A Historical Review of the Prevalence of Job Stress Theories

Abstract

Job stress theories have been developed and refined to better understand employee wellbeing. Now that the field is maturing, it is appropriate to review the theoretical trends and developments for future research and practical guidance. The current paper provides a historical review, with both objective (i.e., counts of published theories) and subjective evaluation of job stress theory. In Study 1, two trained raters coded theories used in job stress journals. The job demand-control (-support; JDCS) model was initially well-represented, but has been superseded more recently by theories that focus on multiple resources (e.g., the job demand-resource - JDR - model). Among non-job stress theories, motivation and affective theories have been well-represented within job stress research. Study 2 expanded the results of Study 1 through review of two international applied psychology journals with additional coding categories. Specifically, we identified empirical support for theories and researcher characteristics (i.e., national and professional affiliation). The JDCS model had the least full support according to a vote counting method, and resource models (e.g., JDR) the most. Germany and the Netherlands were the most represented locations, with the United States having the most international collaborations. Psychology and management were the most represented affiliations.

Keywords

Job stress theories trends occupational health psychology employee well-being

A Historical Review of the Prevalence of Job Stress Theories

Although the definition of theory is highly disputed, most agree that theory describes a system of variables and the mechanisms by which they relate (Cortina, 2016). Models and frameworks, by comparison, only describe that variables are interconnected, but do not explain reasons for the relationships. Although the lay use of the term theory implies an informal guess, within science, theories are paramount. Theoretical frameworks, when developed satisfactorily (see Locke, 1986), can be used to generate hypotheses, confirm, disconfirm, or alter competing theories, and as well as to guide practical improvements. In addition, as Kurt Lewin (1943) wrote, there is nothing so practical as a good theory. This is because theories frame scientific observations concerning relationships among variables of interest, allowing extrapolation to a variety of settings. For example, a well-supported theory that clarifies characteristics of effective goals and performance allows knowledgeable scientists to suggest goal-setting principles to a variety of practical problems (e.g., education, athletic, health, workplace) without necessarily revalidating the specific recommendations in each application (e.g., Locke, 1986). Consequently, researchers and practitioners can benefit from a comprehensive account of job stress theories, including an up-to-date meta-knowledge regarding which theories are most promising, in order to help efficiently guide future research and practice. Additionally, a historical account describing the origins of, modifications to, and integrations among theories allows researchers to more efficiently further the research in this area.

A mature scientific research domain often has dominant theories that are agreed-upon for long periods of time, perhaps hundreds of years, even though they are always subject to further verification or alteration (and even eventual rejection of parts or all of the theory), as new empirical observations emerge. A well-known example (summarized here from Cormack, 2015) from another discipline is spherical earth theory. That is, the earliest observations were that the earth was flat. However, later observations (approximately 500 B.C.) indicated that, for example, the moon was round because part was light and part was dark as it moved through the orbital cycle, so the earth must be round as well. Others observed the shape of the earth’s shadow on the moon during an eclipse. Aristotle later contributed observations about constellations of stars visible in the night sky at certain distances from the equator. A theory framed these various observations, and spherical earth theory became accepted to the dismissal of other theories (e.g., Gods controlled the seasons) and implications (e.g., ships that sail over the horizon fall off the earth). Direct measurement has since confirmed the curvature of the earth, such that this is no longer considered a theory, but this knowledge has contributed to other theories (e.g., gravity).

Previous researchers have noted that psychology is failing to mature due to a reliance on adding pathways and modifying our existing theories in the interest of making an “interesting” contribution (Cortina, 2016). Instead, a mature science would take a single theory (e.g., spherical earth) and test it multiple ways (e.g., observing an eclipse, comparing the locations of constellations) with replications (e.g., Cortina, 2016). How far are we from a unified theory that frames our observations regarding job stress? This insight requires meta-knowledge about the state of job stress theory and testing. A few recent articles have provided meta-knowledge, often regarding a specific journal (e.g., stress research in the Journal of Applied Psychology; Bliese et al., 2017) or theory (e.g., job-demands resources model; Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Other articles have specifically criticized theory building and theory testing (Cortina, 2016). That is, there is a confluence in the literature that suggests that the timing of a review of job stress theory is appropriate. This meta-knowledge is important to determine if researchers are on the right path and provides insight into the most promising ways to further our discipline. In this study, we add to this meta-knowledge within the field of job stress theory broadly.

Herein, we conduct a comprehensive literature review of studies of job stress, searching selected years in three job stress journals (Journal of Occupational Health Psychology [JOHP], Work and Stress [W&S], and International Journal of Stress Management [IJSM]) and two international applied psychology journals (Applied Psychology: An International Review [APIR], and European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology [EJWOP]). This allows us to describe trends in the prevalence of job stress theory overall, and of specific job stress theories, in order to contribute to the meta-knowledge regarding the job stress literature. Related, this study incorporates non- “job stress” theories (e.g., motivational, affective) and thus captures affiliated research domains that have been integrated with employee wellbeing research. Given the importance of theory-driven research in applied psychology literature (e.g., Cortina, 2016; Locke, 1986), this study may facilitate future theory testing in the job stress domain by bringing attention to promising theories.

Selected Job Stress Theories

In this study, we define “job stress theory” as any comprehensive framework intended to describe the stressor-strain relationship in the workplace. A stressor is defined as any event that requires a person to adapt, and a strain is the negative outcome of such adaptive processes. Because strain can be so broad (e.g., diminished performance, turnover intentions, gossiping), we operationalize strain as physical and psychological wellbeing (e.g., general health, fatigue, emotional exhaustion). We dismiss the requirement that the theory put forth a mechanism, as this would exclude many important frameworks (e.g., job demand-resources). We also reviewed several theories that were not originally intended to explain job-related stressor-strain relationships that were nonetheless commonly applied to this context. For example, conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989) was originally proposed as a general stress theory but has become pervasive in the job stress literature. Thus, we herein review notable theories in job stress research, including frameworks developed specifically regarding job stress and those initially developed for other purposes.

Job stress theories have evolved over time as a function of societal trends and the broader psychology literature (Bliese et al., 2017). Figure 1 illustrates the development of job stress theories and broader psychological research domains and societal trends. In the early 1900’s, stress research was mostly physiological, including Cannon’s (1915) fight or flight response and Selye’s (1936) general adaptation syndrome. Macro-level changes in psychological research from 1950 to 1960 included a move from behaviorism to the cognitive revolution, but also growth of organizational psychology from industrial psychology due to changes in war status and civil rights (see Jex & Britt, 2014 for more information). The 1960s and 1970s marked the beginning of job stress research (e.g., Beehr & Newman, 1978; Kahn et al., 1964), which aligns with advances in behavioral health (O’Brien & Cooper, 2022) and the recognition that health was more than exposure to germs. These larger psychological and societal trends may have guided job stress theory and testing (see Bliese et al., 2017 for more details).

Figure 1.

The history of job stress theories as compared to societal and psychological trends.

Research trends have been influenced by macro-societal changes (Bliese et al., 2017), but also by empirical support per the scientific method. For example, the job demand-control model (JDC; Karasek, 1979) was later revised as the job demand-control-support model (JDCS; Karasek & Theorell, 1990) to account for a lack of empirical support. Ultimately, the JDCS was expanded into the job demand-resource (JD-R) model, expanding control and support to include any job-related resources (Demerouti et al., 2001). This model has again been revised to include personal resources (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). In addition, there has been theoretical revision based on boundary variables from other models (e.g., the challenge-hindrance distinction as a moderator within the JDCS; Dawson et al., 2016).

In closing, the prevalence of particular job stress theories has changed over time, reflecting a variety of factors: changes in society (e.g., the JDC may have been more accurate in factory settings), psychological trends (e.g., the cognitive revolution led to the addition of appraisal to stress research; Lazarus, 2001), and publishing zeitgeists (e.g., dismissal of job stress research as overly clinical; Beehr & Newman, 1998). The current study combines a review of the literature with a count of job stress theories over time, allowing for a relatively objective view of theories in job stress outlets. Objective measures such as counts are often both deficient and contaminated, so these counts are coupled with subjective evaluation as guided by the literature review.

An Account of Job Stress Theories

There are more than 100 theories, models, and frameworks used in job stress research (e.g., kindling theory, allostasis load, cybernetic theory; O’Brien & Cooper, 2022). We identified a few theories to discuss that had notable impacts on the job stress literature. In approximate order of their appearance, we briefly summarize some of them. These do not all qualify as a theory in that they are missing a mechanism. Interested readers are referred to a job stress theories book (such as Cooper, 1998; O’Brien & Cooper, 2022) or to reviews within each section for a more detailed analysis of each theory.

