a matter of match an experiment on choosing specific job resources in different demanding work...

A Matter of Match? An Experiment on ChoosingSpecific Job Resources in Different DemandingWork Situations

Marieke van den ToorenEindhoven University of Technology and Tilburg University

Jan de JongeEindhoven University of Technology

Christian DormannRuhr-University Bochum

Though research on the demand-induced strain compensation (DISC) modelhas suggested that the type of job resources people employ to deal with jobdemands may have serious implications for job stress theory and practice,not much is known about the choices people make regarding the investmentof job resources. The aim of this study is to fill this gap in the literature. Inline with the DISC model, we were particularly interested in the extent towhich people choose job resources that match job demands (i.e., matchingjob resources) and job resources that do not match job demands (i.e.,nonmatching job resources). For that reason, several vignettes were devel-oped to experimentally examine the extent to which people (92 undergrad-uates) choose cognitive, emotional, and physical job resources; combina-tions of these specific job resources; and no job resources at all in differenthypothetical demanding work situations (i.e., cognitively, emotionally, andphysically demanding jobs). As predicted, people generally chose cognitivejob resources to deal with cognitive job demands, emotional job resources to

Marieke van den Tooren, Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences,Human Performance Management Group, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven,The Netherlands, and School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Department of Social Psy-chology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands; Jan de Jonge, Department of IndustrialEngineering and Innovation Sciences, Human Performance Management Group, EindhovenUniversity of Technology; Christian Dormann, Faculty of Psychology, Department of Workand Organizational Psychology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Marieke van den Tooren,School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Department of Social Psychology, Tilburg Univer-sity, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]

International Journal of Stress Management 2012 American Psychological Association2012, Vol. 19, No. 4, 311332 1072-5245/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0030110

311

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

deal with emotional job demands, and physical job resources to deal withphysical job demands. Further, results showed that nonmatching job re-sources were particularly chosen as a supplement to matching job resourcesrather than as a substitute for matching job resources. However, in contrastto our predictions, there seemed to be a dominant role for nonmatchingcognitive job resources in this respect, whereas nonmatching emotional jobresources were chosen less often than expected.Keywords: job demands, job resources, DISC model, match, vignette study

According to many modern job stress models, worker health and well-being can be explained by two key job characteristics: job demands and jobresources (e.g., Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; de Jonge & Dormann, 2003;Karasek & Theorell, 1990). Job demands can be defined as work-related tasksthat require effort and vary from solving complex problems via dealing withaggressive clients to moving heavy objects. Job resources are work-relatedassets (i.e., opportunities, data, people, things) that can be employed to dealwith those job demands. Examples of job resources are job autonomy,emotional support from colleagues and supervisors, or technical equipment.Generally speaking, three specific types of job demands and job resourcescan be distinguished: cognitive, emotional, and physical demands and re-sources (Hockey, 2000).

Several researchers have pointed out the stress-buffering effect of jobresources, indicating that high job demands will result in job strain unlessworkers have sufficient job resources to deal with their demanding job (e.g.,Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Karasek, 1979; Siegrist,1996). One approach in job stress research has taken this proposition a stepfurther by suggesting that workers are least likely to experience job strain ifthey have access to sufficient and, particularly, corresponding types of jobresources to deal with their job demands (e.g., Cohen & Wills, 1985; Cutrona& Russell, 1990; Viswesvaran, Sanchez, & Fisher, 1999).

More recently, the ideas of specificity and correspondence or match havebeen integrated into the demand-induced strain compensation (DISC) model(de Jonge & Dormann, 2003, 2006). According to the DISC model, workerswho are faced with high physical job demands (e.g., moving heavy objects)are least likely to experience job strain if they have access to sufficientphysical job resources (e.g., a trolley). In a similar vein, it is proposed thatworkers who are faced with high cognitive job demands (e.g., solvingcomplex problems) are least likely to experience job strain if they have accessto sufficient cognitive job resources (e.g., information from handbooks).Finally, workers who are confronted with high emotional job demands (e.g.,taking care of dying patients) are least likely to experience job strain whenthey have access to sufficient emotional job resources (e.g., emotional sup-port from colleagues; (de Jonge & Dormann, 2003, 2006). This idea of

312 van den Tooren, de Jonge, and Dormann

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

correspondence or match is referred to as the matching hypothesis (cf.Cohen & McKay, 1984; de Jonge & Dormann, 2006).

Up until now, there has been a growing body of empirical evidence forthe DISC models matching hypothesis (Daniels & de Jonge, 2010; van denTooren, de Jonge, & Dormann, 2011), implying that employers should makematching job resources (i.e., job resources that match job demands) availableto workers. However, most research on the DISC model relies heavily onself-reports (i.e., survey data) and has been criticized for its sample selectionbias. For instance, a recent overview of the DISC model revealed thatresearch on the model has been mainly conducted among service employ-eesin particular, health care workers (van den Tooren, de Jonge, & Dor-mann, 2011). As a result, many studies on the DISC model might have beenaffected by common method bias and a limited generalizability of results. Inaddition to these methodological limitations of DISC research, a recentvignette study by van den Tooren and de Jonge (2010) showed that althoughpeople are generally inclined to use matching job resources, they are alsoinclined to use nonmatching job resources, that is, job resources that do notcorrespond to the type of job demands concerned. For instance, people maymobilize emotional support from colleagues as a job resource for cognitivedemands. As nonmatching job resources have proven to be less functionalresources than matching job resources in dealing with specific types ofdemanding work situations (van den Tooren, de Jonge, & Dormann, 2011),the activation of nonmatching job resources could have serious implicationsfor both theory (e.g., weak support for the stress-buffering effect of jobresources) and practice (e.g., unsuccessful job redesign). These effects areparticularly likely to manifest themselves when people use nonmatching jobresources as a substitute for matching job resources (cf. Hobfoll, 2001;Hobfoll & Lerman, 1989), for instance, because they believe that matchingjob resources are not sufficiently powerful to deal with the type of jobdemands concerned. In contrast, if people use nonmatching job resources asa supplement to matching job resources to compensate for the lack of fitbetween capacity and demand (cf. Hobfoll, 2001; Westman, Hobfoll, Chen,Davidson, & Laski, 2005), the use of nonmatching job resources could workout favorably. The activation of nonmatching job resources may thus have adifferent impact on both theory and practice, depending on whether itconcerns resource substitution or resource supplementation. Although thevignette study by van den Tooren and de Jonge (2010) revealed that peopleare sometimes inclined to use nonmatching job resources, there was noinformation on the issue of resource substitution or resource supplementation. Tothe best of our knowledge, no research has been conducted on the extent to whichpeople choose nonmatching job resources as a substitute for matching jobresources and as a supplement to matching job resources. Therefore, the aim ofthe current study is to investigate the choices people make regarding the invest-

