Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Psychology Review
http://opr.sagepub.com/
The AAA (appraisals, attributions, adaptation) model of job stress: The critical role
of self-regulation
Jeremy D. Mackey and Pamela L. Perrew
Organizational Psychology Review 2014 4: 258 originally published online 14 March 2014
DOI: 10.1177/2041386614525072
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://opr.sagepub.com/content/4/3/258
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for Organizational Psychology Review can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://opr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://opr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://opr.sagepub.com/content/4/3/258.refs.html
Organizational
Psychology
Review
Article
Abstract
The AAA model is presented as an integrative conceptualization of workplace stress that combines
research from multiple models and theories to account for the numerous complexities that
employees experience when cognitively evaluating organizational demands. The proposed model
examines the effects of employees organizational stressors on the cognitive appraisal process and
describes how employees emotions and self-regulation affect individual coping behaviors, adaptation, and learning from stressful experiences. Practitioner applications, theoretical contributions,
and directions for future research are presented.
Keywords
Adapting, appraisals, attributions, coping, emotion, self-regulation
259
Theoretical foundation
We briefly describe several prominent theories
and models of stress that have substantially
influenced thinking in the study of job stress,
and we utilize these frameworks as we develop
260
261
Positive
emotion
Pride
Excitement
Surprise
Personal
resources and
liabilities
Job resources
and liabilities
Self regulation
Challenge and
hindrance
organizational
stressors
Primary appraisal
Threat
Challenge
Unimportant
or irrelevant
Job strain
Attributions
Secondary
appraisal
Action
tendencies
Coping
behaviors
Health and
well-being
Negative
emotion
Guilt
Shame
Anger
Anxiety
Figure 1. The AAA model of job stress and the role of self-regulation.
262
The primary appraisal stage of the transactional model of stress is important in determining
how individuals will respond to perceived
demands. Accordingly, an event in the work
environment engages the cognitive appraisal
process (i.e., primary appraisal). The appraisal
is an evaluation of whether the event is a threat
to the individuals well-being, whether it is challenging, or if it can be dismissed as benign. At this
stage of the process, individuals rely upon a subjective assessment of whether the organizational
demand is relevant or irrelevant to their
well-being (Peacock, Wong, & Reker, 1993). If
the demand is deemed irrelevant and there is no
personal significance to employees health and
well-being, the cognitive evaluation process will
discontinue. If a relevant encounter with a
demand (e.g., person, event, or situation) is
thought to be harmful, threatening, or challenging
(Lazarus, 1994), the cognitive evaluation process
continues with individuals making attributions
about the relevant demand.
Research on occupational stress has
acknowledged the positive, as well as negative,
effects of stressors on performance (e.g., Lepine,
Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005) and employee
attitudes (e.g., Boswell, Olson-Buchanan, &
LePine, 2004). Perhaps the most detailed
account of positive versus negative stressors can be attributed to earlier notions of
opportunity versus threat characterizations
of workplace stimuli (Sutton & Kahn, 1986),
which have been updated and more specifically
defined in the hindrancechallenge occupational
stressor model (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling,
& Boudreau, 2000). Hindrance and challenge
stressors exist as realities of the workplace
(e.g., hindrance stressors include organizational
politics; challenge stressors include job overload). LePine et al. (2007) developed categories
of stressors they labeled hindrance and challenge; we include their typology in our model.
Hindrance stressors are those demands
generally appraised as threatening that trigger
negative emotions and constrain personal gain,
personal growth, personal development, and/
263
264
265
266
Coping behaviors
Coping reflects employees ever-changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to handle organizational demands that tax or exceed their
resources (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Coping
is process oriented, contextual, and there are no
assumptions about what represents inherently
good or bad coping. This means that coping
focuses on what employees think and do when
responding to and managing organizational
demands. Coping has two primary functions:
alter the employeeenvironment interaction
(i.e., problem-solving coping) and/or regulate
stressful emotions (i.e., emotion-focused coping).
Both require self-regulation.
Problem-solving forms of coping have been
shown to be used more often in situations where
individuals appraise that something can be done
to alter or change a negative and/or stressful
situation than when individuals appraise that
they cannot alter or change the negative and/
or stressful situation (Folkman & Lazarus,
1980, 1985). Specifically, when individuals
perceive some control over the situation, they
likely will engage in problem-solving coping.
Seeking information about what needs to be
done, changing ones own behavior, and taking
action on the environment are examples of
problem-solving coping efforts.
Emotion-focused coping typically is used when
individuals determine they have no means to
267
change the situation or if they do not have the ability or resources to effectively alter a situation (i.e.,
the stressor must simply be accepted; Folkman &
Lazarus, 1980). Emotion-focused coping efforts
include distancing and escape/avoidance of the
stressor, and emphasizing the positive (Folkman
& Lazarus, 1985). Such efforts allow the person
to avoid focusing on the troubling situation. If
individuals can use self-regulation and reappraise
stressors as nonthreatening (either through distancing or withdrawal), the cognitive basis of the
threat likely is removed (Lazarus, 1993).