The seminal book of Kahn and colleagues (1964) first defined role stress theory in relation to the workplace by adapting earlier work on roles from sociology (e.g., Gross et al., 1958). Roles are a set of actions or behaviors that are expected from the employee by relevant others in the workplace. Role stressors are any role-related factors in the employee’s organizational environment that result in psychological strain, and they include role ambiguity (i.e., unclear expectations) and role conflict (i.e., mutually exclusive expectations). Role overload, which describes when too many role messages occur, was initially proposed to be part of role conflict, but was later removed and studied as its own construct (King & King, 1990). Role was initially applied to all relationships (e.g., parenting, teaching; Gross et al., 1958), but the Kahn et al.’s (1964) iteration of this theory has been widely cited in the work stress and health domain (Frone, 1990).

The JDC and JDCS models incorporate control, and sometimes social support, as resources, and perhaps introduced the concept of demands, predicting that strain results from high job demands combined with low control (Karasek, 1979), and later, low support (Karasek & Theorell, 1990). This originated from the work on general adaptation syndrome and arousal, such that people who are routinely overworked drain their long-term resources, as in cases of allostatic load (e.g., Fila, 2016). This framework inspired a vast number of studies (Häusser et al., 2010). Although these studies largely support main effects of a limited set of demands and resources on strain, there is a lack of evidence for interaction hypotheses (i.e., demand buffered by control or support; e.g., Häusser et al., 2010; Taris, 2006).

Person-environment (P-E) fit theory of job stress posits that a (mis)match between the person and work environment is major factor resulting in employee strains (French et al., 1982). This model seems to have evolved from Lewin’s (1943) field theory, in which behavior was proposed to originate as a mathematical function of a person and their environment (O’Brien & Cooper, 2022). This theory does not identify specific characteristics of the person and environment (or job, or organization, or team, depending on the level of investigation) to consider. Instead, the researcher should choose among various types of fit (e.g., supplementary or complementary), variables (e.g., needs-supply fit or demands-ability fit, among others), and measurement (e.g., direct/perceived vs. indirect fit). The breadth allows for flexible and accurate application of the model.

The transactional model of stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) describes how strain occurs when individuals appraise a situation as challenging or potentially harmful (i.e., primary appraisal). The expected success of coping actions is the secondary appraisal. Therefore, this model suggests that stress is cognitively determined (i.e., via appraisal) and was influenced by the cognitive revolution (Lazarus, 2001). This theory, unlike JDCS, focuses on how individual differences (e.g., personality) influence (or transact with) the way workers appraise and cope with stress (Lazarus, 2001). Other research on this model incorporated the distinction between problem-solving and emotion-focused coping, although there is substantial overlap and most of coping attempts use both (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980).

COR theory argues that individuals are inherently and automatically motivated to obtain, retain, and protect their resources (Hobfoll, 1989). Losses or anticipated losses result in stress. Resources are stated to be anything of value to an individual, including objects (e.g., money, financial rewards), conditions (e.g., social support), energies (e.g., time), and personal characteristics (e.g., personality, humor; Hobfoll, 2001). Some important corollaries of the theory are negative salience (i.e., a loss is more impactful than a gain) and that loss begets loss (i.e., loss spiral). In addition, if individuals obtain new internal resources such as energy through positive events, these can be invested toward further resource gain (i.e., resource caravan, Hobfoll, 2001). It is notable that the original writings and updated version of the model (Hobfoll et al., 2018) make clear that resources should be measured objectively to be consistent with this model, in direct opposition to transactional theory (Hobfoll, 2001). That is, Hobfoll (2001) states that most people agree on what is a resource (e.g., money), so that the measurement of appraisal is misguided. Although some researchers combine COR and transactional theory, this is at the overt and strong disapproval of the theories’ founders (Hobfoll, 2001; Lazarus, 2001).

The effort-reward imbalance theory proposed that cardiovascular disease results when low rewards (e.g., pay, esteem) are coupled with high effort (i.e., imbalance; Siegrist, 1996). This theory is based on social exchange relationships, emphasizing the role of norms and expectations on reciprocity (Siegrist, 1996). However, some measurement difficulties plague the empirical study of this theory. For example, efforts and rewards cannot truly balance because they cannot be measured on the same scale. Instead, empirical support for overcommitment (a personal characteristic associated with exerting overly high effort in exchange for the anticipated rewards, often due to desire to appease others) has received better support in intervention research (O’Brien & Cooper, 2022).

Compared to the above-mentioned job stress theories, the job demand-resource model (JD-R) was more recently developed (Demerouti et al., 2001). A job demand is an aspect of work that requires sustain effort (e.g., physical, cognitive, emotional), resulting in costs. Resources were initially defined as characteristics that helped employees achieve their work goals. Compared to the job demand-control model, the JD-R model includes unspecified job demands and resources (Demerouti et al., 2001). It was originally proposed that job demands and job resources would interact to predict burnout. This model was later expanded to include personal resources, remove the multiplicative effect in favor of main effects, and eventually to predict work engagement (e.g., Schaufeli, 2017).

The Current Study

Above are some of the theories we judged to be most notable within job stress research, but not all are job-related (e.g., transactional theory), stress-related (e.g., person-environment fit), psychological (e.g., role stress theory), or even theories (e.g., job demands-control model). Further, the above accounts of the theories do not provide insight into the state of the literature. Thus, to paint a picture of the state of the research, and of job stress theory in particular, we propose a quantitative review of job stress theories as published in job stress journals. That is, we want to know what job stress theories (and non-job stress theories) emerge as most commonly cited (i.e., attributed by the author as the source of the study’s framework) in job stress journals. This can provide insight into the prevalence of specific job stress theories overall, as well as how these counts may have changed and developed since the onset of these journals. That is, because job stress research mostly began in the 1970s, there may be visible trends in the prevalence of job stress theory at this time.

Research Question 1

What is the prevalence of job stress theories used to study strain in job stress journals? Are theories used alone or in conjunction with other theories?

Corollaries

Did the prevalence of job stress theories change over time? Can any changes be attributed to the journal?

Job stress research has been informed by many diverse theories from the broader psychological literature and may have implications for other applications in the workplace. For example, job stress interventions not only address how to reduce or modify job demands from the workplace, but may also involve improvements to performance, such as leadership training (e.g., family supportive supervisor behavior for work-life balance; Odle-Dusseau et al., 2016). Similarly, job crafting theory has been modified from early research on resources (e.g., Hobfoll, 2001, which states that autonomy can be used to improve other resources) and adapted to the broader applied psychology domain (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). There are also interdisciplinary approaches in organizational psychology, incorporating, for example, personality theory (e.g., trait theory; Moon et al., 2023) and zoom fatigue during the pandemic (e.g., media richness theory; Nesher Shoshan & Wehrt, 2022). This demonstrates the broadening of both job stress and non-job stress theories in job stress research. Therefore, exploring non-job stress theories might contribute to advancing our understanding of theory within job stress research.

Research Question 2

What is the prevalence of non-job stress theories used to study strain in job stress journals?

Corollaries

Did the prevalence change over time? Can any differences be attributed to the journal?

Study 1 Method

Literature Search and Inclusion Criteria

We accessed published articles in journals that predominantly publish on job stress or employee wellbeing, including JOHP, W&S, and IJSM. Beginning with the first volume of each journal, articles published from 1987–2019 from W&S, 1994–2019 from IJSM, and 1996–2019 from JOHP were included in the present review. Specifically, we searched every available volume in the three journals for each year, at an interval of five years after the journal’s beginning, including 1987 (initiation of W&S), 1990, 1994 (initiation of IJSM), 1995, 1996 (initiation of JOHP), 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2019. A total of 605 articles were identified (JOHP = 238, W&S = 213, IJSM = 154). Articles between intervals are not coded, so each “year” (e.g., 1990) of data reflects one year. After collecting all empirical and theoretical papers from the three journals published during these years, we coded job stress theories that explicitly purport a relationship between stressors and physical or psychological wellbeing in the workplace. The theories included frameworks, theories, and models that the articles’ authors labeled as their background rationales. Then coders also identified some theories based on the citation or reference. For example, Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transactional model of stress was sometimes labeled as appraisal theory, cognitive stress theory, and/or a coping framework. In these cases, we used the article’s citation of Lazarus (1966) and Lazarus and Folkman (1984) or similar as a cue to classify the theory as the “transactional model of stress.”

We also investigated trends among the non-job stress theories in the journals that were used to develop and explain job stress research but are not specifically job or stress theories. Each non “job stress” theory (e.g., leader-member exchange theory; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), had a low base rate, so in order to summarize and interpret these theories, we categorized them into groups, such as affect-related or justice- and fairness-related. To illustrate, if the theory explains how individuals regulate their emotions and moods, or how emotions affect behavior, we classified it as “affect-related theory.” In another example, if the theory specifies how and why certain leader traits and behaviors affect followers’ attitudes, behaviors, and wellbeing, we classified it as a “leadership” theory. Based on this classification method, for instance, we classified affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) as affect-related, and leader-member exchange theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) as a leadership theory.