313Choosing Job Resources: A Matter of Match?

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

ment of matching and nonmatching job resources in different demanding worksituations. In line with the study by van den Tooren and de Jonge (2010), thepresent study has an experimental design with vignettes. However, whereas vanden Tooren and de Jonge (2010) included a sample of health care workers in theirstudy, the current study was conducted among undergraduates. By means of theexperimental design and this unique sample, we hope to account for the commonmethod bias and sample selection bias that might have affected previous researchon the DISC model.

FUNCTIONAL HOMEOSTATIC REGULATION THEORY

The DISC model has been theoretically based on functional homeostaticregulation theory (e.g., van den Tooren, de Jonge, & Dormann, 2011).According to this theory, an explanation for why people are generallyinclined to use matching job resources is that they strive for functionalhomeostasis (cf. Carver & Scheier, 1982, 1998; Edwards, 1998). Consider,for instance, a worker who is confronted with a physically strenuous task(e.g., moving heavy objects). As this task requires a lot of physical efforts,the worker may gradually become physically exhausted. At the moment theworker experiences a discrepancy or an imminent discrepancy between his orher current physical condition and normal physical condition (i.e., referencevalue), s/he will come into action to reduce this discrepancy (Carver &Scheier, 2000). That is, the worker will mobilize job resources to deal withthe demanding situation at work concerned. Through lifelong learning pro-cesses that bear most resemblance to operant conditioning (Skinner, 1969),workers have learned that homeostasis can best be strived for through the useof matching job resources. In the current example, this means that the workerwill mobilize physical job resources (e.g., a trolley). This type of jobresources is considered most effective because physical job resources providethe physical energy that is needed to deal with the physically strenuous task(i.e., moving heavy objects; cf. Quinn, Spreitzer, & Lam, 2012). Cognitivejob resources and emotional job resources provide other types of energyand are therefore less suited to deal with physical job demands. Instead, thesespecific types of job resources are best suited to deal with job demands thatrequire cognitive effort and emotional effort, respectively. As a result, peopleare generally inclined to use cognitive job resources to deal with cognitivejob demands, emotional job resources to deal with emotional job demands,and physical job resources to deal with physical job demands.

We already mentioned before that although people seem to have a strongpreference for matching job resources, they also are inclined to use lessfunctional nonmatching job resources (van den Tooren & de Jonge, 2010).


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

Nonmatching job resources can be used either as a substitute for matching jobresources (e.g., if people believe that matching job resources are not availablein the work environment; cf. Hobfoll, 2001; Hobfoll & Lerman, 1989) or asa supplement to matching job resources (e.g., if people believe that matchingjob resources are not sufficiently powerful to deal with the type of jobdemands concerned; cf. Hobfoll, 2001; Westman et al., 2005). However, theextent to which people are inclined to use nonmatching job resources as asubstitute for matching job resources and as a supplement to matching jobresources may differ. As stated above, people who are faced with stressfulwork situations strive for functional homeostasis (cf. Carver & Scheier, 1982,1998; Edwards, 1998). Because functional homeostasis in stressful worksituations can best be accomplished by activating matching job resources(van den Tooren, de Jonge, & Dormann, 2011), it is reasonable to assume thatpeople are more inclined to use nonmatching job resources as a supplementto matching job resources than as a substitute for matching job resources.

In addition, given the close relation between cognition and emotion(Nussbaum, 2001)emotion affects cognition and cognition underlies emo-tion (Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, & DeLongis, 1986; Fredrickson, 2001; Gray,2004; Lazarus, 1993, 2006)it is reasonable to assume that people who areinclined to use nonmatching job resources to deal with cognitive job demandswill have a preference for emotional job resources. Similarly, we may assumethat people who are inclined to activate nonmatching job resources to dealwith emotional job demands will have a preference for cognitive job resources.Though both types of nonmatching job resources are less functional resourcesthan matching job resources, they may still be a good substitute for, or supple-ment to, matching job resources in the demanding work situation concerned. Forinstance, in a cognitively demanding work situation, workers cognitive efforts(e.g., finding solutions for complex problems) might elicit emotions (cf. Lazarus,1991) that disturb cognitive processing (cf. Zajonc, 1980). In such a situation,where the regulation of cognitive job demands is impeded, emotional jobresources might counteract the emotions that disturb cognitive processing,thereby better enabling workers to fulfill their cognitively demanding job. Sim-ilarly, in an emotionally demanding work situation, job-related emotions (e.g.,anger or fear) might disturb cognitive processing, which, in turn, strengthensemotions or elicits new emotions that conflict organizational display rules (Zapf,2002). In that situation, cognitive job resources might preserve workers capacityfor cognitive processing and, as a result, prevent an increase of unwantedemotions. In contrast to the close relation between cognition and emotion, wehave no indication of a common relation between physical conditions andcognition, or between physical conditions and emotion. Therefore, it seemsreasonable to assume that people who are inclined to use nonmatching jobresources to deal with physical job demands will have no preference for eithercognitive or emotional job resources. Instead, they will be inclined to use them


