations between variables, with their means and standard deviations, are shown in
table 2.
--------Please, insert about here table 2------Low levels of psychological distress were found: the mean was below the median score
of the scale (mean 3.19). Social support coping strategies were less frequently used (mean 4.05)
than direct action strategies (mean 4.58). T-tests on means indicate that differences in use of
these two coping strategies were statistically significant, not only for the total sample but also for
each gender (tables 3 and 4). The perceived pressure from sources of stress presented a moderate
level in average terms (mean scores between 3.62 and 4.07).
Correlation analyses showed that organizational status correlated positively to gender.
This correlation points to a more frequent presence of men among the highest levels of the
organizational hierarchy. Organizational status also correlated negatively with the use of social
support & leisure coping, the higher the status in the organization, the less frequently social
support & leisure coping was used. Thus, the necessity of including organizational status as a
control variable in data analysis was confirmed. Likewise, we found positive correlations
between marital status and age, organizational status and gender: being married or living with the
couple was associated with being elder, holding higher organizational status positions and being
a man. Age was positively correlated to gender and organizational status: in this sample being
elder was more associated with men and with medium-high organizational status positions. Age
was also correlated to social support & leisure coping, but with negative sign, suggesting that the
Gender in work stress 22
use of social support & leisure coping was associated with younger participants of the study.
These correlations justify the use of marital status and age as control variables.
Gender was negatively correlated to the career and achievement source of stress and to
social support & leisure coping. That is to say: being woman was related to perceive more career
and achievement stressors and it was also associated with using social support & leisure as
strategies of coping.
Every source of pressure correlated positively to each other. All the stressors, except
career and achievement, correlated positively to psychological distress and social support &
leisure coping, thus, the more the level of perceived stressor, the more psychological distress was
reported and the more social support & leisure coping was used. Career and achievement
stressors and organizational climate and structure stressors were positively correlated to direct
action coping: the perception of these stressors was associated with greater use of direct action
coping.
While direct action coping was negatively correlated to psychological distress, it was not
the case for social support & leisure coping. This means that the use of direct action was related
to lower levels of psychological distress, but this did not happen in the case of social support &
leisure coping. Finally, there was a positive correlation between both coping forms.
--------Please, insert about here table 3------If we analyze the correlation matrix separated for men and for women (tables 3 and 4),
the most interesting results indicate that in women sample, both types of coping correlated
negatively to psychological distress, but in men sample, only direct action coping was negatively
related to psychological distress. In this way, both types of coping were associated with lower
levels of distress on women, in contrast, in the men sample only direct action coping presented
Gender in work stress 23
that relation. For women, direct action coping was not related to any source of stress. For men,
these strategies were positively related to career stress and climate stress. In both male and
female samples, social support & leisure coping was positively related to job role, relationships
with others, home-work interface and global score of stressors. For woman, it was also
associated with organizational climate and structure stressors. Finally, psychological distress was
positively related to age in the case of men, and related to marital status in the case of women,
therefore higher levels of distress were reported by elder men and by married women. Being
married, in the case of women, was related to experiencing higher levels of stressors such as
factors intrinsic to the job, job role and relationships with others, because marital status
correlated positively with those stressors in women sample.
--------Please, insert about here table 4------Hypotheses testing
Two ANCOVAs (factor: gender; covariate: organizational status, table 5) were conducted
in order to test hypothesis 1.1 (women would use more social support & leisure coping than
men) and hypothesis 1.2 (existence of gender differences in the use of direct action strategies).
We found a significant effect of gender on social support & leisure coping (F(1,444) = 15.107,
p< 0.00). Therefore, women used more social support & leisure coping (mean = 4.32) than men
(mean = 3.95). No significant effect of gender was found in the case of direct action coping
(women=4.66; men= 4.55; F(1,444) = 2.688, p< 0.102) . These results give support to the first
group of hypotheses.
--------Please, insert about here table 5------The moderating effects of gender on the relation between coping and distress (social
support & leisure coping would be more beneficial for woman, and direct action coping would
Gender in work stress 24
be more beneficial for men), and the differential effects of type and level of stressors were tested
through seven hierarchical multiple regression analyses. These regression analyses are
represented in table 6. Psychological distress was the criterion variable. Control variables (age,
marital status and organizational status) were entered in the first step in order to isolate the
variance that is explained by these variables. Step 2 comprised the direct effects of the predictor
variables: gender, stressor, social support & leisure coping and direct action coping. First order
interactions were entered in step 3. The interactions that tested according to our hypotheses were:
gender x social support & leisure (Hypothesis 2.1), gender x direct action (Hypothesis 2.2).
Finally, second order interactions were included in step 4: direct action x stress x gender and
social support & leisure x stress x gender (Hypothesis 3.1). This regression was repeated for each
specific stressor (hypothesis 3.2).
--------Please, insert about here table 6------Results were similar across the seven models, as we can see in table 6. High increments
of R² were found in step 2. The variance percentages explained for gender, stressors and both
types of coping ranged between 20% and 28% (p<0.001) The analysis of ß coefficients pointed
out that gender had a negative and significant effect in all the cases, hence being a female worker
predicted higher levels of psychological distress. All stressors, except career stress (p<0.10),
predicted positively psychological distress; and both types of coping strategies, social & leisure
and direct action, predicted negatively psychological distress.
Interaction terms, included in Step 3, incremented significantly the explained variance of
psychological distress in all the equations. Increments of explained variance percentages ranged
between 3% and 3.9% (p<0.001). ß coefficients showed that interaction terms of gender x social
support & leisure coping, and gender x direct action coping were significant in the seven
Gender in work stress 25
regression equations. The sign of ß value is not enough to explain the direction of the interaction
term, consequently, it was necessary to clarify the nature of the interaction effects in order to
know if hypothesis 2.1 and 2.2 are supported by the data. For this reason, graphical
representations² were carried out. They are presented in figures 1 and 2. Independent regression
lines have been plotted to represent the relationship between coping and psychological distress
for each gender, taking values of coping strategy of one standard deviation above and below the
mean.
The interaction effect of social support & leisure coping and gender is presented in Figure
1. It shows that when there was a low use of social support & leisure strategies, women reported
more psychological distress than men. This situation changed for the groups that reported a high
use of social support & leisure strategies: in this case the female group psychological distress
was diminished by the use of this coping strategy; however, in the male group distress was
enhanced. The interpretation of this figure gives support to hypothesis 2.1: the use of social
support & leisure coping has a more beneficial effect for woman than for men, and in this case, it
gives a clear hint that it has a maladaptive effect for male workers.
----------Please, insert about here figure 1 -------Direct action coping presented a different gender pattern. Figure 2 shows that in the case
of low use of direct action coping, men and women did not differ in reporting psychological
distress. On the other hand, the use of direct action coping is related to lower psychological
distress levels. However, in the male sample there is a stronger beneficial effect of direct action
coping, in diminishing psychological distress levels, than in the female one. Therefore,
hypothesis 2.2 is supported by the data: the use of direct action coping have a more beneficial
effect for men.