In order to focus on the most prominent theories, we recorded all instances of theories and narrowed the set down to theories included in at least three articles. Then two expert raters (e.g., two tenured professors who have published on job stress theories in all of the journals reviewed) were asked to indicate whether the theory could be accurately described as a job stress theory. To ensure coding accuracy, we selected a sample of 25 articles from each of the three journals, which were then coded by a second trained rater. A total of 75 articles were selected, with either one or two articles from each year. This resulted in 93% agreement. Discrepancies mostly involved different labeling for the same theories (e.g., demand-control imbalance theory and job demand-control model). These discrepancies were corrected and resolved through discussion among the raters. Through these processes, we found 994 theories from 394 articles. Figure 2 shows a flowchart of our literature search and coding result.

Figure 2.

Flow Chart of literature search and coding Selection. Note. JOHP: Journal of Occupational Health Psychology; IJSM: International Journal of Stress Management; W & S: Work & Stress.

Study 1 Results and Discussion

We listed job stress and non-job stress theories that were used by more than ten studies in the order of their frequencies in Tables 1 and 2. Table 3 presents the number of times each job stress theory was cited in each year of the study (see also Figure 3). The relative absence of theories in the first ten years compared to the most recent ten years in part captures the lack of unifying theories in job stress literature. It may also be due in part, however, to the fact that only one of the three journals was in existence for the first ten years, and thus there were simply fewer articles. Specifically, there is an increase in the number of theories cited after 1996, the first year that all three journals were in existence. We also note that a rapid increase in citations specifically for the JDCS model and transactional model of stress roughly coincides with the introduction of these two additional journals, although these counts cannot provide any implications regarding the causal order (e.g., more theory driving more outlets or vice versa, or a third variable representing overall interest in job stress).

Table 1.

Job Stress Theories in Work & Stress, Journal of Occupational Healthy Psychology, and International Journal of Stress Management (Study 1).

Theory	Author	Example Study	Frequencies in the dataset
Job-Demands-Control (Support)	Karasek (1979)	Teoh et al. (2019)	118
Transactional Model of Stress	Lazarus and Folkman (1984)	Richter and Näswall (2019)	90
Conservation of Resources Theory	Hobfoll (2001)	Kubicek and Korunka (2015)	80
Job Demand–Resource Model	Demerouti et al. (2001)	Freitas et al. (2019)	53
Effort-Reward Imbalance Theory	Siegrist (1996)	Petterson et al. (2005)	29
Person-Environment Fit Theory	Edwards and Harrison (1993)	Grebner et al. (2005)	26
Role Stress Theory	Kahn et al. (1964)	Geurts et al. (2005)	26
Effort Recovery Theory	Meijman and Mulder (1998)	Grzywacz and Butler (2005)	22
Challenge-Hindrance Stressor Model	Cavanaugh et al. (2000)	Tuckey et al. (2015)	19

Note. Only these theories were cited more than ten times.

Table 2.

Non-job Stress Theories in Work & Stress, Journal of Occupational Healthy Psychology, and International Journal of Stress Management (Study 1).

Theory	Author	Example Study	Frequencies in the dataset
Self-Determination Theory	Deci and Ryan (2012)	Kranabetter & Niessen. (2019)	19
Job Characteristics Model	Hackman and Oldham (1976)	van Veldhoven et al. (2005)	16
Broaden-and-Build Theory	Fredrickson (2001)	McNall et al. (2015)	13
Affective Events Theory	Weiss and Cropanzano (1996)	Pindek et al. (2019)	12
Social Identity Theory	Tajfel and Turner (2004)	Frone et al. (1996)	12
Social Exchange Theory	Blau (1964)	Hanson et al. (2000)	11

Note. Only these theories were cited more than ten times.

Table 3.

Job Stress Theories in Work & Stress, Journal of Occupational Healthy Psychology, and International Journal of Stress Management (Study 1).

	Year
	1987	1990	1994	1995	1996	2000	2005	2010	2015	2019	Total
Job Demands-Control (-Support) Model	3	5	0	2	13	22	25	18	14	16	118
Transactional Model	3	0	3	7	2	10	10	10	22	23	90
Conservation of Resources Theory	0	0	0	1	0	3	4	18	26	28	80
Job Demands-Resources Model	0	0	0	0	0	0	5	8	23	17	53
Effort-Reward Imbalance Theory	0	0	0	0	4	2	7	5	5	6	29
Person-Environment Fit Theory	0	1	0	1	4	3	7	2	4	4	26
Role Stress Theory	2	0	0	2	0	5	5	4	2	6	26
Effort Recover Theory	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	3	5	10	22
Challenge-Hindrance Framework	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	6	13	19
Total	8	9	4	16	25	55	89	81	123	141	463

Notes. Indicates frequencies (i.e., counts) in which these theories appeared by year across the job stress journals.

Figure 3.

Percentages of Job Stress Theories Compared across OHP Journals by year in Study 1. Notes. Only these theories were cited more than ten times. C-H Framework: Challenge and Hindrance Stressor Framework; COR Theory: Conservation of Resources Theory; JDCS Model: Job Demand–Control-Support Model; ERI Theory: Effort Reward Imbalance Theory; ER Theory: Effort Recovery Theory; JD-R Model: Job Demand–Resource Model; P-E Fit Theory: Person-Environment Fit Theory; RS Theory: Role Stress Theory; Transactional Model: Transactional Model of Stress. X-axis is not to scale. Each year reflects only the articles from that year, rather than the interval between years.

Regarding how the prevalence of specific theories has changed over time, until 2005, the JDCS model had been dominant in the journals, followed by the transactional model of stress. This pattern drastically changed after 2010, however, such that the JD-R model replaced JDCS model as the most cited theory (Figure 3). The JD-R model is an extension of JDCS model (Demerouti et al., 2001). The major difference is that the JDCS model tended to focus on only a few demands (e.g., time pressure) and two resources (control and support), but the JD-R model allowed for any demands and resources. The broadening of this theory is consistent with what scientists would expect as the field matures (e.g., Cortina, 2016), such that there is not a separate theory or pathway for each resource or demand.

COR theory grew in prevalence after 2010, surpassing the usage of other theories except the JD-R model and transactional model of stress (Table 3 and Figure 3). The JDCS model is still a commonly used job stress theory, but it has seen mostly continuous declines in both its absolute frequency of use and its relative frequency, dropping from first in usage in 2005 to fourth in 2019. Two other models (i.e., challenge-hindrance and effort-recovery) have seen modest increases in recent years. Other job stress theories, including P-E fit theory, role stress theory, and the effort-reward imbalance model, have shown lower but relatively steady frequencies across all years of publication.

Next, we examined the co-occurrence of citations for multiple theories within single studies. Among the 281 articles, 120 articles cited two or more job stress theories. Table 4 shows results for articles citing exactly two theories together and presents the frequencies of pairs of job stress theories that were most frequently cited together. JDCS was cited with another theory most often, but it was cited together with a variety of theories, suggesting it has little in common with any one theory. COR theory and the JD-R model, on the other hand, are the most frequently cited pair of theories in the same article (n = 20), indicating they may have commonalities.

Table 4.

Pairs of Theories Most Often Cited Together Stress Theories (Study 1).

Theory Pair		Frequencies
COR Theory and	Job Demands-Resources Model	20
JDCS Model and	Transactional Model of Stress	18
JDCS Model and	Effort-Reward Imbalance Theory	17
JDCS Model and	Conservation of Resources Theory	15
JDCS Model and	Effort-Recovery Theory	12

Notes. Only these pairs of theories were cited more than ten times. COR Theory: Conservation of Resources Theory; JDCS Model: Job Demand–Control-Support model.

Considering possible differences between the journals, overall, JOHP had the largest theory frequencies (n = 271) compared to W&S (n = 165) and IJSM (n = 132), despite its earliest age, by percentage of articles printed. Figure 4 illustrates the percentages articles within each journal using each of the focal theories. There were some similarities and differences between the three journals. One similarity is that the JDCS model, the JD-R model, COR theory, and the transactional model of stress are all ranked in the top five across the three job stress journals. On one hand, when it comes to the most cited job stress theories, the JDCS model was the most frequently cited in both JOHP (19.2%) and W&S (25.5%), and second most frequently cited in IJSM (18.2%). In contrast, for IJSM, the transactional model of stress was the most frequently cited job stress theory (29.5%), although it was only cited in 14.9% and 9.6% of articles for W&S and JOHP, respectively. In addition, compared to W&S (7.3%), COR theory had similar citation percentages for the theories in JOHP (17.3%) and IJSM (15.9%). Overall, there were many similarities in theory usage across the journals, with few distinct differences. It seems unlikely that any changes in the prevalence of job stress theories published are unique to a particular journal.

Figure 4.

Percentages of Articles that used these Job Stress Theories compared across Job Stress Journals in Study 1. Note. JOHP: Journal of Occupational Health Psychology; IJSM: International Journal of Stress Management; C-H Framework: Challenge and Hindrance Stressor Framework; COR Theory: Conservation of Resources Theory; JD-C(S) Model: Job Demand–Control (Support) model; ERI Theory: Effort Reward Imbalance Theory; E-R Theory: Effort Recovery Theory; Job Demand–Resource Model; JD-R Model: P-E Fit Theory: Person-Environment Fit Theory; Transactional Model: Transactional Model of Stress.

