USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Understanding the relationships between interpersonal conflict at work, perceived control, coping, and employee well-being

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Understanding the relationships between interpersonal conflict at work, perceived control, coping, and employee well-being
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Eatough, Erin
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Occupational stress
Job stress
Problem-focused coping
Emotion-focused coping
Health
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: Stressors resulting from one's work life including work conditions, job characteristics, and relationships with others at work have been shown to impact employee health outcomes at both psychological and physical levels (Le Blanc, Jonge, & Schaufeli, 2008; Spector, Dwyer, & Jex, 1988). Interpersonal conflict is one prevalent workplace stressor that has been associated with poor work-related outcomes and psychological states. A cross-sectional design with multi-source data collection methods was used to measure conflict, perceptions of control, coping strategies, and both psychological and physical well-being. Overall, findings suggested that the success of coping efforts hinges on the combination of the nature of the stressor (conflict with supervisors vs. with a co-worker), perceptions of control over that stressor (high or low control), and coping strategy used (problem-focused or emotion-focused coping). This may explain at least to a certain extent why previous efforts to document the moderating effects of coping have been inconsistent, especially pertaining to emotion-focused coping
Thesis:
Thesis (MA)--University of South Florida, 2010.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Erin Eatough.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains X pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0004587
usfldc handle - e14.4587
System ID:
SFS0027902:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 007 cr-bnu---uuuuu
008 s2010 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0004587
035
(OCoLC)
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
XX9999 (Online)
1 100
Eatough, Erin.
0 245
Understanding the relationships between interpersonal conflict at work, perceived control, coping, and employee well-being
h [electronic resource] /
by Erin Eatough.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
2010.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains X pages.
502
Thesis (MA)--University of South Florida, 2010.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
3 520
ABSTRACT: Stressors resulting from one's work life including work conditions, job characteristics, and relationships with others at work have been shown to impact employee health outcomes at both psychological and physical levels (Le Blanc, Jonge, & Schaufeli, 2008; Spector, Dwyer, & Jex, 1988). Interpersonal conflict is one prevalent workplace stressor that has been associated with poor work-related outcomes and psychological states. A cross-sectional design with multi-source data collection methods was used to measure conflict, perceptions of control, coping strategies, and both psychological and physical well-being. Overall, findings suggested that the success of coping efforts hinges on the combination of the nature of the stressor (conflict with supervisors vs. with a co-worker), perceptions of control over that stressor (high or low control), and coping strategy used (problem-focused or emotion-focused coping). This may explain at least to a certain extent why previous efforts to document the moderating effects of coping have been inconsistent, especially pertaining to emotion-focused coping
590
Advisor: Chu-Hsiang (Daisy) Chang, PhD
653
Occupational stress
Job stress
Problem-focused coping
Emotion-focused coping
Health
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Psychology
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.4587



PAGE 1

Understanding the Relationships between Interpersonal Conflict at Work, Perceived Control, Coping, and Employee Well being by Erin M. Eatough A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Depa rtment of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Co Major Professor: Chu Hsiang (Daisy) Chang, Ph D Co Major Professor: Paul Spector, Ph D Kristen Salomon, Ph D Date of Approval: May 28 2010 Keywords: Occupational s tress, Job stress, Problem focused coping, Emotion focused coping, Health Copyright 2010 Erin M. Eatough

PAGE 2

Dedication This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Steve and Kay Eatough. Thank you for all your unconditional love, guidance, encourageme nt, and support.

PAGE 3

Acknowledgements I would like to offer my sincerest gratitude to my advisor Dr. Daisy Chang for all her invaluable insight, guidance, and support. I am privileged to work with her. I would also like to give heartfelt thanks to Dr. Paul Sp ector and Dr. Kristen Salomon for their suggestions, feedback, and support. Danesh Jaiprashad assisted in carrying out this project and his dedication and efforts have been much appreciated. I am also thankful for the important moral and instrumental suppo rt from Rheanna Ata and the unwavering encouragement from James Cooley

PAGE 4

i Table of Contents List of Tables iii List of Figures i v Abstract vi Chapter One Introduction 1 Interpersonal Conflict 8 Well Being 11 Interpersonal Conflict and Well Being 12 Control 1 6 Coping 22 Problem Focused Coping 2 2 Emotion Focused Coping 28 Conflict, Control, Coping and Well Being 30 Chapter Two Method 36 Participants and Procedure 36 Measures 37 Demographics 37 Interpersonal Conflict 38 Perceived Control 38 Coping 38 Anger, Anxiety, and Depression 39 Job Frustration 39 Job Satisfaction 40 Subjective Happiness 40 Physical Symptoms 40 Sleep Quality 41 Data Analysis 41 Chapter Three Results 42 Correlations 42 Focal Participant Ratings 43 Secondary Source Ratings 45 Regression Analyses 47 Chapter Four Discussion 54 Main Effects 55 Two Way Interactions 56

PAGE 5

ii Three Way Interactions 57 Problem Focused Coping 57 Emotion Focused Coping 58 Theoretical Implications 60 Practical Implications 64 Limitations 65 Conclusion 6 7 References 6 9 Tables 8 6 Figures 9 9 Appendices 108 Appendix A: Focal Employee Demographic Items 10 9 Appendix B: Interpersonal Conflict with Supervisor Scale Items 1 10 Appendix C: Perceived Control Specific to Interpersonal Conflict with Supervisor Scale Items 1 11 Appendix D: Coping with Interpersonal Conflict with Supervisor Scale Items 11 2 Appendix E: Interpersonal Conflict with Co Workers Scale Items 11 3 Appendix F: Perceived Control Specific to Interpersonal Conflict with Co Workers Scale Items 11 4 Appendix G: Coping with Interpersonal Conflict with Co Workers Scale Items 11 5 Appendix H: Anger, Anxiety, and Depression Scale Items 11 6 Appendix I: Frustration Scale Items 11 7 Appendix J: Job Satisfaction Scale Items 11 8 Appendix K: General Happiness Scale Items 11 9 Appendix L: Physical Symptoms Scale Items 1 20 Appendix M: Sleep Quality Scale Items 12 1 Appendix N: Secondary Source Demographic Items 12 2 Appendix O: Secondary Source Anger, Anxiety, and Depression Scale Items 12 3 Appendix P: Secondary Source Frustration Scale Items 12 4 Appendix Q: Secondary Source Job Satisfaction Scale Items 12 5 Appendix R: Secondary Source General Happiness Scale Items 126 A b o ut t he A ut ho r E nd P a g e

PAGE 6

iii List of Tables Table 1 Hypotheses 86 Table 2 Correlations between Focal Variables 88 Table 3 Summary of Findings with Focal Participants 89 Table 4 Summary of Findings with Secondary Source Participants 90 Table 5 Regress ion of Interpersonal Conflict with Supervisor, Perceived Control over the Conflict, and Problem Focused Coping on Depression 91 Table 6 Regression of Interpersonal Conflict with Supervisor, Perceived Control over the Conflict, and Problem Focused Copi ng on Job Frustration 92 Table 7 Regression of Interpersonal Conflict with Supervisor, Perceived Control over the Conflict, and Emotional Expression Coping on Depression 93 Table 8 Regression of Interpersonal Conflict with Supervisor, Perceived C ontrol over the Conflict, and Emotional Expression Coping on Job Satisfaction 94 Table 9 Regression of Interpersonal Conflict with Supervisor, Perceived Control over the Conflict, and Emotional Expression Coping on Physical Symptoms 95 Table 10 R egression of Interpersonal Conflict with Co Workers and Perceived Control over the Conflict on Happiness 96 Table 11 Regression of Interpersonal Conflict with Supervisor, Perceived Control over the Conflict, and Problem Focused Coping on Anger 97 Table 12 Regression of Interpersonal Conflict with Supervisor, Perceived Control over the Conflict, and Emotional Processing Coping on Anxiety 98

PAGE 7

iv List of Figures Figure 1 Model of the three way interaction between the experience of the stressor (i nterpersonal conflict with supervisor or interpersonal conflict with co worker), control, and coping strategy on well being 99 Figure 2 Graphical representation of the three way interaction between the experience of interpersonal conflict with supervi sor, perceived control over the conflict, and problem focused coping strategies on depressive symptoms as reported by the focal participant. 100 Figure 3 Graphical representation of the three way interaction between the experience of interpersonal con flict with supervisor, perceived control over the conflict, and problem focused coping strategies on job frustration as reported by the focal participant. 101 Figure 4 Graphical representation of the three way interaction between the experience of int erpersonal conflict with supervisor, perceived control over the conflict, and emotional expression coping strategies on depressive symptoms as reported by the focal participant. 102 Figure 5 Graphical representation of the three way interaction betwee n the experience of interpersonal conflict with supervisor, perceived control over the conflict, and emotional expression coping strategies on job satisfaction as reported by the focal participant. 103 Figure 6 Graphical representation of the three wa y interaction between the experience of interpersonal conflict with supervisor, perceived control over the conflict, and emotional expression coping strategies on physical symptoms as reported by the focal participant. 104 Figure 7 Graphical represent ation of the three way interaction between the experience of interpersonal conflict with supervisor, perceived control over the conflict, and problem focused coping strategies on anger as reported by secondary sources. 105

PAGE 8

v Figure 8 Graphical represen tation of the three way interaction between the experience of interpersonal conflict with supervisor, perceived control over the conflict, and problem focused coping strategies on job satisfaction as reported by secondary sources. 106 Figure 9 Graphi cal representation of the three way interaction between the experience of interpersonal conflict with supervisor, perceived control over the conflict, and problem focused coping strategies on anxiety as reported by secondary sources. 1 07

PAGE 9

vi Understan ding the Relationships between Interpersonal Conflict at Work, Perceived Control, Coping, and Employee Well being Erin M. Eatough Abstract characteristics, and relationships with oth ers at work have been shown to impact employee health outcomes at both psychological and physical levels (Le Blanc, Jonge, & Schaufeli, 2008; Spector, Dwyer, & Jex, 1988). Interpersonal conflict is one prevalent workplace stressor that has been associated with poor work related outcomes and psychological states. A cross sectional design with multi source data collection methods was used to measure conflict, perceptions of control, coping strategies, and both psychological and physical well being. Overall, f indings suggested that the success of coping efforts hinges on the combination of the nature of the stressor (conflict with supervisors vs. with a co worker), perceptions of control over that stressor (high or low control), and coping strategy used (proble m focused or emotion focused coping). This may explain at least to a certain extent why previous efforts to document the moderating effects of coping have been inconsistent, especially pertai ning to emotion focused coping

PAGE 10

1 Chapter One I n t r o d u c t i o n Underst anding the impact of work related stressors and employee health and well being has been a burgeoning field over the last two decades (Jex, 1998; Lazarus, 1991; includin g work conditions, job characteristics, and relationships with others at work have been shown to impact employee health outcomes at both psychological and physical levels (Le Blanc, Jonge, & Schaufeli, 2008; Spector, Dwyer, & Jex, 1988). Gaining knowledge on how work related stressors may contribute to employee well being may help organizations mitigate the negative impact of stressors and may facilitate the design of interventions aimed at training employees to best cope with workplace stressors. Stress is environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well Folkman po sit that stress lies in the relationship between the demands of the environment adequate levels of well being. Stress is a process in which there is an interaction between words, stress is produced via a sphere of processes that include appraisal of the environment in relevance to well ds of the

PAGE 11

2 environment. Stressors, or environmental factors bringing forth a response from the individual, may produce strain, which is defined as maladaptive responses to stressors (Jex, 2002). Strain, therefore, is a result of the stress process. Accordin (1979) job demand control model, which will be discussed in more detail later, strain occurs when high job demands combine with low control resulting in poor employee health. The stressor explored in the current study is interpersonal confl ict at work. Conflict at work is an important and pervasive workplace stressor. Interpersonal conflict represents the extent to which an employee has negatively charged social interactions with his or her co workers (Spector, 1987). Interpersonal conflict at work has been related to various behavioral, psychological, attitudinal, and physical health outcomes. On a behavioral level, interpersonal conflict has been associated with increases in counterproductive work behavior (Bayram, Gursakal, & Bilgel, 2009; Penney & Spector, 2005), absenteeism (Giebels & Janssen), and reduced job performance (Aquino & Bommer, 2003). For example, interpersonal conflict has been shown to have positive relationships with counterproductive work behaviors and in some cases, was f ound to be one of the strongest predictors of CWB out of a variety of other workplace stressors (Bayram, Gursakal, & Bilgel, 2009). The strain associated with interpersonal conflict at work has also been shown to be related to increased absenteeism (Giebel s & Janssen, 2005). Additionally, mistreatment between supervisors and their subordinates has been shown to negatively impact overall performance as well as extra role performance (Aquino & Bommer, 2003). Thus, conflicts at work have important ties to empl oyee behaviors relevant to organizations.

PAGE 12

3 Interpersonal conflict has also been associated with poor work related attitudes and psychological states such as job dissatisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intensions, negative emotions, and emotio nal exhaustion (Frone, 2000; Giebels & Janssen, 2005; Liu, Spector, & Shi, 2007; Spector & Jex, 1998). For example, Penney and Spector (2005) demonstrated interpersonal conflict to have a negative relationship with job satisfaction and this relationship wa s stronger for individuals with high negative affectivity. In another study with university employees, interpersonal conflict at work was positively related to negative emotions at work such as feeling furious, angry, f rightened, anxious, and disgusted as well as to job dissatisfaction and turnover intentions (Liu, Spector, & Shi, 2008). Similarly, in a sample of social services workers, interpersonal conflict at work was related to increased emotional exhaustion and turnover intensions. Third party support in conflict management mitigated the strength of these relationships (Giebels & Janssen, 2005). Using a structural equation model, Frone (2000) demonstrated that interpersonal conflict at work is predictive of lower job satisfaction and organizational com mitment, higher turnover intentions, and more depressive symptoms. In a meta analysis by Spector and Jex (1998), interpersonal conflict at work was found to be negatively related to job satisfaction ( r = .32) and positively related to turnover intentions ( r = .41). Thus, it seems that interpersonal conflict at work has important relationships to psychological and attitudinal outcomes. Moreover, physical health has been related to interpersonal conflict at work. Meta analytic results from Spector and Jex (1 998) demonstrated interpersonal conflict at work to be positively related to somatic symptoms ( r = .26). Corroborating evidence was reported in a study using a sample of 312 young workers where interpersonal conflict at

PAGE 13

4 work was positively associated with somatic complaints such as dizziness and headaches (Frone, 2000). In a recent study, interpersonal conflict at work was positively related to illness symptoms (e.g. upset stomach, headache, fever) using a sample of 764 telecommunications workers (Lazuras, Rodafinos, Matsiggos, Stamatoulakis, 2009). In sum, it appears that interpersonal conflict at work has meaningful relationships to behavioral, psychological, and somatic health outcomes. Furthermore, interpersonal conflict is a frequently encountered str essor at work. Keenan and Newton (1985) have proposed that interpersonal conflict may be the most important workplace stressor affecting organizations today. This notion is reflected in several taxonomies of job stressors which include turbulent interperso nal relationships at work (Kasl, 1998; Williams & Cooper, 1998). Grebner, Elfering, Semmer, Kaiser Probst, and Schlapbach (2004) found that social stressors, such as conflicts at work, comprised the most frequently reported category of workplace stressors in a diary event sampling study. Additionally, some work suggests direct interpersonal conflict at work may be a stressor more common in the United States than in other countries (Liu, Spector, & Shi, 2007). Thus, interpersonal conflict at work is a preva lent occupational stressor and has important relationships to a variety of organizational and employee outcomes. One potential moderator of the stressor strain relationship is coping. Coping can be defined as cognitive and behavioral efforts made to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The Cognitive Theory of Stress and Coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) incorporates coping into the transactional proce environment and reactions to that environment. Coping has generally been recognized as

PAGE 14

5 an important determinant of physical and psychological health outcomes (Penley, Tomaka, & Wiebe, 2002), but has been conceptualized in a variety of diff erent ways (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Roth & Cohen, 1986; Skinner, Edge, Altman, & Sherwood, 2003). The effects of various coping styles on well being have appeared to be contingent on the specific coping measures used (P enley et al., 2002), how well being was conceptualized and measured (Penley et al., 2002), the nature of the stressors (Havlovic & Keenan, 1995; Penley et al., 2002; Terry, Callan, & Sartori, 1996), the other resources available (e.g., social support; Penl ey et al., 2002), and individual characteristics ( Jex, Bliese, Buzzell, & Primeau, 2001; Keoske, Kirk, & Keoske, 1993 ). A large body of previous work has distinguished problem focused coping from emotion focused coping (Endler & Parker, 1999; Folkman, Laza rus, Gruen, & DeLongis, 1986; Folkman & Lazarus, 1984). Problem focused coping has been defined as purposeful task oriented efforts aimed at solving the problem, cognitively restructuring the problem, or attempts to alter the situation. The main emphasis i s on the task or planning, and on attempts to solve the problem (Endler & Parker, 1999). Emotion focused coping refers to self oriented efforts that aim at analyzing and dealing with emotional responses towards stressors (Endler & Parker, 1999). Problem a nd emotion focused coping may have different relationships with health and well being. Generally, problem focused coping has been suggested to be more adaptive, reducing the strength of the relationship between stressors and strains (Compas et al., 2001; P enley et al., 2002). On the other hand, emotion focused coping may be a less effective approach which has been shown to relate to enhanced negative emotional states (Gunthert, Cohen, & Armeli, 2002; Park, Armeli, & Tennen, 2004).

