Efficacy Beliefs and Work Stress: An Exploratory Study Author(s): Steve M. Jex and David M.

Gudanowski Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13, No. 5 (Sep., 1992), pp. 509-517 Published by: Wiley-Blackwell Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2488400 . Accessed: 30/08/2012 10:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley-Blackwell and John Wiley & Sons are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Organizational Behavior.

http://www.jstor.org

VOL. 13, 509-517(1992) BEHAVIOR, JOURNALOF ORGANIZATIONAL

Research Note

Efficacy beliefs and work stress: An exploratory study

STEVE M. JEX AND DAVID M. GUDANOWSKI
Central Michigan University, U.S.A.

Summary

This study investigated the possible role of self-efficacy in the stress process by examining relations between stressors (role ambiguity, situational constraints, and hours), strains (job dissatisfaction, anxiety, frustration, and turnover intent), and efficacy beliefs (both individual and collective). Individual efficacy was related to only two of the four strains and had no mediating or moderating effects. Collective efficacy, however, was strongly related to both stressors and strains. Collective efficacy also moderated the effect of work hours and mediated the relation between situational constraints and two of the strain measures. It was concluded that the theory of individual self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) may not adequately explain collective efficacy. Future research on the self-efficacy construct as well as its role in the stress process was suggested.

Introduction
In recent years, self beliefs have emerged as a prominent component in many theories of human behavior. This trend can be seen in industrial/organizational psychology as well. Brief and Aldag (1981), for example, pointed out that employees in organizations have explicit beliefs and expectations about their performance and suggested that these should be considered when trying to explain organizational behavior. In addition to pointing out the value of considering self beliefs and expectations, Brief and Aldag (1981) proposed a model which details the interaction between organizational conditions and self beliefs. Despite Brief and Aldag's (1981) suggestions, surprisingly little organizational research has considered self beliefs. One exception to this trend in organizational research has been the recent interest in self-efficacy, which is defined as a person's beliefs about whether they can successfully perform a task (Bandura, 1977, 1978). Self-efficacyis similar to expectancy (Campbell and Pritchard, 1976), which represents beliefs about the relation between effort and performance. In fact, some authors have used the two interchangeably (Earley and Lituchy, 1991; Garland, 1985). Self-efficacy, however, appears to be more general since it could involve either effort or ability, whereas expectancy focuses exclusively on the relation between effort and performance. At present, the issue of distinguishing between self-efficacy and expectancy continues to be debated (Gist, 1987). According to Bandura (1977), self-efficacy beliefs are determined primarily by 'inactive mastery', which depends on both perceived and actual prior task performance.
of Psychology,CentralMichigan this articleshould be sent to Steve M. Jex, Department regarding Correspondence Mt. Pleasant,MI 48859. University, The authorswish to thank Ron Newmanfor assistancein data collectionand TerryBeehrfor his commentson thismanuscript. 0894-3796/92/050509-09$09.50 ? 1992 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