Although problem-solving efforts attempt to
alter the situation in a positive way, emotionfocused coping alters only the way the individual interprets the situation. It is too simple to
argue that certain coping behaviors necessarily
are adaptive or maladaptive because the
response to the stressor is determined by expectations of whether a positive outcome will occur
(Eriksen, Murison, Pensgaard, & Ursin, 2005).
Next, we discuss aggression, effort, and withdrawal as three examples of typical behavioral
reactions to stressors at work.
Aggression. Workplace aggression has been
broadly conceptualized as any verbal or
physical behavior that is performed with the
intention to harm someone either physically or
psychologically (Baron & Richardson, 1994).
Although the determinants of aggression
sometimes are ambiguous and major acts of
workplace violence (e.g., attacks with weapons)
are uncommon, it is clear that the psychological
impact of workplace aggression is profound for
employees (Griffin & OLeary-Kelly, 2004).
Workplace aggression involves an externally
focused, negative affective reaction and includes
forms of nonviolent behaviors (e.g., stealing,
intentional work slowdowns, spreading rumors,
refusing to provide needed resources), as well as
hostile behaviors (e.g., attacks with weapons,
physical assault, threats of violence, vandalism;
Harvey, Summers, & Martinko, 2010). Individuals who experience a lot of negative emotions
(e.g., anger) will be likely to have an action
268
to some level of self-regulation. The outcomes of coping behaviors can and usually
will influence employees job strain, health,
and well-being, as well as future cognitive
appraisals. Specifically, the results of outcomes will influence employees reevaluations of the quality, quantity, and salience
of their personal and job resources.
269
Enhancing self-regulation
The least well understood aspect of selfregulation is how individuals replenish their
resource when self-regulation has depleted it.
There is some evidence that suggests rest is one
way to replenish the resource, as individuals
exhibit better self-control after a good nights
sleep (Baumeister & Tierney, 2011). Further,
asking people to think and write about the
things that are truly important to them appears
to offer some protection from ego depletion.
Experimental research has found that
self-affirmation prior to or immediately after
initial self-regulatory behaviors seems to prevent impaired performance on subsequent tasks
(Schmeichel, Vohs, & Baumeister, 2003).
Although there are some experimental studies
examining ways to replenish self-regulation,
we argue that there are personal and organizational resources that may help to either prevent
ego depletion or to enhance self-regulation
once depleted.
According to researchers in this area (e.g.,
Baumeister et al., 2007; Muraven et al., 1999),
self-regulation is similar to a muscle. Just as muscles tire from exertion and exercise, exercise also
will make muscles stronger. Regular exertions of
self-regulation actually can improve individuals
self-regulation over time and make them more
resistant to self-regulation depletion. Further,
efforts to control behaviors in one area, such as
exercising regularly, lead to improvements in
unrelated areas, such as studying and working
to meet deadlines (Baumeister et al., 2007). Thus,
although individuals may have to use self-
270
employees should perform the job, or employees are simply unsure of their role in the workplace, employees will not have a solid
performance standard. Conflicting standards is
one important source of self-regulatory breakdown (Baumeister et al., 1994). Thus,
resources, such as role clarity, should have a
positive association with self-regulation.
The second component of self-regulation is
the monitoring of ones behavior, which is an
essential component of self-regulation. Carver
and Scheier (1981) argued that the main
purpose of self-awareness was to facilitate
self-regulation; thus, the ability to accurately
assess and monitor behavior is critical for
self-regulation. Resources such as political skill
and self-monitoring should be directly associated with self-regulation. Further, success in
self-regulation is more likely when individuals
observe their own behavior, such as attention
to situations that might induce tension, so as
to anticipate them or avoid them in the future
(Baumeister et al., 1994).
The third component of self-regulation is
the capacity to regulate and make changes
to behaviors. As mentioned earlier, selfregulatory operations consume a limited
resource that operates like strength or energy
(Baumeister et al., 1994; Baumeister &
Heatherton, 1996). This provides an important
explanation for a number of empirical findings
and anecdotal observations that suggest that
after people exert self-control to regulate
some behavior, they seem vulnerable to selfregulatory breakdowns in other, and seemingly
unrelated, spheres.
For example, if employees are working
overtime and they are exhausted, they might
exhibit a number of behaviors indicative of poor
self-regulation (e.g., eating badly, becoming
angry easily, or neglecting personal grooming).