PAGE 15

6 The appropriateness of t he problem versus emotion focused coping conceptualization has been criticized for various reasons. First, a large portion of previous work has approached coping as a personality style or trait. This approach assumes that coping style can be measured like a trait without reference to any specific situation and assumes that individuals adopt a consistent coping strategy across stressors. Counter to this, recent work has proposed that coping is a process that is continually changing and coping responses will depend on the situation (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunke Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986). In two studies with structured interviews to understand how participants coped with stressors that they had experienced in the last five months, it was found that pattern s of coping varied within the same individual from one stressful experience to another (Folkman et al., 1986; Folkman et al., 1986). Second, the problem versus emotion focused coping conceptualization assumes that a single strategy will always be more a daptive than another. Problem focused coping has historically been accepted as more effective than emotion focused coping. However, some recent empirical work has suggested this is not the case. In fact, some work supports the idea that emotion focused cop ing is beneficial for well being. One study reported a positive relationship between emotion focused coping and positive affect in women ( Yamasaki & Uchida, 2006). In a longitudinal study, cognitive reinterpretations (classified as an emotion focused copin g style) at time 1 was shown to predict positive affect at time 2 ( Yamasaki, Sakai, & Uchida, 2006). In another study of incarcerated individuals, emotion focused coping by sharing negative emotions increased both psychological and physical well being (Van Harreveld, Van Der Pligt, Claassen, & Van

PAGE 16

7 Dijk, 2007). One review paper suggested that certain types of emotion focused coping strategies may have positive relationships with health (Worthington & Scherer, 2004). Additionally, some work suggests that pro blem focused coping is not always effective. In one study of hospice workers, it was found that reliance on problem focused coping strategies may increase the incidence of emotional exhaustion ( Sardiwalla, VandenBerg, & Esterhuyse, 2007). This study also suggested that emotion focused strategies, such as emotional support and positive reformulation, may be more effective. Thus, the conventional wisdom that problem focused coping is more adaptive than emotion focused coping may be challenged. Therefore, t his study adopts the orientation that because our environment is constantly changing, our coping strategies also change as we adapt to the characteristics of each stressful situation. Simply, the coping strategy used for various types of stressors may be d ifferent. Given the same individual, coping strategies may change based on the characteristics of the stressor. For this reason, a specific stressor is chosen (interpersonal conflict at work) and coping in relation to that specific stressor, rather than st ressors in general, will be measured. Because people may adopt different coping strategies on a situation specific basis, effectiveness of those strategies may depend on the characteristics of the stressor at hand. One characteristic that may have impor tant relationships with coping is perceived control. The effectiveness of coping may depend on level of perceived control. Specifically, certain types of coping strategies may be more effective when perceived control is high while other types of coping str ategies may be more effective when perceived control is

PAGE 17

8 low. However, little work has been conducted to simultaneously study coping and control in relation to the stressor strain relationship. Furthermore, perceived control may have direct effects on wel l being. The Job Demand Control (JDC) model posits that job control can buffer the effects of demands, or stressors, on employee strain (Karasek, 1979). Recent reviews on the JDC model have provided substantial evidence for the main positive effects of job control on well being (de Lange, Taris, Kompier, Houtman, & Bongers, 2003). Furthermore, research has supported the moderating effects of control on the stressor strain relationship. Empirical studies demonstrated that high levels of perceived control ove r stressors can reduce the negative relationships between stressors and health (Shirom, Toker, Berliner, & Shapira, 2008; Van der Doef, & Maes, 1998 ). Taken together, the purpose of the present study is to explore whether the interplay between coping an d control simultaneously moderate the stressor strain relationship. It may be the interaction between coping strategy and control that predicts how one work related stressor interpersonal conflict is related to well being. The next section outlines previou s literature regarding interpersonal conflict at work and the main effects of this stressor on well being. Following is a discussion of the role of control in this relationship and the way coping impacts this relationship. Lastly, the proposed model in whi ch the focal stressor interacts with perceived control and coping in predicting well being is presented. Interpersonal Conflict Occupational stressors are a major focus in occupational health psychology. Environmental stressors, job characteristics, and r elationships at work are potential

PAGE 18

9 sources of strain in organizational settings. By nature, humans are social beings. We are part of many different types of social networks in our lives such as our family, our schools, and our work organizations. We place value on these relationships and extract information about ourselves based on the dynamics of these relationships (Festinger, 1954). Generally speaking, group membership fulfills a basic need to create positive and continuing relationships with others (Bau meister & Leary, 1985). Therefore, it can be easily accepted that interpersonal relationships may have important relationships with our behavior, emotions, cognitions, and well being. While interpersonal relationships may influence us in positive ways, th ey may also have important negative effects (Berscheid & Reis, 1998), especially when conflict in these relationships arises. In fact, some research suggests that bad relationships may have even more impact on our lives than positive relationships (Bersche id & Reis, 1998). Conflict in relationships can undermine our sense of self (Fiske, 1992). In work positive social identities (Fiske, 1992). Interpersonal conflict may there fore be a stressor with reasonable potential of creating strains. Fiske (1992) proposed a general theory of social relations in which all dimensions of social relationships can be classified according to four elementary social models. One of these models i s a communal sharing model which seems to apply nicely to workplace relationships. In this type of relationship, individuals have a feeling of being united by a common identity. The focus in these relationships is on commonalities rather than individual id entities and participants in these relationships strive to treat each other as socially equivalent. Generally, individuals like and want to be liked by others who are similar to themselves. So, to the extent that

PAGE 19

10 relationships between coworkers reflect a c ommunal sharing model, interpersonal conflict at work is a potent stressor that can elicit strains and thereby having a negative impact one's psychological health and well being because it undermines one's sense of self, likability, and similarity to other s. Interpersonal conflict may also elicit strain through detriments to group efficacy. It is possible that increased interpersonal conflict may impact collective efficacy beliefs because agreement is unlikely when employees are experiencing high amounts o f conflict (Jex & Thomas, 2003). Furthermore, interpersonal conflict may detract from group interpersonal conflict generally has a negative effect on the performance of groups (Jehn, 1994). The detriment to collective efficacy and performance may subsequently elicit strain. Thus, when there is a high degree of interpersonal conflict, collective efficacy and performance may suffer and in turn produce strains in employees. It is worthwhile to consider that interpersonal conflict at work is becoming more interpersonal conflict with co workers. For the purposes of this study, interpersonal conflict with supervisors is defined as tension or disagreement within the employee supervisor relationship. Interpersonal conflict with supervisors can arise due to a variety of work related situations and behaviors such as lack of resources, work overload, fairness issues, role conflict or role ambiguity, and incorrect instructions on how to perform certain job tasks. Interpersonal conflict with co workers is defined as tension or disagreement within an employee co worker relationship. Interpersonal conflict with co workers may be due to d

PAGE 20

11 free riding behavior, competition, or differences in the goals of coworkers and is a prevalent problem. While the bulk of previous literature does not distinguish between conflict specific to co workers or supervisors, recent work suggests that the two types of conflict are qualitatively different, and each deserves research attention (Frone, 2000). Indeed, empirical evidence supports that interpersonal conflict at work is a significant occupat ional stressor that is related to deleterious outcomes for employers. In one meta analysis, interpersonal conflict at work was correlated both with organizational and personal psychological outcomes, including turnover intentions, absenteeism, and organiza tion commitment (Spector & Jex, 1998). Spector and Jex found that interpersonal conflict at work was positively related to turnover intentions ( r = .41). Similarly, Frone (2000) found that interpersonal conflict with supervisors predicted diminished organ izational commitment and an increased intention to leave the job. Gierbels and Janssen (2005) reported that interpersonal conflict was positively related to absenteeism and turnover intentions. Thus, interpersonal conflict is an important occupational stre ssor which may influence important organizational outcomes. Next, a discussion of how this stressor may influence employee outcomes, such as well being is presented. Well Being As mentioned earlier, interpersonal conflict is considered as a stressor and i s being because of its potential to undermine our sense of self, damage our positive social identities, and reduce collective efficacy beliefs. In the current study, well sychological and physical health, and is conceptualized as having a psychological component

PAGE 21

12 (depression, anger, anxiety, and frustration), an attitudinal component (job satisfaction and happiness), and a physical component (physical symptoms and sleep qual ity). In the following sections, I will review literature examining the relationships between interpersonal conflict and these three components of well being. Interpersonal Conflict and Well being Occupational stress and well being is a relationship tha t has been widely studied in occupational health psychology. In line with this, the present study approaches stress from an organizational psychology perspective, which focuses on psychosocial sources of strain and how they are cognitively appraised (Jex, 2002). Previous literature has reported relationships between interpersonal conflict at work and employee well being. Both psychological and physical well being can be affected by interpersonal conflict (Frone, 2000; Lazuras, Rodafinos, Matsiggos, & Stama toulakis, 2009; Spector & Jex, 1998) and hostile work environments (Keashly & Harvey, 2005). First, I will review the literature linking conflict at work with psychological and attitudinal well being and then the literature surrounding interpersonal confli ct at work and physical well being. Some work has shown that frequent interpersonal conflicts or bullying experiences with supervisors and colleagues can have a significant impact on the levels of perceived stress (Chen & Spector, 1991; Frone, 2000; Hoel, Faragher, & Cooper, 2004; Mikkelsen & Einarsen, 2002). Indeed, many studies have shown interpersonal conflict at work to be a predictor of poor psychological outcomes (Chen & Spector, 1991; Lazuras, Rodafinos, Matsiggos, & Stamatoulakis, 2009; Spector, 19 87).

PAGE 22

13 First, depressive symptoms may increase as a result of interpersonal conflict at work. The meta analysis by Spector and Jex (1998) reported significant relationships between interpersonal conflict and well being. Interpersonal conflict at work was positively related to depression ( r = .38). In a sample of Dutch social service workers, interpersonal conflict at work was positively related to emotional exhaustion (Giebels & Janssen, 2005). Corroborating findings were reported in another study in which both inter and intra group conflict was positively associated with depressive symptoms (Nakata et al., 2007). In one study using a sample of Japanese employees, a variety of job stressors, including role conflict, role ambiguity, job control, job require ments, workload and responsibility, and interpersonal conflict, were measured. Amongst the female employees, interpersonal conflict was the most significant factor relating to clinical depression (Ogiwara, Tsuda, Akiyama, & Sakai, 2008). Furthermore, Heini sch and Jex (1997) used a sample of employees from various occupations and organizations to show a significant positive correlation between interpersonal conflict at work and work related depression. Other components of psychological well being have been associated with interpersonal conflict at work as well, namely frustration, anxiety, and anger (Chen & Spector, 1991; Spector, 1987). In a study using 400 employees from various organizations, Chen and Spector (1991) reported that interpersonal conflict a t work was a significant predictor of increased levels of both frustration and anger. Similarly, Spector (1987) found significant positive correlations between interpersonal conflict at work and anxiety and frustration levels. Thus, various dimensions of e motional and mental health are measured in the current study, specifically, depression, anger, anxiety, and frustration.

PAGE 23

14 Interpersonal conflict at work may also impact job attitudes. In one study using a sample of 136 clerical employees, Spector (1987) fou nd significant positive correlations of interpersonal conflict at work with job dissatisfaction. In line with this, another recent study by Penney and Spector (2005) obtained ratings from both university employees and their co workers regarding interperson al conflict experienced by the primary employee. Results showed that job satisfaction was negatively related to interpersonal conflict at work, regardless of rater. However, in another multi source study using employee and supervisor ratings, only interper sonal conflict as reported by employees was related to job satisfaction (Spector, Dwyer, & Jex, 1988). Yet, in a meta analysis by Spector & Jex (1998), interpersonal conflict was negatively related to job satisfaction ( r = .32). While less work has been d one connecting interpersonal conflict at work to general happiness or satisfaction with life, previous work has demonstrated that other types of workplace stressors are related to such variables (Hayes & Weathington, 2007). Thus, it is reasonable to expect that interpersonal conflict at work may have important ties to various satisfaction levels and as such, measures of both job satisfaction and general happiness are included in this study. Interpersonal conflict at work can have meaningful relationships wi th physical health outcomes as well. In a recent study by Lazuras, Rodafinos, Matsiggos, and Stamatoulakis (2009), interpersonal conflict as reported by a sample of telecommunication workers, was a stronger predictor of illness symptoms, such as frequencie s of upset stomach, headache, fever, than was organizational constraints or quantitative workload. In line with this, Spector (1987) found significant positive correlations of interpersonal conflict at work with physical symptoms such as headache,

PAGE 24

15 stomach issues, or chest pain when assessed over a short time period (30 days). Chen and visits employees reported in the prior three months, as well as physical symptoms such a s upset stomach or nausea. In a meta analysis by Spector and Jex (1998), significant positive relationships between interpersonal conflict and somatic symptoms were reported ( r = .26). In the current study, physical symptoms similar to those measured in pr ior work are assessed in order to further understand the relationship between conflict at work and somatic complaints. As well as physical symptoms of stress, sleep quality may be affected by interpersonal conflicts at work. Nakata et al. (2004) reported t hat in a sample of white collar workers, those with high intra group conflict had a significantly increased risk for insomnia after adjusting for multiple confounding factors. Similarly, in a large sample of male employees across multiple companies, employ ees with high amounts of interpersonal conflict at the workplace had significantly increased risk of sleep related breathing disturbance after adjusting for potential confounders (Nakata et al., 2007). Thus, sleep related health issues may be an important outcome related to interpersonal conflict at work and sleep quality is thus measured to better understand this relationship. Some work has suggested that interpersonal conflict with co workers and interpersonal conflict with supervisors may have different relationships with well being outcomes (Frone, 2000). Approaching interpersonal conflict at work as two distinct dimensions, namely interpersonal conflict with supervisors and interpersonal conflict with co workers, may yield different results. Therefore, interpersonal conflict is studied as two separate stressors in this study. This leads to the first set of hypotheses:

PAGE 25

16 Hypothesis 1: Interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a positive relationship with (a) depression, (b) anger, (c) anxiety, and (d) frustration. Hypothesis 2: Interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a positive relationship with (a) depression, (b) anger, (c) anxiety, and (d) frustration. Hypothesis 3: Interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a negative relation ship with (a) job satisfaction and (b) happiness. Hypothesis 4: Interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a negative relationship with (a) job satisfaction and (b) happiness. Hypothesis 5: Interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a positi ve relationship with physical symptoms. Hypothesis 6: Interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a positive relationship with physical symptoms. Hypothesis 7: Interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a negative relationship with sleep qualit y. Hypothesis 8: Interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a negative relationship with sleep quality. Control Control is one major factor commonly studied in stress research. Control over stressful situations at work has been shown to be importan t for a variety of work outcomes including both performance and well being (Dwyer & Ganster, 1991; Jex, ). Control may also

PAGE 26

17 moderate stressor strain relationships such that stressors can lead to more negative reactions when people believe they lack control over the stressful situation (Jex, 1998). Lack of control over occupational stressors has been shown to increase poor work outcomes such as burnout (Lourel, Abdellaoui, Chevaleyre, Paltrier, & Gana, 2008), counterproductive work behaviors (Tucker et al., 2009), poor health behaviors such as exercise (Payne et al., 2002), and psychological variables such as depression (Ghorbani, Krauss, Watson, & LeBrenton, 2008). Thus, perceived control is an important variable to consider when exploring the relationships between stressors and well being. One popular model applied to research surround this concept is the J ob Demands Control (JDC) Model proposed by Karasek (1979). This JDC Model incorporates hypotheses about physical, psychological, and performance outcomes. There are two central hypotheses to this model: the learning hypothesis and the strain hypothesis. Th e learning (or activity) hypothesis of the JDC Model posits that learning is a result of situations characterized by both high demand and high control. This type of combination creates active work. When employees have active jobs or work, they can use the energy required for high demands to effectively solve problems due to also having high levels of control over the demands. As a result, employees learn, develop skills, gain mastery, and are more productive. On the other hand, passive work, or work chara cterized by low demand and low control, results in reduced motivation and productivity due to rigid environmental conditions. The strain hypothesis of the model is more relevant to well being predictions and the strain hypothesis of the model has commonl y been applied to examine links between work stress and poor health in both epidemiological studies (De Bacquer et al., 2005) and

PAGE 27

18 occupational health studies (De Croon et al., 2004; Fox et al., 1993). The strain hypothesis proposes that both negative psych ological outcomes (e.g., anxiety, anger) and adverse health related outcomes (e.g., physical pains, poor sleep quality) result from demanding stressors combined with low control. Strain can result from the interactive effects of job demands and the amount of control over the job. Specifically, the theory hypothesizes that in order to minimize strain, job demands should be matched to job control such that when job demands are high, job control should equally be high. High job control allows employees to adap t to demands by having the ability to adopt appropriate behavioral response patterns, or exercise the most effective coping strategies. If the demands of a job occur in parallel with high job control then incumbents are thought to be able to cope actively with the challenges, protecting them from strain and leading to improvements in well being. However, while high control might provide the opportunity for active or problem focused coping, this may not necessarily be the actual coping strategy used. The JDC Model recognizes the importance of control for effectively managing occupational stressors, but there may also be importance in the match between level of control and type of coping strategy employed for determining how the event will impact well being. I will return to this idea in the following section. Empirical work surrounding stressor, control, and well being has provided a substantial evidence of the importance of control the stressor strain relationship (De Croon et al., 2004; Fox et al., 1993). Co ntrol is often thought to play a more important role in the stressor strain relationship when demand, or the severity of the stressor, is high. Some studies have found non significant interactions between demand and control (Holman & Wall, 2002; Taris, Sch reurs, & Van Iersel Van Silfhout, 2001), but control

PAGE 28

19 has generally been shown to be a buffer against the detrimental effects of stressors on well being (Dwyer & Ganster, 1991; Payne et al., 2002). In one experimental study, Hutt and Weidner (1993) presente d participants with a simulated job and manipulated the amount of control participants had by allowing them to choose the type of work they were to complete (verbal, analytical, or numerical). Demand was also manipulated through imposing either a three min ute time limit (high demand) or no time limit (low demand). High control was found to be associated with lower frustration and helplessness and, in females, lower systolic blood pressure. Additionally, low control and high demand groups experienced increas ed diastolic blood pressure, frustration, and anxiety. This supported that control had important effects on psychological and physical health outcomes. In a longitudinal field study of newly hired machine operators and office technicians, employees reporti ng high demand and low control at their job had a significant increase in the amount of health complaints over time. In contrast, the groups reporting high demand and high control had a significant decrease in health complaints over time (Taris & Feij, 200 4). These findings highlight the importance of control for potentially reducing the impact of high stress on physical health. In another study using Dutch truck drivers, job control had significant main effect on psychosomatic health complaints and an inte raction between job control and job demands also emerged in predicting physical symptoms (De Croon, Van Der Beek, Blonk, & Frings Dresen, 2000). However, some work suggests that additional moderators may play a role in how control serves as a buffer in s tressor strain relationships. For example, other factors such as the availability of social support (Johnson & Hall, 1988), individual differences (Meier, Semmer, Elfering, & Jacobshagen, 2008), and coping styles (de Rijk, Le Blanc,