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

equally often. In accordance with this line of reasoning, it seems highly likelythat if we ask people which specific job resources they would use to deal withcognitive, emotional, and physical job demands, respectively, the followinghypotheses will apply:

Hypothesis 1: To deal with cognitively demanding work situations,people are most inclined to use cognitive job resources, less inclined touse a combination of cognitive and emotional job resources, and evenlesser inclined to use emotional job resources. People are least inclinedto use physical job resources, other combinations of job resources, andno job resources at all.

Hypothesis 2: To deal with emotionally demanding work situations,people are most inclined to use emotional job resources, less inclined touse a combination of emotional and cognitive job resources, and evenlesser inclined to use cognitive job resources. People are least inclined touse physical job resources, other combinations of job resources, and nojob resources at all.

Hypothesis 3: To deal with physically demanding work situations, peo-ple are most inclined to use physical job resources, less inclined to usecombinations of physical and cognitive job resources and physical andemotional job resources, and even lesser inclined to use cognitive jobresources and emotional job resources. People are least inclined to useother combinations of job resources, and no job resources at all.

METHOD

Design

Data were collected by means of a vignette study. Compared withtraditional survey research, an advantage of a vignette study is that vignettesallow standardization of demanding work situations, leading to more uniformdata (Hughes & Huby, 2002). As will be discussed in the Procedure section,we used a within-subjects experimental design in which all participants wereexposed to the vignettes in random order.

Sample

The study sample consisted of 92 undergraduates from a Dutch univer-sity of technology (64 males and 28 females). The mean age was 20.3 years


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

(SD 1.8). Participants had experience with jobs on the side (M 4 years,SD 2.7) and holiday jobs (M 4 years; SD 2.3).

Procedure

In a laboratory environment, participants were presented 12 differenthypothetical, demanding work situations (i.e., vignettes) that had been cre-ated by the researchers. The different scenarios were presented randomly tothe participants on a computer screen. Each scenario represented a highlydemanding work situation in a different profession. The vignettes weredesigned to represent a cognitively, emotionally, or physically demandingwork situation. When designing the vignettes, the researchers emphasized thetype of job demands concerned and avoided mentioning possible accompa-nying demands (or suggesting that they could be active as well). Theprofessions in the four scenarios representing cognitive job demands wereaccountant, air traffic controller, journalist, and criminal judge. The profes-sions in the four scenarios representing emotional job demands were policeofficer, teacher, ambulance attendant, and family guardian, and the profes-sions in the four scenarios representing physical job demands were garbagecollector, shoe salesman, cashier, and construction worker. When selectingthese 12 professions, the researchers took into account the degree of ambi-guity in job content. Of the chosen professions, we believed that they wereprimarily characterized by either cognitive, emotional, or physical job de-mands. The professions have been classified accordingly. Three examplevignettes are presented in the Appendix.

Participants were asked to imagine themselves being the central figure(i.e., worker) in the vignettes who is experiencing the demanding situationconcerned. After participants had read a vignette (and imagined themselvesin the demanding situation), they were asked what specific type of jobresources or combination of job resources they would use in that particulardemanding work situation. By mouse clicking the respective button on thescreen, participants could choose one of the following options: (1) cognitivejob resources, (2) emotional job resources, (3) physical job resources,(4) a combination of cognitive and emotional job resources, (5) a com-bination of cognitive and physical job resources, (6) a combination ofemotional and physical job resources, (7) a combination of cognitive,emotional, and physical job resources, or (8) no job resources. Responsecategories 1 through 7 have been based on the three specific types of jobresources that can be distinguished: cognitive, emotional, and physical jobresources. The categories were created in such a way that all possible optionswere covered; participants could choose either one specific job resource or a


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

combination of specific job resources. We also included the option to chooseno job resources at all (i.e., response category 8), as we wanted to make surethat people would choose particular job resources from conviction rather thansimply choosing resources randomly because they had to make a choice.

Before the vignettes were presented, participants were explained theconcept of job resources and were given examples of cognitive, emotional,and physical job resources (e.g., the opportunity to take a mental break, alistening ear from colleagues, and ergonomic aids). Because the availabilityof job resources may not be equally distributed across people and is unlikelyto be stable over time, different information was communicated about thepresence of job resources in the demanding work situations. It was suggestedthat the availability of job resources was either limited or abundant. Thisinstruction varied randomly across participants.

We did not clarify the nature of the vignettes (i.e., whether a particularvignette represented a cognitive, emotional, or physical job demand). However,after the study, participants were asked to judge each of the vignettes as acognitively, emotionally, or physically demanding job. This manipulation checkrevealed that the vignettes were designed properly: On average, more than 90%of the participants classified the vignettes as intended by the researchers (e.g., ifa vignette was designed to represent a cognitively demanding work situation,90% of the participants classified the vignette as such).

