Explaining Employment Hardiness Among Women in Israel’s Ultraorthodox Community

Abstract

Based on a sample of 319 Israeli women belonging to the ultraorthodox Jewish community, this study examined factors that facilitate and inhibit the development of employment hardiness. The term employment hardiness refers to one aspect of me as a worker and reflects a self-perception characterized by three distinguishing components, that is, openness to change at work, employment self-efficacy, and work commitment. Facilitators of employment hardiness were manifested in the women’s personal and environmental resources as well as in their work-promoting attitudes (egalitarian gender-role ideology and work centrality). Conversely, the inhibitors were manifested in the participants’ experience of daily stress. Openness to change at work and employment self-efficacy were explained primarily by workplace support and by personal resources as reflected in psychological and community empowerment, whereas work commitment was explained primarily by work-promoting attitudes as well as by the experience of daily stress. Practical recommendations are presented for organizations employing ultraorthodox women as well as for employment counselors, which aim to enhance employment hardiness among traditional women in communities undergoing modernization.

Keywords

traditional women openness to change at work employment self-efficacy workplace support community empowerment

The main goal of this study was to examine the variables that explain employment hardiness among ultraorthodox Jewish women in Israel. The term employment hardiness is based on the concept of personal hardiness, which was introduced by Kobasa, Maddi, and Kahn (1982) and supported by principles of positive psychology (Seligman, 2000). In the same vein, researchers have argued that the concept of employment hardiness refers to positive perceptions about oneself as a worker that promote coping with work difficulties (Jiménez, Muñoz, Hernández, & Blanco, 2014; Kulik, 1999). Moreover, findings have revealed that the construct is expressed by openness to change and challenge seeking at the workplace, a sense of employment self-efficacy, and a sense of commitment to work (Kulik, 1999). Despite the unique lifestyle of the ultraorthodox community, which is characterized by strict separation of gender roles, the conclusions as well as the implications of the present research may be expanded to other traditional societies that are currently in the process of modernization.

The Ultraorthodox Community in Israel

The ultraorthodox Jewish population in Israel is a closed community, and its members live in insular, homogeneous regions. Israel’s ultraorthodox Jewish community is estimated to be 8–11.5% of the general population (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 2012). The members of this community maintain a traditional lifestyle and strive to buffer themselves from the non-ultraorthodox population. Life in the ultraorthodox community is characterized by strict rules, and rabbis (Jewish religious leaders) are the sole source of authority. In the public arena, women adhere to codes of modest dress, and there is total separation between the genders. Men are commanded to learn Torah (religious studies) and other holy texts throughout their lives, whereas women are tasked with providing material sustenance for the family and tending to their numerous children (Goodman & Witztum, 2002).

Ultraorthodox women have always worked outside the home, usually in the field of education in their communities. In most cases, they have accepted their role as the family’s main breadwinner in order to allow their husbands to dedicate themselves to Torah learning in the Kollel (rabbinic seminary) all day. However, as processes of modernization have penetrated the traditional isolation of the ultraorthodox community in recent years, its members have become exposed to external influences. One manifestation of these trends is that ultraorthodox women are pursuing training in a variety of professional fields, including entrepreneurship, computers, and the media. Thus, they are now more likely to seek jobs beyond the confines of their community, and many of them have integrated into the general Israeli labor market. In this process, ultraorthodox women face many obstacles when starting a job. Some of these difficulties derive from employers’ stereotypes of these women as having low and inadequate work skills, and other difficulties derive from the expectation of their social environment that they will dedicate themselves to the family (Malchi, 2010). In order to successfully face the challenge of juggling between the conflicting commitments of family and work, ultraorthodox working women need to maintain a high level of employment hardiness. Against this background, the main goal of this study was to identify the sources of employment hardiness among ultraorthodox women in the Israeli labor market.

The Conceptual Framework: Employment Hardiness

Positive psychology maintains that individuals can make choices in their lives and that they take responsibility for their decisions (Seligman, 2000). Furthermore, individuals seek meaning in their life as they engage in daily activities (Aspinwall & Staudinger, 2003). The construct of personality hardiness, which is derived from this approach, is considered an internal resource that comprises an individual’s strengths, beliefs, commitments, and emotional resilience. Kobasa (1979) and later researchers (e.g., Maddi, 2004) demonstrated that individuals with personal hardiness maintain a high sense of commitment in all of their activities; they have a high sense of control over their environment, a general sense of self-efficacy, and believe in their ability to influence important aspects of their lives. Accordingly, these individuals perceive change as a challenge and as an opportunity for personal growth. Kobasa et al. (1982) found that hardy individuals reported better health than those lacking hardiness. Consistent with these findings, studies have revealed that individuals with high levels of hardiness exhibit more adaptive responses to stressful life events than those with lower levels of hardiness (Ghorbani & Watson, 2005).