Gender in work stress 26
----------Please, insert about here figure 2 -------We analyzed if levels of perceived stressors influence the moderating effects of gender on
the relation between coping and distress (hypothesis 3.1). In order to test this hypothesis, second
order interaction terms were entered in step 4 of the hierarchical regression analyses. The results
can be seen in table 6. The inclusion of both 3-way interaction terms (social support & leisure x
stressor x gender and direct action x stressor x gender) did not increment significantly the
explained variance. This lack of effects implies that hypothesis 3.1 was not supported by the
data. Therefore, in this study, the effect of gender on the relationship between coping and distress
did not depend on the level of perception of different sources of pressures.
It was expected that the type of the perceived stressor would determine the finding of
gender differential effects; however, regression results were similar across the seven sources of
stress (table 6). Therefore, hypothesis 3.2 was not supported by the data: the interaction effects of
gender x social support & leisure and gender x direct action, showed moderating patterns that
were similar across the 7 regressions that we run. Hence, neither the level of the perceived
stressor nor the type of stressor influenced the moderator effect of gender.
Other results
To finalize the analysis of the hierarchical regression results presented in table 6, it is
necessary to explain a non hypothesized interaction effect that was found in step 3: social
support & leisure x stressor interaction term was significant in all stressors³, except family-work
source of stress. Figure 3 indicates the direction of this interaction effect4. Independent
regression lines have been plotted to represent the relationship between psychological distress,
coping and stressor, taking values of coping and stressor of one standard deviation above and
below the mean. The inclination of the high social support & leisure coping line indicates that
Gender in work stress 27
the beneficial effect of these strategies on psychological distress is stronger when low levels of
stressors are perceived. Psychological distress reports do not change in function of the perceived
stress levels among workers that use low levels of Social Support & Leisure strategies.
----------Please, insert, about here, figure 3 -------Discussion
The present work analyzes the relationship between stressors, coping, psychological
distress and gender in an organizational setting.
Women and men cope in different ways
Results show that women use social support & leisure strategies more frequently than
men (hypothesis 1.1). It is remarkable that this difference is due to gender because the
confounding effect of organizational status has been controlled. This finding of greater use of
interpersonal forms of coping among women is consitent with the results obtained in previous
studies (Belle, 1987; Greenglass et al.,1999; Ptacek, Smith and Dodge, 1994; Trocki & Orioli,
1994;) and “with feminine gender role socialization since women are expected to be more
interdependent and sensitive to others” (Greenglass, 1982). But, is social support the only way
that women cope? (Banyard & Graham-Bermann, 1993). The answer is “no, it is not”: results
show that direct action coping is more frequently used than social support & leisure coping in
both gender groups. Moreover, Hypothesis 1.2 was posed to test if there were gender differences
in the use of direct action strategies. Our data show that both men and women use direct action
coping to the same extent. This finding is supported by other studies that have neither found
gender differences when variables such as occupation, type of organization, and position are
controlled (Greenglass, 1988; Korabik & Van Kampen, 1995; Long, 1990; Macdonald &
Korabik, 1991). Therefore, the feminine gender role that allows, and even encourages, the
Gender in work stress 28
display of dependence on others (Greenglass, 2002) marks the difference in this organizational
setting: women can be as resolute as men in direct coping, but they use interpersonal forms of
coping more often than their male colleagues.
Gender is a moderator in the relation between coping and distress
There are significant interactive effects of gender and coping in the prediction of
psychological distress. It was expected that the use of social support & leisure coping would
have a more beneficial effect for women than for men (hypothesis 2.1), and direct action coping
would show a more beneficial effect for men than for women (2.2). Our results confirm the
hypothesis of this moderating effect. Actually, they show that direct action strategies are more
beneficial for men, and social support & leisure coping efforts are only profitable for women.
Therefore, men benefit from strategies related to their learned male role, and they do not
benefit from those that are “female strategies”. In the same way, women benefit from “female
learned strategies”; however, they get some benefits from the male-oriented coping forms as
well.
The fact that women’s direct action coping leads to a decrease in psychological distress,
but in a lower level than men’s, suggests that women’s solving efforts may be not seen as
positive in organizations as men’s are. Women have to cope with organizational stressors that are
inserted in a male organizational climate, structure and culture which reflects societal norms
dominated by male values (Corcovan-Nates & Roberts, 1995). At the same time, women
constitute a minority group that triggers stereotypical modes in which their behaviors are
perceived, interpreted and remembered. In that way, the organization may be influenced by
negative performance expectations, which are based in women stereotypes. These stereotypes
Gender in work stress 29
would influence the perception, understanding and responses to the direct actions of women
(Heilman, 1995).
Other explanation to the strongest negative relation between direct action coping and
distress in men, is that men are socialized in agency values, which implies behaving towards a
defined and visible goal, assertively, leading…, thus they are “trained” and socialized in the use
of direct action. For men, the use of direct action strategies diminishes their distress because this
kind of coping strategy agrees with the prescriptions of the masculine gender role that implies a
mandate for achievement through goal-directed performance (Greenglass, 1995). Given this
male context, women try to develop these strategies but they are not as effective as men. Women
socialization has little to do with this action-directed behavior, and direct action coping does not
fit with the feminine gender role. Anyway, it seems that new generations are socialized in more
neutral ways; therefore, this effect would disappear in studies developed in the next decades.
The same reasoning can be used in order to explain why social support & leisure
strategies do not benefit men. Men are socialized to not to express emotions, weakness or
problems, and women are socialized to be social agents who deal with emotions; in this way,
women are more effective in the use of interpersonal strategies. The masculine gender role puts a
premium on strength and individuality (Greenglass, 2002) and the use of interpersonal styles of
coping contradicts this gender socialization program. A strict prohibition in emotional
expressions in conjunction with rules to be conformed with masculine gender that involves
aggression, power and control, do not facilitate a wider range of coping behaviors (Greenglass &
Noguchi, 1996). This can explain the higher level of psychological distress in high social support
& leisure coping male group: it may be due to the experienced psychological discomfort when
using a behavior not allowed by their gender role. Furthermore, it should be also taken into
Gender in work stress 30
account that 72% of psychological distress scale items are related to work, and this is an
important sphere of achievements in the male role, thus men may be more affected by this
contradictory gender role behavior.