Data Analysis

Because the teacher scenario seemed ambiguous (about one third of theparticipants classified this scenario as a cognitively demanding work situation),it was decided to leave this vignette out of the analyses. For each of the 11remaining vignettes, eight resource variables were created that represented thedifferent resources participants could choose from (i.e., single cognitive, emo-tional, and physical job resources; combinations of these specific types of jobresources; and no job resources). Subsequently, these resource variables weredummy coded. For instance, if a participant indicated that s/he would use singlecognitive job resources in a particular vignette, the accompanying eight resourcevariables were, in line with the order described previously, dummy coded as 1 00 0 0 0 0 0, respectively. Similarly, if a participant had chosen a combination ofcognitive and emotional job resources, the eight resource variables were dummycoded as 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0, respectively. A mean score was calculated for eachresource variable over the four vignettes representing cognitive job demands (i.e.,accountant, air traffic controller, journalist, and criminal judge), the three vi-gnettes representing emotional job demands (i.e., police officer, ambulanceattendant, and family guardian), and the four vignettes representing physical job


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

demands (i.e., garbage collector, shoe salesman. cashier, and construction work-er). Table 1 shows the means of the eight resource variables in each specific typeof demanding work situation.

To test Hypotheses 1 through 3, we followed a conservative top-downapproach (see Figure 1). Specifically, because paired samples t tests wouldprobably have enhanced capitalization by chance, a repeated measures mul-tiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted for each type of jobdemands (i.e., cognitive, emotional, and physical job demands). However, tojustify these three separate repeated measures MANOVAs, it was firstinvestigated whether the extent to which participants had chosen singlecognitive, emotional, and physical job resources, combinations of thesespecific types of job resources, and no job resources differed between thespecific types of job demands (see Figure 1, above the dotted line). For thispurpose, a repeated measures MANOVA was conducted in which job re-sources and job demands were both specified as within-subject factors. Jobresources consisted of eight levels (i.e., cognitive, emotional, physical, cog-nitive emotional, cognitivephysical, emotionalphysical, cognitiveemotionalphysical, and no job resources) and job demands consisted ofthree levels (cognitive, emotional, and physical). A significant interactioneffect between job resources and job demands in the multivariate test wouldimply that the extent to which participants had chosen single cognitive,emotional, and physical job resources, combinations of these specific types ofjob resources, and no job resources differed between the specific types of jobdemands (i.e., cognitive, emotional, and physical job demands).

Next, a repeated measures MANOVA was conducted for each type ofjob demands (see Figure 1, below the dotted line) in which job resourceswere specified as a within-subject factor with eight levels (i.e., cognitive,emotional, physical, cognitiveemotional, cognitivephysical, emotionalphysical, cognitiveemotionalphysical, and no job resources). For each

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of the Resource VariablesCognitive

jobdemands

Emotionaljob

demandsPhysical job

demands

M SD M SD M SDCognitive job resources .52 .30 .07 .15 .04 .13Emotional job resources .03 .08 .47 .31 .03 .11Physical job resources .07 .16 .00 .00 .49 .29Cognitive and emotional job resources .16 .18 .36 .28 .03 .08Cognitive and physical job resources .08 .16 .00 .04 .23 .25Emotional and physical job resources .02 .06 .02 .09 .09 .18Cognitive, emotional, and physical job

resources .02 .08 .02 .08 .03 .08None (no job resources) .12 .19 .06 .15 .08 .16


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

repeated measures MANOVA, a significant main effect of job resourceswould imply that the extent to which participants had chosen single cogni-tive, emotional, and physical job resources, combinations of these specifictypes of job resources, and no job resources differed within the specific typeof demanding job concerned (i.e., cognitive, emotional, or physical jobdemands). Finally, for each significant main effect of job resources, a posthoc test was conducted to examine what resource variables differed fromeach other in the specific demanding work situation concerned. The post hoctests were corrected with a Bonferroni adjustment.

RESULTS

Repeated Measures MANOVAs

The multivariate test of the repeated measures MANOVA showed a signif-icant interaction effect between job resources and job demands. This findingimplies that the extent to which participants had chosen single cognitive, emo-tional, and physical job resources, combinations of these specific types of jobresources, and no job resources differed between the specific types of jobdemands, F(14, 78) 109.06, p .01, partial 2 .95. In the subsequentrepeated measures MANOVAs (one for each type of job demand), wefound a main effect for job resources in a cognitively demanding worksituation, F(7, 85) 96.72, p .01, partial 2 .89, an emotionally

Figure 1. Different steps taken in the data analysis.


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

demanding work situation, F(6, 86) 204.63, p .01, partial 2 .94, anda physically demanding work situation, F(7, 85) 70.65, p .01, partial 2 .85. In other words, the extent to which participants had chosen singlecognitive, emotional, and physical job resources, combinations of thesespecific types of job resources, and no job resources differed within eachspecific type of demanding work situation. Results of the post hoc tests arediscussed next.

Post Hoc Tests: Cognitive Job Demands

As shown in Table 2 and Figure 2, people who were presented with

Table 2. T-Statistics of the Post Hoc Tests for Cognitive Job DemandsCRa ERa PRa CR_ERa CR_PRa ER_PRa CR_ER_PRa Nonea

CRb ERb 14.56a PRb 10.67a n.s. CR_ERb 9.10a 6.19b n.s. CR_PRb 11.00a n.s. n.s. n.s. ER_PRb 14.79a n.s. 1.54a 7.32a 3.50a CR_ER_PRb 14.79a n.s. n.s. 7.32a 3.32a n.s. Noneb 9.50a 4.75b n.s. n.s. n.s. 4.91b 4.68b

Note. Superscripts indicate which resource variable is significantly more often chosen. CRcognitive resources; CR_ER combination of cognitive and emotional resources; CR_ER_PR combination of cognitive, emotional, and physical resources; CR_PR combination of cognitiveand physical resources; ER emotional resources; ER_PR combination of emotional andphysical resources; None no resources were chosen; n.s. no significant difference between jobresources in row and column; PR physical resources.a Column row. b Row column. p .05. p .01.