30 May 1990 Received

Final Revision 11 April 1991

510

S. M. JEX AND D. M. GUDANOWSKI

Other sources of information about self-efficacy beliefs include verbal persuasion from others, vicarious learning, and emotional arousal. Bandura (1982) and others (e.g. Gist, 1987; Riggs, 1989) have suggested that the self-efficacy concept can also be applied to groups. Riggs (1989) defined 'collective' efficacy as 'each individual's assessment of their group's collective ability to perform job-related behaviors' (p. 7). Unfortunately, compared to the individual level, little is known about either the determinants or consequences of collective efficacy beliefs. It has been implied, however, that the theory of individual self-efficacy can be used to explain individuals' perceptions of groups (Gist, 1987; Riggs, 1989). Though not extensive, organizational research has begun to show some consistent relationships between self-efficacy beliefs and task performance. As examples, Barling and Beattie (1983) showed that strong self-efficacy beliefs were associated with high levels of sales performance, while Taylor, Locke, Lee, and Gist (1984) found a similar relation between self-efficacy beliefs and faculty research productivity. Unfortunately, no organizational research has examined the relation between 'collective' efficacy beliefs and task performance. Riggs (1989), however, found that the performance of softball teams was positively related to beliefs individual team members had about the efficacy of their team. Despite this recent progress, one could argue that self-efficacy research needs to be expanded to areas other than job performance. The study of work-related stress, in particular, has been conducted under the assumption that employees are rather passive recipients of stressful organizational conditions. Most stress research has simply examined relations between stressors (i.e. role conflict, role ambiguity, lack of perceived control) and outcomes such asjob (dis)satisfaction, anxiety, psychosomatic symptoms, absenteeism, and job performance (Spector, Dwyer and Jex, 1988). Intervening processes such as the interaction between stressors and self beliefs have largely been ignored. If self-efficacy (both individual and collective) is to be included in the study of work stress, the potential role of self-efficacy in the stress process must be determined. According to Beehr and Newman (1978), environmental stressors interact with characteristics of the individual to produce stress reactions. According to this model, self-efficacy beliefs can best be conceptualized as a moderator variable. One might predict that individuals who do not believe that they will be able to carry out theirjob responsibilities (low levels of self-efficacy)would view organizational stressors as being more threatening and show more negative reactions than those who are more confident (high levels of self-efficacy). It is plausible that collective efficacy would provide the same moderating effect as individual efficacy, although this would be more likely for employees whose jobs require considerable interaction with the work group. It is also possible that the group may be seen as a potential source of social support when stressors occur (LaRocco, House and French, 1980). Brief and Aldag (1981), however, implied that one of the immediate effects of job-related stressors may be to lower one's level of self-efficacy. Reductions in self-efficacy beliefs, in turn may lead to job-related strains. According to this viewpoint, self-efficacy would be a mediating variable. Stumpf, Brief and Hartman (1987), proposed that reductions in self-efficacy beliefs lead to more emotion-focused coping, which is generally not as successful as problem-focused coping (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Their study supported this proposition. Because this occurs at the individual level, stressors may also decrease collective efficacy perceptions. Decreases in collective efficacy perceptions could lead to strain because such perceptions increase employee uncertainty regarding effort leading to high levels of job performance (Beehr and Bhagat, 1985). Again, this would be most likely for employees whose jobs require considerable interaction with the work group.

EFFICACY BELIEFS

511

The currentstudy
The current study was designed to assess the relation between self-efficacy beliefs (individual and collective) and both stressors (role ambiguity, situational constraints, work hours) and psychological strains (iob dissatisfaction, anxiety, frustration, intention to quit). Tests were also conducted to assess whether self-efficacy was most plausibly a moderator or mediator of the relations between stressors and strains. Since it has been implied that collective efficacy can be explained by the theory of individual self-efficacy(Bandura, 1982; Gist, 1987; Riggs, 1989), we also noted differences in the correlations involving individual versus collective efficacy. This comparison was thought to be fair, since both forms of efficacy were operationalized with the same degree of rigor and the distributions were similar (Cooper and Richardson, 1986).

Method
Subjects
Subjects were 154 male and female non-faculty employees of both the University of South Florida and Central Michigan University. In all, 500 employees from both universities were selected. Employees ranged in age from 23 to 68 years of age, with a mean of 41.2 years. There were 68 males and 86 females. There were a total of 67 diverse job titles represented in the sample. Examples include engineer, librarian, accountant, secretary, refrigeration technician, and medical technician. Although the response rate (30 per cent) was somewhat low, the demographic characteristics of the sample were quite similar to other studies of university employees (Spector et al., 1988). In addition, the demographic profiles of subjects from the two universities were similar, suggesting that combining data from these two sources was justified. Data were collected from August to December of 1989.

Measures
Stressors The three stressors were role ambiguity, situational constraints, and workload. Role ambiguity was measured by Beehr, Walsh and Taber's (1976) four-item scale. These items are intended to measure the extent to which goals, performance standards, and expectations are clearly specified by one's supervisor. Internal consistency has been found to be acceptable for this scale (0.71; Spector et al., 1988). Situational constraints was measured with an 11-item scale developed by Peters and O'Connor (1980). Items focused on situational constraints in the areas of organizational rules/procedures, availability of supplies, interruptions by other people, and incorrect instructions. Subjects were asked to indicate the frequency with which each of the situational constraints prevented them from performing their job. Reliability of this scale has been estimated to be 0.88 (Spector etal., 1988). Workload was measured by simply asking subjects to indicate the average number of hours per week they worked at all paid jobs. Psychological strain The four measures of psychological strain were overall job (dis)satisfaction, frustration, anxiety, and intent to quit. Overall job (dis)satisfaction was assessed by the three-item overall job satisfac-