In reviewing the non-job stress theories, we plotted the frequency of citations for non-job stress theories that were cited at least ten times (Figure 5). Six theoretical groups emerged (Table 5), including affective (e.g., affective events theory; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), justice and fairness (e.g., fairness heuristic theory; Cropanzano et al., 2001), leadership (e.g., leader-member exchange theory; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), motivation (e.g., job characteristic model; Hackman & Oldham, 1976), safety-related (e.g., model of safety climate; Zohar, 2000), and social exchange theories (e.g., norm of reciprocity; Blau, 1964). In terms of theory prominence, motivation-related theories are largest across the three decades, followed by affect-related theories. Leadership, justice, safety, and social exchange theories are also somewhat more prevalent now than in the past.

Figure 5.

Percentages of Non-Job Stress Theories compared across Job Stress Journals by year in Study 1. Notes. X-axis is not to scale. Each year reflects only the articles from that year, rather than the interval between years.

Table 5.

Non “Job Stress” Theories in Work & Stress, Journal of Occupational Healthy Psychology, and International Journal of Stress Management (Study 1).

Theory Groups	Year
Theory Groups	1987	1990	1994	1995	1996	2000	2005	2010	2015	2019	Total
Motivation-Related Theories	2	0	0	3	0	9	8	13	28	22	85
Affect-Related Theories	0	1	2	0	1	10	4	10	8	16	52
Leadership-Related Theories	0	1	0	0	1	2	0	7	4	9	24
Justice- & Fairness-Related Theories	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	9	7	3	19
Social Exchange Theories	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	3	4	7	17
Safety-Related Theories	2	0	0	0	1	0	0	3	4	7	17
Total	4	2	2	3	3	21	12	42	51	57	197

Notes. Indicates frequencies (i.e., counts) in which these categories of theories appeared by year across the job stress journals.

Study 2

Despite its contributions, Study 1 has some limitations. First and foremost, job stress research is available in a wide variety of outlets beyond those specifically related to job stress. Thus, the primary purpose of Study 2 is first to address if the trends in theory prevalence were similar in applied psychology journals, rather than limited to job stress journals. Moreover, Study 1 could not address questions regarding the context of the theory prevalence. In particular, it would be helpful to know if the studies empirically supported the theory. Additionally, we were interested in the national and professional (e.g., psychology, management) affiliations of the job stress researchers to understand better if the job stress research is reflective of a diversity of approaches, or whether it may be confined to a particular context. Overall, the aim of Study 2 is to expand the results of Study 1.

Research Question 3

What is the prevalence of job stress and non-job stress theories used to study strain in applied psychology journals?

Corollaries

Did the prevalence change over time? Can any changes be attributed to the type (i.e., applied psychology) of journal?

Research Question 4

To what extent are job stress theories empirically tested and supported?

Research Question 5

What are the affiliations (professional and national) of job stress researchers?

Study 2 Method

We used the same methods from Study 1 to identify articles to include in the study. First, we accessed published articles from Applied Psychology: An International Review (APIR) and European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology (EJWOP). We chose journals that are most similar in terms of audience (i.e., organizational/applied psychologists) and tier as our initial three journals. Additionally, because we were reviewing the national affiliation of the authors, we chose journals that encourage international submissions in its aims and scope. APIR is older than the other journals reviewed (founded in 1920), and EJWOP first published articles in 1996, so coding began for the year 1996 and used the same five-year interval for coding job stress and non-job stress theories (e.g., 1996, 2000, 2005). In addition to the Study 1 coding framework, we also coded whether the research tested the job stress theories (i.e., empirical vs. review articles) and whether the results supported the researchers’ hypotheses in a “vote count” method (Fila, 2016). Finally, we coded researchers’ affiliation (e.g., psychology department, research institution) and national location of their affiliation as reported in a title page of articles for addressing Research Question 5. A total of 415 articles were identified (APIR = 164, EJWOP = 251), but as we did in Study 1, we excluded the articles when the intended research outcome was not wellbeing. As a result, we coded 252 theories from 98 articles in APIR and EJWOP in Study 2.

Study 2 Results and Discussion

In regard to Research Question 3, Table 6 presents the number of times each job stress theory was cited in each year of the study (see also Figure 6). Similar to Study 1, there is a relative absence of theories in the first ten years (n = 6 in 1996 and n = 5 in 2000), whereas there are overall increasing patterns of theory prevalence over time. The JDCS model and transactional model of stress were showing largest prevalence by percentage of articles until 2010, when the JD-R model replaced JDCS model as the most prevalent theory, followed by the COR theory (Figure 6). Although COR theory was the most prevalent in Study 1, the overall change of job stress theory around 2005 and 2010 was similar in Study 2. More recently, the effort-recovery model had become third most prevalent in 2015, and other job stress theories have shown modest prevalence across the three decades.

Table 6.

Job Stress Theories in Applied Psychology Journals by Year (Study 2).

	Year
	1996	2000	2005	2010	2015	2019	Total
Job Demands-Resources Model	0	0	1	3	14	11	29
Transactional Model	2	1	4	7	4	9	27
Conservation of Resources Theory	0	0	3	1	11	10	25
Job Demand-Control (-Support) Model	3	3	5	7	3	2	23
Effort Recovery Theory	0	0	0	0	6	2	8
Effort-Reward Imbalance Theory	0	1	2	2	1	0	6
Person-Environment Fit Theory	0	0	0	4	0	1	5
Role Stress Theory	0	0	1	3	1	0	5
Challenge-Hindrance Framework	0	0	0	2	1	1	4
Total	6	5	16	31	43	36	137

Notes. Indicates frequencies (i.e., counts) in which these categories of theories appeared by year across the applied psychology journals.

Figure 6.

Percentages of Job Stress Theories compared across Applied Psychology Journals by Year in Study 2. Notes. C-H Framework: Challenge and Hindrance Stressor Framework; COR Theory: Conservation of Resources Theory; JDCS Model: Job Demand–Control-Support Model; ERI Theory: Effort Reward Imbalance Theory; ER Theory: Effort Recovery Theory; JD-R Model: Job Demand–Resource Model; P-E Fit Theory: Person-Environment Fit Theory; RS Theory: Role Stress Theory; Transactional Model: Transactional Model of Stress. X-axis is not to scale. Each year reflects only the articles from that year, rather than the interval between years.

Also in testing Research Question 3, we plotted the frequency of citations for non-job stress theories from the two journals (see Figure 7). Similar to Study 1, four theory groups emerged, including affective, justice and fairness, leadership, and motivation-related theories. In addition, two new theory groups, social cognitive-related and social identity-related theories, emerged (Table 7). Example theories for these two categories include social categorization theory (e.g., Festinger, 1954) for the social identity-related category and social information processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) for the social cognitive-related category. Again, motivation-related and affect-related theories have shown the largest prevalence in research across the three decades.

Figure 7.

Percentages of Non-Job Stress Theories compared across Applied Psychology Journals by Year in Study 2. Notes. X-axis is not to scale. Each year reflects only the articles from that year, rather than the interval between years.

Table 7.

Non-job Stress Theories in Applied Psychology Journals by Year (Study 2).

	Year
	1996	2000	2005	2010	2015	2019	Total
Affect-Related Theories	0	0	2	1	6	4	13
Justice- & Fairness Theories	0	1	1	1	2	0	5
Leadership-Related Theories	0	0	0	1	1	0	2
Motivational-Related Theories	0	3	11	7	14	18	53
Social Cognitive Theories	1	0	3	1	1	5	11
Social Identity Theories	0	0	3	4	1	2	10
Total	1	4	21	17	29	31	106

Notes. Indicates frequencies in which these theories appeared by year across the applied psychology journals.

In terms of theory testing (Research Question 4), there were 94 (71.2%) job stress articles that empirically tested one theory. Table 8 demonstrates that the JD-R model (n = 22), transactional model of stress (n = 19), COR theory (n = 21), and JDCS (n = 12) were tested most frequently, and that only the JD-R model and COR theory were fully supported more than five times. Other theories were mostly partially supported. In terms of the JDCS model, all testing results were partially supported, and the supported results were all main effects, whereas interaction effects were not supported. Considering previous quantitative reviews of the JDCS model showing poor support (e.g., Häusser et al., 2010; Taris, 2006; Van der Doef & Maes, 1999), this might explain why the JDCS model became less prevalent during the three decades of research reviewed, whereas other newly developed theories (e.g., JD-R model and COR theory) gained prominence.

Table 8.

Job Stress Theory Testing (Study 2).

