Content uploaded by Gail Kinman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gail Kinman on Jul 14, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by:
[Macquarie University]
On:
18 November 2008
Access details:
Access Details: [subscription number 778261148]
Publisher
Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Educational Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713415498
Work stressors, health and sense of coherence in UK academic employees
Gail Kinman
a
a
Department of Psychology, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK
First Published:December2008
To cite this Article Kinman, Gail(2008)'Work stressors, health and sense of coherence in UK academic employees',Educational
Psychology,28:7,823 — 835
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01443410802366298
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410802366298
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Educational Psychology
Vol. 28, No. 7, December 2008, 823–835
ISSN 0144-3410 print/ISSN 1469-5820 online
© 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/01443410802366298
http://www.informaworld.com
Work stressors, health and sense of coherence in UK
academic employees
Gail Kinman*
Department of Psychology, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK
Taylor and Francis LtdCEDP_A_336796.sgm
(Received 21 March 2008; final version received 20 July 2008)
10.1080/01443410802366298Educational Psychology0144-3410 (print)/1469-5820 (online)Original Article2008Taylor & Francis000000002008GailKinmangail.kinman@beds.ac.uk
This cross-sectional study examined relationships between job-specific stressors and
psychological and physical health symptoms in academic employees working in UK
universities. The study also tests the main and moderating role played by sense of
coherence (SOC: Antonovsky, 1987 in work stress process). SOC is described as a
generalised resistance resource for coping with environmental stressors and remaining
healthy. Four hundred and sixty-five academic employees (60% male) completed
measures of work stressors, physical and psychological ill health and SOC. Significant
inter-relationships were found between job stressors, health outcomes and SOC.
Stressors relating to time constraints, support and influence and work–home interface
demands had the strongest associations with health outcomes. Employees with a weaker
SOC tended to be in poorer physical and psychological health, thus supporting a main
effect for SOC. Some evidence for a moderating role for SOC was found, with the
strongest effect observed for stressors experienced at the work–home interface.
Keywords: stress; health; academic employees; sense of coherence
Introduction
Job stress and academic employees
Studies conducted in several countries over the last decade or so suggest that academic
employees perceive their jobs as having become increasingly more demanding and stressful
(Blix, Cruise, Mitchell & Blix, 1994; Boyd & Wylie, 1994; Gillespie, Walsh, Winefield,
Dua & Stough, 2001; Kinman, 2001; McInnis, 1999). Several reasons could be provided for
the increased levels of stress in UK universities, such as: expanded student numbers; diver-
sification of modes of delivery; restructuring and mergers; increased demands for efficiency
and accountability; increased commercialisation; reductions in funding; and the move
towards financial self-reliance for institutions (Kinman & Jones, 2003; Kinman, Jones &
Kinman, 2006). A move from a supportive culture of collegiality towards a non-participative
style of management and the adoption of business/industrial values has also been identified
(Tapper, 1998). Moreover, relative pay levels in the UK university sector have gradually
reduced over a number of decades and levels of job security and perceptions of autonomy
have eroded (Kinman et al., 2006).
Heavy workload and time and resource constraints have frequently been highlighted as
the most stressful aspects of academic work, but more job specific demands emerging from
the literature from the UK and other countries include: long working hours; too much
*Email: gail.kinman@beds.ac.uk
Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 00:24 18 November 2008
824 G. Kinman
administrative paperwork; lack of support; poor working relationships; role overload; diffi-
culties obtaining research funding and finding time for research; striving for publication;
frequent interruptions; poor communication; keeping up with technology; poor leadership
and management; uncompetitive salary and lack of promotion prospects (e.g. Blix et al.,
1994; Thorsen, 1996; Hogan, Carlson, & Dua, 2002; Fisher, 1994; Abouserie, 1996;
Kinman, 2001; Kinman & Jones, 2003; Tytherleigh, Webb, Cooper, & Ricketts, 2005).
Studies conducted in the UK and Australia provide evidence that academic employees
report higher levels of psychological distress than many other occupational groups and
community samples (Kinman et al., 2006; Winefield et al., 2003). As yet, however, the job
stressors that are most threatening to the wellbeing of academics have not been systemati-
cally examined. Studies that have been conducted tend to utilise samples of university
employees in general and report aggregate findings only (Bradley & Euchus, 1995; Daniels
& Guppy, 1994; Tytherleigh et al., 2005). As job characteristics and working conditions
amongst university employees are subject to considerable variation, research is required that
attempts to isolate the specific features of the working environment that predict health
outcomes in academic employees. This study aims to examine these issues.