512

S. M. JEX AND D. M. GUDANOWSKI

tion scale of the Michigan Organizational Assessment Scale (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins and Klesh, 1979). Internal consistency for this scale has been estimated to be 0.90 (Spector et al., 1988). Frustration was measured by a three-item scale asking respondents to indicate the overall extent to which they find their jobs frustrating. Peters and O'Connor (1980) estimated the internal consistency of this scale to be 0.81. A modified version of the 10-item state scale of Spielberger's (1979) State Trait Personality Inventory (STPI) was used to measure anxiety. Specifically, subjects were asked how they felt at work during the past 30 days. Some of the descriptions were feeling calm, tense, nervous, worried, and frightened. Each item was answered in terms of the degree to which the respondent felt that way. The internal consistency of this scale has been estimated to be 0.90 (Spector etal., 1988). Turnover intent was measured by a single item asking respondents to indicate how often they considered quitting their present job (Spector et al., 1988). Efficacy beliefs Individual and collective efficacy beliefs were measured with two scales developed by Riggs (1989). The individual efficacy scale consisted of 11 items reflecting the degree to which subjects believed they were capable of doing their job well. Examples of items include 'I have confidence in my ability to do my job', 'I doubt my ability to do my job' and 'Few people in my line of work can do a better job than I can'. The collective efficacy scale contained 10 items reflecting individual subjects' perceptions of the extent to which their respective departmentswere capable of functioning effectively. Examples of these items include 'The department I work for has above average ability', 'The members of this department have excellent job skills' and 'Departments that can perform their jobs as well as this department are rare'. Internal consistencies of both individual and collective efficacy scales have been estimated to be 0.81 and 0.84, respectively (Riggs, 1989).

Procedure
At each of the two universities, a sample of non-faculty employees was randomly chosen from each university directory. While the selection procedure was as random as possible, an effort was made to include approximately equal numbers of males and females as well as a diverse sampling of job titles. This was done by alternating each selection by gender. In addition, as the sample was being chosen, a count of the number of employees by job title was kept so that some job titles would not be overly represented in the sample. Selected employees were sent a questionnaire along with a letter describing the purpose of the study and asking for their participation. Questionnaires were returned by mail to the senior author.

Results
Descriptive statistics will be discussed first, followed by correlations, and the tests for both moderating and mediating effects.

Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics for all variables are presented at the bottom of Table 1. Included are means, standard deviations, and coefficient alphas (where appropriate). Although not shown,

EFFICACY BELIEFS

513

observed ranges for most of the variables covered the entire possible range; thus, restriction of range did not appear to be a problem. One exception was anxiety, which ranged from 12 to 34 out of a possible range of 10 to 48. There also did not appear to be any extremely high individual or collective efficacy values (which would indicate extremely low levels of efficacy beliefs). Coefficient alphas were calculated where appropriate and all were reasonably high, ranging from 0.79 to 0.87. Table1. Descriptive statisticsandintercorrelations amongall variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Role ambiguity 2. Situational constraints 0.45* 3. Hours 0.03 0.06 4. Satisfaction -0.32* -0.47* -0.04 5. Frustration 0.42* 0.56* 0.09 6. Anxiety 0.29* 0.43* 0.01 7. Intent 0.36* 0.45* 0.04 8. Individual efficacy -0.11 -0.01 -0.04 9. Collective efficacy 0.42* 0.56* -0.08 Mean 13.2 22.1 43.3 Standard deviation 6.1 8.0 9.0 Coefficient alpha 0.84 NA 0.87 N=143-154. *p< 0.05.
Low scores on the efficacy scales indicate high levels of efficacy beliefs.