The concept of hardiness is close to the concept of resilience, which is also based on the principle of the positive psychology (Klohnen, 1996). Although hardiness has been conceptualized as the pathway to resilience under stress, resilience is often defined as the ability to maintain individual functioning and health in the face of actual stressful circumstances (Bonanno, 2004). Thus hardiness, which was initially postulated as a trait characteristic of individuals, is a factor that contributes to the ability of individuals to demonstrate resilience in overcoming adversity.

Although trait characteristics are viewed as reflecting a predisposition to act in a general pattern, a common approach in the field of psychological research is to examine state characteristics, which derive from the general trait characteristic, but reflect a pattern of reactions to particular situations (e.g., state anxiety; Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970; situational locus of control; Igbeneghu & Popoola, 2011). In the same vein, on the assumption that hardiness is not just a general trait construct but may take on state forms in particular areas of behavior, concepts of situational hardiness have been postulated by scholars over the years. These include health hardiness, hardiness in sports, and occupational (employment) hardiness (see Jiménez et al., 2014). Further to this approach and based on the above-mentioned distinction between the general concepts of hardiness and resilience, the concept of employment hardiness can be viewed as a state concept as reflected in a cluster of attributes that facilitate the successful management of work-related stress. In contrast, career resilience describes a more real-time response to situations of career stress (Collard, Epperheimer, & Saign, 1996). Employment hardiness describes positive self-perceptions regarding me as a worker, reflecting strengths that enable the individual to cope successfully with obstacles as well as with challenges that emerge in the work setting (Kulik, 1999).

Research findings have revealed that job seekers with high employment hardiness are likely to demonstrate greater resilience at every age and regardless of the duration of unemployment (Kulik, 1999). In a more recent study using the same employment hardiness measure, Kulik (2012) demonstrated that Jewish ultraorthodox women participating in the labor force tend to have higher levels of employment hardiness than women who are not active in the labor market. Furthermore, the same study revealed a relationship between ultraorthodox women’s employment hardiness and their intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to work. Based on these findings, which show an association between employment hardiness and the ability to adapt to various employment situations, this study sought to identify the sources of employment hardiness. In so doing, we examined a set of variables that may serve as facilitators, along with variables that may serve as inhibitors for the development of employment hardiness among ultraorthodox women in the labor market.

Facilitators of Employment Hardiness

The facilitators of employment hardiness examined in this study include two types of resources: environmental resources as reflected in social support at the workplace and personal resources as reflected in psychological and community empowerment. Additional facilitators included work-promoting attitudes as reflected in the ultraorthodox women’s egalitarian gender-role ideology and in their perceptions of work centrality.

Resources

Environmental Resources: Support at the Workplace

Workplace support comprises formal as well as informal support provided by organizations to their workers. The formal aspect of support at work is primarily manifested in supervision styles that include flexible work arrangements (Kulik, 2007). Flexible work arrangements can take various forms, such as flexible hours for arriving at the workplace and leaving work, the option of working from home, and the conversion of accumulated overtime into vacation time (Cook, 1992). A recent Israeli study (Kulik & Liberman, 2013) revealed that flexible work hours facilitate women’s coping with work–family conflict. Moreover, it has been found that when workers feel that the workplace adopts a holistic perspective that takes their family role into account, they feel a stronger sense of equity at work, which in turn enhances their sense of well-being (Grandey, 2001). In light of these research findings, we hypothesized:

Hypothesis 1: The higher the level of workplace support experienced by the participants, the higher their level of employment hardiness will be.

Personal Resources: Psychological and Community Empowerment

Empowerment is a key concept in both personal psychology and community psychology. In its most general sense, the concept refers to the ability of individuals to comprehend and control personal, social, economic, and political forces in order to take action to improve their life situation (Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). Empowerment has been defined at different levels, with the two main domains being psychological (or individual) and community (political) empowerment. Psychological empowerment refers to the ability of individuals to make decisions and take control over their personal life. The term incorporates the establishment of a critical or analytical understanding of relevant social and political contexts, and the cultivation of both individual and collective resources and skills for social action (Kieffer, 1984). Community empowerment is attained when individuals apply their skills and resources in collective efforts to meet their respective needs. Through such efforts, individuals in an empowered community provide enhanced support for each other, deal with conflicts in the community, and gain increased influence and control over their quality of life (for a review, see Israel, Checkoway, Schultz, & Zimmerman, 1994). Following these arguments, we hypothesized:

Hypothesis 2: The greater the sense of psychological and community empowerment experienced by the participants, the higher their level of employment hardiness will be.