PAGE 29

20 Schaufeli, & de Jonge, 1998; Ippolito, Adler, Thomas, Litz, & Holzl, 2005; Parker & Sprigg, 1999; Parkes, 1991; Schaubroeck, Jones, & Xie, 2001; Schaubroeck & Merritt, 1997) may influence whether control matters for mitigating the relationship between stressors and health. This body of work indicates that control may only serve as a buffer when other specific factors are taken into consideration. This idea will be explored further in the following section. Karasek (1979) conceptualized job control as including decision authority (e.g., job control as onment for research using more specific variables and more clearly defined variables has previously been put forth to better capture the effects of control. This is esp ecially important for translating the research results into specific practical recommendations for organizations (Jones, Bright, Searle, & Cooper, 1998). Therefore, in the current work, two specific occupational stressors (interpersonal conflict with super visors and interpersonal conflict with co workers) are examined and perceived control specific to each of these situations is measured. The definition of control in this study is more aligned with Ganster (1989) and represents the real or perceived ability to change or alter the environment or situation in order to reduce the presence of the stressor itself. With that, the second set of hypotheses is presented:

PAGE 30

21 Hypothesis 9: Perceived control over interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a negativ e relationship with (a) depression, (b) anger, (c) anxiety, and (d) frustration. Hypothesis 10: Perceived control over interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a negative relationship with (a) depression, (b) anger, (c) anxiety, and (d) frustratio n. Hypothesis 11: Perceived control over interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a positive relationship with (a) job satisfaction and (b) happiness. Hypothesis 12: Perceived control over interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a positiv e relationship with job satisfaction and happiness. Hypothesis 13: Perceived control over interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a negative relationship with physical symptoms. Hypothesis 14: Perceived control over interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a negative relationship with physical symptoms. Hypothesis 15: Perceived control over interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a positive relationship with sleep quality. Hypothesis 16: Perceived control over interpersonal confl ict with co workers will have a positive relationship with sleep quality. Hypothesis 17: There will be a significant two way interaction between interpersonal conflict and control on all strain outcomes. More specifically, perceived control will reduce rel ations between interpersonal conflict and well being, such that the conflict well being relationship will be weaker when employees perceive high versus low control

PAGE 31

22 Coping In addition to control, coping may also play a significant role in the stress proc ess. Coping can be defined as cognitive and behavioral efforts made to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The Cognitive Theory of Stress and Copi ng (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) incorporates coping into the transactional process between awareness and appraisal of stressors in the environment. When presented with a stressor, two kinds of appraisals are made: primary and secondary. Primary appraisal arises when being such as a threat to self esteem or health. In secondary appr aisal, the person evaluates what, if anything, can be done to reduce the presence of the stressor or prevent any harm that may result from the stressor. In secondary appraisal, coping strategies are evaluated and selected given the conditions of the stress or and the resources available. These coping strategies (i.e. changing the situation, seeking more information, changing being and could depend on the type of strategy used. A discussion of the two main categories of coping follows. Problem focused coping. Coping has been proposed to have two major functions: dealing with the problem that is causing the distress, a concept termed problem focused coping, and/or regulating emotion, termed emotion focused coping (Folkman et al., 1986; Folkman & Lazarus, 1984). Specifically, problem focused coping has been defined as purposeful task oriented efforts aimed at solving the problem,

PAGE 32

23 cognitively r estructuring the problem, or attempts to alter the situation. The main emphasis is on the task or planning, and on attempts to solve the problem (Endler & Parker, 1999). Emotion focused coping describes emotional reactions that are self oriented and focuse d on managing emotions surrounding stressors. One conceptualization divides emotion focused coping into two dimensions: emotional processing and emotional expression (Stanton, Danoff Burg, Cameron, Bishop, Collins, Kirk et al., 2000). Emotional processing consists of understanding and validating emotional states in response to a stressor whereas emotional expression consists of letting emotions out or venting. However, many other conceptualizations of coping have been proposed. There are many attempts to r educe the total number of possible coping responses to a parsimonious set of coping styles. Some researchers have come up with dimensions such as instrumental, attentive, or vigilant coping on the one hand, in contrast to avoidant, palliative, and emotiona l coping on the other (Parker & Endler, 1996; Schwarzer & Schwarzer, 1996). One of the more popular approaches was put forth by Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989). This group developed a set of 15 coping strategies with dimensions such as acceptance, po sitive reinterpretation and growth, behavioral disengagement, humor, and religious coping. However, Carver and colleagues recommend no particular way of generating a dominant coping style from these various dimensions and suggest each coping style scale be looked at individually rather than comparing across scales. Other work has proposed that coping styles should be based on action types. Action types are higher order classes of actions with a common motivation underlying that action such as problem solvin g, support seeking, escape, distraction, and positive cognitive restructuring (Skinner, 2003). Still other distinctions include

PAGE 33

24 dichotomous conceptualizations of coping. For example, coping has been broken into approach (responses that bring the individual in closer contact with the stressful encounter) versus avoidance (responses that allow the individual to withdraw) coping (Roth & Cohen, 1986). However, some researchers have suggested that avoidant coping is the sum of strategies aimed at escaping from t he pressures of the stressful situation (Carver, Scheier, & Pozo, 1992) and a plausible argument may be that avoidance is not a true form of coping at all. In fact, avoidance coping may be dysfunctional because it may lead to the creation of other stressor s. For example, mental and physical disengagement may detract from an employee's job performance, which itself may eventually become a stressor. Another dichotomous approach to coping styles distinguishes primary control coping (change the stressor through problem solving or emotion regulation) from secondary control coping (facilitate adaptation to stress via acceptance or cognitive restructuring; Rothbaum, Weisz, & Snyder, 1982). This conceptualization fits well with on between problem and emotion focused coping. Clearly, many different approaches for conceptualizing coping styles have been proposed and as of now, no universal approach has been adopted. The position taken on coping in this study is that coping is a process and may be different within individuals given different stressors. Coping will be approached as a construct that is stressor specific, rather than a stable trait that will be applied to all stressors in general. While considering the multiple conc eptualizations of coping reviewed above, a large portion of modern coping research has been profoundly influenced by Lazarus and and emotion focused coping. While

PAGE 34

25 some work has criticized the broad dichotomy of problem and emotion focused coping (Compas, Connor Smith, Saltzman, Thomsen, & Wadsworth, 2001; Skinner, 2003), the purpose of the research at hand must be considered when determining what conceptualization to use (Lazarus, 1995). This conceptualizatio n is best suited for the current study for three reasons. First, the purpose of this study is to explore how particular coping strategies may be more effective given various levels of perceived control. Given the novelty of studying these particular relati onships, a well established conceptualization may be appropriate. Next, using problem and emotion focused coping is a common way to approach coping styles and will allow results to easily integrate into the previous literature. Finally, well established s cales for problem and emotion focused coping that can easily be modified to reference interpersonal conflict at work are readily available. Using a well established scale will help defend the reliability and validity of the tool, especially considering th e fact that the items will be adjusted slightly to suit interpersonal conflict specifically. Given the approach to coping adopted for this study, I will next discuss the body of literature surrounding coping and well being and then previous research exp loring coping, control, and well being relationships. There has been much work suggesting that coping is directly related to well being (Compas et al., 2001). Lazarus and Folkman (1984) suggested that once an event is appraised as being stressful, coping b ehaviors are employed in order to lessen the impact the stressor has on well being. Although no coping style is universally effective, research tends to support the efficacy of problem focused coping in terms of improving physical and mental health outcom es (Compas et al., 2001; Penley et al., 2002). For example, in occupational stress

PAGE 35

26 research, negative relationships between problem focused coping and the experience of various types of dissatisfaction and work related strain have been reported (Aryee, Luk Leung, & Lo, 1999; Lapierre & Allen, 2006). Aryee and colleagues (1999) found that in a sample of 243 Chinese respondents, problem focused coping was positively correlated with job, family, and life satisfaction but emotion focused coping did not have a significant correlation with any satisfaction variables. In another study using a sample of 400 police officers, active coping (a collection of responses centered on taking action to reduce the presence of the stressor, similar to problem focused coping) p ositively related to job satisfaction and escapist (avoidant) coping was positively related to psychosomatic complaints (Burke, 1998). Problem focused coping with stressors at work was positively related to mental health in a study of New Zealand nurses (C hang et al., 2007). In a study about unemployment uncertainty, problem focused coping strategies were related to lower perceived stress (Mantler, Matejicek, Matheson, & Anisman, 2005). Problem focused coping has also been shown to positively relate to posi tive emotional states on a day to day basis (Dunkley, Zuroff, & Blankstein, 2003; Gunthert, Cohen, & Armeli, 2002; Park et al., 2004). Problem focused coping strategies may therefore have beneficial effects on well being. Before presenting the next set o f hypotheses, it is worthwhile to note that this study adopts the notion that there will be variance among how individuals cope with a specific stressor. In addition, there will be variance in how one individual copes with different stressors. However, for this study, coping with a specific stressor is assumed to be generally stable within individuals. Terry (1994) has demonstrated that an individual is more likely to use the coping methods for a stressor that were used in response to

PAGE 36

27 similar stressors in t he past. Based on this, measuring coping strategy in relation to a specific stressor has value because individuals likely employ the same methods given multiple encounters with the same stressor. This line of thought leads to the next set of hypotheses: H ypothesis 18: Problem focused coping with interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a negative relationship with (a) depression, (b) anger, (c) a nxiety, and (d) frustration. Hypothesis 19: Problem focused coping with interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a negative relationship with (a) depression, (b) anger, (c ) anxiety, and (d) frustration. Hypothesis 20: Problem focused coping with interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a positive relationship with (a) job satisfaction and ( b) happiness. Hypothesis 21: Problem focused coping with interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a positive relationship with (a) job satisfaction and (b) happiness Hypothesis 22: Problem focused coping with interpersonal conflict with supervisor s will have a negative relationship with physical symptoms. Hypothesis 23: Problem focused coping with interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a negative relationship with physical symptoms. Hypothesis 24: Problem focused coping with interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a positive relationship with sleep quality.

PAGE 37

28 Hypothesis 25: Problem focused coping with interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a positive relationship with sleep quality. Emotion focused coping. Research on emotion focused coping has been less cohesive. Variants of emotion focused coping have been shown to relate positively to negative emotional states (Gunthert et al., 2002; Park et al., 2004) and psychological states (Kolenc, Hartley, & Murdock, 1990). How ever, as mentioned earlier, other work has not found the same relationships. For example, some studies report a positive relationship between emotion focused coping and positive affect ( Yamasaki et al., 2006; Yamasaki & Uchida, 2006). Additionally, Dunkley and colleagues (2003) found that emotion focused strategies had no relationship to negative affect. In contrast, other work supports the notion that emotion focused strategies may lead to poorer well being. Kolenc and colleagues (1990) found that mildly depressed individuals used more emotion focused coping than non depressed individuals. A study that measured coping strategies in 100 lawyers found that greater use of emotion focused coping was associated with greater levels of anxiety. However, this stud y found that this relationship was not significant for depression (Callan, Terry, & Schweitzer, 1994). A study examining a group of urban bus and tram drivers found positive relationships between emotion related stress, psychosomatic complaints, and exhaustion (Khlmann, 1990). Along these same lines, emotion focused coping was found to contribute to negative work experiences in a group of 527 police officers (Hart, Wearing, & Headey, 1995). In an experimental study, Sideridis (2006) presented undergraduate students with the situation of a job interview. Results indicated that the use of emotion focused coping was

PAGE 38

29 associated with heightened negative emotions. Moreover, in a sample of technolog y workers, emotion focused coping strategies were related to higher reported strain in relation to job uncertainty (Mantler et al., 2005). Emotion focused coping has also been studied in relation to health outcomes. For example, one quasi experimental stud y found emotion focused coping to impact sleep. Undergraduates who used more emotion focused coping reported less sleep that they were able to obtain sleep during high stress periods (Sadeh, Keinan, & Daon, 2004). Additionally certain dimensions of emotio n focused coping have been shown to have stronger relationships with health than others. In particular, some work shows that emotional expression (letting feelings out or expressing feelings) may be more strongly tied to well being than emotional processin g (acknowledging and validating feelings internally; Spiegel, Bloom, Kraemer, & Gottheil, 1981; Spiegel, Bloom, & Yalom, 1981). Inconsistency in the literature about the relationship between emotion focused coping and well being makes hypothesis formulati on difficult. However, it seems that there may be slightly stronger evidence suggesting emotion focused coping to have detrimental effects on well being. Based on this, the following hypotheses are put forth: Hypothesis 26: Emotion focused coping with inte rpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a positive relationship with (a) depression, (b) anger, (c) anxiety, and (d) frustration. Hypothesis 27: Emotion focused coping with interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a positive relationship wit h (a) depression, (b) anger, (c) anxiety, and (d) frustration.

PAGE 39

30 Hypothesis 28: Emotion focused coping with interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a negative relationship with (a) job satisfaction and (b) happiness. Hypothesis 29: Emotion focused coping with interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a negative relationship with (a) job satisfaction and (b) happiness. Hypothe sis 30: Emotion focused coping with interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a positive relationship with phy sical symptoms. Hypothesis 31: Emotion focused coping with interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a positive relationship with physical symptoms. Hypothesis 32: Emotion focused coping with interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a negat ive relationship with sleep quality. Hypothesis 33: Emotion focused coping with interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a negative relationship with sleep quality. Confl ict, Control, Coping, and Well B eing While the effects of control on the stre ssor strain relationship and the effects of coping strategy on the stressor strain relationship have been studied in two different lines of research, little work has been done looking at the interactive effects of control and coping together in predicting strain related outcomes. Furthermore, much of the research in the areas of control and coping has produced discrepant findings, making it hard to synthesize the conclusions into a coherent understanding of the roles both control and coping play. For exampl e, a review by Van der Doef and Maes (1998) found that control served as a buffer against the detrimental effects of stressors in only half of the studies

PAGE 40

31 reviewed and sometimes only in specific subsamples. It is plausible that the reason for the divergent results across studies is because control and coping are not included and considered within the same model. For example, some experimental studies have demonstrated that high levels of control may actually be detrimental for well being. This is a notion w idely different from much of the empirical pursuits and this discrepancy may be stem from a disregard for coping method used. In one study, Rau (1996) manipulated control by assigning high control shift leader positions to study participants. Results indic ated that those subjects with high control positions had lower perceived success on the assigned work tasks. These subjects also had elevated blood pressure and heart rates during the experiment. It is possible that the reason high control did not serve as a buffer in this study was because coping style of the shift leaders was not simultaneously considered. If subjects generally felt problem focused coping methods were not appropriate in this scenario and only coped through emotion focused methods, then th ere would be incongruence between the level of control and the most adaptive coping style, thus resulting in poorer outcomes. Furthermore, Hockey and Earle (2006) used a simulated office task in which control over the work schedule was manipulated. Results indicated that high control was associated with higher anxiety, again a counter intuitive finding given the large amount of work in support of control as a buffer. Interestingly, however, in a second study Hockey and Earle found that training in the effec tive use of work scheduling control reversed the relationship such that with training, control was beneficial for employees (Hockey & Earle, 2006). It could be argued that providing the training allowed employees to employ more problem focused coping strat egies to deal

PAGE 41

32 with the demands of the work tasks. In this case, a match between level of control and coping strategy arose, thus mitigating the effects the stressors had on well being. In fact, some work has found interactions between demand and control only for subgroups of the population such as individuals high in active coping (de Rijk et al., 1998). De Rijk et al. found that job control was only able to buffer the relationship when an active coping style was used. In another study using a military sample, job control moderated the relationship between demands and psychological health during deployment but only when soldiers used active coping. This effect remained significant af ter controlling for general psychological health at predeployment (Ippolito et al., 2005). Generally, a combination of high control and active or problem focused coping strategies seems to lead to the best outcomes. One explanation may be that when employe es have high levels of control, they actually have the ability to effectively change or reduce the presence of the stressor. This would make problem focused methods effective. If control is high and strategies geared at reducing the stressor itself are use d, reducing the stressor itself is possible. However, when employees have low levels of control, using problem focused methods may not be as adaptive because changing the situation is less feasible, and so the relationship between conflict and well being w ill reflect a typical negative relationship. In the case that problem focused methods are used, but control is low, individuals may feel a sense of frustration, helplessness, and increases in strains because their efforts to cope are not effectively reduc ing the stressor. Furthermore, low problem focused coping in combination with low control provides little opportunity at all to change or reduce the stressor and is also expected to result in a strong negative

PAGE 42

33 relationship between conflict and control. Whe n low problem focused coping is used in combination with high control, the opportunity to change the situation exists but the appropriate strategies to do so are not being used, thus a similarly strong negative relationship between conflict and well being is expected. Thus, it is only the case of problem focused coping strategies coupled with high perceived control that it is expected to minimize the detrimental relationship between stressor and well being outcomes. In other words, the relationship between interpersonal conflict and well being will be weaker when problem focused coping strategies are used and control is high, as opposed to any other combination (high control and low problem focused coping, low control and high problem focused coping, or low control and low problem focused coping). The hypotheses regarding problem focused coping reflect this notion. The hypothesized effects regarding emotion focused coping are somewhat different. In situations where emotion focused coping methods are used and perceived control over the stressor is low, employing coping strategies geared toward changing levels of emotion focused strategies may be well suited for the s ituation of low perceived control because employees are less able to change the external environment, but their internal state or orientation to the stressor is more malleable. In this case, emotion focused strategies are adaptive. Therefore, when high lev els of emotion focused coping are used and control is low, the relationship between interpersonal conflict and well being will be weak. On the other hand, a combination of high emotion focused coping and high control may cause additional frustration, anxie ty, or strain because the opportunity to change the situation is present but the strategy to cope with the conflict is

PAGE 43

34 not producing an external change. In this case, the opportunity to change the conflict (given high perceived control) is wasted by using emotion focused coping and is expected to result in the strongest negative relationship between interpersonal conflict and well being. When employees use low levels of emotion focused coping and perceive high control, a similarly strong negative relations hip between conflict and well being is expected to emerge because the ability to change the situation is present but very little coping efforts are being made. Low levels of emotion focused coping coupled with low control is also expected to preserve the n egative relationship between conflict and well being as low control leaves little opportunity to change the external situation and no efforts to manage internal states are being made. Thus, weak relationships between the stressor and strains will only resu lt when high problem focused coping is coupled with high control or high emotion focused coping is coupled with low control. As such, a three way interaction between the presence of the stressor (interpersonal conflict with supervisors or with co workers) perceived control over the stressor, and coping strategy used for the stressor is expected to emerge. Figures 1 represents a schematic model to summarize the relationships among the focal variables. Hypothesis 34: There will be a three way interaction be tween interpersonal conflict with supervisors, control, and problem focused coping in the prediction of well being outcomes. More specifically, high perceived control will mitigate relations between interpersonal conflict with supervisor and well being onl y among employees who also report use of problem focused coping methods for this stressor.