Simply arguing that stressors (i.e., working overtime) caused these behaviors is not precise
enough. Employees working overtime might be
utilizing most of their limited self-regulation
resource, leaving less left over for other
271
Discussion
Identical demands may evoke quite different
affective and behavioral responses from individuals attributing different meanings to the
same demand (Dewe, 1989). Employees with
differing amounts of personal resources may
make different appraisals, different attributions,
experience different emotions, and experience
contrasting levels of attitudinal and behavioral
responses and adaptations to the same demands.
We emphasize the role of self-regulation in the
stress process, and argue that self-regulation has
been an overlooked explanatory variable that
should be integrated into a cohesive theory of
occupational stress. The AAA model of job
stress combines research from multiple models
and theories to account for the numerous
complexities that employees experience when
cognitively evaluating organizational demands.
We examine how self-regulation may be the key
to understanding how and why employees
engage in positive and negative coping behaviors, as well as the impact these behaviors have
on job strain, health, learning, and adapting.
272
273
employees focus on making realistic and objective attributions (Harvey et al., 2010).
Further, interventions designed to enhance
personal and job resources may be particularly
powerful given the impact of resources on selfregulation. For example, ensuring employees
have the proper training may help their task
self-efficacy, which affects not only their
appraisal of organizational stressors, but also
their self-regulation. Making sure employees
have control over important aspects of their
work and have high-quality relationships with
others in the workplace are resources that
should affect self-regulation, which, in turn,
leads to positive coping behaviors. We argue
that job and personal resources are critical
for replenishing self-regulation, as well as
limiting self-regulation depletion. Through
self-regulation, these resources should help
employees to choose positive coping behaviors, which leads to less job strain and better
health and well-being.
Conclusion
We developed a comprehensive model depicting
the job stress process that illustrates how and why
responses to stressors can lead to negative as well
as positive outcomes for individuals. Further, we
examine the role of appraisals, attributions,
emotions, and resources as precursors to coping
behaviors. Most important, we emphasize the
role of self-regulation as a key explanatory
mechanism that has been overlooked in the organizational sciences, and we discuss some important next steps for theory and research on job
stress. We hope these ideas stimulate increased
interest in this important area of inquiry.
References
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Jensen, S. M. (2009). Psychological capital: A positive resource for combating employee stress and turnover. Human
Resource Management, 48, 677693.
274
Brown, J., & Dutton, K. A. (1995). The thrill of victory, the complexity of defeat: Self-esteem and
peoples emotional reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 712722.
Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at
psychological climate and its relationship to job
involvement, effort, and performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 81, 358368.
Campbell, J. P., & Pritchard, R. D. (1976). Motivation theory in industrial and organizational
psychology. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology (pp.
63130). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and
self-regulation: A control-theory approach to
human behavior. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V.,
& Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical examination of self-supported work stress among U.S.
managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
6574.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001).
Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale.
Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 6283.
Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J., & ODriscoll, M. P.
(2001). Organizational stress: A review and critique of theory, research, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cropanzano, R., Weiss, H. M., & Elias, S. M.
(2004). The impact of display rules and emotional labor on psychological well-being at
work. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.),
Research in occupational stress and well being.
Volume 3: Emotional and physiological processes and positive intervention strategies (pp.
4589). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Daniels, K., & Guppy, A. (1994). Occupational stress,
social support, job control, and psychological wellbeing. Human Relations, 47, 15231544.
Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2011). The job
demandsresources model: Challenges for future
research. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA
Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 37(2), 19.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demandsresources
275
276
277
other information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 3346.
Selye, H. (1955). Stress and disease. Science, 122,
625631.
Selye, H. (1976). The stress of life. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of
cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813838.
Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Emotion and
adaptation. In L. A. Pervin, (Ed.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (pp. 609637).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Spector, P. E., Chen, P. Y., & OConnell, B. J.
(2000). A longitudinal study of relations between
job stressors and job strains while controlling for
prior negative affectivity and strains. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85, 211218.
Sutton, R., & Kahn, R. L. (1986). Prediction, understanding, and control as antidotes to organizational stress. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of
organizational behavior (pp. 272285). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Tangney, J. P. (1990). Assessing individual differences in proneness to shame and guilt: Development of the self-conscious affect and attribution
inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 102111.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L.
(2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72,
271322.
Thompson, C. A., Poelmans, S. A. Y., Allen, T. D., &
Andreassi, J. K. (2007). On the importance of coping: A model and new directions for research on
work and family. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster
(Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well
being: Exploring the work and non-work interface
(Vol. 6, pp. 73113), Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Ursin, H. (1998). The psychology in psychoneuroendocrinology. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23,
555570.
Ursin, H., & Eriksen, H. R. (2004). The cognitive
activation theory of stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 29, 567592.
278
Author biographies
Jeremy D. Mackey is a PhD candidate in Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management at Florida State University. His current
research interests include interpersonal mistreatment, abusive supervision, job stress, and
attribution theory. Some of his research has
been published in the Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Journal of Business and Psychology,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, and The
Leadership Quarterly.