Figure 2. Specific types of job resources (in the order cognitive, emotional, physical, cognitiveemotional, cognitivephysical, emotionalphysical, cognitiveemotionalphysical, and no jobresources) respondents chose in different types of demanding work situations.


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

cognitively demanding work situations chose single cognitive job resourcesmore often than single emotional and physical job resources, combinations ofspecific job resources, and no job resources at all. In addition, people chosea combination of cognitive and emotional job resources more often thansingle emotional job resources, a combination of emotional and physical jobresources, and a combination of cognitive, emotional, and physical jobresources. However, a combination of cognitive and emotional job resourceswas chosen equally often as single physical job resources, a combination ofcognitive and physical job resources, and no job resources at all (i.e., their usedid not differ significantly). Finally, results revealed that people chose no jobresources more often than single emotional job resources, and that singleemotional job resources were chosen equally often as single physical jobresources and combinations of cognitive and physical job resources, emo-tional and physical job resources, and cognitive, emotional, and physical jobresources.

Post Hoc Tests: Emotional Job Demands

Table 3 and Figure 2 show that people who were presented with emo-tionally demanding work situations chose emotional job resources mostoften, either as a single job resource or in combination with cognitive jobresources. Further, both single emotional job resources and a combination ofcognitive and emotional job resources were chosen more often than singlecognitive and physical job resources, other combinations of specific jobresources, and no job resources at all. Finally, results revealed that single

Table 3. T-Statistics of the Post Hoc Tests for Emotional Job DemandsCRa ERa PRa CR_ERa CR_PRa ER_PRa CR_ER_PRa Nonea

CRb ERb 10.41b PRb 4.06a 14.72a CR_ERb 8.37b n.s. 12.38b CR_PRb 3.88a 14.59a n.s. 11.83a ER_PRb n.s. 13.32a n.s. 10.66a n.s. CR_ER_PRb n.s. 12.83a n.s. 11.23a n.s. n.s. Noneb n.s. 10.76a 4.13b 8.49a 3.63b n.s. n.s.

Note. Superscripts indicate which resource variable is significantly more often chosen. CRcognitive resources; CR_ER combination of cognitive and emotional resources; CR_ER_PR combination of cognitive, emotional, and physical resources; CR_PR combination of cognitiveand physical resources; ER emotional resources; ER_PR combination of emotional andphysical resources; None no resources were chosen; n.s. no significant difference between jobresources in row and column; PR physical resources.a Column row. b Row column. p .05. p .01.


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

cognitive job resources were chosen more often than single physical jobresources and a combination of cognitive and physical job resources, butequally often as a combination of emotional and physical job resources, acombination of cognitive, emotional, and physical job resources, and no jobresources at all.

Post Hoc Tests: Physical Job Demands

Finally, in Table 4 and Figure 2, it is shown that people who werepresented with physically demanding work situations chose single physicaljob resources more often than single cognitive and emotional job resources,combinations of specific job resources, and no job resources at all. Inaddition, results revealed that a combination of cognitive and physical jobresources was chosen more often than single cognitive and emotional jobresources, other combinations of specific job resources, and no job resourcesat all. In contrast, a combination of emotional and physical job resources waschosen equally often as single cognitive and emotional job resources, acombination of cognitive and emotional job resources, a combination ofcognitive, emotional, and physical job resources, and no job resources at all.Finally, it was shown that people chose single cognitive job resources equallyoften as single emotional job resources, and that both types of job resourceswere chosen equally often as a combination of cognitive and emotional jobresources, a combination of cognitive, emotional, and physical job resources,and no job resources at all.

Table 4. T-Statistics of the Post Hoc Tests for Physical Job DemandsCRa ERa PRa CR_ERa CR_PRa ER_PRa CR_ER_PRa Nonea

CRb ERb n.s. PRb 12.39b 13.68b CR_ERb n.s. n.s. 14.53a CR_PRb 6.27b 7.14b 5.38a 7.39b ER_PRb n.s. n.s. 10.05a n.s. 4.11a CR_ER_PRb n.s. n.s. 14.09a n.s. 7.96a n.s. Noneb n.s. n.s. 11.47a n.s. 4.43a n.s. n.s.

Note. Superscripts indicate which resource variable is significantly more often chosen. CRcognitive resources; CR_ER combination of cognitive and emotional resources; CR_ER_PR combination of cognitive, emotional, and physical resources; CR_PR combination of cognitiveand physical resources; ER emotional resources; ER_PR combination of emotional andphysical resources; None no resources were chosen; n.s. no significant difference between jobresources in row and column; PR physical resources.a Column row. b Row column. p .01.


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

DISCUSSION

The aim of the present study was to examine the extent to which peopleare inclined to use nonmatching job resources as a substitute for matching jobresources, and as a supplement to matching job resources in different de-manding work situations. This study thereby fills a gap in the currentliterature on the DISC model. In addition, this study expanded an earlierstudy by van den Tooren and de Jonge (2010) using an experimental designand a student sample, which can be considered additional strengths of thepresent study.

To uncover the choices people make regarding the investment of match-ing and nonmatching job resources, several vignettes were developed toexperimentally examine peoples inclination to use single cognitive, emo-tional, and physical job resources, combinations of these specific types of jobresources, and no job resources at all in different hypothetical demandingwork situations (i.e., cognitively, emotionally, and physically demandingjobs). Data were analyzed by repeated measures MANOVAs, which partlysupported Hypotheses 1 through 3. Specifically, in line with Hypothesis 1,people who were presented cognitively demanding work situations chosesingle cognitive job resources more often than a combination of cognitive andemotional job resources, whereas a combination of cognitive and emotionaljob resources was chosen more often than single emotional job resources.However, contrary to our expectations, together, these three options were notalways preferred over single physical job resources, other resource combi-nations, and no job resources at all.