PAGE 44

35 Hypothesis 35: There will be a three way interaction between interpersonal conflict with co workers, control, and problem focused coping in the prediction of well be ing outcomes. More specifically, high perceived control will mitigate relations between interpersonal conflict with co workers and well being only among employees who also report use of problem focused coping methods for this stressor. Hypothesis 36: There will be a three way interaction between interpersonal conflict with supervisor, control, and emotion focused coping in the prediction of well being outcomes. More specifically, low perceived control will mitigate relations between interpersonal conflict w ith supervisor and well being among employees who also report use of emotion focused coping methods for this stressor. Hypothesis 37: There will be a three way interaction between interpersonal conflict with co workers, control, and emotion focused coping in the prediction of well being outcomes. More specifically, low perceived control will mitigate relations between interpersonal conflict with co workers and well being among employees who also report use of emotion focused coping methods for this stressor

PAGE 45

36 Chapter Two Method Participants and Procedure Participants were recruited through approved advertisement in the surrounding community of a large US city and through a large southeastern university. Inclusion criteria for this study included that p articipants be employed at least 20 hours a week for pay. Participants had to be at least 18 years old. Three hundred seventy four focal participants were recruited into this study. Two hundred sixty two of the focal participants were female, 87 were male and 25 did not identify themselves. Focal participants were on average 21.1 years old ( SD = 4.2). Also, a majority of the participants (54%) were Caucasian, with 17% of the sample being Hispanic or Latino, 17% African American, and the remaining 12% bein g of other ethnicities. Most of the participants (54%) indicated that they worked in the retail or service industry, with the second highest representation being in professional positions such as accounting or legal services (9%). The average number of hou rs worked was reasonably high 23.7 ( SD = 9.2). Average tenure for the job the focal participant currently held was 1.8 years ( SD = 1.8). Participants were asked to physically come to the designated research lab or classroom to receive their study packet. The packet included detailed instructions, informed consent, and information assuring participants that their data would be

PAGE 46

37 anonymous and kept confidential. Participants were given instructions for completing the consent document and the survey. Once the s urvey was completed, participants were asked to give the mail in secondary source survey to a person with whom a close personal relationship was held (significant other or best friend). Participants were provided with the secondary source cover letter, sur vey, and a pre addressed and postage paid envelope that could simply be dropped in any USPS mail box upon completion. Second source reported the psychological well being measures and the job and happiness measures of the focal participants. In some cases, course credit was offered for the focal participants. Secondary source packets were provided to all 374 focal participants. One hundred and sixty one secondary source packet s were returned resulting in 161 matched pairs of data and yielding a response rate of 43%. Forty three percent of the secondary source participants were romantic significant others. Forty four percent were friends of the focal participant. The remaining 1 3% identified themselves as having some kind of kindred relationship to the focal participant such as sibling or cousin. Eighty four of the secondary source participants were female, 71 were male, and 6 did not identify themselves. Also, a majority of the participants, 66%, were Caucasian, with 15% of the sample being Hispanic or Latino, 10% African American, and the remaining 9% being of other ethnicities. Measures Demographics. Demographic variables collected included gender, age, ethnicity, tenure, and work hours. Please see Appendices A and N for items.

PAGE 47

38 Interpersonal conflict. Interpersonal conflict at work was assessed by the Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale (Spector & Jex, 1998). The original scale has 4 items, and will be reworded to assess con flict with supervisors and coworkers the proposed project. Participants indicated how well they get along with others at work using a 5 point Likert type scale (1 = Less than once per month or never; 5 = Several times per day). The scale score is the mean of the responses for the items corresponding to supervisors and coworkers. Internal consistency reliability was .77 for scales pertaining to both supervisor and co workers. Please see Appendices B and E for items. Perceived control. Perceived control ov er interpersonal conflict with supervisors and with co workers was measured using four adapted items from the Work Control scale developed by Dwyer & Ganster (1991). Items included personally have over the quality of your relations hip with your supervisor/co workers, How much can you control when and how much you have to interact with your supervisor/co workers at work, How much are the interactions between you and your supervisor/co workers predictable, and, In general, how much ov erall control to do you have over resolving conflict between you and your supervisor/a co Participants responded on a 5 point Likert type scale (1 = Very little; 5 = Very much). The scale score is the mean of the responses for the items. The in ternal consistency for this scale was .80 when supervisors were the referent and .83 when co workers were the referent. Please see Appendices C and F for items. Coping. Coping strategy for both interpersonal conflict with supervisor and interpersonal conf lict with co workers was measured using the problem focused coping items from Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS) scale (Endler & Parker,

PAGE 48

39 focused coping (15 items) was assessed on a 5 point Likert type scale from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Very much). The scale score is the mean of the responses for the items on each coping scale. Coefficient alpha for problem focused coping items was .88 when supervisors were the referent and .93 when co workers were the referent. For em otion focused coping, the Emotional Approach Coping Scale (Emotional Processing and Emotional Expression) was used (Stanton, Kirk, Cameron, & Danoff Burg, 2000). For the Emotional Processing scale, coefficient alpha was .85 when supervisors were the refer ent and .84 when co workers were the referent. For the Emotional Expression scale, coefficient alpha was .92 when supervisors were the referent and .93 when co workers were the referent. Please see Appendices D and G for items. Anger, anxiety, and depress ion. and depression (6 items) was assessed by three subscales from the Brief Symptom Inventory 18 (Derogatis, 2003). Second source data was also obtained on this scale. Response choices ranged from 1 (never anger, anxiety, and depression scores were calculated by finding the mean of the responses to the corresponding items. The internal consistencies for anger, anxiety, and depression were .88, .63, .83, res pectively when focal participants provide self reports. The internal consistencies for anger, anxiety, and depression were .82, .57, .89, respectively when secondary sources provided the reports. Please see Appendices H and O for items. Frustration. Parti obtained on this scale. The 3 item scale asks participants to rate their frustration at work

PAGE 49

40 using a 5 point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree). The coefficient alpha value was .79 when rated by focal participants and .74 when rated by secondary Please see App endices I and P for items. Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was assessed with the 3 item scale from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979). Second source data was also obtained on this scale. A 5 p oint Likert scale was the response format. Coefficient alpha was .86 when for both focal participants and calculated by averaging their responses to the items. Please see A ppendices J and Q for items. Subjective happiness. Subjective happiness was assessed with a 4 item scale, the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS; Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999). Second source data was also obtained on this scale. A 7 point Likert scale was the response format. The coefficient alpha was .83 when focal participants provided the ratings and .81 when secondary sources provided the rating. Please see Appendices K and R for items. Physical symptoms. Physical symptoms were measured by a shortened 13 item Participants were asked to indicate how often each physical symptom had occurred in the past three months. Response choices ranged from 1 (less than once per month or neve r) to averaging responses to the items. Coefficient alpha for the scale was .82. Please see Appendix L for items.

PAGE 50

41 Sleep quality. Sleep quality was assessed using the Pittsbu rgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI; Buysse, Reynolds, Monk, Berman, & Kupfer, 1989). This scale uses subjective ratings of sleep quality, sleep latency, sleep duration, habitual sleep efficiency, sleep disturbances, use of sleeping medication, and daytime dysfu nction over the last month to measure overall sleep quality. The range of scale scores for this measure is 1 to 21, with higher scores representing poorer sleep quality. The alpha for this scale was .56. Please see Appendix M for items. Data Analysis All primary data analysis was conducted using SPSS software. Data was checked for completeness and accuracy. Outliers were assessed before analyses were run, but no data was eliminated. Hypotheses 1 16 and 18 33 were tested using bivariate two tailed correlati ons and hypotheses 17 and 34 37 were tested using moderated multiple regression analysis following the recommendations of Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003).

PAGE 51

42 Chapter Three Results The results of this study are presented in four sections. First, correlations between focal participant reports and secondary source reports of well being measures are presented. Next, hypothesized correlational results for Hypotheses 1 16 and 18 33 are presented when dependent variables were rated by the focal particip ants, followed by secondary source rated dependent variables. Lastly, simple regression and moderated multiple regression results for Hypotheses 17 and 34 37 are presented for both focal participant ratings and secondary source ratings of well being. No si gnificant relationship was found between demographic variables (i.e., gender, age, and tenure) and any of the dependent variables; therefore, they were not entered as control variables. The secondary sources will from this point forward be interchangeably Correlations Intercorrelations among all variables are presented in Table 2. Relationships between well being levels as reported by the focal participants were significantly related to well being levels as reported by the significant others. Relationships were moderate to strong [depression ( r = .47, p < .001), anger ( r = .42, p < .001), anxiety ( r = .22, p < .01), job frustration ( r = .38, p < .001), job satisfaction ( r = .52, p < .001) and happiness ( r =

PAGE 52

43 .46, p < .001 )]. This indicates agreement concerning the well being of the focal participants among the sources. Focal participant ratings. Correlations reported below are shown in Table 2. Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported in that interpersonal conflict with superviso rs had significant positive relationships with levels of depression ( r = .40, p <.001), anger ( r = .38, p < .001), anxiety ( r = .16, p < .05), and job frustration ( r = .31, p < .001). Similarly, reports of interpersonal conflict with co workers had signifi cant, positive relationships with depression ( r = .31, p <.001), anger ( r = .18, p < .001), anxiety ( r = .32, p < .04), and job frustration ( r = .20, p < .001). Hypothesis 3 was fully supported as interpersonal conflict with supervisors had significant neg ative relationships with job satisfaction ( r = .27, p < .001) and happiness ( r = .15, p < .001). However, interpersonal conflict with co workers was only significantly related to job satisfaction ( r = .19, p < .001) and not to happiness, lending partial support for Hypothesis 4. Hypotheses 5 and 6 were fully supported as conflict with supervisors ( r = .19, p < .001), as well as with co workers ( r = .23, p < .001), were positively related to physical symptoms. Neither interpersonal conflict with superviso rs nor with co workers was related to overall sleep quality, providing no support for Hypotheses 7 and 8. Perceived control over conflicts with a supervisor was negatively related to levels of depression ( r = .30, p <.001), anger ( r = .20, p < .001), anx iety ( r = .19, p < .001), and job frustration ( r = .27, p < .001), providing full support for Hypothesis 9. Perceived control over conflicts with co workers was negatively related to levels of depression ( r = .24, p <001), anxiety ( r = .14, p < .01), and job frustration ( r = .14, p < .01), but not to anger, providing partial support for Hypothesis 10. Hypotheses 11 and 12

PAGE 53

44 received partial support as perceived control over conflicts with both a supervisor and co workers were significantly, positively r elated to job satisfaction ( r = .28, p < .001; r = .28, p < .001) respectively, but were not related to happiness. Perceived control over either type of conflict was unrelated to physical symptoms, and therefore Hypotheses 13 and 14 were unsupported. Contr ol over interpersonal conflict with neither supervisors nor co workers was related to overall sleep quality, providing no support for Hypotheses 15 and 16. Problem focused coping with interpersonal conflict with a supervisor was negatively related to depr ession ( r = .20, p < .001) and job frustration ( r = .17, p < .01), but unrelated to anxiety and anger, providing partial support for Hypothesis 18. The same pattern of results was found for problem focused coping with interpersonal conflict with co work ers as it was negatively related to depression ( r = .23, p < .001) and job frustration ( r = .14, p < .01), but not to anxiety or anger. Thus, only partial support for Hypothesis 19 was found. In line with Hypothesis 20, problem focused coping with confli ct with a supervisor was positively associated with job satisfaction ( r = .23, p < .001) and happiness ( r = .13, p < .05). Supporting Hypothesis 21, problem focused coping with conflict with co workers was positively associated with job satisfaction rating s ( r = .22, p < .001) and happiness ( r = .15, p < .01). No support for Hypothesis 22 or 23 was found as neither problem focused coping with conflict with supervisors nor with co workers was related to reports of physical symptoms. Similarly, no support for Hypothesis 24 or 25 was found as neither problem focused coping with conflict with supervisors nor with co workers was related to sleep quality.

PAGE 54

45 Emotion focused coping to manage interpersonal conflict with supervisors was unrelated to depression, anxiety anger, or job frustration with the exception of emotional processing strategies being positively related to reports of depression ( r = .11, p < .05). Thus, minimal support for Hypothesis 26 was found. Emotion focused coping to manage interpersonal confli ct with co workers was also unrelated to depression, anxiety, anger, or job frustration, again with the exception of significance for emotional processing strategies being negatively related to reports of depression ( r = .10, p = .05). Thus, minimal suppor t for Hypothesis 27 was found. Emotional processing to cope with conflict with supervisors ( r = .10, p < .05) and co workers ( r = .10, p = .05) was positively related to happiness. The direction of this relationship was opposite to expectations. No other significant relationships between emotion focused coping and job satisfaction or happiness emerged. Thus, Hypotheses 28 and 29 were not supported. No relationships between emotion focused coping and physical symptoms or sleep quality emerged. Thus, Hypoth eses 30 33 were not supported. Secondary source ratings. Hypotheses 1 and 2 were partially supported when the well being dependent variables were reported by the secondary sources. Interpersonal conflict with supervisors was also significantly related to other reports of anxiety ( r = .15, p <.05), anger ( r = .18, p < .05), and job frustration ( r = .15, p = .05) but relationships with significant other reports of depression ( r = .15, p = .06) was only marginally significant. Interpersonal conflict with co w orkers was only significantly related to other reports of depression ( r = .16, p <.05), but not to anxiety, anger, or job frustration. Interpersonal conflict with supervisors had a significant negative relationship with job satisfaction ( r = .28, p < .001 ), but Hypothesis 3 only gained partial support as the

PAGE 55

46 relationship between conflict with supervisors and happiness was marginally significant ( r = .14, p = .07). Similarly, the relationship between interpersonal conflict with co workers and job satisfact ion was just above the significance level ( r = .15, p = .055). There was no significant relationship between interpersonal conflict with co workers and happiness. Hypothesis 4 was therefore partially supported. Because physical symptoms and sleep quality were not measured using secondary source reports. Hypotheses 5 9 and 22 25 cannot be tested with secondary source data. Neither perceived control over conflicts with supervisors nor perceived control over conflicts with co workers were related to secondary source reported levels of depression, anger, anxiety, or job frustration. Similarly, neither perceived control over conflicts with supervisors nor with co workers was significantly related to job satisfaction or happiness. Thus, no support for Hypotheses 9 12 was found using the secondary source ratings. Problem focused coping with interpersonal conflict with supervisors and co workers was negatively related to depression ( r = .25, p < .01; r = .27, p < .001) and anger ( r = .21, p < .05; r = .19, p < 05) respectively, but unrelated to anxiety and job frustration providing only partial support for Hypotheses 18 and 19. Problem focused coping with conflict with supervisors was positively associated with job satisfaction as rated by significant others ( r = .24, p < .01), but not to happiness. Thus, only partial support of Hypothesis 20 was found using the secondary source ratings. Similarly, problem focused coping with conflict with co workers was positively associated with job satisfaction as rated by sig nificant others ( r = .17, p < .05), but not to happiness, again lending only partial support for Hypothesis 21.

PAGE 56

47 Emotion focused coping to manage either kind of interpersonal conflict was unrelated to secondary source ratings of depression, anxiety, anger, job frustration, job satisfaction and happiness, lending no support for Hypotheses 26 29. Regression Analyses Following the recommendations of Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken (2003), scale scores of the three focal predictors were first centered and then the centered scores were used to calculate interaction terms. Hypothesis 17 proposed a significant two way interaction between interpersonal conflict and control on all well being outcomes such that high perceived control would buffer relations between int erpersonal conflict and well being. Unfortunately, no support for this hypothesis using the focal participant ratings was found. However, reported in Table 10 was a significant two way interaction between interpersonal conflict with co workers and perceive d control in predicting happiness levels as rated by significant others ( = .26, p < .05). As predicted, conflict was related to lower happiness score when employees perceived low control ( = .19, p < .05), whereas it had a marginally positive relationship with happiness when perceived control was high ( = .32, p = .07). T hus, this pattern supported Hypothesis 17. All other hypotheses regarding interactions concerned three way interactions. Hypothesis 34 proposed a three way interaction between interpersonal conflict with supervisor perceived control over the conflict, an d problem focused coping on employee well being. Specifically, it was expected that when problem focused coping is high, interpersonal conflict with supervisor will have a stronger relationship with well being for those who reported low versus high perceiv ed control. Support for this hypothesized

PAGE 57

48 effect was found for self rated depression and job frustration, and other rated anger. In particular, a significant three way interaction emerged between interpersonal conflict with supervisors, perceived control o ver the conflict, and problem focused coping ( = .21, p < .01) for depression levels (see Table 5) such that high perceived control buffered the relationship between conflict and depression when high levels of problem focused coping was used. Simple slope tests (Cohen et al., 2003) indicated that in terpersonal conflict with supervisors has a nonsignificant relationship with depression for participants who were high in both problem focused coping and control related to this stressor ( = .11, ns ). This is in line with expectations. Furthermore, partic ipants who reported any other combination of problem focused coping and control for this stressor had a significant, positive regression line slopes between conflict and depression (.32 < s <.52, ps < .001). Significance testing of line slopes (Dawson & R ichter, 2006) was conducted to demonstrate the relative difference between regression lines. As specified in the original hypotheses, the effect of perceived control given high problem focused coping on the strength of the conflict well being relationship was the core of the three way interaction hypothesis. Thus, it is expected that when problem focused coping was high, conflict with supervisors should have a stronger, positive relationship with depression for those who perceived low versus high control ov er such conflict. This pattern was supported as these two slopes were marginally significantly different ( t = 1.77, p = .076), suggesting that when employees adopted problem focused coping, high perceived control over the conflict with supervisors buffere d against an increase in depression symptoms at work. Figure 2 illustrated the three way interaction effect.