Type and level of perceived work stressors
Neither the level of the perceived stressor nor the type of stressor modifies the gender
pattern found on beneficial effects of coping. Hypothesis 3.1 expected that the effects of gender
on the relationship between coping and distress would be moderated by the level of perception of
work related stressors. This hypothesis was not supported by the data. . In addition, hypothesis
3.2, stated that the type of stressor studied would produce differential effects. Seven different
regression analyses were run, one for each stressor. The found patterns were similar across all
the regressions; in this way, in our sample, the moderator effect of gender on the relationship
between coping and distress is the same regardless the type of stressor experienced. The
methodological aspects of our study can explain this lack of results: the control of status and
occupation, in combination with the demographics characteristics of our sample may explain the
lack of differences depending on the sources of pressures. Furthermore, in the case of
occupational settings, not only work related stressors but also several other factors, such as
gender, play an important role in work stress processes. Actually, the reviewed literature does
not point out to a clear direction of the effects of the type or level stressors in the relation
between coping and distress. .Therefore, the effect of the type or level of stressor “may simply
not be great enough to have a significant impact on the global indicators of outcome” (Bowman
& Stern, 1995).
Another issue to discuss is the interaction effect that was found between social support &
leisure coping and each of the analyzed stressor, except Family-Work Stress. Social Support has
Gender in work stress 31
been defined as a buffer: it is supposed that social support is only effective when high levels of
stressors are perceived, assuming an active function of coping that depends on stress levels.
Increments on stress levels lead a person to mobilize resources to reduce the threat (Gore, 1985).
However our data do not give support to that buffering hypothesis, because social support &
leisure coping is more effective when low levels of stressors are perceived. Anyway, Beehr
(1995) suggest that the effects of social support on stress process are not clear, universal or
simple. It is necessary to develop research that discovers the complex interactions that seems to
exist in relation to the buffering effect hypothesis. In fact, a meta-analysis on the role of social
support in the process of work stress carried out by Viswesvaran, Sanchez, & Fisher, (1999)
shows that the buffering hypothesis is not consistent with the available empirical evidence.
Limitations
Some limitations of the present study should be addressed. The use of questionnaires
leads to common variance method problems; nevertheless, this error may be diminished through
the usage of different scales of response and inverted items. In addition, main effects can be
affected by the method variance error, but the interactive effects can not be easily attributed to
effects of the method (Rodríguez et al., 2001). Another issue in use of self-reports instruments
when measuring coping strategies is related to the fact that self-report methods that pretend to
measure coping behaviors, actually measure coping behavior perceptions and not real behavioral
responses (Jackson, 2000). Therefore, in future research this kind of variables should be
assessed with more objective methods.
Other aspect to take into consideration is that this is a cross-sectional study in which no
causal relationship between variables can be inferred. Longitudinal studies in this area are
Gender in work stress 32
needed to clarify the direction of these findings (Bhagat et al., 1995; Day & Livingstone, 2001;
Leiter, 1991; Parker & Sprigg, 1999; Rick & Guppy, 1994).
It is necessary to notice that this research has been developed in a specific sector and in a
specific context, and this is important because in this work we have adopted the gender
differences perspective, therefore the possible differences between women and men are
explained from the culture and the specific geographic and socio-historic context in which this
study has been developed (Rodriguez, 1998). When talking about gender, we mean a dynamic
interplay of multiple, transactional forces that shapes gendered behavior (Broderick & Korteland,
2002). In this way, the inclusion of gender has allowed us to explore the process of work stress
from a comprehensive perspective. However, the level of analysis of this study has been limited
to the individual. Länsisalmi, Peiró & Kimikavi (2000) suggest that “stress experiences and
coping strategies have collective qualities that are determined by the organizational and the
larger societal culture” (pp.549; see also Peiró 2001), therefore in a social determined topic such
as gender, it is important to design studies that take into account the context of the organization,
the work unit and the collective aspects of the stress process.
Finally, in this study we have analyzed leisure in conjunction with social support, as an
interpersonal way of coping. However, there are forms of leisure that are not related to
interpersonal contacts and are developed in solitary. We have not been able to control this
circumstance, therefore in these cases the conceptualization of social support & leisure coping
that has been used in this study is not applicable. It is necessary to design research and
instruments that deal with coping from a complex view. This view should not be limited into the
two-pole categories of direct action and palliative, or problem-focused and emotion-focused
Gender in work stress 33
coping. It is necessary to address specific coping forms such as leisure or social support, taking
into consideration the distinct facets that comprise those coping forms.
Theoretical and practical implications
This study has shown that gender is not just a control variable referred to a biological
condition, it is rather an important factor that implies beliefs and implicit theories about what
means to be a woman and a men in the society. Therefore, gender should be considered as a main
variable to take into account in stress research because it comprises socially constructed beliefs
that “influence interpretation and understanding of events, choice of attributions, and ultimately
behavioral responses” (Broderick & Korterland, 2002).
This paper suggests that specific measures of coping are more accurate than general ones,
in the purpose of understanding positive descriptions and explanations of the different coping
efforts developed by persons. Because of the use of the specific measure of social support and
leisure, we have been able to show the positive value of the female style of coping. This leads us
to another important implication, which has been remarked by Positive Psychology: further
studies should focus on the positive aspects of the psychological functioning, instead of dealing
with the maladaptive and negative aspects. In this way, we will be able to offer solutions to
people problems, and not only descriptions of how doe people’s problems work.
Following this last idea this work points out practical implications. Not all coping
strategies are suitable for everybody, consequently, training programs on coping with work stress
must be designed considering individual attributes. For instance, the gender of the participants
should be taken into account in order to empower the training by focusing in the positive
capabilities developed by their gender roles. Why do we not train people to develop the kind of
strategies that suits better for them?
This pragmatic approach in the design of training programs does not imply forgetting
about an important issue that is in the base of our results. In our study, women incorporate male
oriented strategies (direct action coping) to their coping repertories, and this strategies are related
Gender in work stress 34
to lower levels of psychological distress. However, their male counterparts use female oriented
strategies (social support and leisure) less frequently, and these strategies are related to higher
levels of psychological distress. We have pointed out that this negative effect among men can be
due to the emotional discomfort experienced when developing a strategy that implies a
contradiction with the male gender role. If a man seeks for social support, it can be interpreted as
a sign of weakness or incompetence. This negative view of male social behavior can be more
salient in a work context, where individual achievements are rewarded. Because social support
has been related to better well being in stress literature, something should be done to promote the
use of interpersonal coping strategies as a valid and non-shameful strategic among male workers.
A change in society would be desirable in order to give a positive meaning to male coping efforts
focused on social support and interpersonal relationships. In the organizational level,
organizational culture should allow employees to express their problems and seek for support,
emphasizing that this is not a weakness sign but an opportunity to develop interpersonal and
work group skills. This becomes an important issue, because nowadays these skills are valuable
in the work market. To reach this challenge, work teams can be designed in a way that men and
women work together achieving collective goals. This situation can create a particular
organizational climate where shared visions of problems and strategies can lead to a better
understanding of how well does each coping strategy work, and in which way is better to
develop the coping efforts in order to have good results. This can beneficiate men and women at
the same time: men can learn that using interpersonal coping styles does not implies a sign of
failure or ineffectiveness and, women can train and develop their direct action coping strategies
in a more efficient way. Nevertheless, as it has been pointed out before, it is necessary that these
organizational measures be supported by changes in socialization patterns of gender.