		Job Stress Theories									Total
		C-H Framework	COR Theory	ERI Theory	JD-R Model	JDCS Model	P-E Fit Theory	ER Theory	RS Theory	Transactional Model	Total
Theory Testing	No	1	4	3	7	11	2	1	1	8	38
Theory Testing	Yes	3	21	3	22	12	3	7	4	19	94
Supported?	Full	1	6	0	7	0	1	4	1	3	23
Supported?	Partial	2	15	3	15	12	2	3	3	16	71

Note. Theory testing indicates whether the article empirically tested theoretically-based propositions. C-H Framework: Challenge and Hindrance Stressor Framework; COR Theory: Conservation of Resources Theory; ERI Theory: Effort Reward Imbalance Theory; JDCS Model: Job Demand–Control-Support model; JD-R Model: Job Demand–Resource Model; P-E Fit Theory: Person-Environment Fit Theory; RS Theory: Role Stress Theory; ER Theory: Effort Recovery Theory; Transactional Model: Transactional Model of Stress.

Finally, in testing Research Question 5, in terms of authors’ professional affiliations, we observed various university departments (e.g., political science, computer science, social work, sociology, information technology, human resources), research institutions (e.g., leadership, clinical, health care, family research), and government agencies (e.g., Naval Academy). However, excepting psychology and management departments (Figure 8), each particular affiliation had fewer than three instances. Figure 8 also shows the most common prevalence of (co)author(s) national affiliation. The Netherlands (total n = 20) and Germany (total n = 19) were the most common locations of author affiliations, and US authors had the largest number of coauthors in other countries (n = 11). Other countries not reported in Figure 8 published job stress theory articles in APIR and EJWOP, including China (n = 6), Canada (n = 7), and Finland (n = 6). Overall, 68.8% (n = 95) were from European countries (consistent with the fact that EJWOP is the official journal of a European professional society), and 20.3% (n = 28) were from a mixture of other countries.

Figure 8.

National and Professional Affiliations of Job Stress Researchers in Study 2. Notes. Only = only one nation or profession of affiliation was reported. Mixed = two or more nations or professions of affiliation was reported.

General Discussion

Study Contribution

Job stress is a relatively new field within applied psychology, with the first papers being published in the 1960s and 1970s. In this study, we view how theory in the field is progressing. Understanding trends in theory prevalence can bring researchers’ attention to promising theories, such as effort recovery. Through processes such as empirical testing, resolving conflicts between theories, and applying theories developed in one domain to another, theories are modified and refined, and become more useful for research and practice (e.g., Locke, 1986). In general, we found that job stress theory, across job stress and non-job stress journals, was sparse until the late 1990s. Early emphasis on the JDC/JDCS model gave way to a higher prevalence of JD-R and COR articles in the 2010s. This trend is consistent with our findings regarding empirical support. Specifically, the JDCS received little support and the JD-R model and COR theory were more supported in our vote counting method. Motivational and affective theories are also commonly used to frame wellbeing research in job stress and applied psychology journals. We also found that author affiliations, both of national location and profession, were varied. To illustrate, approximately half of the articles we reviewed in (international) applied psychology journals had authors with affiliations in more than one country.

This study complements other reviews of job stress research. In particular, Bliese et al. (2017) authored a review of stress articles published within the Journal of Applied Psychology that compared the developments in stress research (measured by tracking word frequencies from abstracts) with methodological, theoretical, and societal trends (Bliese et al., 2017). This study identified three eras: 1917 to 1966, 1967–1996, and 1997 until present. They found that 1997 to present account for a general increase in the number of papers on stress and wellbeing. This complements our finding that the job stress journals were generally founded in the mid-1990s. The authors also state that lack of “theory appears to be the most parsimonious explanation for the relative dearth of early stress research,” (Bliese et al., 2017, p. 398). We contend that general distaste for job stress research before the 1970s (“it smacks of clinical,” Beehr & Newman, 1998) also played a role, and that because theory is meant to frame existing scientific observations (e.g., Locke, 1986), the lack of theory prior to the 1990s is at least partially the outcome of the lack of early stress research.

Other reviews have reviewed and updated theories against empirical support for individual theories (e.g., JD-R model, Bakker & Demerouti, 2017) or categories of theory (e.g., cybernetic theories; Edwards et al., 1998). Several books have been dedicated to job stress theories, varying from those that provide more breadth (O’Brien & Cooper, 2022) to more depth (Cooper, 1998). This study complements these assessments of job stress theory by providing a gestalt perspective on the prevalence of job stress theories broadly, as well as a more cohesive assessment to the relative rise and fall of particular theories. In general, we find that the state of job stress theory is strong, such that poorly supported theories were modified and more valid theories are receiving attention. However, we couple this observation with a caveat- it is common in our field to discard “boring” theories that are supported, in favor of new theories that are more “interesting” (Cortina, 2016). This leads to a literature in which many new theories are only tested once. If theories are tested multiple times and replications do not support the original test, it is often the replications that are assumed to be wrong (O’Brien & Cooper, 2022). Therefore, we should not view the many tests of the JDCS as a waste, as other theories were modified from these observations. This is the scientific process.

Trends in Job Stress Theory and Research

In addition to the scientific process, there are various factors that influence research trends, including the availability of methodological tools (e.g., wearable devices), analytic advancement (e.g., latent profile analysis; Lee et al., 2024) and macro-level concerns (e.g., COVID19 influencing a recent boon of studies on work-from-home). Bliese et al. (2017) demonstrated that validating a measure reliably predicted increased study of the topic, and this may extend to other research tools. For example, the increasing prevalence of the JD-R model coincides with the publication of a long list of job demands and job resources (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). Indeed, this book chapter was cited over 2,500 times. Perhaps researchers found this extensive list inspiring, or at least convenient, for developing research projects using the JD-R model, thereby leading to an increase in theory testing. Second, review papers regarding the JDCS were particularly damning, perhaps leading to a vacuum that contributed to the prevalence of JD-R testing.

Similarly, a point-counterpoint published in APIR regarding COR theory in which Hobfoll (2001) explicitly addressed the complaints leveled at COR theory was cited more than 7,000 times. Lazarus (2001) responded to delineate his perspective on the relative benefits of COR theory (to summarize- he saw none). Although Lazarus (2001) entitled his paper “COR: little more than words masquerading as a new theory,” this debate may have attracted even more attention to COR theory. This published debate was followed by increased research using both transactional and COR theories (Figure 3). Of course, the debate may reflect increased attention to these theories, rather than having caused increased attention. The uptick in COR and JD-R model publications may also reflect their applicability to research domains beyond occupational health (Halbesleben et al., 2014).

It is worth noting that this is possibly the scientific method at work, but ulterior motives also align with why JD-R and COR may have become more prevalent. That is, according to Cortina’s (2016) criticism of the use of theory in psychology and management, authors are incentivized to publish. Therefore, they may align their introduction to their results section, rather than the opposite, in order to have a more publishable paper. Cortina (2016) demonstrates this by showing that the ratio of supported to unsupported hypotheses in a published study is twice that found within rigorous unpublished studies (O’Boyle et al., 2017). Tests of JD-R and COR are easier to justify post hoc due to the flexibility of the variables used and the straightforward relationships proposed (i.e., mostly main effects; Schaufeli, 2017). At its worst, researchers have framed the prediction of (or even correlation of) a good thing with another good thing as JD-R (Beehr et al., 2001) or COR.

Revisiting Job Stress Theories

In the introduction, we summarized some job stress theories that we found to be notable. Although role stress theory has had the longest history in the literature (Kahn et al., 1964), our results demonstrated that it is not as widely cited in employee stress and wellbeing research compared to COR theory, JD-R model, and JDCS model. Nevertheless, role stress processes occur ubiquitously during work (Frone, 1990) and role stress theory remained relatively consistent in its rate of adoption in occupational health psychology (OHP) journals. Given that the current expansion of gig economy and growth of flexible work environments (Cascio & Aguinis, 2018) in which roles might become less clear (i.e., role ambiguity), the salience of role-related stressors and strain could continue to be relevant in future research.

The effort-recovery model has been increasingly adopted after publications developed measurements of recovery experiences (i.e., Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). The availability of measures of recovery may have been an empirical advance aiding OHP researchers in developing their studies. The literature has transitioned from an emphasis on examining more objective recovery activities to examining more subjective recovery experiences, although the two types of recovery are related (Ragsdale et al., 2011), and more examination of their relationship is warranted.

Other theories, such as P-E fit theory and effort-reward imbalance model, have shown relatively low rates of inclusion in the journals. However, P-E fit, especially in the form of person-organization fit, is included more often when studying outcomes such as turnover and job performance, usually outside of the job stress domain. Effort-reward imbalance model can be seen as a subtype of P-E fit theory, such that effort must match the rewards from the environment in order for strains to remain low. The relatively lower use of these theories might result from methodological barriers. Although advances in research methods, such as polynomial regression (Edwards & Harrison, 1993) and multi-level approaches (Bliese & Jex, 2002), might have led to increased study of P-E fit theory, they are also more difficult to use and more complex to interpret. The most influential theories in occupational stress often (a) are explicitly work-based, (b) have elements that can be easily measured and analyzed, and (c) are related to employees who are service workers (Bliese et al., 2017). Although the long history of P-E fit theory and effort-reward imbalance model provided substantial contributions to OHP, they are less prevalent than other leading stress theories in terms of frequency of citations.