PAGE 58

49 Furthermore, Table 6 reported a significant three way interaction between interpersonal conflict with supervisors, perceived control over that conf lict, and problem focused coping for job frustration levels ( = .18, p < .05). Consistent with Hypothesis 34, a match between high perceived control and high levels of problem focused coping is most advantageous. Simple slope tests indicated that interpe rsonal conflict with supervisors has a nonsignificant relationship with job frustration for participants who were high in both problem focused coping and control related to this stressor ( = .001, ns ), as expected. Furthermore, participants who reported a ny other combination of problem focused coping and control had a significant, positive regression line slopes between conflict with supervisors and job frustration (.26 < s <.38, ps < .02). Significance testing of line slopes demonstrated that when proble m focused coping was high, conflict with supervisors should have a stronger, positive relationship with job frustration for those who perceived low versus high control over such conflict. This pattern was supported as these two slopes were significantly di fferent ( t = 2.12, p < .05). As illustrated in Figure 3, high perceived control only buffered relations between interpersonal conflict with supervisors and job frustration when high problem focused coping strategies were also employed Lastly, a marginal ly significant three way interaction between conflict with supervisors, perceived control, and problem focused coping was found when secondary source reports of anger were used as the dependent variable ( = .18, p = .07) Results are presented in Table 1 1. However, while the interaction term approached significance, s imple slope tests demonstrated that that no combination of problem focused coping and control resulted in a regression line slope that was significantly different from zero and

PAGE 59

50 no statistical ly significant differences between slopes were found. A graphical representation of the interaction can be found in Figure 7. In sum, partial support for Hypothesis 34 was obtained. No significant three way interactions emerged with interpersonal conflict with co workers, perceived control, and problem focused coping when focal participant ratings or secondary source ratings were used. Thus, no support for Hypothesis 35 was found. Hypothesis 36 proposed a three way interaction between interpersonal conflic t with supervisors, control, and emotion focused coping in the prediction of well being outcomes. More specifically, when employees used high levels of emotion focused coping, conflict would have a stronger relationship with well being for those who percei ved high vs. low control. In other words, when high levels of emotion focused coping were used, low control would mitigate the stressor strain relationship. Support for this hypothesized effect was found for self rated depression, job satisfaction, and phy sical symptoms as well as other rated job satisfaction and anxiety. In particular, a significant three way interaction emerged between interpersonal conflict with supervisor, perceived control over that conflict, and use of emotional expression in coping ( = .16, p < .05) for depression levels. Please see Table 7. Simple slope tests indicated that interpersonal conflict with supervisors has a significant, positive relationship with depression for all combinations of emotion focused coping and control (.29 < s <.62, ps < .03). However, a comparison of slopes indicated that when emotional expression coping is high, interpersonal conflict with supervisors had a stronger relationship with depression ( t = 2.18, p < .05) when employees perceived high versus low control, as expected. As shown in Figure 4, high perceived control did not buffer against an increase in depression

PAGE 60

51 symptoms associated with conflict with supervisors at work when high emotion expression coping is used. Additionally, as reported in Table 8, a three way interaction between interpersonal conflict with supervisors, perceived control, and emotional expression coping ( = .23, p < .01) was found to predict job satisfaction. Simple slope tests indicated that interpersonal conflict with supervisors has a significant, positive relationship with job satisfaction when high levels of emotion focused coping is paired with hig h levels of control ( = .39, p < .01), but not with low control ( = .02, ns ). Furthermore, conflict with supervisor has a significant, negative relationship with job satisfaction when low levels of emotion focused coping is used in combination with lo w perceived control ( = .22, p < .01), but not with high control ( = .08, ns ). A comparison of slopes indicated that when emotional expression coping is high, high levels of perceived control result in the strongest relationship between interpersonal c onflict with supervisors and job satisfaction ( t = 1.69, p = .09). In other words, when high emotion expression coping is employed and a high level of control was perceived, the relationship between conflict with supervisors and job satisfaction was negat ive, but the relationship was not significant with low levels of control, as shown in Figure 5. This pattern was in line with expectations. Similarly, a significant three way interaction was found for interpersonal conflict with supervisors, perceived con trol over that conflict, and use of emotional expression in coping ( = .16, p < .05) for reports of physical symptoms, as shown in Table 9. Interpretation of the pattern in Figure 6 suggests that, as expected, high perceived control did not buffer the pos itive relationship between conflict with supervisors and physical

PAGE 61

52 symptoms when high emotion expression coping was used. The simple slope tests indicated that interpersonal conflict with supervisors has a significant, positive relationship with physical sy mptoms when high levels of emotion focused coping is paired with high levels of control ( = .36, p < .01), but not with low control ( = .02, ns ). Furthermore, conflict with supervisors has a significant, positive relationship with physical symptoms when low levels of emotion focused coping is used in combination with low perceived control ( = .18, p < .05), but not with high control ( = .14, ns ). A comparison of slopes was conducted to specifically test the hypothesis when high levels of emotion focused coping strategies are used, high levels of control will enhance the relationship between conflict and physical symptoms; however, no significant differences between slopes emerged. In regards to the findings with secondary source reports, a marginally significant three way interaction emerged between interpersonal conflict with supervisor, p erceived control over that conflict, and use of emotional expression in coping ( = .21, p = .06) for job satisfaction levels, as shown in Table 8. Simple slope tests indicated that interpersonal conflict with supervisors has a significant, negative relationship with job satisfaction when high levels of emotion focused coping are us ed with either high levels of control ( = .76, p < .001) or low levels of control ( = .31, p < .05), but slopes did not differ from zero when low emotion focused coping was used ( .07 < s < .09, ns ). However, a comparison of slopes was conducted to s pecifically test the hypothesis when high levels of emotion focused coping strategies are used, high levels of control will result in a greater detriment to job satisfaction than with low levels of control. In fact, as predicted, a significant difference w as found between the slopes ( t = 2.01, p < .05)

PAGE 62

53 suggesting that a combination of high emotional expression and high perceived control exacerbates the relationship between conflict and job satisfaction. Please see Figure 8. Furthermore, a significant thre e way interaction emerged between interpersonal conflict with supervisors, perceived control over that conflict, and use of emotional processing in coping ( = .25, p < .01) for secondary source reports of anxiety levels, as presented in Table 12. Simple slope tests unexpectedly indicated that interpersonal conflict with supervisors has a significant, positive relationship with anxiety when low levels of emotion focused coping are used with high levels of control ( = .38, p < .05). None of the other combi nations of emotion focused coping and control resulted in regression lines different from zero (.12 < < .23, ns). To further test the hypothesis than given high levels of emotion focused coping, high levels of control will result in a stronger relations hip between conflict and anxiety than low levels of control, a specific comparison of the relative difference between regression lines when high emotion focused coping was used was conducted. As shown in Figure 9, no significant difference was found betwee n these slopes, suggesting that given high levels of emotional processing, the amount of perceived control does not buffer nor enhance the effects of conflict with supervisors on anxiety. Taken together, only partial support was found for Hypothesis 36. No significant three way interactions emerged with interpersonal conflict with co workers, perceived control, and emotion focused coping. Thus, no support for Hypothesis 37 was found.

PAGE 63

54 Chapter Four Discussion This study was designed to extend previous oc cupational stress research that has examined control as a moderator of the stressor strain relationship. Specifically, it was hypothesized that conflict at work would be related to various well being outcomes, and these relationships would be moderated by perceived control over the conflict and coping strategy (problem focused coping or emotion focused coping). A combination of high perceived control and high problem focused coping as well as a combination of low perceived control and high emotion focused c oping was expected to attenuate the conflict well being relationship. A summary of all hypotheses and results are presented in Tables 3 and 4 indicating which hypotheses received support using both focal participant and secondary source reports of well bei ng. A thorough discussion of results will continue below. It is important to note that there was strong agreement between the focal participants and secondary sources on well being levels. As shown in Table 2, the means and standard deviations for the mea sures of well being are extremely similar and correlations are high. This suggests that significant others and friends may be reliable sources of psychological well being outcomes. However, some results differed depending on the source of the reports.

PAGE 64

55 Ma in Effects Overall, there was strong evidence for the main effects of interpersonal conflict at work on well being outcomes for both psychological and physical well being. Interestingly, the strength of the relationships was consistently higher for conflic t with conflict with co workers had stronger effects on employee well being than conflict with supervisors. Thus, more work is needed to determine why differential effec ts may arise depending on the source of conflict. In addition, there was consistent evidence for the main effects of control over interpersonal conflict at work on well being outcomes. Interestingly, control may be more strongly tied to psychological well being than physical well being as null relationships were found for the physical components of well being measured physical symptoms and sleep quality. When secondary source reports of well being were considered, no main effects of control were present. This is likely due to a relatively smaller effect of control perceptions on well being than the effect of conflict on well being and thus, the smaller sample of secondary source reports did not lend enough power for correlations to reach significance. This finding was similar to a study of conflict between married couples, which found control was more strongly related to psychological well being than physical well being (King & Emmons, 1991). Similarly, there was substantial evidence of the main effect of p roblem focused coping on psychological, but not physical well being. However, there was minimal evidence for a main effect of emotion focused coping on well being. Neither emotional expression nor emotional processing strategies to cope with conflict were related to any

PAGE 65

56 measure of well being when either focal participant ratings or secondary source ratings were considered. The exception to this was emotional processing coping for both types of conflict being negatively related to depression and positively r elated to happiness levels as rated by focal participants. While this finding is one piece of evidence to suggest that of emotion focused coping than expression or lettin g feelings out (at least regarding the experience of depressive symptoms and general levels of happiness), interactions between conflict, control, and coping suggest the opposite. The main effects of coping were consistent with previous research in that mo re work has supported the efficacy of problem focused coping in terms of improving mental health outcomes (Compas et al., 2001; Penley et al., 2002), but the efficacy of emotion focused coping has not been as consistently reported. Two way Interactions Un expectedly, there was little evidence that the interaction between conflict experiences and perceived control over those conflicts predict well being, as only one two way interaction emerged. When perceived control was high, conflict had a marginal, positi ve relationship with happiness levels, but when perceived control was low conflict had a negative relationship with happiness. This finding is partially in line with the strain hypothesis of the JDC model. It is worth noting that this finding may also simp ly reflect an inflated experiment wide Type One error given no other two way interactions emerged. However, these findings are not necessarily unusual as several other studies have also found non significant interactions between demand and control (i.e. Ho lman & Wall, 2002; Taris, Schreurs, & Van Iersel Van Silfhout, 2001). In fact, a review by Van

PAGE 66

57 der Doef and Maes (1998) found that control served as a buffer against the detrimental effects of stressors in only half of the studies reviewed. Because only on e two way interaction emerged in this study, the importance of considering both control and coping in relation to workplace stressors is underscored. The main purpose of this study was to explore the possibility that the reason results are divergent across studies is because control and coping are not included and considered within the same model. Thus, the results of the three way interactions are the core contribution of this study. Three way Interactions Problem focused coping. The results of this stud y partially supported the predicted three way interaction between stressors, control, and coping. For example, when problem focused coping was high, control moderated the relation between interpersonal conflict with supervisors and psychological well being as predicted. High perceived control served to mitigate increases in mental anguish (depression and job frustration) when high levels of problem focused coping were used. In other words, interpersonal conflict with supervisors had a stronger relationship with depression and job frustration for those who reported low versus high perceived control. Thus, high problem focused coping and high control is most likely to result in a mitigated relationship between conflict and depression and job frustration. Any other combination of problem focused coping and control (high problem focused coping, but low perceived control, low problem focused coping with either high or low control) provided no protection to the detrimental effects of conflict with supervisor on de pression or job frustration.

PAGE 67

58 Emotion focused coping. In terms of emotion focused coping, it was hypothesized that when employees typically used high levels of emotion focused coping, conflict would have a stronger impact on well being for those who perce ived high vs. low control. In other words, low control would mitigate the relationship between conflict and well being when high levels of emotion focused coping were used. More support for this hypothesized effect was found for emotional expression coping than for emotional processing coping. In particular, emotional expression coping is most effective for mitigating the detrimental effects of conflict on depressive symptoms when control is low rather than high. These results suggest that a match between a sense of little control over the conflict and efforts to manage internal states rather than external states is adaptive. When little control is perceived, energy is best spent on managing internal conditions rather than external. Similarly, employees wer e better off in terms of job satisfaction when low rather than high control was paired with high levels of emotional expression coping. This three way interaction is unique in that it received support from both focal participant reports and secondary sourc e reports. This suggests that control is unlikely to mitigate the detrimental association between conflict and job satisfaction if an employee does not use coping strategies that capitalize on the control (i.e., not taking action to manage the situation). However, when an employee uses low emotional expression coping to deal with conflict, high levels of control will extinguish the negative relationship between conflict and job satisfaction.

PAGE 68

59 Interestingly, the pattern of the above described results with e motional expression coping held not only for psychological well being outcomes, but also for physical well being. In fact, conflict was not significantly related to physical symptoms when individuals reported high use of high emotion focused coping and per ceived low control, whereas it was significantly related to physical symptoms when employees used high emotion focused coping and perceived high control. Thus, the aches, pains, and other physical manifestations of the stress resulting from conflict may be avoided in situations where an employee feels low control over the conflict if specific efforts are made to let feelings out and release emotion. Furthermore, the results demonstrated a benefit to physical well being with a combination of low emotional ex pression coping and high control but not with low control. In the case that conflict arises and an employee is not going to expend efforts on emotional expression, control may determine the strength of the relationship between conflict and physical well be ing. Lastly, one significant three way interaction emerged for the emotional processing dimension of emotion focused coping with anxiety levels. The pattern of results is contrary to expectations. Interpersonal conflict with supervisors had a significant, positive relationship with anxiety when low levels of emotion focused coping were used with high levels of control, but conflict had no significant relationship with anxiety under any other combinations of emotion focused coping and control. However, when compared, no combination of emotion focused coping and control was a stronger predictor of anxiety than another. This divergent result does indicate that emotional processing may function differently from emotional expression as a coping strategy. Additio nal discussion of this possibility will follow.

PAGE 69

60 Theoretical Implications These findings carry theoretical importance pertaining to control and coping in relation to occupational stress in various ways. First, these data support and extend the Job Demands Control (JDC) Model proposed by Karasek (1979). The results are congruent with the strain hypothesis which suggests that there is an interactive process between demands and control which in turn predicts well being. However, these results implore an additi onal consideration, that being of coping strategy used. Specifically, this study found that when considered alone, perceived control over the stressor did not consistently moderate the relationship between conflict and well being. However, when coping is i ntroduced as an additional moderator, substantial predictive value can be extracted from the demand and control factors, thus highlighting the importance of including coping in models of stress and well being. This proposition is unique to other efforts ex ploring the stressor strain relationship and suggests that it is a simultaneous consideration of the stressor, control, and coping that interact to predict well being outcomes. Indeed, it has been shown rather consistently that the congruence between the n ature of the stressor and the coping methods used determines efficacy in coping (Havlovic & Keenan, 1995; Terry, Callan, & Sartori, 1996; Jex et al., 2001). But, this study suggests that considering all three factors together provides a distinctive opportu nity for predicting both psychological and physical well being. Second, this study advances the literature focused on coping in particular. As mentioned earlier, research tends to support the efficacy of problem focused coping in terms of improving physi cal and mental health outcomes (Compas et al., 2001; Penley et al., 2002) and has reported negative relationships between problem focused coping and

PAGE 70

61 the experience of various types of dissatisfaction and work related strain (Aryee, Luk, Leung, & Lo, 1999; Lapierre & Allen, 2006). However, the efficacy of emotion focused coping has been less clear, with some work demonstrating the negative effects of emotion focused coping (Gunthert et al., 2002; Park et al., 2004) and some work highlighting the benefits ( Ya masaki et al., 2006; Yamasaki & Uchida, 2006) or the null effects ( Dunkley et al., 2003). This study provides some evidence for the idea that perceived control over the stressor may in fact help disentangle these discrepancies. strain relationship is not a novel one (e.g. Jex et al., 2001). Mainly, this is the notion that coping effectiveness may depend on the combination of the stressor and the coping method used. This study highligh ts the importance of the stressor, perceived control, and the coping method used. Specifically, employees with particular tendencies for combinations of coping and control (viz., typically using high problem focused coping and perceiving high control or ty pically using high emotion focused coping and perceiving low control or typically using low emotion focused coping and perceiving high control) were more likely to fare well in conflict situations. Importantly, these findings were not specific to one type of reporting source and thus concern about common source bias being solely responsible for findings is minimized. Additionally, the importance of congruence between a stressor, control, and coping strategy is further highlighted by the contrasting results dependent on type of stressor. For example, while strong main effects for interpersonal conflict with supervisors and for interpersonal conflict with co workers were present, it was only the specific case of interpersonal conflict with supervisors which d emonstrated the

PAGE 71

62 interactive process between control and coping in determining the stressor strain relationship. This may be because conflict with supervisors represents a more salient being as prolonged conflict w ith supervisors coping for conflict with supervisors may be more influential on well being than with conflict with co workers. However, the more general point is that in o rder to fully appreciate the interactive processes between control and coping, research should be attentive to the specific stressor or stressors employees are experiencing. Lastly, this study also attempted to further refine the general understanding of emotion focused coping and contribute to efforts to remove the cloud of confusion over the benefits or detriments of emotion focused coping with occupational stressors. All interactions between conflict, control, and emotion focused coping emerged with emo tional expression strategies expect for one which emerged with emotional processing strategies. First of all, this indicates that emotional expression may be a better tool for employees to use when dealing with interpersonal conflict with supervisors than emotional processing. Specifically, this means that letting feelings out and expressing the in clinical studies which have shown emotional expression to be an effective strategy for dealing with illness (Spiegel, Bloom, Kraemer, & Gottheil, 1981; Spiegel, Bloom, & Yalom, 1981) and that it may have beneficial relationships with distress, vigor, an d subjective health, whereas emotional processing may in fact increase distress levels (Stanton, Danoff Burg, Cameron, Bishop, Collins, Kirk et al., 2000).