As far as Hypothesis 2 is concerned, results contradicted our predictions,as it was shown that people who were presented with emotionally demandingwork situations chose single emotional job resources equally often as acombination of cognitive and emotional job resources. As expected, bothsingle emotional job resources and a combination of cognitive and emotionaljob resources were chosen more often than single cognitive job resources.Contrary to our expectations, however, together, these three options were notalways preferred over single physical job resources, other resource combi-nations, and no job resources at all.

Finally, in line with Hypothesis 3, results revealed that if people werepresented with physically demanding work situations, they chose singlephysical job resources more often than combinations of cognitive and phys-ical job resources and emotional and physical job resources. However, incontrast to our predictions, a combination of cognitive and physical jobresources was chosen more often than a combination of emotional andphysical job resources. In addition, though people chose a combination ofcognitive and physical job resources more often than single cognitive job


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

resources and emotional job resources, a combination of emotional andphysical job resources was chosen equally often as single cognitive andemotional job resources. Finally, as predicted, single cognitive and emotionaljob resources were chosen equally often. Nonetheless, contrary to our ex-pectations, together, these five options were not always preferred over otherresource combinations and no job resources at all.

In line with functional homeostatic regulation theory, which serves as atheoretical basis of the DISC model, the current findings suggest that thechoice for matching job resources clearly prevailed. Further, it was shownthat people also chose less functional nonmatching job resources, whichsupports the vignette study by van den Tooren and de Jonge (2010). Inaddition to this earlier study, however, the current study also revealed thatnonmatching job resources often seemed to be chosen as a supplement tomatching job resources rather than as a substitute for matching job resources.One remarkable finding was that there particularly seemed to be a dominantrole for nonmatching cognitive job resources, whereas nonmatching emo-tional job resources were chosen less often than expected. One explanationfor this finding may be that people usually operate (i.e., make decisions, takeaction) from a set of cognitive schemas or frames of reference (Vonk,1999). The specific values, beliefs, needs, and understandings that stem fromthese frames of reference may make people highly sensitive to detect andutilize particular affordances in the work environment (Baron & Boudreau,1987; Gibson, 1979). Affordances are properties of the work environmentthat can exert an influence on the person only if s/he possesses the comple-mentary characteristic to make use of or tune into a certain affordance. Forinstance, as helping and caring and giving and receiving are valuedactivities among health care workers, these workers could become alert toinformation in the work environment suggesting emotional support. Due totheir focus on affordances for emotional support, health care workers may bestrongly inclined to use emotional job resources to deal with different typesof high job demands. In fact, in the vignette study conducted by van denTooren and de Jonge (2010) among service workers who were mainlyemployed in health care, there was a dominant role for emotional jobresources. Similar to service workers who may be particularly alert to sourcesof emotional support, in the current study, respondents academic educationat a university of technology may have made them alert to sources ofknowledge and expertise. In other words, respondents may have operatedfrom a frame of reference that led them to approach each of the vignettes ina rational manner (i.e., showing a preference for cognitive job resources). Inaddition, some respondents may once have learned that it is socially unde-sirable to show their emotions. As a result, these respondents may have beenless inclined to approach the vignettes in an emotional manner (i.e., showinga preference for emotional job resources).


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

From a practical point of view, we may conclude that people generallychose matching job resources, and that it is therefore worth the effort to makematching job resources available to workers after a risk diagnosis of specificjob demands. However, people also seem to attach value to less functionalnonmatching job resources, which they often choose in combination withmatching job resources. The type of nonmatching job resources that are mostlikely to be chosen might be strongly related to peoples frame of reference,which will, in turn, often be related to the occupational profession in whichthey work. For instance, whereas health care workers may be especially alertto nonmatching emotional job resources, information technology workersmay be more inclined to use nonmatching cognitive job resources (cf. van deVen, Vlerick, & de Jonge, 2008). Of course, sensitivity to these particulartypes of nonmatching job resources may differ from person to person, but ingeneral, this might be the pattern observed.

Study Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

The results of this study should be interpreted in terms of its limitations.First, the vignettes that were presented to participants might have caused apriming effect, so that respondents were particularly likely to focus theirattention on corresponding types of job resources. However, if there had beena strong priming effect, we would have found almost perfect matches in alltypes of demanding situations, but we have not.

Second, as participants were asked to report on the use of job resourcesin hypothetical demanding work situations, it is not impossible that, inreality, they might have responded differently than they thought (and indi-cated) they would do. However, though assessments obtained from hypo-thetical situations at work may be less externally valid than assessments takenin the field, portraying a demanding job familiar to respondents has thepotential to induce similar effects as those obtained in real life work settings(cf. Blodgett, Hill, & Tax, 1997; Levesque & McDougall, 2000). Of course,most respondents were not familiar with the kind of demanding situationsportrayed to them in terms of hands on experience, but the professionspresented to them are generally so well known and understandable that theyshould have been able to imagine themselves being the central figure (i.e.,worker) in the vignettes.

Third, participants were not asked to indicate which concrete job re-source(s) they had in mind when choosing a specific job resource or com-bination of job resources. For instance, when participants selected the optionphysical job resources, they might had been thinking of a trolley or ahelping hand from colleagues. In this case, the classification physical job


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

resources is correct. However, if participants had been thinking of ashoulder to cry on, they should have selected the option emotional jobresources instead. Though participants were explained the concept of jobresources and were given examples of cognitive, emotional, and physicaljob resources, we did not actually check whether they correctly classified theconcrete job resources they had in mind as cognitive, emotional, or physicaljob resources. If participants made classification mistakes, this might havebiased our results.