In addition to the above job stress theories, others emerged in our review. For one, the effort-recovery model, based on research in exercise physiology, posits that effort expended at work in response to job demands results in resource depletion (usually energy, motivation, and attention) and load, possibly resulting in fatigue and burnout if resources are not recovered (Meijman & Mulder, 1998). Once the worker is no longer exposed to the job demands, load reactions must be reversed through an opponent process model for recovery to occur. Recovery experiences can include detachment (i.e., avoiding thinking about work), relaxation (i.e., maintaining a low activation level), mastery (i.e., growing through a challenging activity), and control (i.e., exerting one’s autonomy; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007).

Finally, the challenge-hindrance stressor framework was first introduced to distinguish two types of demands or stressors, challenge and hindrance (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). Challenge stressors are proposed to enhance employee growth and provide opportunities for development even if they deplete employee resources (to a point, after which they become harmful). Thus, challenge stressors are linked to eustress, which describes positive outcomes of stressors. On the other hand, hindrance stressors frustrate personal achievement and growth (Cavanaugh et al., 2000). Although there is some debate regarding whether the employee’s individual appraisal of the two types of stressors must be measured as in transactional theory (e.g., O’Brien & Beehr, 2019), empirical studies generally supported the distinct effect on employee health (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 2007). Overall, hindrance demands appear to be more strongly related to strains than challenge demands are (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 2007), and researchers have long suspected that some challenging stressors have benefits. For example, Beehr et al. (1976, p. 42) state “overload might increase the motivation to work if the workload is experienced as a challenge, because challenging work increases intrinsic rewards to be gained from successful performance.” Likewise, when discussing active jobs, Karasek and Theorell (1990, p. 35) state “some of the most challenging situations, typically of professional work, call for the highest levels of performance, but without negative psychological strain.”

Integrating Job Stress Theories

Based on the trends identified, future studies could take steps forward by integrating promising job stress theories. For example, our findings demonstrated that COR theory and JD-R model are used together the most, whereas the JDCS model is most frequently cited together with a variety of other job stress theories (Table 4). This tendency might reflect that the JDCS has a longer history than COR and JD-R, thus has had more opportunities (a longer time in the literature) to be tested together with other new or existing job stress theories compared to the newer JD-R model and COR theory. On the other hand, both COR and JD-R place an overt emphasis on resources, so that it might be natural for researchers to use principles derived from them together. In fact, the JD-R model is often combined with other theories to explain the complex phenomenon (e.g., profiles of recovery experience; Bennett et al., 2016). Altogether, our findings suggest that future theoretical integrations are warranted.

Consequently, based on our findings, we visualized the convergence and divergence of job stress theories (Figure 9), including theoretical overlaps and distinctions. Overall, job stress theories share the goal of explaining how stressor-strain processes are conceived, but distinctions between theories help to explain nuanced effects in individual wellbeing, such as specific contexts or boundary conditions (Johns, 2006). To begin, job stressors or demands (e.g., role stress) and resources (e.g., control) pervade many models and are theorized to explain employee well-being (e.g., eustress and strain), reflecting an area of conceptual overlap. Then, core mechanisms identified across theories reflect (a) job demands increasing strain, (b) resources increasing eustress, (c) job demands decreasing eustress, and (d) resources decreasing strain. However, the theories diverge when considering moderating effects. Specifically, the effect of stressors on strain are buffered by secondary appraisals and resulting coping strategies (from the transactional model of stress), match between people and environment (P-E fit theory), balance between effort and reward (effort-reward imbalance model), and resources (e.g., control, support, and recovery experience). Moreover, there are the feedback loops (e.g., gain and loss spirals in COR theory) that may intensify the demand/resource mechanisms. However, new research on adjustment (e.g., Matthews et al., 2014) shows that strain may decrease over time and also warrants future study.

Figure 9.

The Convergence and Divergence of Job Stress Theory. Notes. C-H Framework: Challenge and Hindrance Stressor Framework; COR: Conservation of Resources Theory; JD-CS Model: Job Demand–Control (-Support) model; JD-R Model: Job Demand–Resource Model; P-E Fit: Person-Environment Fit Theory; RS Theory: Role Stress Theory; ER Theory: Effort Recovery Theory.

Other papers have attempted to integrate the job stress literature and theories into a cohesive model. In particular, the appraisal, attribution, and adaptation (AAA) model (Mackey & Perrewé, 2014) describes cognitive processes used by employees presented with challenge or hindrance stressors. Although this carefully considered theory is based on an exhaustive review of the literature, it is difficult to test due to the challenges in measurement of certain constructs (e.g., action tendencies) and reciprocal loops. However, the individual components have received strong support.

There is also room to integrate non-job stress theories. As would be expected, the frequency of citation of non-job stress-related theories tended to be less than the frequencies of theories directly developed to explain job stress. Motivation-related theories have shown increased usage, likely because performance has always been a serious consideration for many organizational researchers. Additionally, much research on motivation has also been published in the health psychology domain (e.g., encouraging healthy behaviors), such that future interdisciplinary approaches in job stress might incorporate health-related motivation theories (e.g., health behavior model; biopsychosocial model). O’Brien and Cooper (2022) noted that collaboration with colleagues in the fields of ergonomics or neuroscience might be particularly appropriate for furthering our understanding of job stress, but are nonetheless scarce in the existing literature.

Non “Job Stress” Theories

In our coding of non- job stress theory categories, we found that six non-job stress theories emerged as frequently cited in the literature (Table 2). These include self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2012), job characteristics model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976), broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2001), affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 2004), and social exchange theory (e.g., Blau, 1964). Some of these theories have been applied in job stress intervention research. Self-determination theory is a motivational theory that states that aspects of the environment contribute to individual needs fulfillment (e.g., autonomy, belonging, and competence), which then leads to self-directed behavior. This is used to show that positive work environments (e.g., higher job autonomy) contribute to enhanced well-beings (e.g., Moon et al., 2022). Intervention efforts are promising, as the theory provides specific suggestions for resources to provide (e.g., social interaction) that may generate positive outcomes. Job characteristics model is another motivational theory used in intervention efforts. This model originally represented a mathematic formula of five core job characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback) that contribute to psychological states (i.e., meaningfulness, responsibility, and knowledge of results) used to calculate a motivating potential score. Some iterations of the theory state that this flow depends on a person’s need for growth. This has been applied in job redesign interventions to improve employee strain and can (in some cases) provide inexpensive suggestions for addressing employee concerns.

The next two theories were categorized as affective. This includes broaden-and-build theory, which describes positive emotion from an evolutionary perspective. Compared to negative emotion, positive emotion is less nuanced (e.g., happy vs. sad or angry or worried) and lacks action tendencies (e.g., sadness is related to withdrawing, and anger is related to aggression). Instead, Frederickson (2001) theorized that positive emotion enables a person to broaden their situation (e.g., new activities or relationships) and build upon them for later growth. In the workplace, gratitude has been found to be a particularly relevant (and practical) positive emotion for building growth. Affective events theory (another affective theory) posits that work events lead to affective reactions, and in turn, work attitudes. An original goal of the theory was to encourage researchers to think about proximal causes of affect and behavior, rather than stable between-person comparisons (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). It has been tested using varied methodologies (e.g., daily diary), with results indicating that affective events theory is more relevant to negative workplace events than positive due to the stronger action tendencies of negative emotions (O’Brien & Cooper, 2022).

Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 2004) states, at its most basic, that identity is important to the self, and threats to identity may harm a person’s wellbeing. The workplace is often a salient part of a person’s identity, and thus, threats to perceptions of work identity (e.g., incompetence, poor belonging) can be detrimental. In job stress, this has been applied to (among other things) negative feedback. For example, Semmer et al. (2019) encourage that managers avoid “overkill” and deliver only “minimally invasive” negative feedback, as people are sensitive to threats to the self. Furthermore, managers might proactively restore identity if they anticipate that negative feedback should be delivered.

Social exchange theory was among the most difficult to code. There are various social exchange theories, and some are more in line with justice theories (e.g., a person evaluates the fairness of their efforts towards, and rewards from, the organization). They also overlap with job stress theories, and some articles we coded specifically mentioned the overlap when discussion their background rationale (e.g., “social exchange theories (such as the effort–reward imbalance theory) offer an explanation for the prevalence of a situation (person–environment mismatch) that seems nonbeneficial to the participant,” Hanson et al., 2000). Future research should be more clear regarding which iteration of social exchange theory they are using (e.g., equity theory, norm of reciprocity) to avoid theoretical confusion.

We note that we specifically targeted strain as an outcome, so attempts to code how these theories are integrated with job stress theories would be limited, underrepresenting when these theories provide background rationale for the outcomes of a study. However, insight afforded by such an integration would be helpful in understanding whether job stress theories need more overt boundary variables, or mechanisms to be specified from outside theory. Perhaps job stress theories are useful at predicting outcomes of non-job stress theories (e.g., motivation, affect). These inferences would help to guide further study.