In sum, the present study has showed how relations between stress factors are not simple,
and that certain attributes, as gender, should be considered in a wide view of stress as a process.
In this way, practical implications for training programs in coping with work stress have been
Gender in work stress 35
remarked. This research has pointed out an important tenet: not all “effective” strategies are
beneficial for everybody. Therefore, if the use of social support or leisure strategies works better
for women and direct action coping is really beneficial for men, more attention should be
addressed to the differential factors that lead to better outcomes. In a longer run, some gender
related socialization practices should be revised from the point of view of their adaptive function
in the present society.
Gender in work stress 36
References
Ashton, W. A. & Fuehrer, A. (1993). Effects of gender and gender-role identification of
participant and type of social support resource on support seeking. Sex Roles, 28, 461476.
Banyard, V. L. & Graham-Bermann, S. A. (1993). Can woman cope? A gender analysis of
theories of coping with stress. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 303-318.
Baruch, C. K., Biener. L., & Barnett, R.C. (1987) Women and Gender in research on work and
family stress. American Psychologist, 42, 130-136.
Beehr, T. A. (1995). Psychological stress in the workplace. New York: Routledge
Bekker, M. H. J., Nijssen, A. & Hens, G. (2001). Stress prevention training: sex differences in
types of stressors, coping, and training effects. Stress and Health. 17, 207-218.
Belle, D. (1987). Gender differences in the social moderators of stress. In R. C. Barnett, L.
Biener & G. K. Baruch (Eds.), Gender and stress (pp. 257-275). New York: Free Press.
Bhagat, R. S., Allie, S. M., & Ford, D. L., Jr. (1995). Coping with stressful life events: an
empirical analysis. In R. Crandall & P. L. Perrewé (Eds.), Occupational stress. A
handbook (pp. 93-112). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Billings A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1981). The role of coping responses and social resources in
attenuating the stress of life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4(2), 139-157.
Blalock J. A., & Joiner, T. E., Jr. (2000). Interaction of cognitive avoidance coping and stress in
predicting depression and anxiety: Gender differences. Cognitive Therapy and Research
24, 47-65.
Bowman, G. D., & Stern, M. (1995). Adjustment to Occupational Stress: The relationship of
perceived control to effectiveness of coping strategies. Journal of Counseling
Gender in work stress 37
Psychology, 42(3), 294-303.
Broderick, P. C., & Korteland, C. (2002). Coping style and depression in early adolescence:
relationships to gender, gender role, and implicit beliefs. Sex Roles, 46(7/8), 201-213.
Burda, P., Jr., Vaux, A., & Schill, T. (1984). Social support resources variations across sex and
sex-role. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 119-126.
Burke, R. J. (2002). Men, masculinity and health. In D.L Nelson & R.J. Burke (Eds.), Gender,
work stress and health (pp. 35-54). Washington DC: American Psychological
Association.
Butler, T., Giordano, S., & Neren, S. (1985). Gender and sex-role attributes as predictors of
utilization of natural support systems during personal stress events. Sex Roles, 13, 515524.
Caltabiano, M. L. (1994). Measuring the similarity among leisure activities based on a perceived
stress-reduction benefit. Leisure Studies, 13, 17–31.
Caltabiano, M. L. (1995). Main and stress-moderating health benefits of leisure. Society and
Leisure,18, 33–52.
Caplan, R. D., & Jones, K. W. (1975). Effects of workload, role ambiguity and type A
personality and anxiety, depression and heart-rate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60,
713-719.
Causey, D. L., & Dubow, E. F. (1993). Negotiating the transition to junior high school: The
contributions of coping strategies and perceptions of the school environment. Prevention
in Human Services, 10, 59-81
Champoux, J. E., & Peters, W. S. (1987). Form, effect size and power in moderated regression.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 243-255.
Gender in work stress 38
Christie, M. D.; Shultz, K. S. (1998). Gender differences on coping with job stress and
organizational outcomes. Work and Stress, 12(4), 351-361
Cohen, F. (1987) Measurement of coping. In S.V. Kasl & C.L. Cooper (Eds.), Stress and health:
issues in research methodology (pp.283-305). New York: Wiley.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, S. & Syme, S. L. (1985). Social Support and health. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Coleman, D. (1993). Leisure based social support, leisure dispositions and health. Journal of
LeisureResearch, 25, 350–361.
Colwill, N. L. (1995). Sex differences. In S. Vinnicombe & N. L. Colwill (Eds.), Women in
management (pp.20-34). London: Prentice Hall Internacional Ltd.
Compas, B., Mallaren, V. L., & Fondacaro, K. M (1988). Coping with stressful eventes in older
childrens and young adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 6, 405411.
Cooper, C. L., & Payne, R. L. (1988). Causes, coping and consequences of stress at work.
London:Wiley.
Cooper, C. L., Kirkcaldy, B. D., & Brown, J. (1994). A model of job stress and physical health:
the role of individual differences, Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 653-655.
Cooper, C. L., Sloan, S. J. & Williams, S. (1988). Occupational Stress Indicator. Windsor,
England: NFER-Nelson.
Cooper, M. L., Russell, M., Skinner, J. B., & Frone, M. R. (1992). Stress and alcohol use: The
moderating effects of gender, coping and alcohol expectancies. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 101, 139-152.
Gender in work stress 39
Corcovan-Nates, Y., & Roberts, K. (1995). We´ve got one of those? The peripheral status of
women in male dominated industries. Gender, Work and Organisation, 2, 21-33.
Crandall, R. (1979). Social interaction, affect and leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 11, 165–
181.
Cronkite, R. C. & Moos, R. H. (1984). The role of predisposing and moderating factors in the
stress-illness relationship. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 25, 372-393.
Day, A. L. & Livingstone, H. A. (2001). Chronic and acute stressors among military personnel:
do coping styles buffer their negative impact on health? Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 6, 348-360.
Dewe, P. J. (1985). Coping with job stress: an investigation of teachers actions. Research in
Education, 33, 27-40.
Dewe, P.J. (1989). Examining the Nature of Work Stress: individual evaluations of stressful
experiences and coping. Human Relations, 42(11), 993-1013.
Driver, B. L., Brown, P. J., & Peterson, G. I. (Eds.). (1991). Benefits of leisure. State College,
PA:Venture.
Ebata, A. T., & Moos, R. H. (1994). Personal and situational correlates of coping in adolescents.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4, 99-125.
Emmerik, I. J.H. van (2002) Gender differences in the effects of coping assistance on the
reduction of burnout in academic staff. Work & Stress, 16(3), 251-263.
Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1994). Assessment of multidimensional coping: task, emotion,
and avoidance strategies, Psychological Assessment, 6, 50-60.
Gender in work stress 40
Etzion, D., & Pines, A. (1981). Sex and culture as factors explaining reported coping behavior
and burnout of human service professionals. A social psychological perspective. Tel
Aviv, Israel: Tel Aviv University, Israel Institute of Business Research.
