As previously reported, research has over time increasingly underlined the role of individual differences in the occupational stress field (Vokić and Bogdanić, 2007; Mark and Smith, 2008, 2012a, 2012b; Shultz et al., 2010; Allisey et al., 2012, Reid et al., 2013), in order to take into account that some employees perceive the same work environment as stressful and others do not. Problems of not considering individual differences were often underlined in literature, because of the role that they may play in the processes by which work conditions predict workers’ wellbeing or, conversely, hazard exposure (Payne, 1988; Parkes, 1994; Briner et al., 2004).
Firstly, several studies focused on socio-demographic characteristics, and in particular considered the role of gender from different perspectives. In fact, the prevalence of psychological disorders among women has been delineated fairly clearly in literature (Baruch and Barnett, 1986; Hankin and Abramson 2001; Denton, 2004; Pinquart and Soresan, 2006), and women are diagnosed in particular for depression and anxiety twice as often as men (Rosenfield, 1980; Kessler, 2003; Platt, 2016). However, it has been also hypothesized that man suffer for depression with the same frequency of women, but that they are less dependent on social support
52
(Aranda et al., 2001) and that they are more likely to deal with the suffering trying to find shelter in work activities, hobbies and sports (Butler and Nolen-Hoeksema, 1994).
Indeed, a more recent literature has started to review the validity of the current diagnostic criteria, stating that men may experience alternative symptoms for poor mental health. In particular, men may be more likely to experience emotional pain in terms of anger, irritability, health-adverse behaviours, and workaholism (Winkler et al. 2005; Diamond, 2005; Addis, 2008; Martin et al., 2013). Therefore, looking in more details at different psychological diseases (e.g. hostility, interpersonal sensitivity, obsessive-compulsive, paranoid ideation, phobic anxiety) could be useful in order to identify alternative negative outcomes in men workers, taking into account the specificity of their disorders.
Furthermore, studies concerning gender differences in self-reported physical health conditions are also still contrasting. For example, most of the literature has underlined the higher risk for men workers for reporting blood pressure problems, cardiovascular disorders and heart attack due to psychosocial work factors (Riese et al., 2004; Gilbert-Ouimet et al., 2014), whereas other studies suggested this association among women (Hintsanen et al., 2007, Di Pilla et al., 2016). Additionally, research emphasized the protective role of higher age among workers (Cavalheiro et al, 2008; Alacaciglu et al., 2009; Schreuder et al., 2010; Najimi, 2012; Rashedi 2014); and these results are in line with the literature about buffering effect of higher working seniority on work-related stress perception (Lucas et al., 1993; Decker, 1997; Humpel and Caputi, 2001; Cavalheiro et al, 2008; Rashedi, 2014). In addition, also the role played by gender differences seem to decrease over time, reducing their importance in occupational stress process (Gerson et al., 2002; Pinquart and Sarason, 2007). Moreover, contrasting results were found about the role of educational level (Dahl et al., 1993; Lu et al., 2002; Yin and Yang, 2002; Hayes et al., 2006;
53
Coomber and Barriball, 2007; Reid, 2012) as well about the role of marital status in work-related stress process (Nagaraju and Nandini, 2008; Najmi et al., 2012; Reid et al., 2012; Olantunji and Mokouoli, 2014; Rashedi et al., 2014).
In recent years, the debate centred on individual differences has grown, involving the relationship between Personality Characteristics, Coping strategies, and work-related stress. In this field, over the past years, a number of different perspectives were used to assess Personality characteristics (e.g. the Big five Inventory, John et al., 1991; the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Hathaway and McKinley, 1942).
However, in the occupational stress literature, several studies emphasized the role of Type A and Type D Personality and their impact firstly on physical diseases, in particular related to coronary heart disease. Indeed, the Type A Behavioural Pattern (Bortner, 1969; Vokić and Bogdanić, 2007) characterizes employees that highly struggle to have control over their work environment, making high efforts in their activities, with consequent potential harmful psychophysiological reactivity (Evans et al., 1987). With regard to Type D Personality Characteristics (Pedersen and Denollet, 2003, 2004; Preckel et al., 2005; Denollet, 2005), it is defined as a relatively stable psychological characteristic, typical of individuals who experience a wide variety of negative emotions (i.e. Negative Affectivity; e.g. anxiety, irritability, dysphoria, low self-esteem) and who inhibit the expression of these feelings in social interactions (i.e. Social Inhibition; e.g. used in order to avoid disapproval, negative opinions and judgments).
Moreover, in the occupational stress panorama, also Effort-Reward Imbalance Model (ERI Model; Siegrist, 1996) has given its contribute concerning the role of individual characteristics, through the development of the Overcommitment scale, which reflects the tendency to make excessive efforts in work activities and to be committed to unrealistic goals. This motivational
54
pattern has been often associated with emotional exhaustion, lower job performance (Feuerhahn et al., 2012) and higher risk for psychophysical disorders (Preckel et al., 2007; Lehr et al. 2009; Kanel et al., 2009). Concerning gender differences in Personality characteristics, literature has acknowledged gender-specific traits in terms of cognition, disposition, and behaviour (Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974; Feingold, 1994). Nevertheless, similar rates for Type A behavioural pattern were found in women and men (Kopper, 1993). Regarding Type D Personality, equal rates of Social Inhibition were showed in men and women (Ogiska-Bulik-2007), whereas higher levels of Negative Affectivity were often supported only among women (Clark and Watson, 1991, Hankin and Abrahmson, 2001; Ogiska-Bulik-2007).
Beyond the analysis of the role played by Personality characteristics, research based on Transactional models has also acknowledged the necessity to investigate individuals’ ability to deal with stressful experiences, events and interactions, that is the analysis of coping strategies (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Park andFolkman, 1997; Mark and Smith, 2008).
Over the past years, literature has typically supported gender differences in coping strategies, showing evidence that men and women may deal with stressors in different ways (Klag and Bradley, 2004). In particular, men were defined more likely to use problem-focused coping strategies, while women were considered as more vulnerable because they deal with stress event in a more emotional-focused way (Brems 1995; Ptacek et al., 1994; Whately et al. 1998; Meledez et al. 2012), and they base their self-esteem on the others (Narayanan et al. 1999). Nevertheless, the relation between gender, coping strategies and wellbeing should be considered as more complex, and the stereotype of the emotion-focused coping strategies as “maladaptive” and “female” should be considered as a bias in the literature.
55
II.7 Summary
In summary, despite research in the field of Occupational stress has increased over the past decades, very little research has still taken into account the effects on multiple factors on wellbeing, also addressing the important role played by individual differences.
Therefore, the DRIVE Model (Mark and Smith, 2008) is confirmed as one of the most original contemporary approach to the work-related stress research. Indeed, it has the value of integrating the strengths of the previously proposed models, overcoming the issues identified in the literature, also paying attention on several individual differences. Moreover, this approach allows being more representative of the real-life, in which is more likely that employee are exposed to multiple hazards.
Furthermore, the general model proposes a useful approach to investigate stress in different workplaces, but it has been also designed as a flexible model, to be easily adapted in the different specific contexts, in order to guide the development of appropriate interventions aimed at safeguarding worker’s wellbeing.
56