Practical Implications

These findings might offer perspective to practitioners who are interested in initiating theory-based interventions. It is notable that there has been lack of theory-based approaches to job stress interventions (Cooper et al., 2010), although there are some relevant articles on accomplishing this (e.g., Schaufeli, 2017). As a result, there are many conceptual confusions and baseless assumptions that can weaken the effectiveness of stress management interventions (e.g., Cooper et al., 2010). Indeed, a comprehensive review of occupational health intervention research demonstrated that 53% of interventions were non-theoretical, and their outcomes were not well defined (Burgess et al., 2020). On the other hand, a JD-R model-based intervention in a Dutch hotel showed improvements to engagement and job attitudes (e.g., satisfaction and commitment; Schaufeli, 2017).

Research Implications

Future research should revisit our findings and continue to study trends in job stress theory, including by reviewing job stress theories published in any reputable outlet. A concern, however, is that the time it may take to complete such a review would be so lengthy as to render the review outdated, as an initial review of the “job” “strain” and “theory” resulted in an overwhelming number of hits, the majority of which appeared relevant at cursory inspection. As noted earlier, the job stress literature is only may still be in an early stage compared to some other sciences, and continued meta-knowledge will be necessary to guide the field. Furthermore, we acknowledge that there are other useful ways of categorizing important job stress research characteristics beyond what we coded, such as using objective versus subjective measurement (e.g., Frese & Zapf, 1999); including eustress as an outcome (e.g., Nelson & Simmons, 2011); and coding multi-level perspectives (Bliese & Jex, 2002).

Moreover, it would be beneficial to evaluate job stress theories based on whether the theoretical models are supported. Specifically, our Study 2 findings of theoretical testing results used only a simple vote count, which has notable limitations (Fila, 2016). Future researchers might investigate how a certain job stress model was supported across different study characteristics. For example, researchers might test how often the effort recovery models works for (1) cross-cultural situations, (2) different jobs or industries, (3) distinct recovery experience characteristics, (4) intervention approaches, and (5) analytic models (e.g., main effects or interaction effects). Finally, future research investigating how models are being integrated (e.g., if non-job stress theories are more often used as a mechanism or moderator of, say, the JD-R) would provide further nuance to the understanding of how theories within job stress research are empirically supported, perhaps expanding the outcomes studied to reflect a broader definition of strain (e.g., absenteeism, diminished job performance; Moon & O’Brien, 2023).

Conclusions

Our account of job stress theories contributes to our meta-knowledge. Specifying the trends over time and identifying the potential reasons for increases and declines can help researchers understand which theories are seen as more worthy of study (e.g., COR theory and JD-R model among the stress-oriented theories; motivational and affective approaches among the non-job stress theories). Relatedly, researchers and practitioners might be able to provide implications based on the trends, perhaps by recommending resources broadly. It seems that job stress theories are “on track” with development, such that various observations (e.g., control reduces burnout, support reduces burnout, self-efficacy reduces burnout) have been framed by a single theory and empirically tested. Overall, this review allows researchers to understand the dynamic nature of job stress theories in the employee well-being domain.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Young-Kook Moon

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Author Biographies

Dr. Young-Kook Moon received his PhD in industrial and organizational psychology from the Central Michigan University in 2023 and is now an assistant professor of psychology at Radford University. His research interests include employee turnover, occupational health psychology, and personality.

Dr. Kimberly E. O’Brien received her PhD in industrial/organizational psychology from the University of South Florida in 2008 and is now a professor at Central Michigan University. Her research program involves organizational citizenship behavior, counterproductive work behavior, mentoring, and job stress. She loves her family, all animals, dance, and any type of art.

Dr. Terry A. Beehr is a professor emeritus of psychology at Central Michigan University. His research interests include occupational health psychology, retirement, and leadership.

Dr. Jong-Hyun Lee currently works as an associate professor of psychology at Gyeongsang National University, South Korea. His research interests encompass job stress, mindfulness, and workplace meetings. He is also an active member of the Korean Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

References

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056

Beehr

T. A.

Glaser

K. M.

Canali

K. G.

Wallwey

D. A.

(2001). Back to basics: Re-Examination of demand-control theory of occupational stress. Work & Stress, 15(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370110067002

Beehr

T. A.

Newman

J. E.

(1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature review. Personnel Psychology, 31(4), 665–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1978.tb02118.x

Beehr

T. A.

Newman

J. E.

(1998). Research on occupational stress: An unfinished enterprise. Personnel Psychology, 51(4), 835–844. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00741.x

Beehr

T. A.

Walsh

J. T.

Taber

T. D.

(1976). Relationship of stress to individually and organizationally valued states: Higher order needs as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(7), 41–47.

Bennett

A. A.

Gabriel

A. S.

Calderwood

Dahling

J. J.

Trougakos

J. P.

(2016). Better together? Examining profiles of employee recovery experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(12), 1635–1654. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000157

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bliese

P. D.

Edwards

J. R.

Sonnentag

(2017). Stress and well-being at work: A century of empirical trends reflecting theoretical and societal influences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 389–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000109

Bliese

P. D.

Jex

S. M.

(2002). Incorporating a multilevel perspective into occupational stress research: Theoretical, methodological, and practical implications. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(3), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8998.7.3.265

10.

Burgess

M. G.

Brough

Biggs

Hawkes

A. J.

(2020). Why interventions fail: A systematic review of occupational health psychology interventions. International Journal of Stress Management, 27(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000144

11.

Cannon

W. B.

(1915). The effect of the emotions on digestion. In Cannon

W. B.

(Ed.), Bodily changes in pain, hunger, fear and rage: An account of recent researches into the function of emotional excitement (pp. 1–21). D Appleton & Company.

12.

Cascio

W. F.

Aguinis

(2018). Applied psychology in talent management. Sage Publications.

13.

Cavanaugh

M. A.

Boswell

W. R.

Roehling

M. V.

Boudreau

J. W.

(2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among US managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.65

14.

Cooper

Dewe

O'Driscoll

(2010). Employee assistance programs: Strengths, challenges and future roles. In Quick

J. C.

Tetrick

L. E.

(Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (2nd ed., pp. 337–356). APA.

15.

Cooper

C. L.

(1998). Theories of organizational stress. Oxford University Press.

16.

Cormack

L. B.

(2015). That before Columbus, geographers and other educated people knew the Earth was flat. In Numbers

R. L.

Kampourakis

(Eds.), Newton’s apple and other myths about science. Harvard University Press.

17.

Cortina

J. M.

(2016). Defining and operationalizing theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(8), 1142–1149. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2121

18.

Cropanzano

Rupp

D. E.

Mohler

C. J.

Schminke

(2001). Three roads to organizational justice. In Ferris

G. R.

(Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 20, pp. 1–123). Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

19.

Dawson

K. M.

O’Brien

K. E.

Beehr

T. A.

(2016). The role of hindrance stressors in the job demand–control–support model of occupational stress: A proposed theory revision. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(3), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2049

20.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2012). Self-determination theory. In Van Lange

P. A. M.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 416–436). Sage Publications Ltd.

21.

Demerouti

Bakker

A. B.

Nachreiner

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2001). The job demands resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512.

22.

Edwards

J. R.

Caplan

R. D.

Harrison

R. V.

(1998). Person-environment fit theory: Conceptual foundations, empirical evidence, and directions for future research. In Cooper

C. L.

(Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 28–67): Oxford University Press.

23.

Edwards

J. R.

Harrison

R. V.

(1993). Job demands and worker health: Three-dimensional reexamination of the relationship between person-environment fit and strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 628–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.628

24.

Festinger

(1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202

25.

Fila

M. J.

(2016). The job demands, control, support model: Where are we now. TKM International Journal for Research in Management, 1(1), 15–44.

26.

Folkman

Lazarus

R. S.

(1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21(3), 219–239.

27.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.56.3.218

28.

Freitas

A. C.

Silva

S. A.

Santos

C. M.

(2019). Safety training transfer: The roles of coworkers, supervisors, safety professionals, and felt responsibility. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 24(1), 92–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000125

29.

French

J. R.

Caplan

R. D.

Van Harrison

R. V.

(1982). The mechanisms of job stress and strain. Wiley.

30.

Frese

Zapf

(1999). On the importance of the objective environment in stress and attribution theory. Counterpoint to Perrewé and Zellars. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(5), 761–765. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(199909)20:5<761::aid-job951>3.0.co;2-y

31.

Frone

M. R.

(1990). Intolerance of ambiguity as a moderator of the occupational role stress—strain relationship: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11(4), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030110406

32.

Frone

M. R.

Russell

Barnes

G. M.

(1996). Work–family conflict, gender, and health-related outcomes: A study of employed parents in two community samples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(1), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8998.1.1.57

33.