Feldman, S. S., Fisher, L., Ransom, D.C.,& Dimiceli, S. (1995). Is “what is good for the goose
good for the gander?” Sex differences in relations between adolescent coping and adult
adaptation. Journal of research on adolescence, 5(3), 333-359.
Fielden, S. L., & Cooper, C. L. (2002). Managerial stress: are women more at risk? In D.L
Nelson & R.J. Burke (Eds.), Gender, work stress and health (pp. 19-34). Washington
DC: American Psychological Association.
Fiksenbaum, L. & Greenglass, E. R. (2000). Interpersonal predictors of coping. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R.S. (1980). Coping in an adequately functioning middle-aged
population. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239.
Forsythe, C. J. & Compas, B. E. (1987). Interaction of cognitive appraisals of stressful events
and coping: testing the goodness of fit hypothesis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11,
473-485.
Gianakos, I. (2000). Gender roles and coping with work stress. Sex Roles, 42(11/12), 1059-1079.
Gianakos, I. (2002) Predictors of coping with work stress: the influences of sex, gender role,
social desirability, and locus of control. Sex Roles, 46(5/6), 149-158.
Glyshaw, K., Cohen, L. H., & Towbes, L. C. (1988). Coping strategies and psychological
distress: Perspectives analyses of early and middle adolescents. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 17, 607-623.
Gender in work stress 41
Gore, S. L. (1985). Stress-buffering functions of social supports: An appraisal and clarification
of research models. In B. S. Dohrenwend & B. P. Donhrenwend (Eds.), Stressful life
events and their contexts (pp. 202-222). New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press.
Greenglass, E. R. (1982) A world of difference: Gender roles in perspective. Toronto: Wiley.
Greenglass, E. R. (1988). Type A behavior and coping strategies in female and male supervisors.
Applied Psychology: An international Review, 37, 271-288.
Greenglass, E. R. (1990). Components of Type A behavior in women and in men. In R. Takens
(Ed.) European perspectives in Psychology. Amsterdam: Wiley.
Greenglass, E. R. (1993). The contribution of social support to coping strategies. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 42, 323-340.
Greenglass, E. R. (1995) Gender, work stress and coping: theoretical implications. Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, 10(6), 121-134.
Greenglass, E. R.(2000, August). Interpersonal factors, coping and gender: implications for
health. Paper presented at the 2000 Asian Congress of Health Psychology, Tokyo,
Japan.
Greenglass, E. R. (2002). Work stress, coping, and social support: implications for women’s
occupational well-being. In Nelson, D. L. & Burke, R. J. (Eds.). Gender, work stress and
health (pp. 85-96). Washington, DC.: American Psychological Association.
Greenglass, E. R., & Burke, R. J. (1988). Work and family precursors of burnout in teachers: sex
differences. Sex Roles, 18, 215-229.
Greenglass, E. R., Burke, R. J., & Konarski, R. (1998). Components of burnout, resources, and
gender-related differences, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1088-1106.
Gender in work stress 42
Greenglass, E. R., Burke, R. J., & Ondrack, M. (1990). A gender-role perspective of coping and
burnout, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 39, 5-27.
Greenglass, E. R., Fiksenbaum, L., & Burke, R. J. (1996). Components of social support,
buffering effects and burnout: Implications for psychological functioning. Anxiety, Stress
and Coping: An International Journal, 9, 185-197.
Greenglass, E. R., & Noguchi, K. (1996, August). Longevity, gender and health: a
pyschocultural perspective. Paper presented at First meeting of the International Society
of Health, Montreal, Canada.
Greenglass, E. R., Schwarzer, R., Jakubiec, D., Fiksenbaum, L. & Taubert, S.(1999, July). The
proactive coping inventory (PCI) A theory-guided multidimensional instrument. Paper
presented at the 20th International Conference of the Stress and Anxiety Research Society
(STAR), Cracow, Poland.
Hall, E. M. (1989). Gender, work control and stress: A theoretical discussion and an empirical
test. International Journal of Health Services, 19, 725-745.
Hamilton, S., & Fagot, B. I. (1988). Chronic stress and coping styles: a comparison of male and
female undergrates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 819-823
Havlovik, S. J., & Keenan, J. P. (1995). Coping with work stress: The influence of individual
differences. In R. Crandall & P. L. Perrewe (Eds.), Occupational stress: A handbook. (pp.
179-192). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Heilman, M. E. (1995). Sex stereotypes and their effects in the workplace: What we know and
what we don’t know. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10(6), 3-26.
Hobfoll, S. E., Dunahoo, C. L., Ben-Porath, & Monnier, J. (1994). Gender and coping: the dualaxis model of coping. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 49-81.
Gender in work stress 43
Hobfoll, S. E., & Stokes J. P. (1988). The process and mechanics of social support. In S. Duck
(Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 497517) New York: Wiley.
Holm, S. L. (2001) Are gender differences status differences? Coping as a model case.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(12B), 6760
Hull, R. B., IV, & Michael, S. E. (1995). Nature-based recreation, mood change, and stress
restoration. Leisure Sciences, 17, 1–14.
Iso-Ahola, S. E., & Park, C. J. (1996). Leisure-related social support and self-determination as
buffers of stress-illness relationship. Journal of Leisure Research, 28, 169–187.
Iwasaki, Y. (1999). Roles of leisure in coping with stress among university students: A repeatedassessment field study. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 16(1), 31–57.
Iwasaki, Y (2001). Contributions of leisure to coping with daily hassles in university students’
lives. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 33(2), 128-141
Iwasaki, Y. ,& Smale, B. J. A. (1998). Longitudinal analyses of the relation ships among life
transitions, chronic health problems, leisure, and psychological well-being. Leisure
Sciences, 20, 25–52.
Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R. & Wan, C. K. (1990). Interaction effects in multiple regression, Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Jackson, T. D. (2000). Are reported coping styles reflected in actual stress responding behavior?
A study of inner city women. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(9-B), 4890.
Kelly, J. R. (1983). Leisure identities and interactions. London: Allen & Unwin.
Koeske, G. F., Kirk, S. A. & Koeske, R. D. (1993). Coping with job stress: which strategies work
best? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 319-335.
Gender in work stress 44
Korabik, K. (1997). Applied gender issues. In S.W. Sadava & D.M. McCreary (Eds.), Applied
Social psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Korabik, K. & Van Kampen, J. (1995). Gender, social support, and coping with work stressors
among managers. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10(6), 135-148.
Länsisalmi, H., Peiró, J. M. & Kivimäki, M. (2000): Collective stress and coping in the context
of organizational culture. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 9(4),
527-559.
Larson, R., Mannell, R. C., & Zuzanek, J. (1986). Daily well-being of older adults with friends
and family. Journal of Psychology and Aging, 1, 117–126.