PAGE 72

63 One reason emotional expression may be a more effective coping strategy in an occupational context pertains to the nature of the coping style. Emotional expression is an outward emotion focused coping process, while emotional processing in an inward emotion focused coping process. This may be important in several ways. First, expressing emotions may lea d to enhanced communication about the conflict. If an individual expresses themselves, potential misunderstandings may be uncovered, empathy may be elicited, and solutions to sources of conflict may arise. In fact, emotional expression may be a pathway to conflict resolution and may directly reduce the amount of the stressor present as suggested in some other research (e.g. Shimazu, Shimazu, & Odara, 2005). Another pathway by which emotional expression may be more effective is through enhancing social suppo rt. Discharging distressing emotions, receiving encouragement, and generating positive emotions are considered part of social support (Shimazu, Okada, Sakamoto, & Miura, 2003), which may in turn help individuals sustain coping efforts over a long time. Hig h levels of emotional expression or discharge of emotions may lead to increased social support which may also improve the general effectiveness of emotion focused coping (Daniels, 1999). Furthermore, expressing emotions may produce opportunities for receiv ing advice which could foster self efficacy (Pierce et al., 1996) for dealing with the conflict. Thus, emotional expression may be a mechanism by which components of social support are elicited, explaining why emotional expression, but not the internally c onfined process of emotional processing, interacts with control to predict well being. In sum, emotional expression may function differently with control than emotional processing. This demonstrates the need for future work to continue use more refined sub dimensions of emotion focused coping and tease

PAGE 73

64 apart the specific components of emotion focused coping that may be effective. Furthermore, additional work is needed to explore the potential pathways by which emotional expression may provide benefit in con flict management or resolution (particularly through social support). Practical Implications Practical implications of this study are worth considering. The main effects of this study point to the already well documented detrimental effects of interperson al conflict at work and employee well being suggesting managers should make efforts to prevent and reduce the impact of conflicts. This could be done through a variety of ways such as thorough, clear, and documented policies and procedures, detailed job de scriptions, fair treatment of employees, clarity of decision making, and sound conflict resolution resources. Furthermore, control over conflicts may play a role in mitigating the detrimental effects of conflict when it does occur. Therefore, fostering a s ense of control perceptions should a conflict arise. Practical steps organizations may take include providing an environment where employees have predictable and consistent in teraction with each other and the management as well as adequate and available access to one another (i.e. encouraging regular checking of e mails, open door policies, and participation in decision making). Furthermore, when the interactive effects of co ntrol and coping were considered, both types of coping strategies, and particularly the emotional expression component of emotion focused coping, predicted various well being dimensions given certain levels of control. Thus, from practical standpoint, a bl anket recommendation cannot be provided in

PAGE 74

65 terms of suggesting a particular coping style be encouraged or trained for in organizations. However, organizations might consider training employees in both types of coping strategies in addition to training them to be aware of when their level of control over situations is suited for the use of one strategy over the other. Results generally suggest that if an employee feels a high level of control over a conflict with supervisors, then taking action to resolve t he conflict with problem focused coping is likely the best option, whereas if low control over the conflict is perceived, expressing emotions, letting out feelings, and discharging thoughts about the situation may be beneficial. However, caution should be recommended as training for high levels of emotional expression may on itself become a demand (e.g., emotional labor). Future research should explore the impact of different types of emotion focused coping on workplace outcomes. Overall, these findings s uggest that the success of coping efforts hinges on the combination of the nature of the stressor (conflict with supervisors vs. with a co worker), perceptions of control over that stressor (high or low control), and coping strategy used (problem focused or emotion focused coping). This may explain at least to a certain extent why previous efforts to document the moderating effects of coping have been inconsistent, especially pertaining to emotion focused coping. It should be emphasized that the interactio n between control and coping is complex and this study lends only one piece of evidence toward a full understanding of this phenomenon. Limitations While this study may have potentially important contributions to occupational stress research, clear limi tation exist. The most unfortunate of these limitations is the small amount of variance accounted for by the statistically significant three way

PAGE 75

66 interaction terms. Given the small amount of variance indeed explained by these terms, a justified argument cou ld be made that the practical value of these findings is negligible. While this concern is recognized, some research on moderator analysis suggests the even a very small amount of variance accounted for may be important (Evans, 1985). In fact, the effects may translate into meaningful differences on the measures of well being. For example, the difference between even a small change in a scale score on depression or job satisfaction could represent arguably huge meaning for individuals and organizations that employ them. Also, it is important to discuss the limits of the cross sectional design. The use of secondary source reports (and high agreement among sources) tempers disputes of common method variance fully accounting for the relationships seen. Howeve r, a snapshot of well being may not fully capture the effects of conflict on well being, especially conflict that may have occurred at a distant time from participation in this study. Furthermore, although coping was measured in terms of how often an indiv idual uses a certain strategy given the stressor at hand, coping is likely a process that unfolds over time and evolves depending on effectiveness (Edwards, 1992). Thus, cross sectional study of this construct may not be optimal. Future research should str ive to use longitudinal or experience sampling designs. The measures used in this study are not without flaw. First of all, as indicated, several of the scales were adapted for the specific purposes of this study. Because of this, it can only be assumed t hat construct validity has been preserved. However, all measures did demonstrate adequate internal consistency reliability, with the exception of sleep quality and anxiety. It is unclear why these scales had lower internal consistency

PAGE 76

67 reliability as these were not modified in any way from the original established scales. Furthermore, the measure of emotion focused coping is limited to two specific dimensions, rather than a broad set of emotion focused coping methods (i.e. denial, religion, humor, etc.). The dimensions of emotional expression and emotional processing are certainly not all encompassing of emotion focused coping strategies. Thus conclusions regarding emotion focused coping must be limited to these specific types of coping styles. Future researc h should strive to further refine the dimensions and measurement of emotion focused coping. Lastly, the sample size of secondary source reports is substantially smaller than the sample size of focal participants which may have caused power issues when us ing the secondary source reports as the dependent variable. In fact, the sample size of the focal participants is also low considering the power required to detect three way interactions. Thus, a larger sample is needed to better explore and understand the complex relationships of interest in this study. Conclusion This study examined whether coping impacts the moderating effect of control on stressor strain relations. The results suggest that the typical effect of control posited by the JDC model may depe nd on the type of coping strategy used to manage interpersonal conflict, particularly with supervisors. The interactive patterns suggest that the success of coping efforts hinges on the combination of the nature of the stressor, perceptions of control over that stressor, and coping strategy used. Generally, a match between high problem focused coping and high control was beneficial, whereas a combination of high emotional expression coping (letting out feelings) and low control or low emotional

PAGE 77

68 expression c oping and high control was most adaptive. Support for these findings was found using both focal participant reports of well being and secondary source reports of well being. These findings lend some insight into why previous studies have found inconsistent results when either control or coping were considered in isolation.

PAGE 78

69 References Aquino, K., & Bommer, W. (2003). Preferential mistreatment: How victim status moderates the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and wo rkplace victimization. Organization Science, 14(4), 374 385. Aryee, S., Luk, V., Leung, A., & Lo, S. (1999). Role stressors, interrole conflict, and well being: The moderating influence of spousal support and coping behaviors among employed parents in Hong Kong. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 259 278. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation Psychological Bulletin, 117 497 529. Bayram, N., Gursakal, N., & Bil gel, N. (2009). Counterproductive work behavior among white collar employees: A study from Turkey. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 17 (2), 180 188. Berscneid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G, Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.. Vol. 2, pp. 193 281). New York: Oxford University Press. Burke, R. (1998). Work and non work stressors and well being among police officers: The role of coping. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal 11 (4), 345 362.

PAGE 79

70 Buysse, D.J., Reynolds III, C.F., Monk, T.H., Berman, S.R., & Kupfer, D.J. (1989). The Pittsburgh sleep quality index: A new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatric Research, 28 (2), 193 213. Callan, V., Terry, D., & Schweitzer, R. (1994). Coping resources, coping strategies and adjustment to organizational change: Direct or buffering effects? Work & Stress 8 (4), 372 383. Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Cited in Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The Experience of Work: A compendium and Review of 249 measure s and their Use. New York: Academic Press. Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F. & Pozo, C. (1992). Conceptualizing the process of coping with health problems. In: H.S. Friedman (Ed.), Hostility, coping, and health APA, pp. 167 187. Washington, DC. Carver, C. S., S cheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267 283. Chang, E., Bidewell, J., Huntington, A., Daly, J., Johnson, A., Wilson, H., et al. (2007). A s urvey of role stress, coping and health in Australian and New Zealand hospital nurses. International Journal of Nursing Studies 44 (8), 1354 1362. Chen, P., & Spector, P. (1991). Negative affectivity as the underlying cause of correlations between stresso rs and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology 76 (3), 398 407.

PAGE 80

71 Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Compas, B E., Connor Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A. H., & Wadsworth, M. E. (2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Progress, problems, and potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 87 127. Daniels, K. (1999). Copi ng and the job demands control support model: An exploratory study. International Journal of Stress Management. 6, 125 144. Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 917 926. De Bacquer, D., Pelfrene, E., Clays, E., Mak, R., Moreau, M., de Smet, P., Kornitzer, M., De Backer, G. (2005). Perceived job stress and incidence of coronary event: 3 year follow up of the Belgian Job Stress Project Cohort. American Journal of Epidemiology. 161 434 441. De Croon, E. M., Sluiter, J. K., Broersen, J. P. J., Blonk, R. W. B., & Frings Dresen, M. H. W. (2004). Stressful work, psychological job strain, and turnover: a 2 y ear prospective cohort study of truck drivers. Journal of Applied Psychology 89 442 54. De Croon, E., Van Der Beek, A., Blonk, R., & Frings Dresen, M. (2000). Job stress and psychosomatic health complaints among Dutch truck drivers: A re evaluation of Ka rasek's interactive job demand control model. Stress Medicine 16 (2), 101 107.

PAGE 81

72 de Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., Houtman, I. L. D., & Bongers, P. M. control (su pport) model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 282 305. de Rijk, A.E., Le Blanc, P.M., Schaufeli,W.B., de Jonge, J. (1998). Active coping and need for control as moderators of the job demand control model: Effects on burnout. Journal of Occup ational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 1 18. Derogatis, L. R. (2003). The Brief Symptom Inventory 18 Eagan, MN: Pearson Assessments. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personali ty Assessment, 49, 71 75. Dunkley, D. M., Zuroff, D., & Blankstein, K. R. (2003). Self critical perfectionism and daily affect: Dispositional and situational influences on stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 234 252. Dwyer, D. J., & Ganster, D. C. (1991). The effects of job demands and control on employee attendance and satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 595 608. Edwards, J. R. (1992). A cybernetic theory of stress, coping, and well being in organizations Academy of Management Review, 17, 238 274. Endler, N.S., & Parker, J.D.A. (1999). Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations: Manual. Toronto: Multi Health Systems. Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in m oderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 305 323.

PAGE 82

73 Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 7(2) 117 140. Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociab ility: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689 723. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: A study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of P ersonality and Social Psychology, 48, 150 170. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R., Dunke Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. (1986). Dynmaics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol ogy 50 (5), 992 1003. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R., Gruen, R., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping, health status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 (3), 571 579. Fox, M. L., Dwyer, D. J., & Ganster, D. C. (1993). Effects of stressful job demands and control on physiological and attitudinal outcomes in a hospital setting. Academy of Management Journal 36 289 318. Frone, M. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: Testing a model among yo ung workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5 (2), 246 255. Ganster, D. C. (1989). Worker control and well being: A review of research in the workplace. In S. L. Sauter, J. J. Hurrell Jr., & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Job control and worker health (pp 3 23). New York: Wiley.

PAGE 83

74 Giebels, E., & Janssen, O. (2005). Conflict stress and reduced well being at work: The buffering effect of third party help. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 14 (2), 137 155. Ghorbani, N., Krauss, S., Watson, P., & LeBreton, D. (2008). Relationship of perceived stress with depression: Complete mediation by perceived control and anxiety in Iran and the United States. International Journal of Psychology 43 (6), 958 968. Grebner, S., Elfering, A., Semmer, N. K., Kaiser Probst, C., & Schlapbach, M. (2004). Stressful situations at work and in private life among young workers: An event sampling approach. Social Indicators Research, 67 11 49. Gunthert, K. C., Cohen, L. H., & Armeli, S. (2002). Unique effects of depre ssive and anxious symptomatology on daily stress and coping. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21, 583 609. Hart, P., Wearing, A., & Headey, B. (1995). Police stress and well being: Integrating personality, coping and daily work experiences. Journ al of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 68 (2), 133 156. Havlovic, S. J., & Keenan, J. P. (1995). Coping with stress: The influence of individual differences. In R. Crandall & P. L. Perrewe (Eds.), Occupational stress: A handbook (pp. 179 192). Wa shington, DC: Taylor & Francis. Hayes, C., & Weathington, B. (2007). Optimism, stress, life satisfaction, and job burnout in restaurant managers. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied 141 (6), 565 579.

PAGE 84

75 Heinisch, D., & Jex, S. (1997). Negativ e affectivity and gender as moderators of the relationship between work related stressors and depressed mood at work. Work & Stress 11 (1), 46 57. Hockey, G., & Earle, F. (2006). Control over the scheduling of simulated office work reduces the impact of wo rkload on mental fatigue and task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 12 (1), 50 65. Hoel, H., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2004). Bullying is detrimental to health, but all bullying behaviours are not necessarily equally damaging. B ritish Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32 367 387. Holman, D.J., & Wall, T.D. (2002). Work characteristics, learning related outcomes, and strain: a test of competing direct effects, mediated, and moderated models. Journal of Occupational Health Psyc hology, 7 283 301. Hutt, J., & Weidner, G. (1993). The effects of task demand and decision latitude in cardiovascular reactivity to stress. Behavioral Medicine, 18 181 188. Ippolito, J., Adler, A. B., Thomas, J. L., Litz, B. T., & Holzl, R. (2005). Exten ding and applying the demand peacekeeping deployment. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 452 464. Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management 5, 223 238. Jex, S. M. (1998). Stress and job performance: Theory, research, and implications for managerial practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

PAGE 85

76 Jex, S. M. (1999). Self esteem a s a moderator: A comparison of global and orgazation based measures. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 71 82. Jex, S. M. (2002). Organizational psychology: A scientist practitioner apporach. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Jex, S., B liese, P., Buzzell, S., & Primeau, J. (2001). The impact of self efficacy on stressor strain relations: Coping style as an explanatory mechanism Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3), 401 409. Jex, S., & Thomas, J. (2003). Relations between stressors and g roup perceptions: Main and mediating effects. Work & Stress 17 (2), 158 169. Johnson, J. V., & Hall, E. M. (1988). Job strain, workplace social support, and cardiovascular disease: A crosssectional study of random sample of the Swedish working population. American Journal of Public Health, 78, 1336 1342. Jones, F., Bright, J., Searle, B., & Cooper, L. (1998). Modelling occupational stress and health: The impact of the demand control model on academic research and on workplace practice. Stress Medicine 14 (4 ), 231 236. Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain. Adminstrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285 311. Kasl, S. V. (1998). Measuring job stressors and studying the health impact of the work environment: A epidemiological comm entary. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3 390 401. Keashly, L., & Harvey, S. (2005). Emotional abuse in workplace. In S. Fox & P. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive workplace behavior. Washington: APA Press.

PAGE 86

77 Keenan, A., & Newton, T. J. (1985). S tressful events, stressors, and psychological strains in young professional engineers. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 6, 15 1 156. Keoske, G. F., Kirk, S. A., & Keoske, R. D. (1993). Coping with job stress: Which strategies work best? Journal of Occup ational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 319 335. Kessler, S. R., Spector, P. E., Chang, C. H., & Parr, A. D. (2008). Organizational violence climate and exposure to violence and verbal aggression. Work & Stress, 22, 108 124. King, L., & Emmons, R. (1991 ). Psychological, physical, and interpersonal correlates of emotional expressiveness, conflict, and control. European Journal of Personality 5 (2), 131 150. Kolenc, K., Hartley, D., & Murdock, N. (1990). The relationship of mild depression to stress and co ping. Journal of Mental Health Counseling 12 (1), 76 92. Khlmann, T. (1990). Coping with occupational stress among urban bus and tram drivers. Journal of Occupational Psychology 63 (1), 89 96 Lapierre, L. M., & Allen, T. D. (2006) Work supportive family, family supportive supervision, use of organizational benefits, and problem focused coping: Implications for work family conflict and employee well being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11 (2), 169 181. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Psychological stress in the workplace. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 1 13.

PAGE 87

78 Lazarus, R. S. (1995). Psychological stress in the workplace. In R. Crandall and P.L. Occupational Stress: A Handbook (pp. 3 12) Washington, D. C.: Taylor and Francis Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer. Lazarus, R. S., & Launier, R. (1978). Stress related transactions between person and environment. In L. A. Pervin & M. Lewis (Eds). Perspectives in interactional psy chology New York: Plenum. Lazuras, L., Rodafinos, A., Matsiggos, G., & Stamatoulakis, A. (2009). Perceived occupational stress, affective, and physical well being among telecommunication employees in Greece. Social Science & Medicine 68 (6), 1075 1081. Le Blanc, P., Jonge, J., & Schaufeli, W. (2008). Job stress and occupational health. An introduction to work and organizational psychology: A European perspective (2nd ed.) (pp. 119 147). Malden : Blackwell Publishing. Liu, C., Spector, P., & Shi, L. (2007). Cross National Job Stress: A Quantitative and Qualitative Study. Journal of Organizational Behavior 28 (2), 209 239. Liu, C., Spector, P., & Shi, L. (2008). Use of both qualitative and quantitative approaches to study job stress in different gender and occ upational groups. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 13 (4), 357 370. Lourel, M., Abdellaoui, S., Chevaleyre, S., Paltrier, M., & Gana, K. (2008). Relationships between psychological job demands, job control and burnout among firefighters. North Am erican Journal of Psychology 10 (3), 489 495.