-0.32* 0.30* -0.69* -0.08 -0.56* 14.2 3.3 0.87

0.48* 0.50* 0.14* 0.34* 11.1 3.7 0.84

0.14* 0.35* 0.37* 19.4 4.7 0.80

0.11 0.50* 2.7 1.4 NA

0.14* 23.3 7.5 0.84

25.6 7.8 0.79

Correlations among all variables are also presented in Table 1. As can be seen, intercorrelations among stressors and strains were moderate. One exception was the strong relation between job satisfaction and turnover intent (-0.69). Stressor-strain correlations were similar in magnitude to other studies in which these measures have been used (cf. Spector et al., 1988). Relations between stressors, strains, and the two efficacy measures are presented in the bottom two rows of the correlation matrix. As can be seen, individual efficacy was not significantly related to any of the three stressors. It was however, weakly related to frustration (0.14) and moderate related to anxiety (0.35). Low levels of individual efficacy beliefs are associated with high levels of frustration and anxiety. Collective efficacy was strongly related to both role ambiguity and situational constraints (0.42 and 0.56, respectively). Correlations between collective efficacy and psychological strains were all significant, ranging from -0.56 with satisfaction to 0.34 with frustration. As with individual efficacy, high levels of collective efficacy beliefs were associated with low levels of stressors and psychological strains.

Moderator analysis
Tests for the moderating effects of both individual and collective efficacy beliefs were carried out using cross-product regression procedures outlined by Cohen and Cohen (1983). Table 2 summarizes the moderator tests by showing the percentage of variance accounted for by each of the cross-product terms. As can be seen, individual efficacy had no moderating effects on any of the stressor-strain relations. Collective efficacy, however, moderated the relation between constraints and frustration and the relations between hours and three of the psychologi-

514

S. M. JEX AND D. M. GUDANOWSKI

cal strains (satisfaction, anxiety, intent). To further explore these moderating effects, regression lines for those one standard deviation above and those one standard deviation below the mean on collective efficacy were compared (Cohen and Cohen, 1983). This comparison revealed that situational constraints had a somewhat stronger relationship with frustration for those with high levels of collective efficacy. This represented a weak effect, although it must be noted that it was contrary to our predictions. Regression of both satisfaction and anxiety on hours, however, did show greater differences as a function of collective efficacy. For those with low levels of collective efficacy, regression slopes representing the effect of hours on satisfaction and anxiety were -0.20, and -0.29, respectively. For those with high levels of collective efficacy, slopes were 0.02, and -0.02, respectively. Regressions of intent on hours also differed as a function of collective efficacy, although this effect was quite small. The slope for those with low levels of collective efficacy was 0.06 compared to -0.02, for those with high levels of collective efficacy. Table 2. Varianceaccountedfor by each interactionterm relativeto the total varianceaccountedfor in eachstrainmeasure Strains Interactions 1. Role ambiguityx individual efficacy 2. Situational constraintsx individual efficacy 3. Hours x individual efficacy 4. Role ambiguityx collectiveefficacy 5. Situational constraintsx collective efficacy 6. Hours x collectiveefficacy Satisfaction 0.00/0.10* 0.00/0.17* 0.00/0.00 0.00/0.28*
0.00/0.31*

Frustration 0.02/0.22* 0.01/0.34* 0.00/0.01 0.01/0.22* 0.04*/0.36* 0.01/0.13*

Anxiety 0.01/0.21* 0.01/0.25* 0.00/0.08* 0.00/0.15* 0.01/020* 0.04*/0.17*

Intent 0.01/0.09* 0.00/0.16* 0.00/0.00 0.00/0.22* 0.00/0.25* 0.03t/0.23*

0.04t/0.344

N= 143-154.*p < O.O1, for by eachinteraction thevariance accounted tp < 0.05.Valuesto theleft of the slashrepresent term, values to the right represent the total varianceaccountedfor in each strainmeasureafter the two individual variables andinteraction wereentered into the regression equation.