Individual differences, stress and health
This study examines the SOC concept as a predictor of health status in academic employees
and as a potential moderator of the relationship between job stress and health status. A
number of constructs have been developed in an attempt to explain why some individuals
exposed to psychosocial stressors remain well whereas others experience a breakdown in
health. These concepts include dispositional optimism (Scheier & Carver, 1985) hardiness
(Kobasa, 1982) and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977).
SOC (Antonovsky, 1987) is a construct that is hypothesised to underlie successful
coping in the face of environmental stressors, thus facilitating health. The assumptions of
the SOC concept are that: (a) change, rather than stability, is the normal mode of life; and
(b) the individual’s ability to deal with change underlies successful coping (Antonovsky,
1987). The model posits that people with a stronger SOC see life as more comprehensible,
meaningful and manageable; this helps them to cope more effectively with stressful situa-
tions and, as a consequence, they are more psychologically and physically healthy than
those whose SOC is weaker (Antonovsky, 1992).
The SOC concept
SOC comprises three components: comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness.
Comprehensibility is the extent to which environmental demands are perceived as struc-
tured, consistent and coherent, rather than unpredictable and chaotic. Manageability is the
extent to which the individual perceives that resources are available to cope with environ-
mental demands. Meaningfulness refers to the degree to which these environmental
demands are seen as challenges that are worthy of commitment and involvement. Although
the SOC model encompasses three components, it is typically operationalised as a uni-
dimensional construct (Eriksson & Lindstrom, 2005; Hittner, 2007).
The SOC is shaped by an individual’s idiosyncratic pattern of life experiences
(Antonovsky, 1987). It tends to be stronger in individuals with more years of education and
higher occupational status (Poppius, Tenkanen, Kalimo and Heinsalmi, 1999). Although
SOC has generally been found to stabilise in early adulthood, research findings suggest that
it can vary in response to events that challenge an individual’s world view (Schnyder,
Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 00:24 18 November 2008
Educational Psychology 825
Buechi, Sensky, & Klaghofer, 2000). In an occupational context there is some evidence that
SOC can fluctuate in response to radical changes in organisational climate, workload, social
relationships and perceptions of job security (Antonovsky, 1987; Carmel & Bernstein,
1989; Feldt, Kinnunen & Mauno, 2000).
SOC, stress and health
SOC is generally considered to function in two ways: (a) people with a stronger SOC expe-
rience better health than those with a weaker SOC (main effect); and (b) SOC buffers the
negative impact of stressors on health (moderator effect) (Eriksson & Lindstrom, 2006).
The notion that a strong SOC contributes directly and positively to health status has been
well supported in community and clinical samples (e.g. Julkunen & Ahlstrom, 2006;
Pallant & Lae, 2002). There is also some evidence for the moderator effects of SOC in
such contexts (Hanse & Engstrom, 1999; Erikson & Lidstrom, 2006). The SOC construct
also has clear relevance to the working environment, as employees who find their working
environments meaningful, comprehensible and manageable may be more resistant to the
negative impact of job stressors. Studies that have examined the SOC in workplace settings
tend to support the main effects hypothesis with employees with a stronger SOC reporting
fewer somatic, emotional, behavioural and cognitive symptoms than those whose SOC is
weaker (Albertsen, Neilson & Borg, 2001; Kalimo & Vuori, 1990; Runeson & Norback,
2005).
As yet, little support has emerged for the moderating hypothesis of the SOC in work-
place settings (e.g. Hoge & Bussing, 2004; Naude & Rothmann, 2006). One exception is a
study conducted by Albertsen et al. (2001) who found that employees with a stronger SOC
tended to cope more effectively with work stressors. Feldt (1997) found that employees
with a stronger SOC were better protected from the negative effects of some work stres-
sors (such as time pressures and organisational climate) but not others. However as 94%
of this sample were male, the findings may not easily be extended to other occupational
groups.
Significant negative associations have been found between SOC strength and perceived
workplace stress (Hoge & Bussing, 2004), as well as more specific job stressors such as
high job demand and low control and support (Albertsen et al., 2001), inter-role conflict
(Diraz, Ortlepp & Greyling, 2003), lack of job resources (Naude & Rothmann, 2006) and
poor organisational climate and job insecurity (Feldt et al., 2000a). As yet, however, the role
played by SOC in the relationship between stressors that are specific to a particular occupa-
tional group and general health outcomes has not been systematically examined. The impor-
tant role played by the working environment in shaping the antecedents, experience and
expression of occupational stress has long been emphasised (Sparks & Cooper, 1999). As
job-specific measures of stress are more grounded in the everyday realities of employees, a
moderating effect for SOC (with its emphasis on comprehensibility, meaningfulness and
manageability of life experiences) might be more apparent.