PAGE 88

79 Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46 137 155. Mantler, J., Matejicek, A., Matheson, K., & Anisman, H. (2005). Coping With Employment Uncertainty: A Comparison of Employed and Unemployed Workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 10 (3), 200 209 Meier, L., Semmer, N., Elfering, A., & Jacobshagen, N. (2008). The double meaning of control : Three way interactions between internal resources, job control, and stressors at work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 13 (3), 244 258. Mikkelsen, E. G., & Einarsen, S. (2002). Relationships between exposure to bullying at work and psychologica l and psychosomatic health complaints: the role of state negative affectivity and generalized self efficacy Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43 397 405. Nakata, A., Haratani, T., Takahashi, M., Kawakami, N., Arito, H., Kobayashi, F., et al. (2004). Jo b stress, social support, and prevalence of insomnia in a population of Japanese daytime workers. Social Science & Medicine 59 (8), 1719 1730. Nakata, A., Takahashi, M., Ikeda, T., Haratani, T., Hojou, M., & Araki, S. (2007). Perceived job stress and sleep related breathing disturbance in Japanese male workers. Social Science & Medicine 64 (12), 2520 2532. Ogiwara, C., Tsuda, H., Akiyama, T., & Sakai, Y. (2008). Gender related stress among Japanese working women. Transcultural Psychiatry 45 (3), 470 488. Pa rk, C. L., Armeli, S., & Tennen, H. (2004). The daily stress and coping process and alcohol use among college students. Journal of the Study of Alcohol, 65, 126 135.

PAGE 89

80 Parker, J. D. A ., & Endler, N. S. (1996). Coping and defense: A historical overview. In M Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping theory, research, applications (pp. 3 23). New York: Wiley. Parker, S. K., & Sprigg, C. A. (1999). Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: The role of job demands, job control, and proactive persona lity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 925 939. Parkes, K. R. (1991). Locus of control as moderator: An explanation for additive versus interactive findings in the demand discretion model of work stress? British Journal of Psychology, 82, 291 312. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction With Life Scale. Psychological Assessment 5 (2), 164 172. Payne, N., Jones, F., & Harris, P. (2002). The impact of working life on health behavior: The effect of job strain on cognitive predictors of exe rcise. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 342 353. Penley, J. A., Tomaka, J., & Wiebe, J. S. (2002). The association of coping to physical and psychological health outcomes: A meta analytic review. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 551 603. Pe nney, L., & Spector, P. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26 (7), 777 796. behavioral and affective consequences of performance relevant situational variables. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 79 96.

PAGE 90

81 Pierce, G. R., Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1996). Coping and social support. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler ( Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 434 451). NewYork: Wiley. Rau, R. (1996). Psychophysiological assessment of human reliability in a simulated complex system. Biological Psychology 42 (3), 287 300. Roth, S., & Cohen, L. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American Psychologist, 41, 813 819. Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the self: A two process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psyc hology, 42, 5 37. Sadeh, A., Keinan, G., & Daon, K. (2004). Effects of Stress on Sleep: The Moderating Role of Coping Style. Health Psychology 23 (5), 542 545. Sardiwalla, N., VandenBerg, H., & Esterhuyse, K. (2007). The role of stressors and coping strate gies in the burnout experienced by hospice workers. Cancer Nursing 30 (6), 488 497. Schaubroeck, J., Jones, J. R., & Xie, J. L. (2001). Individual differences in utilizing control to cope with job demands: Effects on susceptibility to infectious disease. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 265 278. Schaubroeck, J., & Merritt, D. E. (1997). Divergent effects of job control on coping with work stressors: The key role of self efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 738 754.

PAGE 91

82 Schwarzer, R., & Schwarzer, C. (1996). A critical survey of coping instruments. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping theory, research, applications (pp. 107 132). New York: Wiley. Shimazu, A., & Kosugi, S. (2003). Job stressors, coping, and psychological distress a mong Japanese employees: Interplay between active and non active coping. Work & Stress, 17(1), 38 51. Shimazu, A., Okada, Y, Sakamoto, M., & Miura, M. (2003). Effectsof stress management program for teachers in Japan: A pilot study. Journal of Occupational Health, 45, 202 208. Shimazu, A., Shimazu, M., & Odara, T. (2005). Divergent Effects of Active Coping on Psychological Distress in the Context of the Job Demands Control Support Model: The Roles of Job Control and Social Support. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 12 (3), 192 198. Shirom, A., Toker, S., Berliner, S., & Shapira, I. (2008). The job demand control support model and stress related low grade inflammatory responses among healthy employees: A longitudinal study. Work & Stress 22 (2), 13 8 152. Sideridis, G. (2006). Coping is not an 'either' 'or': The interaction of coping strategies in regulating affect, arousal and performance. Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress 22 (5), 315 327. Skinne r, E. A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for the structure of coping: A review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 216 269.

PAGE 92

83 Spector, P. (1987). Interactive effects of percei ved control and job stressors on affective reactions and health outcomes for clerical workers. Work & Stress 1 (2), 155 162. Spector, P. E. (1998). A control theory of the job stress process. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 153 1 69). New York: Oxford. Spector, P., & Bruk Lee, V. (2008). Conflict, health, and well being. The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations (pp. 267 288). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Spector, P., D wyer, D., & Jex, S. (1988). Relation of job stressors to affective, health, and performance outcomes: A comparison of multiple data sources. Journal of Applied Psychology 73 (1), 11 19. Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self report m easures 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, 356 367. Speigel, Bloom, J., Kraeme r, H., & Gottheil, E. (1989). The beneficial effect of psychosocial treatment on survival of metastatic breast cancer patients: A randomized prospective outcome study. The Lancet, 12 888 891. Spiegel, D., Bloom, J.R., & Yalom, I. (1981). Group support fo r patients with metastatic cancer. Archives of General Psychiatry, 38 527 533. Stanton, A., Danoff Burg, S., Cameron, C., Bishop, M., Collins, C., Kirk, S., et al. (2000). Emotionally expressive coping predicts psychological and physical adjustment to bre ast cancer. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 68 (5), 875 882.

PAGE 93

84 Stanton, A., Kirk, S., Cameron, C., & Danoff Burg, S. (2000). Coping through emotional approach: Scale construction and validation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78 (6 ), 1150 1169. Taris, T., & Feij, J. (2004). Learning and Strain Among Newcomers: A Three Wave Study on the Effects of Job Demands and Job Control. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied 138 (6), 543 563. Taris, T.W., Schreurs, P.J.G., & Van Iersel Van SilfhoVut, I.J. (2001). Job stress, job strain, and psychological withdrawal among Dutch university staff: towards a dual process model for the effects of occupational stress. Work Stress, 15 283 296. Tucker, J., Sinclair, R., Mohr, C., Thomas, J., Salvi, A., & Adler, A. (2009). Stress and counterproductive work behavior: Multiple relationships between demands, control, and soldier indiscipline over time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 14 (3), 257 271. Terry, D. J., Callan, V. J., & S artori, G. (1996). Employee adjustment to an organizational merger: Stress, coping, and intergroup differences. Stress Medicine, 12, 105 122. Van der Doef, M. and Maes, S. (1998). The Job Demand Control( Support) model and physical health outcomes: A revie w of the strain and buffer hypotheses. Psychology and Health, 13 909 936. Van Harreveld, F., Van Der Pligt, J., Claassen, L., & Van Dijk, W. (2007). Inmate emotion coping and psychological and physical well being: The use of crying over spilled milk. Crim inal Justice and Behavior 34 (5), 697 708.

PAGE 94

85 Williams, S. & Cooper, C. L. (1998). Measuring occupational stress: Development of the pressure management indicator. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 306 321. Worthington, E., & Scherer, M. (2004). F orgiveness is an emotion focused coping strategy that can reduce health risks and promote health resilience: Theory, review, and hypotheses. Psychology & Health 19 (3), 385 405. Yamasaki, K., Sakai, A., & Uchida, K. (2006). A longitudinal study of the rel ationship between positive affect and both problem and emotion focused coping strategies. Social Behavior and Personality 34 (5), 499 510. Yamasaki, K., & Uchida, K. (2006). Relation of positive affect with emotion focused coping in Japanese undergraduate s. Psychological Reports 98 (3), 611 620.

PAGE 95

86 T a b l e s Table 1. Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 Interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a positive relationship with (a) depression, (b) anger, (c) anxiety, and (d) frustration. Hypothesis 2 Interpersonal conflict w ith co workers will have a positive relationship with (a) depression, (b) anger, (c) anxiety, and (d) frustration. Hypothesis 3 Interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a negative relationship with (a) job satisfaction and (b) happiness. Hypot hesis 4 Interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a negative relationship with (a) job satisfaction and (b) happiness. Hypothesis 5 Interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a positive relationship with physical symptoms. Hypothesis 6 Inte rpersonal conflict with co workers will have a positive relationship with physical symptoms. Hypothesis 7 Interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a negative relationship with sleep quality. Hypothesis 8 Interpersonal conflict with co workers wi ll have a negative relationship with sleep quality. Hypothesis 9 Perceived control over interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a negative relationship with (a) depression, (b) anger, (c) anxiety, and (d) frustration. Hypothesis 10 Perceived co ntrol over interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a negative relationship with (a) depression, (b) anger, (c) anxiety, and (d) frustration. Hypothesis 11 Perceived control over interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a positive relatio nship with (a) job satisfaction and (b) happiness. Hypothesis 12 Perceived control over interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a positive relationship with job satisfaction and happiness. Hypothesis 13 Perceived control over interpersonal confl ict with supervisors will have a negative relationship with physical symptoms. Hypothesis 14 Perceived control over interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a negative relationship with physical symptoms. Hypothesis 15 Perceived control over inte rpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a positive relationship with sleep quality. Hypothesis 16 Perceived control over interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a positive relationship with sleep quality. Hypothesis 17 There will be a sign ificant two way interaction between interpersonal conflict and control on all strain outcomes. More specifically, perceived control will reduce relations between interpersonal conflict and well being, such that the conflict well being relationship will be weaker when employees perceive high versus low control. Hypothesis 18 Problem focused coping with interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a negative relationship with (a) depression, (b) anger, (c) anxiety, and (d) frustration. Hypothesis 19 Pr oblem focused coping with interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a negative relationship with (a) depression, (b) anger, (c) anxiety, and (d) frustration. Hypothesis 20 Problem focused coping with interpersonal conflict with supervisors will h ave a positive relationship with (a) job satisfaction and (b) happiness.

PAGE 96

87 Hypothesis 21 Problem focused coping with interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a positive relationship with (a) job satisfaction and (b) happiness. Hypothesis 22 Problem focused coping with interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a negative relationship with physical symptoms. Hypothesis 23 Problem focused coping with interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a negative relationship with physical symptom s. Hypothesis 24 Problem focused coping with interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a positive relationship with sleep quality. Hypothesis 25 Problem focused coping with interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a positive relationship with sleep quality. Hypothesis 26 Emotion focused coping with interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a positive relationship with (a) depression, (b) anger, (c) anxiety, and (d) frustration. Hypothesis 27 Emotion focused coping with interperso nal conflict with co workers will have a positive relationship with (a) depression, (b) anger, (c) anxiety, and (d) frustration. Hypothesis 28 Emotion focused coping with interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a negative relationship with (a) j ob satisfaction and (b) happiness. Hypothesis 29 Emotion focused coping with interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a negative relationship with (a) job satisfaction and (b) happiness. Hypothesis 30 Emotion focused coping with interpersonal con flict with supervisors will have a positive relationship with physical symptoms. Hypothesis 31 Emotion focused coping with interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a positive relationship with physical symptoms. Hypothesis 32 Emotion focused copi ng with interpersonal conflict with supervisors will have a negative relationship with sleep quality. Hypothesis 33 Emotion focused coping with interpersonal conflict with co workers will have a negative relationship with sleep quality. Hypothesis 34 The re will be a three way interaction between interpersonal conflict with supervisors, control, and problem focused coping in the prediction of well being outcomes. More specifically, high perceived control will mitigate relations between interpersonal confli ct with supervisor and well being only among employees who also report use of problem focused coping methods for this stressor. Hypothesis 35 There will be a three way interaction between interpersonal conflict with co workers, control, and problem focuse d coping in the prediction of well being outcomes. More specifically, high perceived control will mitigate relations between interpersonal conflict with co workers and well being only among employees who also report use of problem focused coping methods fo r this stressor. Hypothesis 36 There will be a three way interaction between interpersonal conflict with supervisor, control, and emotion focused coping in the prediction of well being outcomes. More specifically, low perceived control will mitigate relat ions between interpersonal conflict with supervisor and well being among employees who also report use of emotion focused coping methods for this stressor. Hypothesis 37 There will be a three way interaction between interpersonal conflict with co workers, control, and emotion focused coping in the prediction of well being outcomes. More specifically, low perceived control will mitigate relations between interpersonal conflict with co workers and well being among employees who also report use of emotion foc used coping methods for this stressor.

PAGE 97

88 Table 2. Correlations between Focal Variables Note: p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001. Correlations below the diagonals are based on self report while correlations above the diagonal are based on secondary source repor ts of the outcomes.

PAGE 98

89 Table 3. Summary of Findings with Focal Participant Reports Note: weights. Findings with marginal significance are included as significant results here. PFC = Problem focused coping; EFC = Emotion focused coping.

PAGE 99

90 Table 4. Summary of Findings with Secondary Source Reports Note: ificant negative correlations or beta weights. Findings with marginal significance are included as significant results here. PFC = Problem focused coping; EFC = Emotion focused coping.

PAGE 100

91 Table 5. Regression of Interpersonal Conflict with Supervisor, Perceiv ed Control over the Conflict, and Problem Focused Coping on Depression Note: N = 333 (focal) and N = 146 (secondary source) p <.05; ** p <.01; ***<.001. Values outside parentheses represent results when focal participant reports of the DV were used, values i nside parentheses represent results when secondary source reports of the DV were used. Depression Independent Variable Step 1 IC Sup .32*** (.16) .37*** (.21*) .34*** (.20*) Control .14* (.11) .14* (.09) .16** (.08) PFC .11* ( .22**) .10 ( .22*) .16* ( .23*) Step 2 IC Sup X Control .05 (.09) .05 (.08) Control X PFC .04 (.06) .07 (.05) IC Sup X PFC .01 (.08) .002 (.08) Step 3 IC Sup X Control X PFC .21** ( .04) R 2 .004 (.01) .02** (.001) Overall R 2 .19 (.08) .19 (.09) .21 (.09) Overall F 25.85*** (2.06**) 13.11*** (2.28*) 12.38** (1.96)

PAGE 101

92 Table 6. Regression of Interpersonal Conflict with Supervisor, Perceived Control over the Conflict, and Problem Focused Coping on Job Frustration Note: N = 339 (focal) and N = 146 (secondary source) p <.05; ** p <.01; ***<.001. Values outside parentheses represent results when focal participant reports of the DV were used, values inside parentheses represent results when secondary source reports of the DV were used. Job Frustration In dependent Variable Step 1 IC Sup .26*** (.17) .26*** (.17) .24*** (.15) Control .15** (.09) .15* (.09) .16** (.07) PFC .08 ( .09) .09 ( .09) .13* ( .14) Step 2 IC Sup X Control .03 (.02) .12 ( .03) Control X PFC .05 ( .01) .05 ( .05) IC Sup X PFC .07 ( .01) .09 (.01) Step 3 IC Sup X Control X PFC .18* ( .15) R 2 .01 (0) .01** (.01) Overall R 2 .14 (.04) .15 (.04) .16 (.05) Overall F 18.22*** (1.92) 9.62*** (.95) 8.99*** (1.10)

PAGE 102

93 Table 7. R egression of Interpersonal Conflict with Supervisor, Perceived Control over the Conflict, and Emotional Expression Coping on Depression Note: N = 361 (focal) and N = 157 (secondary so urce) p <.05; ** p <.01; ***<.001. Values outside parentheses represent results when focal participant reports of the DV were used, values inside parentheses represent results when secondary source reports of the DV were used. Depression Independent Variable Step 1 IC Sup .03 (.04) .02 (.03) .06 (.005) Control .34*** (.18*) .38*** (.22*) .37*** (.22*) EEC .17*** (.05) .17*** (.05) .17*** (.04) Step 2 IC Sup X Control .06 (.12) .10 (.11) Control X EEC .01 (.001) .09 ( .03) IC Sup X EEC .06 ( .07) .07 ( .06) Step 3 IC Sup X Control X EEC .16* ( .08) R 2 .01 (.02) .01* (.003) Overall R 2 .19 (.03) .20 (.05) .21 (.06) Overall F 27.59*** (2.06) 14.30*** (2.28) 13.01*** (1.96)

PAGE 103

94 Table 8. Regression of Inte rpersonal Conflict with Supervisor, Perceived Control over the Conflict, and Emotional Expression Coping on Job Satisfaction Note: N = 365 (focal) and N = 156 (secondary source) a p =.06; p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001. Values outside parentheses represent results when focal participant reports of the DV were used, values inside parentheses represent results when secondary source reports of the DV were used. Job Satisfaction Independent Variable Step 1 IC Sup .01 (.09) .01 (.09) .07 (.03) Control .20*** ( .27***) .17** ( .29***) .18** ( 29***) EEC .21*** (.03) .20***(.05) .20*** (.03) Step 2 IC Sup X Control .04 ( .07) .04 ( .12) Control X EEC .07 ( .14) .06 ( .23*) I C Sup X EEC .11* ( .18) .12* ( .13) Step 3 IC Sup X Control X EEC .23** ( .21 a ) R 2 .01 (.03) .02** (.02 a ) Overall R 2 .11 (.08) .12 (.11) .14 (.14) Overall F 15.29*** (4.67**) 8.50*** (3.21**) 8.55*** (3.31**)