Mediator analysis
In accordance with James and Brett (1984), the mediated regression analysis examined the change in the effect of stressors on strains when efficacy entered each regression equation. A separate test was done to assess the mediating effects of both individual and collective efficacy. Since mediator analysis assumes that the predictors (stressors) are correlated with the mediator (efficacy), we first examined this assumption. As shown in Table 1, individual efficacy was not correlated with any of the stressors, thus violating the assumption. Collective efficacy was significantly related to role ambiguity and situational constraints but unrelated to work hours. Table 3 represents the variance accounted for in each of the strain measures when individual and collective efficacy entered each equation after stressors. As can be seen, individual efficacy accounted for unique variance in anxiety, while collective efficacy accounted for a unique amount of variance in job satisfaction and intent. In addition to contributing unique variance, evidence of mediation is shown by a reduction in the effects of predictors when the mediator enters a regression equation. For anxiety, there

EFFICACY BELIEFS

515

Table 3. Summary of regression analysistestingfor the mediatingeffectsof both individualand collective efficacy Strains Satisfaction Frustration Anxiety Intent Strains Satisfaction Frustration Anxiety Intent
*p < 0.01.

Step 1 stressors 0.21* 0.38* 0.21* 0.19*

Incremental accounted for variance Step2 Individual efficacy 0.01 0.02 0.08* 0.02 for Incremental variance accounted Step 1- stressors Step2 collectiveefficacy 0.21* 0.13* 0.38* 0.00 0.21* 0.02 0.19* 0.08*

FinalmultipleR2 0.22* 0.40* 0.29* 0.21* FinalmultipleR2 0.34* 0.38* 0.23* 0.27*

was little change in the betas representing the effects of stressors after individual efficacy was entered into the equation. For satisfaction and intent, entering collective efficacy into the equation had little effect on the betas representing the effect of hours and role ambiguity. Neither of these betas were significantly different from zero when stressors entered the respective equations alone. The betas representing the contribution of situational constraints to the prediction of both job satisfaction and intent, however, were reduced considerably (-0.38, p < 0.05 to -0.17, p > 0.05 and 0.34, p < 0.05 to 0.18, p > 0.05, respectively). This is consistent with the fact that stressors did not contribute any unique variance to the prediction of either of these strains when entered after collective efficacy. Thus, collective efficacy could operate as a mediator of the relations between situational constraints and both job satisfaction and intent. It should be noted that these may not represent independent effects, since job satisfaction and intent were so strongly correlated (-0.69). Furthermore, since there was significant intercorrelation between all dependent variables, this could have caused redundancy in the analyses. One should also be cautious when interpreting the separate effects of role ambiguity and situational constraints since they were highly correlated (0.45).

Discussion
This study was designed primarily as an exploration of the possible role of self-efficacy beliefs in the work stress process. To do this, we initially wanted to determine whether self-efficacy was related to variables (stressors and strains) that are of interest to work stress researchers. Individual efficacywas moderately related to anxiety, weakly related to frustration, but unrelated to stressors. Collective efficacy was strongly related to two out of three stressors and all of the psychological strains, suggesting that it may be an important variable to be considered in work stress research (Brief and Aldag, 1981). As stated earlier, it has been suggested that efficacy is a moderator variable (Beehr and Newman, 1978), while others have implied that efficacy is a mediator (Brief and Aldag, 1981). Individual efficacy appeared to be neither a moderator or mediator. Collective efficacymoderated four of the stressor-strain relations. The strongest effects were on the relations between work hours and two of the four strain measures. Working long hours was associated with high levels of anxiety and low levels of job satisfaction when employees did not believe their departments were capable of doing their jobs well. Employees who believed their departments were capable