Aims of this study
The aims of this study are three-fold. Firstly, relationships between job-specific stressors
and psychological and physical health symptoms are examined in a sample of academic
employees working in UK universities. Secondly, the main effects of SOC on health status
are assessed. Thirdly, the potential moderator effects of the SOC on the stressor–strain rela-
tionship are examined. Based on the literature reviewed previously, it is anticipated that a
Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 00:24 18 November 2008
826 G. Kinman
positive association will be found between job stressors and health symptoms. A main effect
of SOC is expected, in that academics with a stronger SOC will report fewer physical and
psychological health symptoms. An examination of the potential moderator effects of the
SOC will ascertain whether people with a stronger SOC are more resistant to the negative
effects of job stressors on health status.
Method
Sample
Questionnaires were posted to a randomly selected sample of 1000 academic employees
working on a full-time basis in universities throughout the UK. Four hundred and sixty-five
academics responded (representing a response rate of 47%). Fifty-nine percent of the
sample was male, with a mean age of 46 years (SD = 7.4). The average length of time work-
ing in the sector was 14 years (SD = 7.8). Analysis of staffing figures from the Higher
Education Statistics Agency (HESA, 2004) confirmed that the demographic characteristics
of participants in this study broadly corresponded with that of the wider population of
academic staff in the UK at the time the study was conducted. Academic employees in the
UK were 61% male with an average age of 41 years. The mean age of the sample utilised
in the present study, therefore, was somewhat higher than the wider population of academic
employees in the UK.
Measures
Job stressors
This was adapted from a measure developed for a study of university employees conducted
by Kinman (1996). Following principal components factor analysis, five factors were iden-
tified, which together explained 50.4% of the variance: support and influence (six items, e.g.
level of technical support and level of influence over decision making [25.5% variance,
α = .82]); time constraints (five items, e.g. amount of time for teaching preparation and
scholarly activity [10.3% variance, α= .84]); student stressors (four items, e.g. student
behaviour and engagement [6.5% variance, α= .83]); work–home interface demands (four
items, e.g. conflict between work and home and lack of time to relax [4.3% variance,
α= .75]); role stressors (seven items, e.g. role conflict and role overload [3.8% of variance,
α = .77]). All items were presented as statements and scored on a five-point scale represent-
ing strength of agreement (ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’). Mean
scores were calculated across items with higher scores in each scale denoting higher levels
of stressors.
SOC
SOC was measured by the 13-item Orientation to Life Questionnaire developed by
Antonovsky (1987). This scale has been used in at least 33 languages in 32 countries and is
deemed to be psychometrically sound (Antonovsky, 1993; Eriksson & Lindstrom, 2005).
Five items measure comprehensibility and four items each assess manageability and mean-
ingfulness. An example of an item is: ‘How often do you have the feeling that you are in an
unfamiliar situation and don’t know what to do?’. Five of the items are reverse scored to
avoid a response-set bias. Responses are requested on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 =
‘never’ to 7 = ‘always’. The mean score was taken across items, with higher scores repre-
senting a stronger SOC (α = .87).
Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 00:24 18 November 2008
Educational Psychology 827
Psychological distress
This was measured by the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) (Goldberg &
Williams, 1988). The GHQ-12 is widely used in community and occupational settings as a
measure of general distress. Items are rated on a fully anchored four-point scale. An exam-
ple of an item is: ‘Have you recently felt constantly under strain?’, where responses range
from ‘not at all’ to ‘much more than usual’. Mean scores were taken across items, with high
scores representing poorer wellbeing (α = .89).
Physical health symptoms
This was measured by the 18-item Physical Symptoms Inventory (PSI) (Spector & Jex,
1998) which asks about the existence of a range of symptoms over the preceding 30 days.
(e.g., headaches, loss of appetite, sleeping difficulties and fatigue). Respondents are
instructed to indicate whether or not they have experienced each symptom over the last
30 days and, if so, whether they sought medical advice. Two scores were obtained: the level
of physical ill health and the number of illnesses experienced.