Latack, J.C., & Havlovic, S. J. (1992). Coping with job stress: a conceptual evaluation
framework for coping measures. Journal of organizational behavior, 13(5), 479-508.
Lazarus, R. S. (1975). A cognitively oriented psychologist looks at biofeedback. American
Psychologist, 30, 553-561.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.
Leiter, M. P. (1991). Coping patterns as predictors of burnout: the function of control and
escapist coping patterns. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 123-144.
Lengua, L. J., & Stormshak, E. A. (2000). Gender, gender roles, and personality: Gender
differences in the prediction of coping and psychological symptoms. Sex Roles,
43(11/12), 787-820.
Long, B. C.(1989). Sex-role orientation, coping strategies, and self-efficacy of women in
traditional and nontraditional occupations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 307-324.
Gender in work stress 45
Long, B., & Cox, R. S. (2000). Women´s way of coping with employment stress: a feminist
contextual analysis. In P. Dewe, M. Leiter, & T. Cox (Eds.), Coping, health and
organizations (pp. 109-123). London: Taylor & Francis Inc.
Lu, L., Shiau, C., & Cooper, C. L. (1997). Occupational stress in clinical nurses. Counselling
Psychology quarterly, 10, 39-50.
Lundberg, U. (1998). Work and stress in women. In K. Ort-Gomér, M. Chesney, & N. K.
Wenger (Eds.) Women stress and heart disease (pp. 41-56). New York: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Lyne, D. L., Barret, T. B., Williams, W., & Coaley, C. (2000). A psychometric evaluation of the
Occupational Stress Indicador. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psycholog,y
73, 195–220
Mattlin, J. A., Wethington, E., & Kessler, R. C.(1990). Situational determinants of coping
effectiveness, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 31, 103-122.
Matuszek, P. A. S., Nelson D. L., & Quick, J. C. (1995). Gender differences in distress: are we
asking the right questions? Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 10(6), 99-120.
McDonald, L. M., & Korabik, K. (1991a). Sources of stress and ways of coping among male and
female managers. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 8, 231-238.
Moyle, P., & Parkes, K. (1999). The effects of transition stress: a relocation study, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 20, 625-646.
Norcross, J. C., Diclemente, C. C, & Prochaska, J. O. (1986). Self-change of psychological
distress: Laypersons’ vs psychologists’ coping strategies. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
42, 834-840.
Gender in work stress 46
Orthner, D. K. (1975). Leisure activity patterns and marital satisfaction over the marital career.
Journalof Marriage and the Family, 37, 91–102.
Osipow, S. H., & Davis, A. S. (1988). The relationship of coping resources to occupational stress
and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 1-15
Parasuraman, S., & Cleek, M. A. (1984). Coping behaviors and managers’ affective reactions to
role stressors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 24, 179-193.
Parasuraman, S., & Hansen, D. (1987). Coping with work stressors in nursing: effects of
adaptive versus maladaptive strategies. Work and Occupations, 14, 88-105.
Parker, S. K., & Sprigg, C. A. (1999). Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: the role of job
demands, job control, and proactive personality, Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 925939.
Parkes, K. R. (1986). Coping with stressful episodes: the role of individual differences,
environmental factors, and situational characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 46, 655-668.
Parkes, K. R. (1990). Coping, negative affectivity, and the work environment: additive and
interactive predictors of mental health, Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 399-409.
Parkes, K. R. (1994). Personality and coping as moderators of work stress processes: models,
methods and measures. Work & Stress, 8(2), 110-129.
Pearlin, L., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 19, 2-21.
Peiró, J. M. (2001). Stressed teams in organizations. A multilevel approach to the study of stress
in work units. In: J. Pryce, C. Weilkert & E. Torkelson (Eds.): Occupational Health
Psychology: Europe 2001 (pp. 9-13). European Academy of Occupational Health.
Gender in work stress 47
Peiró, J. M., & Salvador, A. (1993). Control del estrés laboral. Madrid: Eudema.
Perrewe, P. L., & Carlson, D. S. (2002). Do men and women benefit from social support
equally? Results from a field examination within the work and family context. In D.L.
Nelson & R.J. Burke (Eds.) Gender, work stress and health (pp. 101-114). Washington,
DC: American Psychological association.
Phillips, S. D., & Imhoff, A. R. (1997). Women and career development: a decade of research.
Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 31-59
Ptacek, J. T.; Smith, R. E., & Dodge, K. L. (1994). Gender differences in coping with stress:
When stressor and appraisal do not differ. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
20, 421-430
Rapoport, R., & Rapoport, R. N. (1975). Leisure and the family life .London:Routledge& Kegan
Paul.
Rick, J., & Guppy, A. (1994). Coping strategies and mental health in white collar public sector
employees. European Work and Organizational Psychologist, 4, 121-137.
Roberts, S. M (1995). Applicability of the goodness of fit hypothesis to coping with daily
hassles. Psychological Reports, 77, 943-954.
Rodríguez, I. (1998). Estrés laboral y bienestar psicológico en jóvenes trabajadores: una
revisión del modelo demandas-control en función del género. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. .
Rodríguez, I., Bravo, M. J., Peiró, J. M., & Schaufeli, W. (2001). The demands-control-support
model, locus of control and job dissatisfaction: a longitudinal study. Work & Stress, 15,
97-114.
Rosario, M., Shinn, M., Morch, H., & Huckabee, C. B. (1988). Gender differences in coping and
Gender in work stress 48
social support: Testing socialization and role constraint theories. Journal of Community
Psychology, 16, 55-69.
Samdahl, D., & Kleiber, D. A. (1988). Self-awareness and leisure experience. Leisure Sciences,
11,1–10.
Sandler, I. N., Tein, J. Y., & West, S. G. (1994). Coping, stress, and the psychological symptoms
of children of divorce: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Child Development, 65,
1744-1763.
Shimazu, A. & Kosugi, S. (2003). Job stressor, coping and psychological distress among
Japanese employess: interplay between active and non-active coping. Work & Stress, 17,
38-51.
Skues, J. S. & Kirkby, R. J. (1995). Women in the workforce: Gender differences in occupational
stress and coping. In P. Cotton (Ed.), Psychological health in the workplace:
Understanding and managing occupational stress (pp. 217-231). Sydney: Australian
Psychological Ass. Ltd.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction. Application, assessment, cause, and consequences.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Stein, J. A., & Nyamathi, A. (1999). Gender differences in relationships among stress, coping,
and health risk behaviors in impoverish minority populations. Personality and Individual
Differences, 26, 141-157.
Stone, A. A., Greenberg, M. A., Kennedy-Moore, E., & Newman, M. G. (1991). Self-report,
situation specific coping questionnaires. What are they measuring? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 61, 648-658.
Stone, A. A. & Neale, J. M. (1984). New measure of daily coping: Development and preliminary
Gender in work stress 49
results. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 892-906
Stone, E. F. (1986). Research methods in industrial and organizational psychology. In C. L.