PAGE 104

95 Table 9 Regression of Interpersonal Conflict with Supervisor, Perceived Control over the Conflict, and Emotional Expression Coping on Physical Symptoms Note: N = 357 (focal). p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001. Secondary sources did not report on physical symptoms. Physical Symptoms Independent Variable Step 1 IC Sup .08 .08 .12 Control .19*** .19** .17** EEC .02 .02 .03 Step 2 IC Sup X Control .01 .01 Control X EEC .01 .08 IC Sup X EEC .02 .03 Step 3 IC Sup X Control X EEC .16* R 2 .00 .01* Ov erall R 2 .05 .05 .06 Overall F 5.49*** 2.74* 3.00**

PAGE 105

96 Table 10. Regression of Interpersonal Conflict with Co Workers and Perceived Control ov er the Conflict on Happiness Note: N = 367 (focal) and N = 160 (secondary source ) a p = .08; p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001. Values outside parentheses represent results when focal participant reports of the DV were used, values inside parentheses represent results when secondary source reports of the DV were used. Happiness Independent Variable Step 1 IC CW .03 ( .08) .02 (.09) Control .09 ( .13) .09 a ( .11) Step 2 IC CW X Control .08 (.26*) R 2 .00 (.04*) Overall R 2 .01 (.02) .01 (.06) Overall F 1.73 (1.55) 1.60 (3.29*)

PAGE 106

97 Table 11. Regressi on of Interpersonal Conflict with Supervisor, Perceived Control over the Conflict, and Problem Focused Coping on Anger Note: N = 334 (focal) and N = 144 (seconda ry source) a p <.10; p <.05; ** p <.01; ***<.001. Values outside parentheses represent results when focal participant reports of the DV were used, values inside parentheses represent results when secondary source reports of the DV were used. Anger Independent Variable Step 1 IC Sup .38*** (.16 a ) .39*** (.19*) .38*** (.16 a ) Control .07 (.05) .07 (.02) .07** ( .01) PFC .03 ( .18*) .03 ( .19*) .01 ( .25**) Step 2 IC Sup X Control .02 (.06) .05 (.001) Control X PFC .05 (.05) .01 ( .002) IC Sup X PFC .02 (.17) .02 (.19*) Step 3 IC Sup X Control X PFC .08 ( .18 a ) R 2 0 (.02) 0 (.02 a ) Overall R 2 .17 (.06) .17 (.09) .17 (.11) Overall F 22.34*** (3.16*) 11.25*** (2.14 a ) 9.75*** (2.33*)

PAGE 107

98 Table 12. Reg ression of Interpersonal Conflict with Supervisor, Perceived Control over the Conflict, and Emotional Processing Coping on Anxiety Note: N = 358 (focal) and N = 156 (secondary source ) a p <.10; p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001. Values outside parentheses represent results when focal participant reports of the DV were used, values inside parentheses represent results when secondary source reports of the DV were used. Anxiety Independent Variable Step 1 IC Sup .02 (.04) .02 (.05) .01 ( .02) Control .25*** (.18*) .26*** (.22*) .26*** (.18*) EPC .09 a (.05) .10 a (.01) .10 a ( .06) Step 2 IC Sup X Control .02 (.16 a ) .01 (.09) Control X EPC .01 ( .01) .01 ( .07) IC Sup X EPC .09 (.06) .09 (.11) Step 3 IC Sup X Control X EPC .03 ( .25**) R 2 .01 (.02) 0 (.04**) Overall R 2 .09 (.03) .10 (.05) .10 (.09) Overall F 11.19*** (1.63) 6.18*** (1.35) 5.32*** (2.20*)

PAGE 108

99 F i g u r e s Figure 1. Model of the three way interaction between the experience of the stressor (interpersonal conflict with supervisor or interpersonal conflict with co worker), control, and coping strategy on well being. Interpersonal Conflict Coping Control Well being H 1 8 H 9 16 H 18 33 H 34 37 H 17, H 34 37

PAGE 109

100 Figure 2. Graphical representati on of the three way interaction between the experience of interpersonal conflict with supervisor, perceived control over the conflict, and problem focused coping strategies on depressive symptoms as reported by the focal participant. Note: N = 333. Three way interaction ( = .21, p < .01). Simple slope test between lines 1 and 3 ( t = .18, p = .076).

PAGE 110

101 Figure 3. Graphical representation of the three way interaction between the experience of interpersonal conflict with supervisor, perceived control over the conflict, a nd problem focused coping strategies on job frustration as reported by the focal participant. Note: N = 339. Three way interaction ( = .18, p < .05). Simple slope test between lines 1 and 3 ( t = 2.12, p < .05).

PAGE 111

102 Figure 4 Graphical representation of the three way interaction between the experience of interpersonal conflict with supervisor, perceived control over the conflict, and emotional expression coping strategies on depressive symptoms as reported by the focal participant. Note: N = 339. Thr ee way interaction ( = .16, p < .05). Simple slope test between lines 1 and 3 ( t = 2.18, p < .05).

PAGE 112

103 Figure 5 Graphical representation of the three way interaction between the experience of interpersonal conflict with supervisor, perceived control over the conflict, a nd emotional expression coping strategies on job satisfaction as reported by the focal participant. Note: N = 365. Three way interaction ( = .23, p < .01). Simple slope test between lines 1 and 3 ( t = .169, p = .09).

PAGE 113

104 Figure 6. Graphical represen tation of the three way interaction between the experience of interpersonal conflict with supervisor, perceived control over the conflict, and emotional expression coping strategies on physical symptoms as reported by the focal participant. Note: N = 365. Three way interaction ( = .16, p < .05). Simple slope test between lines 1 and 3 ns

PAGE 114

105 Figure 7. Graphical representation of the three way interaction between the experience of interpersonal conflict with supervisor, perceived control over the conflict, and pro blem focused coping strategies on anger as reported by secondary sources. Note: N = 143. Three way interaction ( = .21, p = .07). Simple slope test between lines 1 and 3 ( t = 2.01, p < .05).

PAGE 115

106 Figure 8. Graphical representation of the three way i nteraction between the experience of interpersonal conflict with supervisor, perceived control over the conflict, and problem focused coping strategies on job satisfaction as reported by secondary sources. Note: N = 156. Three way interaction ( = .21, p = .06). Simple slope test between lines 1 and 3 ( t = 2.01, p < .05).

PAGE 116

107 Figure 9 Graphical representation of the three way interaction between the experience of interpersonal conflict with supervisor, perceived control over the conflict, and probl em focused coping strategies on anxiety as reported by secondary sources. Note: N = 156. Three way interaction ( = .25, p < .01). Simple slope test between lines 1 and 3 ns

PAGE 117

108 Appendices

PAGE 118

109 Appendix A ID: Focal Employee Demographics Please indicate the following: Gender (circle one): Male Female Age________ Ethnicity: Caucasian African American Asian Native American Hawaiian Native or Pacific Islander Hispanic or Latino Other Please indicate how long you have been working at your current job: ___________ Years ____________Months Please indicate how many hours you work at your current job: __________Hours per week

PAGE 119

110 Appendix B Instruction: The following items are statements about your perceptions of your supervisor. Please use the scale provided to indicate how much each item describes your perceptions of your s upervisor by choosing whether you agree or disagree with the statement, or whether the statement accurately describes your situation, and circling the number that best represents your response. Interpersonal Conflict with Supervisor Less than Once per Month or Never Once or Twice per Month On ce or Twice per Week Once or Twice per Day Several Times per Day 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 3. How often is you 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 120

111 Appendix C Please use the scale provided to indicate how much each item describes your perceptions of your workplace or your supervisor by choosing whether you agree or disagree with the statement, or whether the statement accurately describes your situation, and circling the number that best represents your response Perceived Control Specific to Interpersonal Conflict with Supervisor Very little Little A moderate amount Much Very much 1. How much control do you personally have over the quality of your relationship with ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 2. How much can you control when and how much you have to interact with your 1 2 3 4 5 3. How much are the inter 1 2 3 4 5 4. In general, how much overall control to do you have over resolving conflict between you and your supervisor?............................................................................. ...................... 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 121

112 Appendix D Instruction: The following are ways people react to situations of interpersonal conflict with a supervisor Please indicate a response from 1 to 5 for each item. Please indicate how much you engage in these types of activities when you encounter interpersonal conflict with your supervisor. Coping with Interpersonal Conflict with Supervisor Never of the time Half of the time of the time Always 1. Focus 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 8. Think about the event 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 15. Try to 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 18. Realize that 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 122

113 Appendix E Instruction: The following items are statements about your perceptions of your co workers. Plea se use the scale provided to indicate how much each item describes your perceptions of your co workers by choosing whether you agree or disagree with the statement, or whether the statement accurately describes your situation, and circling the number that best represents your response. Interpersonal Conflict with Co workers Less than Once per Month or Never Once or Twice per Month Once or Twice per Week Once or Twice per Day Several Times per Day 1. How often do you get into arguments with your co worke 1 2 3 4 5 2. How often does your co 1 2 3 4 5 3. How often is your co 1 2 3 4 5 4. How often does your co workers do nasty things to you at w 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 123

114 Appendix F Please use the scale provided to indicate how much each item describes your perceptions of your workplace or your co workers by choosing whether you agree or disagree with the statement, or whether the statement accur ately describes your situation, and circling the number that best represents your response. Perceived Control Specific to Interpersonal Conflict with Co Workers Very little Little A moderate amount Much Very much 1. How much control do you personally ha ve over the quality of your relationship with your co 1 2 3 4 5 2. How much can you control when and how much you have to interact with your co w 1 2 3 4 5 3. How much are the interactions between you and your co 1 2 3 4 5 4. In general, how much overall control to do you have over resolving conflict between you and a c o worker?........................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 124

115 Appendix G Instruction: The following are ways people react to situations of interpersonal conflict with a co worker Plea se indicate a response from 1 to 5 for each item. Please indicate how much you engage in these types of activities when you encounter interpersonal conflict with co workers. Coping with Interpersonal Conflict with Co Worker When I have a conflict a c o Never of the time Half of the time of the time Always 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 7. Take corre 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 14. Use the 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 17. Delve into my fe 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 125

116 Appendix H The following items are statements about your feelings as a result of your workplace and your job Please use the scale provided to indicate how much each item describes your feelings of your workplace or your job by choosing whether you agree or disagree with the stat ement, or whether the statement accurately describes your condition, and circling the number that best represents your response. Anger, Anxiety, Depression In the past month, how did you feel in general at work? Never or A Little Some of the Time A G ood Part of the Time Most of the Time 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 9. I fe 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

PAGE 126

117 Appendix I The following items are statements about your feelings as a result of your workplace and your job Please use the scale provided to indicate how much each item describes your feelings of your workplace or your job by choosing whether you agree or disagree with the statement, or whether the statement accurately describes your condition, and circling th e number that best represents your response. Frustration In the past month, how did you feel about your job? Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 127

118 Appendix J The following items are statements about your feelings as a result of your wor kplace and your job Please use the scale provided to indicate how much each item describes your feelings of your workplace or your job by choosing whether you agree or disagree with the statement, or whether the statement accurately describes your conditi on, and circling the number that best represents your response. Job Satisfaction In the past month, how did you feel about your job? Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 128

119 Appendix K The following items are statements please circle the point on the scale t hat you feel is most appropriate in describing you. 1. In general, I consider myself: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not a very a very happy person happy person 2. Compared to most of my peers, I consider myself: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Less happy more happ y 3. Some people are generally very happy. They enjoy life regardless of what is going on, getting the most out of everything. To what extent does this characterization describe you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal 4. Some people are g enerally not very happy. Although they are not depressed, they never seem as happy as they might be. To what extent does this characterization describe you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal

PAGE 129

120 Appendix L The following items are statements ab out your physical health in the past three months Please use the scale provided to indicate how much each item describes you by circling the number that best represents your response. Physical Symptoms In the past month, how often did you have t he following condition? Less than Once per Month or Never Once or Twice per Month Once or Twice per Week Once or Twice per Day Several Times per Day 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 11. Loss of 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 130

121 Appendix M Sleep Quality The following relate to your usual sleep habits dur ing the past month only. Your answers should indicate the most accurate reply for the majority of the days and nights in the past month. Please answer all questions. 1. During the last month, what time have you usually gone to bed at night? Bed time _______ ____ 2. During the last month, how long has it taken you (in minutes) to fall asleep? ___________ 3. During the last month, what time have you typically gotten up in the morning?____________ 4. During the last month, how many hours of actual sleep have did you get at night (this may be different than the number of hours you spent in bed)? __________ 1. During the past month, how would you rate your sleep quality overall? Very Good Fairly Good Fairly Bad Very Bad 2. During the past month, how often have you taken medicine (prescribed or "over the counter") to he lp you sleep? Not During the Past Month Less than Once a Week Once or Twice a Week Three or More Times a Week 3. During the past month, how often have you had trouble staying awake while driving, eating meals, or engaging in social activity? Not Durin g the Past Month Less than Once a Week Once or Twice a Week Three or More Times a Week 4. During the past month, how much of a problem has it been for you to keep up enough enthusiasm to get things done? No Problem At All Only a Very Slight Problem S omewhat of A Problem A Very Big Problem 5. During the past month, how often have you had trouble sleeping because you: Not at all true Hardly true Moderately true Exactly true a. Cannot get to sleep wi thin 30 minutes 1 2 3 4 b. Wake up in the middle of the night or in the early morning 1 2 3 4 c. Had to get up to use the bathroom 1 2 3 4 d. Cannot breath comfortably 1 2 3 4 e. 1 2 3 4 f. Feel too col 1 2 3 4 g. 1 2 3 4 h. 1 2 3 4 i. Have pain 1 2 3 4 j. Other reason (please describe)______________________________________ How often have you had trou ble sleeping because of this? 1 2 3 4

PAGE 131

122 Appendix N ID: Significant Other or Best Friend Demographics Please indicate the following: Gender (circle one): Male Female Age________ Ethnicity: Caucasian African American Asian N ative American Hawaiian Native or Pacific Islander Hispanic or Latino Other Please indicate your relationship to the person who asked you to complete this survey ___ Spouse ___ Significant Other (Live with) ___ Si gnificant Other (Do not live with) ___ Friend (Live with) ___ Friend (Do not live with) ___ Other:_______________________ Please indicate how long you have known the person who asked you to complete this survey: _________ Years ____________Months H ow frequently do you see this person in a week? Less than 1 time per week 1 2 times per week 3 4 times per week Almost everyday Everyday

PAGE 132

123 Appendix O Instruction: You have been asked to complete this survey because you have a close relationsh ip with the person who asked you to participate. Other people can have important insight about us and that is why you have been asked to answer some questions about the person who asked you to answer these questions. The person who asked you to participa te WILL NOT see any of your responses. Only the research team will see your answers and no identifying information about you or the person who asked you to fill this out will be collected or attached to the data in any way. Please answer these questions about the person who asked you to participate honestly. The following items are statements about her workplace and his or her job Please use the scale provided to indicate how much each item describes the feel ings of the person who asked you to participate about his or her workplace or job by choosing whether you agree or disagree with the statement, or whether the statement accurately describes his or her condition, and circling the number that best represents your response. Anger, Anxiety, Depression In the past month, how did he or she feel in general at work? Never or A Little Some of the Time A Good Part of the Time Most of the Time 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

PAGE 133

124 Appendix P The following items are statements about her workplace and his or her job Please use the scale provided to indicate how much each item describes the feelings of the person who asked you to participate about his or her workplace or job by choosing whether you agree or disagree with the statement, or whether the statement accurately describes his or her condi tion, and circling the number that best represents your response. Frustration In the past month, how did he or she feel about his or her job? Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1. Trying to get the job done was a very frustrating 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 134

125 Appendix Q The following items are statements about her workplace and his or her job Please use the scale provided to indicate how much each item describes the feelings of the person who asked you to participate about his or her workplace or job by choosing whether you agree or disagree with the statement, or whether the statement accurately describes his or her condition, and circling the number that best represents your response. Job Satisfaction In the past month, how did he or she feel about his or her job? Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 3. In general, he or sh 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 135

126 Appendix R The following items are statements or questions, please circle the point on the scale that you feel is mo st appropriate in describing the person who asked you to fill this out 1. I n general, he/she is : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not a very a very happy person happy person 2. Compared to most of his or her peers, he or she is : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Less happy more happy 3. Some people are generally very happy. They enjoy life r egardless of what is going on, getting the most out of everything. To what extent does th is characterization describe the person who asked you to fill this out ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal 4. Some people are generally not very happy. Although they are not depressed, they never seem as happy as they might be. To what extent does this characterization describe the person who asked you to fill this out ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all a great deal

PAGE 136

About the Author Erin Eatough is a doctoral student in Industrial/Organizational Psychology with a concentration in Occupational Health Psychology at the University of South Florida. Before coming to USF, she studied psychology and business at the University of Wisconsin Madison and Unive rsit Bocconi in Milan, Italy while pursing her undergraduate degree She received the competitive Hilldale Research Fellowship to pursue her honors thesis. After graduating with her Bachelors degree, she worked as a research coordinator at the Center for Cognitive Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago Medical Center for two years. As a graduate student, s he is primarily interested in how occupational stressors impact psychological and physical health. She also studies the relationships between job stress and performance outcomes She has published her research on hormonal responses to stress in Psychoneuroendocrinology and has contributed to the book series Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being She has participated in conference sympo sia and presented her work at a variety of prominent academic conferences such as the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, Work, Stress, and Health, The Academy of Management, and the International Society of Ps ychoneuroendocrinology. She has applied her training in consulting and contract projects with Procter & Gamble, TECO, PDRI, and Besiada Health Innovators. She also serves as a committee member on the Society of Occupational Health Psychology Graduate Student Committee