Results
Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations of the SOC, the five job stress factors and
the psychological distress and both physical health measures (GHQ-12 and PSI). Inter-
correlations between these variables are also provided. All stressor factors were signifi-
cantly associated with each strain outcome. Significant inverse relationships were observed
between the SOC and psychological and physical health symptoms in the expected direc-
tion (r = −.69, p < .001 and r = −.30, p < .001 respectively). As anticipated, participants
with a stronger SOC also tended to report fewer health symptoms over the preceding month
(r = −.39, p < .001). Significant correlations were found between SOC strength and all five
job stress factors in the expected direction, with particularly robust negative relationships
observed between support and influence and work–home interface demands (r = −.64,
p < .001 and r = −.53, p < .001 respectively).
In order to examine the main and moderator effects of the SOC on health status and on
the stressor–health relationship, five separate hierarchical multiple regression equations
were computed (relating to the job stressor factors: support and influence, time constraints,
student stressors, work–home interface demands and role stressors). The procedure recom-
mended by Baron and Kenny (1986) for testing for moderating effects was followed.
Scores for the predictor variables were centred to reduce the likelihood of multicollinearity.
Moderator terms were subsequently computed by multiplying each standardised predictor
variable (each of the five job stressor factors) with SOC.
The variables were entered into the equations in four successive steps. As previous
research has found gender differences in levels of SOC and in self-reported symptoms, this
was entered in Step 1 of each analysis in order to control for its potential effects. In Step 2
of each equation, each job stressor factor was entered to examine their main effects. SOC
was entered in Step 3 to examine its main effects. The stressor factors and the SOC were
added in two seperate steps in order to establish the amount of varience explained by each
variable independently. Main effects are established if the job stressor and/or the SOC
entered in steps 2 and 3 accounted for a significant proportion of variance. The two-way
interaction term was entered in Step 4 of each equation, whereby each stressor factor was
multiplied with the SOC. A moderating effect is supported if the interaction term signifi-
cantly increases the R
2
in the fourth and final step (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Tables 2 and 3
Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 00:24 18 November 2008
828 G. Kinman
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlation coefficients for all variables (n = 449–465).
Variable Mean (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. SOC 4.41 (.94) .00
2. SF1: Support and influence 2.90 (.61) −.64*** .00
3. SF2: Time constraints 2.95 (.61) −.43*** 43*** .00
4. SF3: Student stressors 2.27 (.69) −.26*** .30*** .17*** .00
5. SF4: Work–home interface demands 2.50 (.69) −.53*** .44*** .52*** .14** .00
6. SF5: Role in organisation 3.25 (.62) −.31*** .30*** .50*** .03 .69*** .00
7. GHQ-12 (psychological distress) .98 (.56) −.69*** .66*** .53*** .29*** .64*** .37*** .00
8. PSI (physical symptoms) 4.77 (3.05) −.30*** .27*** .28*** .09* .37*** .23*** .39*** .00
9. Number of symptoms 3.87 (2.94) −.39*** .34*** .32*** .10* .43*** .23*** .50*** .99*** .00
Note: One-tailed correlations: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 00:24 18 November 2008
Educational Psychology 829
Table 2. Multiple regression analyses showing predictor variables of psychological distress
(standardised beta values).
R
2
beta p-value
Step 1 Gender .01 .07 ns
Step 2 SF1: support & influence .43 .66 <.001
SF2: time constraints .29 .54 <.001
SF3: student stressors .10 .31 <.001
SF4: work–home interface .42 .65 <.001
SF5: role in organisation .14 .38 <.001
Step 3 SOC – main effects
SF1: support & influence .16 −.52 <.001
SF2: time constraints .30 −.61 <.001
SF3: student stressors .45 −.70 <.001
SF4: work–home interface .21 −.54 <.001
SF5: role in organisation .42 −.68 <.001
Step 4 SOC as moderator
SF1: support & influence .01 −.42 <.01
SF2: time constraints .01 −.44 <.01
SF3: student stressors .00 −.18 ns
SF4: work–home interface .01 −.40 <.01
SF5: role in organisation .00 −.15 ns
Table 3. Multiple regression analyses showing predictor variables of physical symptoms
(standardised beta values).
R
2
Beta p-value
Step 1 Gender .02 .13 <.01
Step 2 SF1: support & influence .07 .26 <.001
SF2: time constraints .07 .27 <.001
SF3: student stressors .01 .11 <.05
SF4: work–home interface .12 .34 <.001
SF5: role in organisation .05 .21 <.001
Step 3 SOC main effects
SF1: support & influence .03 −.23 <.001
SF2: time constraints .04 −.23 <.001
SF3: student stressors .08 −.29 <.001
SF4: work–home interface .02 −.17 <.001
SF5: role in organisation .019 −.26 <.001
Step 4 SOC as moderator
SF1: support & influence .01 −.33 ns*
SF2: time constraints .01 −.43 ns**
SF3: student stressors .01 −.16 ns
SF4: work–home interface .02 −.62 <.001
SF5: role in organisation .02 −.74 <.01
Note: *p = .054; **p = .058.
Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 00:24 18 November 2008
830 G. Kinman
present the details of these analyses. The relevant statistics have been extracted from each
of the five individual regression equations. The findings are discussed below in relation to
each outcome variable.
Predictors of psychological distress
Details of the hierarchical regressions can be found in Table 2. No statistically significant
effects for gender were found. The job stressors, entered in Step 2 of each equation,
accounted for between 10 and 43% of the variance in psychological distress (all p < .001),
with support and influence making the strongest contribution and student stressors the weak-
est. The main effect of SOC on psychological distress, entered in Step 3 of each equation,
was strongly significant. Its contribution to psychological distress varied from 16 to 45%
depending on the job stressor controlled for in the previous step. Evidence of moderator
effects of SOC was found for three out of the five job stressor factors. The two-way inter-
actions between SOC and: (a) support and influence; (b) time constraints; and (c) work–home
interface demands, entered in the fourth and final step of each equation, explained a further
1% of the variance respectively (see Table 2). In order to illustrate the moderator effects
found for psychological distress and physical symptoms discussed below, the interaction
between work–home interface demands and psychological distress is plotted in Figure 1 at
high, medium and low levels of SOC. As can be seen, where SOC was weaker, relationships
between work–home interface demands and psychological distress were stronger.
Figure 1. Associations between psychological distress and work–home interface demands for three SOC groups.
Predictors of physical symptoms
Details of the regressions can be found in Table 3. Gender, entered in Step 1, accounted for
2% of the variance in physical symptoms. The job stressor factor entered in Step 2 of each
equation made significant contributions to the variance, explaining between 1 and 12%.
1
2
3
4
5
6
12345
High work-home interface demands
Psychological distress (GHQ)
Low
medium
high
Figure 1. Associations between psychological distress and work–home interface demands for three
SOC groups.
Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 00:24 18 November 2008
Educational Psychology 831
Work–home interface demands made the strongest contribution of all the job stressor
factors and student stressors the weakest. Strong main effects were found for SOC entered
in Step 3, accounting for between 2 and 8% of variance in physical symptoms, depending
on the job stressor previously controlled for. Some evidence was found for a buffering effect
of SOC on physical health symptoms (see Step 4 in Table 3). The two-way interaction
between SOC and both work–home interface demands and role stressors explained 2% of
the variance respectively. A trend was also found to support a moderator effect of support
and influence and time constraints, but the statistical significance exceeded acceptable
limits.
Discussion
This study has highlighted significant inter-relationships between job-specific stressors,
health status and SOC strength in academic employees working in UK universities.
Academics who perceived lower levels of support and influence, more time constraints,
higher levels of student demands and work–home interface demands and more role stres-
sors tended to report poorer health. Stressors relating to support and influence, time
constraints and the work–home interface tended to be the strongest predictors of health
symptoms.
Participants with a stronger SOC were not only in better psychological and physical
health than those whose SOC was weaker; they also reported lower levels of all types of job
stressor. The negative association between SOC and job stressors was particular strong for
those relating to support and influence, the work–home interface and time constraints.
Evidence for a moderating role of SOC has also been provided in this study, whereby
employees with a stronger SOC may be protected from the adverse impact of some job-
related stressors.
The findings reported in this paper support Antonovsky’s (1987) contention that the
SOC construct predicts health status. The observed strong main effects of SOC on psycho-
logical distress support the view that individuals with a weaker SOC will be more inclined
to experience poorer wellbeing. Supporting the findings of Flensborg-Madsen, Ventegodt,
and Merrick (2005) that SOC is a more robust predictor of psychological health status than
physical symptoms, the proportion of variance accounted for in the latter outcome was
considerably weaker than for physical distress. This suggests that SOC is more protective
of psychological wellbeing than physical health. It is acknowledged, however, that the
strong relationship observed in the present study between SOC and psychological distress
might be due to both constructs tapping into the same underlying trait of negative affectivity
(Watson & Clark, 1984). Nonetheless, the significant moderating effects found in this study
cannot be explained solely by content overlap; employees whose SOC is higher appear to
be in better health than those with a low SOC at a similar level of exposure to some job
stressors.