516

S. M. JEX AND D. M. GUDANOWSKI

of performing well did not appear to be adversely affected by long hours. It should be noted, however, that the moderator effects observed were quite modest. In addition, since collective efficacy was highly correlated with role ambiguity ad situational constraints, the test of the interaction between these stressors and collective efficacy was difficult to interpret (Zedeck, 1971). Both of these factors suggest that replication is needed before strong conclusions can be drawn with regard to the presence or absence of moderating effects. Mediator tests showed that individual efficacy again had no effect. Collective efficacy, however, mediated the relation between situational constraints and two of the strain measures (satisfaction and intent), suggesting that the most immediate result of situational constraints may be lowered collective efficacy beliefs, which may subsequently result in job-related strains. This makes intuitive sense because situational constraints are often experienced at the department level (Peters and O'Connor, 1980). Consider the following examples of situational constraints taken from Peters and O'Connor's scale ('other employees', 'your supervisor', 'interruptions by other people', 'inadequate help from others'). It is possible, however, that since collective efficacy and situational constraints were highly correlated (0.52), they may be confounded. This needs to be explored in further research. As with the moderating effects, this finding needs replication but suggests a possible explanatory mechanism for the effects of situational constraints. Another purpose of this study was to compare correlations involving individual and collective efficacy. As was shown, correlations involving collective efficacy beliefs were much stronger than those involving individual efficacy. In addition, the correlation between these two measures was.quite modest (0. 14), though statistically significant. These differences suggest that individual and collective efficacy may be reflecting different processes. Perhaps individual efficacy beliefs are more consistent across situations than collective efficacy beliefs, since a person's knowledge of their own ability is more extensive than their knowledge of the work group's ability. Further research and theorizing on differences between individual and collective efficacy is certainly needed before collective efficacy can be a useful construct in any research domain. This study presented evidence regarding the role of self-efficacy in the stress process and its results are encouraging enough to warrant further study of the topic. Research on occupational stress could currently use more guidance by theory, and self-efficacy theory could prove useful. Furthermore, beliefs regarding collective efficacy may be most useful. It is recommended that future research continue to explore the role of self beliefs in the stress process.

References
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Bandura, A. (1978). 'The self system in reciprocal determinism', American Psychologist, 33, 344-355. Bandura, A. (1982). 'Self-efficacymechanism in human agency', American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. Barling, J. and Beattie, R. (1983). 'Self-efficacy beliefs and sales performance', Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 5, 41-51. Beehr, T. A. and Bhagat, R. S. (1985). 'Introduction to human stress and cognition in organizations'. In: Beehr, T. A. and Bhagat, R. S. (Eds) Human Stress and Cognition in Organizations, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 3-19. Beehr, T. A. and Newman, J. E. (1978). 'Job stress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature review', Personnel Psychology, 31, 665-699. Beehr, T. A., Walsh, J. T. and Taber, T. D. (1976). 'Relationships of stress to individually and organizationally valued states: Higher order need strength as a moderator', Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 35-40. Brief, A. P. and Aldag, R. J. (1981). 'The "self" in work organizations: A conceptual review', Academy of Management Review, 6, 75-88.

EFFICACY BELIEFS

517

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D. and Klesh, J. (1979). 'The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire'. Unpublished manuscript. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Campbell, J. P. and Pritchard, R. D. (1976). 'Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology'. In: Dunnette, M. (Ed.) Handbook of Industrialand OrganizationalPsychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, pp. 63-130. Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/RegressionAnalysisfor the BehavioralSciences, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Cooper, W. H. and Richardson, A. J. (1986). 'Unfair comparisons', Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 179-184. Earley, P. C. and Lituchy, T. R. (1991). 'Delineation of goal and efficacy effects: A test of three models', Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 81-98. Garland, H. (1985). 'A cognitive mediation theory of task goals and human performance', Motivation and Emotion, 9, 345-367. Gist, M. E. (1987). 'Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management', Academy of Management Review, 12, 472-485. James, L. R. and Brett, J. M. (1984). 'Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation', Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 307-321. LaRocco, J., House, J. and French, J. (1980). 'Social support, occupational stress and health', Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 202-218. Lazarus, R. S. and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, Springer, New York. Peters, L. H. and O'Connor, E. J. (1980). 'The behavioral and affective consequences of performance-related situational variables', OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 25, 79-96. Riggs, M. L. (1989). 'The development of self-eficacy and outcome scales for general applications'. Paper presented at Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Convention, Boston, MA. Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. J. and Jex, S. M. (1988). 'Relations of job stressors to affective, health, and performance outcomes: A comparison of multiple data sources', Journal of Applied Psychology, 73,
11-19.

Spielberger, C. D. (1979). 'Preliminary manual for the State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI)'. Unpublished paper, University of South Florida, Tampa. Stumpf, S. A., Brief, A. P. and Hartman, K. (1987). 'Self-efficacyexpectations and coping with career-related events', Journal of VocationalBehavior, 31, 91-108. Taylor, M. S., Locke, E. A., Lee, C. and Gist, M. (1984). 'Type A behavior and faculty and research productivity: What are the mechanisms?' OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 34, 402-418. Zedeck, S. (1971). 'Problems with the use of "moderator" variables', Psychological Bulletin, 76, 295-3 10.