Cooper & I. T Robertson,. (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology. Chischester: Wiley.
Sutherland, V. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1988). Sources of work stress. In L. R. Murphy, J. J. Hurrell,
Jr., S. L. Sauter & C. L. Cooper (Eds), Occupational stress: issues and developments in
research (pp. 3-40). London: Taylor & Francis.
Swason, N. G., Piotrkowski, C. S., Keita, G. P., & Becker, A. B. (1997). Occupational Stress and
women´s health. In S. J. Gallant, G. P. Keita, & R. Royak-Schaller (Eds.), Health care for
women (147-174). Washington D.C: American Psychologist Ass.
Terry, D. J. (1994). Employee adjustment to stress: the role of coping resources, situational
factors, and coping responses. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 8, 1-24
Thompson, C. L. (2000). Issues of gender effects, consistency, and assessment in coping.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(6-B), 3294.
Trocki, K. F., & Orioli, E. M. (1994). Gender differences in stress symptoms, stress-producing
contexts, and coping strategies. In C. P. Keita & J. J. Hurrell, Jr (Eds), Job stress in a
changing workforce. Investigating gender, diversity, and family issues (pp. 7-22).
Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.
Vagg, P. R., & Spielberger, C. D. (1998). Occupational stress: measuring job pressure and
organizational support in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3,
294-305.
Vitaliano, P. P., DeWolfe, D. J., Maiuro, R. D., Russo, J., & Katon, W. (1990). Appraised
changeability of a stressor as a modifier of the relationship between coping and
Gender in work stress 50
depression: A test of the hypothesis of fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
59, 582-592.
Vitaliano, P. P., Russo, J., Carr, J. E., Maiuro, R. D., & Becker, J. (1985). The Ways Of Coping
Checklist: Revisions and psychometric properties. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 20,
3-26.
Weisz, J. R., McCabe, M. A., & Denning, M. D.(1994). Primary and secondary control among
children undergoing medical procedures: adjustment as a function of coping style.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 324-332.
Welsch, B. B.(1999). Gender differences in job stress, burnout and job satisfaction as mediated
by coping style of veterinarians in private equine practice. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 59(9-B), 5118.
Williams, J. S. (1996). A critical review and further development of the occupational stress
indicator. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,, University of Manchester, Institute of
Science and Technology.
Williams, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1998). Measuring occupational stress: development of the
Pressure Management Indicator. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 306-321.
Wills, T. A. (1986). Stress and coping in early adolescence: Relationships to smoking and
alcohol use in urban school samples. Health Psychology, 5, 503–529
Zuzanek, J., Robinson, J. P., & Iwasaki, Y. (1998). The relationships between stress, health, and
physically active leisure as a function of life-cycle. Leisure Sciences, 20, 253–275.
Gender in work stress 51
Footnotes
Cohen & Cohen, 1983; Jaccard, Turrisi & Wan, 1990; Koeske et al., 1993; Parker & Sprigg,
1999; Rodríguez et al., 2001.
2
They have been performed with the scores of global stress score regression output; the other 6
figures are very similar.
3
In interaction effects the limit level of p is 0.10. This level of p has been suggest by several
researchers: Caplan & Jones, 1975; Champoux & Peters, 1987; Rodríguez, 1998; Rodríguez et
al., 2001; Stone, 1986; to protect the test from the probability of committing a Type II error when
moderating analyses are performed.
4
Global Stress x Social Support & Leisure figure is the prototype figure, the other 5 figures are
very similar.
Gender in work stress 52
Table 1. Demographic description of the female and male sample.
Personal Demographics
Work demographics
Women
Men
AGE
Women
Men
Lower than High School
5.3%
8.8%
TRAINNING
less than 21
0.8%
0.3%
21-36
81.4%
41.6%
High school
25.0%
30.6%
37-55
17.1%
55.9%
3 years College
16.4%
24.2%
more than 55
0.8%
2.1%
5 years College
53.3%
36.4%
married or living with couple
50.4%
78.4%
Low
78.7%
43.3%
single
45.0%
18.5%
medium-high
21.3%
56.7%
other
4.7%
3.3%
before a year
23.1%
22.0%
MARITAL STATUS
ORGANIZATIONAL STATUS
CAREER PROMOTION
CHILDREN
None
64.3%
28.9%
before 5 years
20.7%
24.5%
1
17.5%
16.9%
more than 5 years
0.8%
1.3%
2
12.7%
40.6%
never
7.4%
7.5%
3 or more
5.6%
12.5%
don´t know
47.9%
44.7%
WORKING COUPLE
full-time
59.8%
38.4%
part-time/occasionally
15.0%
20.9%
does not work
0.8%
23.6%
does not have couple
24.4%
17.2%
TENURE IN THE
ORGANIZATION
(mean in years)
6.6
13.9
sd=6,7
sd=9,2
Gender in work stress 53
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the study variables on the total sample (reliability on diagonal of the correlation matrix).
Mean
SD
1
2.47
.54
-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1.
Age (4 groups of age)
2.
Marital Status (dummy)
-
-
.39*
-
3.
Organizational Status (dummy)
-
-
.41*
.36*
-
4.
Gender
-
-
.35*
.28*
.32*
-
5.
Factors intrinsic to the job
3.65
.72
.04
.05
-.02
-.06
(.69)
6.
Job role
3.70
.76
.05
.07
.04
-.06
.79*
(.78)
7.
Relationship with other people
3.63
.69
.03
.05
.02
-.05
.70*
.76*
(72)
8.
Career and achievement
4.07
.79
-.09
-.04
-.09
-.12*
.60*
.64*
.62*
(.74)
9
Organizational structure and climate
3.89
.77
-.03
-.03
-.02
-.06
.67*
.70*
.72*
.72*
(.82)
10.
Home/work interface
3.69
.89
-.07
.05
-.00
-.08
.71*
.73*
.67*
.60*
.70*
(.82)
11.
Global Stressor Score
3.77
.67
-.01
.03
-.01
-.08
.85*
.90*
.86*
.80*
.88*
.87*
(.95)
12
Direct action coping
4.58
.63
-.04
.02
.01
-.08
-.02
.01
-.01
.10*
.12*
.05
.05
.(.79)
13
Social Support & Leisure coping
4.05
.73
-.11*
-.10
-.16*
-.21*
.11*
.15*
.13*
.06
.12*
.17*
.15*
.34*
(.67)
14
Psychological distress
3.20
.73
.09
.04
.07
-.01
.32*
.28*
.27*
.07
.15*
.19*
.25*
-.40*
-.04
Note.* p<.05 two-tailed.
T-test Direct Action Coping and Social Support & Leisure: t(444)= -13.987 p.05
14
(.85)
Gender in work stress 54
Table 3. Correlations of the study variables on the male sample
Mean
SD
1
1.
Age (4 groups of age)
2.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2.60
.53
1
Marital Status (dummy)
-
-
.37*
1
3.