Participants with a stronger SOC tended to perceive lower levels of all types of job
stressor than their counterparts whose SOC was weaker, thus supporting Antonovsky’s
view that people who find their environment more comprehensible, meaningful and
manageable are less likely to appraise stimuli as stressful (Antonovsky, 1987). Evidence
has also been provided that SOC is related not only to stressors intrinsic to the work role,
but also to demands emanating from the work–home interface. Unlike most previous stud-
ies that have tested the moderating role of the SOC in the work environment (e.g. Naude &
Rothmann, 2006), some evidence has been provided that employees with a stronger SOC
can cope more effectively with some job-related stressors but not others. Although the
Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 00:24 18 November 2008
832 G. Kinman
proportions of additional variance explained by the moderator effects were small, this is
sufficient to provide supportive evidence for a buffering role (McClelland & Judd, 1993).
In terms of psychological health status, moderator effects were found for three out of the
five job stressors tested: support and influence, time constraints, and work–home interface
demands. For physical health, evidence for moderation was observed for work–home inter-
face demands and role stressors, but a trend was found to support moderation for other job-
related stressors. These findings suggest that the potential negative effects on health of low
levels of support and decision latitude, lack of influence at work and insufficient time for
teaching preparation and scholarly activity might be offset if the academic working environ-
ment was perceived to be more meaningful, manageable and comprehensible.
Evidence has also been provided that a strong SOC may provide employees with greater
protection from the negative impact of role overload and conflict and demands experienced
at the work–home interface. It is possible that an employee with a weak SOC would
perceive inter-role demands as more chaotic, unpredictable and uncontrollable than an
employee whose SOC was stronger and, by implication, would be less able to utilise the
resources necessary to reduce such demands. Previous research suggests that academic
employees might have particular problems maintaining an acceptable work–life balance
(Doyle & Hind, 1998; Kinman & Jones, 2008). The salience of work–home interface
demands as an important source of strain has also been highlighted in the present study. The
role played by SOC in successfully coping with the work–home interface warrants further
examination. How SOC strength is associated with role enhancement as well as role conflict
in the face of competing demands from the work and home domains might be a particularly
fruitful area of study.
The mean SOC score obtained for this sample was low in comparison with that found
in other occupational studies (Ryland & Greenfeld, 1991; Feldt, 1997) and only 5% higher
than that reported in a study of ethnic minority homeless women (Nyamathi, 1991). That
such a low SOC was found amongst a sample of academic employees challenges previous
evidence that higher occupational status and years of education predicts a stronger SOC
(Poppius et al., 1999). Factors relating to the working environment presently experienced
by this occupational group may provide a tentative explanation for such a low mean SOC
in the present sample. The higher education sector in the UK has undergone considerable
change in the 10–15 years prior to the study being conducted. Comparatively high levels of
strain have also been reported in the sector (Kinman et al., 2006). While there is evidence
to support the long-term stability of SOC in adulthood (Eriksson & Lindstrom, 2005), it has
been found to fluctuate in response to profound changes to the working environment
(Antonovsky, 1987; Feldt et al., 2000 ). In the present sample, negative perceptions of
organisational climate maintained over the long term might lead to a gradual erosion of
SOC in life and work. Under such conditions, working life might be perceived as having
become more unpredictable, less coherent and less participative. Perceptions of a decrease
in resources available to cope with increased demands are likely to reduce perceptions of
manageability. This erosion of SOC might, in turn, compromise health status over time.
Although strong relationships between SOC, job-stressors and health status have
emerged in this study, its cross-sectional design and reliance on self-reported measures
means that the direction of causality is uncertain. It is necessary to obtain longitudinal data
to establish cause and effect relationships. Daily diary methodology might be a particularly
appropriate method with which to examine the role played by SOC in the work stress
process at a more detailed level of analysis. Whether changes in perceptions of job stressors
lead to fluctuations in SOC over time could also be established via such methodology. How
SOC might be enhanced would also be a potentially fruitful area for future research.
Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 00:24 18 November 2008
Educational Psychology 833
The results of this study suggest that SOC might be enhanced by primary interventions
that tackle job stressors at source. Building on Antonovsky’s (1991 ) recommendations to
strengthen SOC, enhanced opportunities for personal development and participation in
decision-making could lead to perceptions of greater meaningfulness in work. A sense of
manageability might be promoted by more effective work-load management, adequate
support and increased autonomy. Comprehensibility could be enhanced by reducing role
stressors, improving job security and providing open and equitable pay structures. There is
also evidence that SOC might be responsive to secondary stress-management interventions
(Haraldsson, Fridlund, Baigi & Marklund, 2005) but, to date, little work has been done in
an occupational context. In order to protect the wellbeing of employees, the findings of the
present study suggest that preventative programmes that aim to enhance personal resources,
as well as manage stressors at source, should be considered in academic contexts.