Finally, this study is based on a relatively small sample of undergradu-ates, which poses questions about the studys generalizability to workingpopulations. However, because comparable patterns have been reported for alarger sample of service workers (van den Tooren & de Jonge, 2010), ourstudent sample seems warranted. Moreover, it seems reasonable to assumethat, like undergraduates, workers would neither have had any experiencewith the imaginary demanding work situations. And if they had, it wouldprobably have been one particular scenario. From this point of view, under-graduates might be more open to different scenarios, which could enhancethe studys generalizability.

To overcome some of the potential limitations of our study, it is recom-mended that future studies focus on real-life demanding work situations.Experienced workers may then be asked to list the concrete job resourcesthey use in these particular work situations (e.g., a trolley or information fromhandbooks). Afterward, these demands and resources can be classified by ateam of researchers/experts as either cognitive, emotional, or physical jobdemands and job resources. As the amount of demands and resources maydiffer over time and across occupations and jobs, quantitative measures likethe (perceived) severity of job demands and the (perceived) availability of jobresources may also be part of future studies. In any case, it is recommendedthat future studies be conducted in large, multioccupation samples.

In addition, it is recommended that, in future studies, the theoretical basisof the DISC model (i.e., functional homeostatic regulation theory) will befurther examined in terms of both its validity and its boundary conditions.With respect to the latter, it may be interesting to empirically investigate therole of workers frame of reference, for instance, by means of a number ofexperiments in which participants frame of reference is manipulated. Inaddition, future research may further examine the role of personal charac-teristics such as coping style or regulatory focus. For both characteristics, ithas been hypothesized that they affect the extent to which people employ jobresources (van den Tooren, de Jonge, Vlerick, Daniels, & Van de Ven, 2011;van den Tooren & de Jonge, 2011). Eventually, this type of studies mayfurther enhance our understanding of the choices people make regarding theinvestment of matching and nonmatching job resources in different demand-ing work situations. Through these new insights, we might become better


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

able to improve the explanatory power of job stress theories and to tailor jobredesign interventions in an optimal way.

REFERENCES

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art.Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309328. doi:10.1108/02683940710733115

Baron, R. M., & Boudreau, L. A. (1987). An ecological perspective on integrating personalityand social psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 12221228.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1222

Blodgett, J. G., Hill, D. J., & Tax, S. S. (1997). The effects of distributive, procedural andinteractional justice on postcomplaint behavior. Journal of Retailing, 73, 185210. doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(97)90003-8

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework forpersonality, social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 111135.doi:10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.111

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174794

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2000). On the structure of behavioral self-regulation. In M.Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 4184).San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50032-9

Cohen, S., & McKay, G. (1984). Social support, stress and the buffering hypothesis: Atheoretical analysis. In A. Baum, S. E. Taylor, & J. E. Singer (Eds.), Handbook ofpsychology and health (pp. 253267). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the moderating hypothesis.Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310357. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310

Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (1990). Type of social support and specific stress: Toward atheory of optimal matching. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Socialsupport: An interactional view (pp. 319366). New York, NY: Wiley.

Daniels, K., & de Jonge, J. (2010). Match making and match breaking: The nature of matchwithin and around job design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,83, 116. doi:10.1348/096317909X485144

de Jonge, J., & Dormann, C. (2003). The DISC Model: Demand-Induced Strain Compensationmechanisms in job stress. In M. F. Dollard, H. R. Winefield, & A. H. Winefield (Eds.),Occupational stress in the service professions (pp. 4374). London, UK: Taylor &Francis. doi:10.1201/9780203422809.ch2

de Jonge, J., & Dormann, C. (2006). Stressors, resources, and strains at work: A longitudinaltest of the Triple Match Principle. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 13591374.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1359

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499512. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499

Edwards, J. R. (1998). Cybernetic theory of stress, coping, and well-being: Review andextension to work and family. In C. L. Cooper, C. L., Theories of organizational stress(pp. 122152). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping, healthstatus, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,571579. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.571

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218226. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: HoughtonMifflin.


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

Gray, J. R. (2004). Integration of emotion and cognitive control. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 13, 4648. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00272.x

Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stressprocess: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An Interna-tional Review, 50, 337421. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00062

Hobfoll, S. E., & Lerman, M. (1989). Predicting receipt of social support: A longitudinal studyof parents reactions to their childs illness. Health Psychology, 8, 6177. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.8.1.61

Hockey, G. R. J. (2000). Work environments and performance. In N. Chmiel (Ed.), Introduc-tion to work and organizational psychology: A European perspective (pp. 206230).Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Hughes, R., & Huby, M. (2002). The application of vignettes in social and nursing research.Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37, 382386. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02100.x

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications forjob design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285308. doi:10.2307/2392498

Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work. Stress, productivity, and the reconstructionof working life. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Lazarus, R. S. (1993). From psychological stress to the emotions: A history of changing

outlooks. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 122. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.000245

Lazarus, R. S. (2006). Emotions and interpersonal relationships: Toward a person-centeredconceptualization of emotions and coping. Journal of Personality, 74, 946. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00368.x

Levesque, T. J., & McDougall, G. H. (2000). Service problems and recovery strategies: Anexperiment. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17, 2037. doi:10.1111/j.1936-4490.2000.tb00204.x

Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). The upheavals of thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Quinn, R. W., Spreitzer, G. M., & Lam, C. F. (2012). Building a sustainable model of humanenergy in organizations: Exploring the critical role of resources. The Academy of Man-agement Annals, 6, 337396. doi:10.1080/19416520.2012.676762

Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 1, 2741. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.1.1.27

Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. New York, NY:Appleton-Century-Crofts.

van de Ven, B., Vlerick, P., & de Jonge, J. (2008). The interplay of job demands, job resourcesand cognitive outcomes in informatics. Stress and Health: Journal of the InternationalSociety for the Investigation of Stress, 24, 375382. doi:10.1002/smi.1192

van den Tooren, M., & de Jonge, J. (2010). The role of matching job resources in differentdemanding work situations: A vignette study. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-tional Psychology, 83, 3954. doi:10.1348/096317909X462257

van den Tooren, M., & de Jonge, J. (2011). Job resources and regulatory focus as moderatorsof short-term stressor-strain relations: A daily diary study. Journal of Personnel Psychol-ogy, 10, 97106. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000042

van den Tooren, M., de Jonge, J., & Dormann, C. (2011). The demand-induced straincompensation model: Background, key principles, theoretical underpinnings, and ex-tended empirical evidence. In A. Caetano, S. A. Silva, & M. J. Chambel (Eds.), Newchallenges for a healthy workplace in human services (pp. 1359). Mering, Germany:Rainer Hampp Verlag.

van den Tooren, M., de Jonge, J., Vlerick, P., Daniels, K., & van de Ven, B. (2011). Jobresources and matching active coping styles as moderators of the longitudinal relationbetween job demands and job strain. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 18,373383. doi:10.1007/s12529-011-9148-7

Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social support in the processof work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 314334. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1998.1661


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

Vonk, R. (1999). Schemas. In R. Vonk (Ed.), Cognitieve sociale psychologie: De psychologievan het dagelijks denken en doen [Cognitive Social Psychology: The Psychology of dailythinking and acting] (pp. 143194). Utrecht, The Netherlands: Lemma.

Westman, M., Hobfoll, S. E., Chen, S., Davidson, O. B., & Laski, S. (2005). Organizationalstress through the lens of conservation of resources (COR) theory. In P. Perrew & D. C.Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well-being (Vol. 4, pp. 167220).Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Zajonc, R. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychol-ogist, 35, 151175. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151

Zapf, D. (2002). Emotion work and psychological well-being. A review of the literature andsome conceptual considerations. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 237268.doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00048-7

AppendixExamples of a Cognitive, an Emotional, and a Physical Vignette Followed

by the Eight Response Options (Figures A1, A2, and A3)

COGNITIVE VIGNETTE

You work as an accountant in an audit office. Your main tasks are checkingannual accounts, offering administrative support, and giving tax and financialadvice to private individuals and companies. An entrepreneur who wants toexport his product to Norway has asked you to advice him. How should hedeal with the export and what may be the financial consequences? Should heopen an office in Norway? And what about the sales tax when he supplies aNorwegian company? Though you have some experience with these subjects,it turns out to be a complex task that requires a lot of thinking. The client andyou have agreed that you will advise him within two days. You are weighingthe pros and cons, but you are unable to come up with a concrete advice.What kind(s) of job resources would you use in this situation?

Figure A1. Overview of the 8 response options presented to the participants in the vignette study.In this example, a participant chose cognitive job resources to deal with the situation describedin the cognitive vignette.

(Appendix continues)


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

EMOTIONAL VIGNETTE

You work as a family guardian for the youth welfare foundation. It is yourtask to guide and support families that are faced with child rearing problems.Most of the time, children can stay at home, but sometimesby judicialdecisionit is decided to place a child in care. Yesterday, you have madesuch a decision. It concerns a single-parent family. The mother, who tries toraise her 7-year-old daughter by herself, has an intellectual disability. Thoughyou are of the opinion that the mother loves her daughter and would neverhurt her, she has difficulty raising her. The mother leads a very unstructuredlife and tends to change her daynight rhythm and that of her daughter.Moreover, meals are often missed and personal hygiene is poor. Yourguidance and that of other aid organizations seems no longer adequate.Today, you have informed the mother about your decision to place herdaughter in care. This message is a great blow to her and she is completelyupset. Her daughter is everything to her. You feel sorry for the mother, butyou have to stay professional. What kind(s) of job resources would you usein this situation?

(Appendix continues)

Figure A2. Overview of the eight response options presented to the participants in the vignettestudy. In this example, a participant chose emotional job resources to deal with the situationdescribed in the emotional vignette.


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

PHYSICAL VIGNETTE

You work as a cashier in a supermarket. It is two days till Christmas. Manypeople are already off from work and go out shopping. The evening has justbegun and you have already spent an entire afternoon behind the cash desk.Due to the Christmas rush, the supermarket will be open till 10 p.m. and thisevening, you will be working till closing time. You have to sit in the sameposture for hours, and because there is limited space behind the cash desk,you have hardly any room to move. Moreover, the scanning of products andthe handling of payments constantly require the same movement. Your back,neck, and shoulders start giving you trouble. However, you still have a coupleof hours to go, and tomorrow you will have to work as well. What kind(s) ofjob resources would you use in this situation?

Received February 27, 2012Revision received June 7, 2012

Accepted June 12, 2012

Figure A3. Overview of the eight response options presented to the participants in the vignettestudy. In this example, a participant chose physical job resources to deal with the situationdescribed in the physical vignette.


This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e A

mer

ican

Psy

chol

ogic

al A

ssoc

iatio

n or

one

of i

ts a

llied

pub

lishe

rs.

This

arti

cle

is in

tend

ed so

lely

for t

he p

erso

nal u

se o

f the

indi

vidu

al u

ser a

nd is

not

to b

e di

ssem

inat

ed b

road

ly.

a matter of match an experiment on choosing specific job resources in different demanding work...

Documents