Geurts

S. A.

Taris

T. W.

Kompier

M. A.

Dikkers

J. S.

Van Hooff

M. L.

Kinnunen

U. M.

(2005). Work-home interaction from a work psychological perspective: Development and validation of a new questionnaire, the SWING. Work & Stress, 19(4), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370500410208

34.

Graen

G. B.

Uhl-Bien

(1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5

35.

Grebner

Semmer

N. K.

Elfering

(2005). Working conditions and three types of well-being: A longitudinal study with self-report and rating data. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.1.31

36.

Gross

Mason

W. S.

McEachern

A. W.

(1958). Explorations in role analysis: Studies of the school superintendency role. Wiley.

37.

Grzywacz

J. G.

Butler

A. B.

(2005). The impact of job characteristics on work-to-family facilitation: Testing a theory and distinguishing a construct. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(2), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.97

38.

Hackman

J. R.

Oldham

G. R.

(1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7

39.

Halbesleben

J. R.

Neveu

J. P.

Paustian-Underdahl

S. C.

Westman

(2014). Getting to the “COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334–1364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527130

40.

Hanson

E. K.

Schaufeli

Vrijkotte

Plomp

N. H.

Godaert

G. L.

(2000). The validity and reliability of the Dutch effort–reward imbalance questionnaire. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 142–155. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8998.5.1.142

41.

Häusser

J. A.

Mojzisch

Niesel

Schulz-Hardt

(2010). Ten years on: A review of recent research on the job demand–control (-Support) model and psychological well-being. Work & Stress, 24(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678371003683747

42.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.44.3.513

43.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested‐self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50(3), 337–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062

44.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Halbesleben

Neveu

J. P.

Westman

(2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640

45.

Jex

S. M.

Britt

T. W.

(2014). Organizational psychology: A scientist-practitioner approach. John Wiley & Sons.

46.

Johns

(2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386–408. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208687

47.

Kahn

R. L.

Wolfe

D. M.

Quinn

R. P.

Snoek

J. D.

Rosenthal

R. A.

(1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. Wiley.

48.

Karasek

R. A.

(1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285–311. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392498

49.

Karasek

R. A.

Theorell

(1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. Basic Books.

50.

King

L. A.

King

D. W.

(1990). Role conflict and role ambiguity: A critical assessment of construct validity. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.107.1.48

51.

Kranabetter

Niessen

(2019). Appreciation and depressive symptoms: The moderating role of need satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 24(6), 629–640. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000153

52.

Kubicek

Korunka

(2015). Does job complexity mitigate the negative effect of emotion-rule dissonance on employee burnout? Work & Stress, 29(4), 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2015.1074954

53.

Lazarus

R. S.

(1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. McGraw-Hill.

54.

Lazarus

R. S.

(2001). Conservation of Resources theory (COR): Little more than words masquerading as a new theory. Applied Psychology, 50, 381–391.

55.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.

56.

Lee

J. H.

Moon

Y. K.

Lee

K. S.

Beehr

T. A.

(2024). The negative effect of solving the ‘white bear’ problem with mindfulness: Expansion and reconfirmation of mindfulness profiles based on ironic process theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 217, 112447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112447

57.

Lewin

(1943). Psychology and the process of group living. The Journal of Social Psychology, 17(1), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1943.9712269

58.

Locke

E. A.

(Ed.), (1986). Generalizing from laboratory to field settings: Research findings from industrial-organizational psychology, Organizational behavior, and human resource management. Free Press.

59.

Mackey

J. D.

Perrewe

P. L.

(2014). The AAA (appraisals, attributions, adaptation) model of job stress: The critical role of self-regulation. Organizational Psychology Review, 4(3), 258–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386614525072

60.

Matthews

R. A.

Wayne

J. H.

Ford

M. T.

(2014). A work–family conflict/subjective well-being process model: A test of competing theories of longitudinal effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1173–1187. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036674

61.

McNall

L. A.

Scott

L. D.

Nicklin

J. M.

(2015). Do positive affectivity and boundary preferences matter for work–family enrichment? A study of human service workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(1), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038165

62.

Meijman

T. F.

Mulder

(1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In Drenth

P. J. D.

Thierry

(Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 5–33). Psychology Press.

63.

Moon

Y. K.

O’Brien

K. E.

(2023). “I put in my two weeks notice!” Employee behavior and wellness prior to exit. Journal of Career Development, 50(6), 1172–1188. https://doi.org/10.1177/08948453231163499

64.

Moon

Y. K.

O’Brien

K. E.

Mann

K. J.

(2023). The role of extraversion in the great resignation: A burnout-quitting process during the pandemic. Personality and Individual Differences, 205, 112074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.112074

65.

Moon

Y. K.

Shin

K. H.

Lee

J. H.

(2022). Linking personality, emotional labor and employee well-being: The role of job autonomy. Science of Emotion and Sensibility, 25(4), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.14695/kjsos.2022.25.4.139

66.

Nelson

D. L.

Simmons

B. L.

(2011). Savoring eustress while coping with distress: The holistic model of stress. In Quick

J. C.

Tetrick

L. E.

(Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 55–74). APA.

67.

Nesher Shoshan

Wehrt

(2022). Understanding “zoom fatigue”: A mixed‐method approach. Applied Psychology, 71(3), 827–852. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12360

68.

O’Boyle

E. H.

Jr. Banks

G. C.

Gonzalez-Mulé

(2017). The chrysalis effect: How ugly initial results metamorphosize into beautiful articles. Journal of Management, 43(2), 376–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527133

69.

O’Brien

K. E.

Beehr

T. A.

(2019). So far, so good: Up to now, the challenge–hindrance framework describes a practical and accurate distinction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(8), 962–972. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2405

70.

O’Brien

K. E.

Cooper

(2022). Elgar introduction to organizational stress theories. Edward Elgar Publishing.

71.

Odle-Dusseau

H. N.

Hammer

L. B.

Crain

T. L.

Bodner

T. E.

(2016). The influence of family-supportive supervisor training on employee job performance and attitudes: An organizational work–family intervention. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21(3), 296–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039961

72.

Petterson

I.-L.

Hertting

Hagberg

Theorell

(2005). Are trends in work and health conditions interrelated? A study of Swedish hospital employees in the 1990s. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(2), 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.110

73.

Pindek

Arvan

M. L.

Spector

P. E.

(2019). The stressor–strain relationship in diary studies: A meta-analysis of the within and between levels. Work & Stress, 33(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2018.1445672

74.

Podsakoff

N. P.

LePine

J. A.

LePine

M. A.

(2007). Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 438–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.438

75.

Ragsdale

J. M.

Beehr

T. A.

Grebner

Han

(2011). An integrated model of weekday stress and weekend recovery of students. International Journal of Stress Management, 18(2), 153–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023190

76.

Richter

Näswall

(2019). Job insecurity and trust: Uncovering a mechanism linking job insecurity to well-being. Work & Stress, 33(1), 22–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2018.1461709

77.

Salancik

G. R.

Pfeffer

(1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224–253.

78.

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2017). Applying the job demands-resources model. Organizational Dynamics, 46(2), 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.04.008

79.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Taris

(2014). A critical review of the job demands-resources model: Implications for improving work and health. In Bauer

G. F.

Hämmig

(Eds.), Bridging occupational, organizational, and public health (pp. 43–68). Springer.

80.

Selye

(1936). A syndrome produced by diverse nocuous agents. Nature, 138(3479), 32. https://doi.org/10.1038/138032a0

81.

Semmer

N. K.

Tschan

Jacobshagen

Beehr

T. A.

Elfering

Kälin

Meier

L. L.

(2019). Stress as offense to self: A promising approach comes of age. Occupational Health Science, 3, 205–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-019-00041-5

82.

Siegrist

(1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8998.1.1.27

83.

Sonnentag

Fritz

(2007). The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 204–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204

84.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Political psychology (pp. 276–293). Psychology Press.

85.

Taris

T. W.

(2006). Bricks without clay: On urban myths in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 20(2), 99–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370600893410

86.

Teoh

Hassard

Cox

(2019). Doctors’ perceived working conditions and the quality of patient care: A systematic review. Work & Stress, 33(4), 385–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2019.1598514

87.

Tuckey

M. R.

Searle

B. J.

Boyd

C. M.

Winefield

A. H.

Winefield

H. R.

(2015). Hindrances are not threats: Advancing the multidimensionality of work stress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(2), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038280

88.

Van der Doef

Maes

(1999). The job demand-control(-support) model and psychological well-being: A review of 20 years of empirical research. Work & Stress, 13(2), 87–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/026783799296084

89.

van Veldhoven

Taris

T. W.

de Jonge

Broersen

(2005). The relationship between work characteristics and employee health and well-being: How much complexity do we really need? International Journal of Stress Management, 12(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.12.1.3

90.

Weiss

H. M.

Cropanzano

(1996). Affective events theory. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18(1), 1–74.

91.

Xanthopoulou

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.11.003

92.

Zohar

(2000). A group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of group climate on microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 587–596. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.587