References
Abouserie, R. (1996). Stress, coping strategies & job satisfaction in University Academic Staff.
Educational Psychology, 16(1), 49–56.
Albertsen, K., Nielsen, M.L., & Borg, V. (2001). The Danish psychosocial work environment and
symptoms of stress: The main, mediating and moderating role of sense of coherence.
Work &
Stress,
15, 241–253.
Antonovsky, A. (1987).
Unravelling the mystery of health: How people manage stress and stay well.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Antonovsky, A. (1991). The structual sources of salutogenic strengths. In C.L. Cooper & R. Payne
(Eds.),
Personality and stress: Individual differences in the stress process (pp. 67–104). Chichester:
Wiley.
Antonovsky, A. (1992). Can attitudes contribute to health? Advances.
The Journal of Mind–Body
Health,
8(4), 33–49.
Antonovsky, A. (1993). The structure and properties of the sense of coherence scale,
Social Science
and medicine,
36(6), 725–733.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behavioural change.
Psychological
Review,
84, 191–215.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psycho-
logical research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182.
Blix, A.G., Cruise, R.J., Mitchell, B.M., & Blix, G.G. (1994). Occupational stress among university
teachers.
Educational Research, 36(2), 157–169.
Boyd, S., & Wylie, C. (1994).
Workload and stress in New Zealand universities. New Zealand: New
Zealand Council for Educational Research and the Association of University Staff of New
Zealand.
Bradley, J., & Euchus, P. (1995). Occupational stress within a UK higher education institution.
International Journal of Stress Management, 2, 145–158.
Carmel, S., & Bernstein, J. (1989). Trait-anxiety and sense of coherence: A longitudinal study.
Psychological Reports, 65, 221–222.
Daniels, K., & Guppy, A. (1994). Occupational stress, social support, job control, and psychological
well-being.
Human Relations, 47(12), 1523–1544.
Diraz, T., Ortlepp, K., & Greyling, M. (2003). The relationship between inter-role conflict, life
satisfaction and sense of coherence in a sample of working mothers.
South African Journal of
Psychology, 33(3), 191–195.
Doyle, C., & Hind, P. (1998). Occupational stress, burnout and job status in female academics.
Gender, Work and Organisation, 5(2), 67–82.
Eriksson, M., & Lindstrom, B. (2005). Validity of Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale: A
systematic review.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 50(6), 460–466.
Eriksson, M., & Lindstrom, B. (2006). Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale and the relation with
health: A systematic review.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(5), 376–381.
Feldt, T. (1997). The role of sense of coherence in well-being at work: Analysis of main and moder-
ator effects.
Work and Stress, 11, 134–147.
Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 00:24 18 November 2008
834 G. Kinman
Feldt, T., Kinnunen, U., & Mauno, S. (2000a). A mediational model of sense of coherence in the
work context: A one-year follow up study.
Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 21, 461–476.
Feldt, T., Leskinen, E., Kinnunen, U., & Mauno, S. (2000). Longitudinal factor analysis models in
the assessment of the stability of sense of coherence.
Personality and Individual Differences, 28,
239–257.
Fisher, S. (1994).
Stress in academic life: The mental assembly line. Buckingham, UK: Open University
Press.
Flensborg-Madsen, T., Ventegodt, S., & Merrick, J. (2005). Why is Antonovsky’s sense of coher-
ence not correlated to physical health?
Scientific World Journal, 14(5), 767–776.
Gillespie, N.A., Walsh, M., Winefield, A.H., Dua, J., & Stough, C. (2001). Occupational stress in
universities: Staff perceptions of the causes, consequences and moderators of stress.
Work and
Stress,
15(1), 53–72.
Goldberg, D., & Williams, P. (1988).
A user’s guide to the General Health Questionnaire: Windsor,
UK: NFER-Nelson.
Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2004).
Resources of higher education institutions. London: HESA.
Hanse, J., & Engstrom, T. (1999). Sense of coherence and ill health among the unemployed and re-
employed after closure of an assembly plant.
Work and Stress, 13, 204–222.
Haraldsson, K., Fridlund, B., Baigi, A., & Marklund, B. (2005). The self-reported health condition
of women after their participation in a stress management programme: A pilot study.
Health and
Social Care in the Community,
13(3), 224–230.