Organizational Status (dummy)
-
-
.38*
.35*
1
4.
Factors intrinsic to the job
3.63
.72
.08
.01
.04
1
5.
Job role
3.68
.74
.07
.02
.08
.77*
1
6.
Relationship with other people
3.61
.68
.05
.01
.06
.69*
.74*
1
7.
Career and achievement
4.01
.77
-.09
-.05
-.02
.56*
.60*
.58*
1
8.
Organizational structure and climate
3.87
.75
-.02
-.04
.03
.63*
.66*
.71*
.72*
1
9
Home/work interface
3.65
.88
-.06
.02
.03
.68*
.71*
.65*
.59*
.66*
1
10.
Global Stressor Score
3.74
.64
.00
-.00
.04
.84*
.88*
.85*
.80*
.86*
.86*
1
11.
Direct action coping
4.55
.64
.01
.08
.07
-.07
-.00
-.00
.15*
.12*
.04
.05
1
12.
Social Support & Leisure coping
3.96
.75
-.05
-.05
-.11
.10
.13*
.12*
.04
.07
.13*
.12*
.30*
1
13.
Psychological distress
3.19
.75
.11*
-.03
.07
.34*
.31*
.24*
.02
.12*
.20*
.24*
-.42*
.04
Note.* p<.05 two-tailed.
T-test Direct Action Coping and Social Support & Leisure: t(323)= -12.983p.05
13
1
Gender in work stress 55
Table 4. Correlations of the study variables on the female sample
Mean
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2.18
.42
1
Marital Status (dummy)
-
-
.24*
1
3.
Organizational Status (dummy)
-
-
.16
.17
1
4.
Factors intrinsic to the job
3.73
.75
-.01
.18*
-.19*
1
5.
Job role
3.78
.84
.04
.20*
-.01
.82*
1
6.
Relationship with other people
3.69
.76
.10
.18*
.05
.45*
.81*
1
7.
Career and achievement
4.22
.83
.05
.09
-.16
.66*
.71*
.71*
1
8.
Organizational structure and climate
3.97
.84
.00
.03
-.14
.77*
.76*
.75*
.72*
1
9
Home/work interface
3.82
.91
-.4
.15
.00
.77*
.79*
.73
.61*
.78/
1
10.
Global Stressor Score
3.86
.73
.02
.15
-.10
.89*
.92*
.89*
.82*
.90*
.89*
1
11.
Direct action coping
4.66
.63
-.06
-.05
-.08
.13
.06
.01
.01
.15
.11
.09
1
12.
Social Support & Leisure coping
4.30
.62
.03
.00
-.07
.15
.20*
.21*
.09
.22*
.30*
.23*
.41*
1
13.
Psychological distress
3.21
.70
.07
.24*
.08
.28*
.22*
.31*
.15
.19*
.16*
.24
-.33*
-.26*
1.
Age (4 groups of age)
2.
Note.* p<.05 two-tailed.
T-test Direct Action Coping and Social Support & Leisure: t(120)= -5.617 p.05
13
1
Gender in work stress 56
Table 5. Descriptive statistics of the study variables on the male and female sample, ANCOVAs and T-TESTs
ANCOVA
Direct action coping
Social Support &
Leisure coping
MEN
WOMEN
FACTOR:
COVARIANT:
INTERACTION
N=332
N=129
gender
organizational status
gender X organ stat.
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
F(1,445)
p
F(1, 445)
p
F(1, 445)
p
4.55
.64
4.66
.63
2.688
.102
.665
.415
1.749
.187
3.96
.75
4.30
.62
15.107
.000
4.492
.035
.085
.771
Gender in work stress 57
Table 6. Hierarchical regression analysis.
Variable
*Stressors included in the equation
Relationship
Organizat.
Career and
with other
structure
achievement
people
and climate
Factors
intrinsic
to the job
Job role
ß
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Marital Status
ß
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Organizational Status
ß
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
.009 n.s.
.009 n.s.
Age
R2
Step 1
Home / work
interface
Global
Stressor Score
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
.009 n.s.
.009 n.s.
.009 n.s.
.009 n.s.
.009 n.s.
Gender
ß
-.161*
-.149*
-.165*
-.168*
-.180*
-.165*
-.159*
Stressor*
ß
.299***
.178**
.327***
.124#
.229**
.174**
.273***
Social & Leisure coping
ß
-.289**
-.291**
-.336**
-.276**
-.305**
-.304**
-.323**
Direct Action coping
ß
-.310**
-.263**
-.234*
-.274**
-.307**
-.279**
-.267**
.280
.261
.252
.204
.226
229
.253
.271***
.252***
.243***
.195***
.217***
.221***
.244***
2
R
Step 2
Δ R2
Social&Leisure*Stressor
ß
.122*
.132**
.106#
.142**
.115*
.059
.137*
Direct Action*Stressor
ß
-.056
.042
-.033
-.006
-.078
-5.315E-05
-.033
Gender*Social&Leisure
ß
.476***
.460***
.524***
.493***
.526***
.489***
.518***
Gender*Direct Action
ß
-.247*
-.312**
-.343**
-.333**
-.311**
-.300**
-.332**
Gender* Stressor
ß
.021
.117
-.089
-.010
-.040
-.003
.022
2
.310
.299
.287
.242
.263
.260
.290
.030***
.038***
.035***
.039***
.037***
.030***
.036***
n.s.
R
Step 3
Δ R2
Social*Stressor*Gender
ß
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
Direct*Stressor* Gender
ß
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
R2
.315
.301
.288
.244
.268
.265
.292
.006 n.s.
.001 n.s.
.002 n.s.
.002 n.s.
.005 n.s.
.006 n.s
.002 n.s.
Step 4
Δ R2
Note.# p≤0.10 * p≤0.05
** p≤0.01 *** p≤0.001 two-tailed
ß are the unstandarized regression coefficients from the significant final stage of the regression analysis.
Columns represent each regression analysis for the specific stressor included in the equation (Hypothesis 3.2). Rows refer to the steps that were entered in the hierarchical regression.
Each row contains the variables entered in the step, ß values, R² coefficient (explained variance coefficient) and the increment of R² (ΔR2).
Asterisks indicate the statistical significance of ß values and ΔR2 (in step 1, R² and ΔR 2 are the same).
Gender in work stress 58
Figure Caption
Figure 1. Interaction effect gender X social support & leisure coping.
Figure 2. Interaction effect gender X direct action coping.
Figure 3. Interaction effect stressor X social support & leisure coping.
Psychological distress
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
MALE
1.50
FEMALE
1.00
- 1SD
+ 1SD
Social support & leisure coping
Psychological distress
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
MALE
1.50
FEMALE
1.00
- 1SD
+ 1SD
Direct action coping
Psychological distress
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
low social support & leisure coping
1.50
high social support & leisure coping
1.00
- 1SD
+ 1SD
Global stressors score