Hoge, T., & Bussing, A. (2004). The impact of sense of coherence and negative affectivity on the
work stressor–strain relationship.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(3), 195–205.
Hittner, J.B. (2007). Factorial invariance of the 13-item sense of coherence scale across Gender.
Journal of Health Psychology, 12(2), 273–280.
Hogan, J.M., Carlson, J.G. & Dua, J. (2002) Stress and stress reactions among university personnel.
International Journal of Stress Management. 9(4), 289–310.
Julkunen J., & Ahlström, R. (2006). Hostility, anger, and sense of coherence as predictors of health-
related quality of life. Results of an ASCOT sub-study.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 61(1),
33–39.
Kalimo, R., & Vuori, J. (1990). Work and sense of coherence: Resources for competence and life
satisfaction.
Behavioural Medicine, 2, 77–89.
Kinman, G. (1996).
Occupational stress and health among lecturers working in further and higher
education.
London: NATFHE Publications.
Kinman, G. (2001). Pressure points: A review of stressors and strains in UK academics.
Educational
Psychology,
21(4) 473–492.
Kinman G., & Jones, F. (2003). Running up the down escalator: Stressors and strains in UK
academics.
Quality in Higher Education, 9(1), 22–37.
Kinman, G., & Jones, F. (2008). Work, wellbeing and work–life balance in UK academics.
Human
Behavior in the Social Environment. Special Edition on Stress among College and University Faculty
and Administrators,
17, 1–2.
Kinman, G., Jones, F., & Kinman, R. (2006). The wellbeing of the UK Academy: 1998 to 2004.
Quality in Higher Education, 12(1), 15–27.
Kobasa, S.C. (1982). The hardy personality: Toward a social psychology of stress and health. In
J. Suls & G. Sanders (Eds.),
Social psychology of health and illness. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McClelland, G., & Judd, C. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator
effects.
Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), 376–380.
McInnis, C. (1999).
The work roles of academics in Australian universities. Melbourne, Australia:
Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Naude, J., & Rothmann, S. (2006). Work-related well-being of emergency workers in Gauteng.
South African Journal of Psychology, 36(1), 63–81.
Nyamathi, A.M. (1991) Relationship of resources to emotional distress, somatic complaints, and
high risk behaviours in drug recovery and homeless minority women,
Research in Nursing and
Health,
24, 269–278.
Pallant, J., & Lae, L. (2002). Sense of coherence, well-being, coping and personality factors: Further
evaluation of the sense of coherence scale.
Personality and Individual Differences, 33(1), 39–48.
Poppius, E., Tenkanen, L., Kalimo, R., & Heinsalmi, P. (1999). The sense of coherence, occupation
and the risk of coronary heart disease in the Helsinki Heart Study.
Social Science and Medicine,
49, 109–120.
Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 00:24 18 November 2008
Educational Psychology 835
Runeson, R., & Norback, D. (2005). Associations among sick building syndrome, psychosocial
factors, and personality traits.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100(3), 747–759.
Ryland, E., & Greenfeld, S. (1991). Work stress and well being: An investigation of Antonovsky’s
Sense of Coherence Model.
Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 6(7), 39–54.
Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (1985) Optimism, coping and health: Assessment and implications of
generalised outcome expectancies.
Health Psychology, 4, 219–247.
Schnyder, U., Buechi, S., Sensky, T., & Klaghofer, R. (2000). Antonovsky’s Sense of Coherence:
Trait or state?
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 69, 296–302.
Sparks, K., & Cooper, C. (1999). Occupational differences in the work–strain relationship: Towards
the use of situation-specific models.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72,
219–229.
Spector, P.E., & Jex, S.M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and
strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale: Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative
Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory.
Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology,
3(4), 356–367.
Tapper, T. (1998). Continuity and change in the collegial tradition.
Higher Education Quarterly, 52,
142–161.
Thorsen, E.J. (1996). Stress in academe: What bothers professors?
Higher Education, 31(4), 471–489.
Tytherleigh, M., Webb, C., Cooper, C., & Ricketts, C. (2005). Occupational stress in UK higher
education institutions: A comparative study of all staff categories.
Higher Education Research
and Development,
24(1), 41–61.
Watson, D., & Clark, L.A. (1984). Negative Affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive
emotional states.
Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465–490.
Winefield, A.H., Gillespie, N., Stough, C., Dua, J., Hapuarachchi, J., & Boyd, C. (2003). Occupational
stress in Australian university staff.
International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 51–63.
Downloaded By: [Macquarie University] At: 00:24 18 November 2008