Research has revealed that environmental and personal resources may have a combined impact on increasing employment hardiness: When the work environment provides support, access to information, and opportunities to learn, the individual will experience a sense of empowerment (Laschinger, Finegan, & Shamian, 2001). Moreover, as mentioned earlier, individuals who are empowered at the personal or community levels will experience well-being, control over their life, and satisfaction (Israel, Checkoway, Schulz, & Zimmerman, 1994). Thus, besides the direct effect of social support at the workplace on women’s sense of employment hardiness, we expected to find an indirect relationship between the two variables, which would be mediated by sense of empowerment (see Figure 1). Based on this assumption, we hypothesized:

Figure 1.

The research model.

Hypothesis 3: Psychological and community empowerment will mediate the relationship between social support at work and employment hardiness: The more social support received at the workplace, the more the women will experience psychological and community empowerment; and the increased sense of empowerment will enhance their sense of employment hardiness.

Work-Promoting Attitudes

We examined the impact of two types of work-promoting attitudes on the women’s sense of employment hardiness, that is, egalitarian gender-role ideology and work centrality.

Gender-Role Ideology

Cultures can be distinguished from one another by the extent of flexibility in their definition of masculine and feminine roles (Eagly & Steffen, 1984). For example, traditional societies such as the ultraorthodox society may block opportunities for women to attain resources and prefer to adhere to norms that minimize women’s leadership in the family and in the society. In contrast, findings have revealed that egalitarian gender-role ideology is related to high self-esteem and a sense of competence among women (Weiss, Freund, & Wiese, 2012). Moreover, it has been found that in patriarchal societies with rigid gender-role norms, women with an egalitarian gender-role ideology manage to marshal the courage to swim against the tide and release themselves from difficult marital situations (Kulik & Klein, 2010). Additionally, among ultraorthodox women, egalitarian gender-role ideology has been associated with increased job-search intensity and with effective strategies for coping with role–home conflict (Kulik, 2012). It may therefore be assumed that an egalitarian gender-role ideology can enhance the ability of ultraorthodox women to cope with employment-related difficulties and with the obstacles they encounter, in addition to promoting their employment hardiness. Thus we hypothesized:

Hypothesis 4: The more egalitarian the women’s gender-role ideology, the higher their level of employment hardiness will be.

Work Centrality

The concept of work centrality is defined as individual beliefs regarding the degree of importance that work plays in their lives (Walsh & Gordon, 2008). People with high work centrality are prepared to invest valuable resources such as time and energy at work, in addition to investing efforts in developing a relationship with the organization (Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005). Moreover, researchers have found that work centrality is positively related to career satisfaction (Aryee & Luk, 1996) and that it contributes to promoting self-development (Armstrong-Stassen & Schlosser, 2008). Ultraorthodox women have generally been characterized by high levels of family centrality rather than by high levels of work centrality (Hirschfeld & Field, 2000). However, due to the changes that have transpired among ultraorthodox women in Israel today, many of them attribute more importance to their work than in the past. Thus, besides adopting an instrumental orientation to work, it has been argued that they perceive their work as a means of self-expression and as an opportunity to satisfy higher needs (Kulik, 2012). Against this background, the following hypothesis was put forth:

Hypothesis 5: The higher the levels of work centrality, the greater their sense of employment hardiness will be.

Besides examining facilitators of employment hardiness, we also examined factors that inhibit the development of employment hardiness, as reflected in the daily stressors encountered by working ultraorthodox women.

Inhibitors of Employment Hardiness

Daily Stressors

According to role-conflict theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978), it can be expected that ultraorthodox women will experience various sorts of role conflict, as they strive to juggle between home and work demands and to comply with various and often contradictory expectations of their role partners. For instance, in the attempt to meet the simultaneous demands of managing a large family and work responsibilities, the ultraorthodox woman is likely to experience a conflict between her role as a mother and her role as a worker (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006), which may impinge on her physical and emotional resources (Kulik, 2012). In addition, she is likely to experience stress due to a second type of conflict known as person–role conflict, which is generated by a lack of congruence between workplace expectations and her own set of values: On one hand, the ultraorthodox woman is characterized by a high level of family centrality, striving to expand her family and perceiving her home as the focus of her life. On the other hand, the values common to the work domain controvert these aspirations, requiring the woman to diminish her involvement in the home and invest time and effort in work. Finally, the working ultraorthodox woman may experience a third type of role conflict known as intersender conflict (Katz & Kahn, 1978), stemming from unsynchronized expectations from members of the woman’s community environment. On one hand, the woman’s environment requires her to prioritize the family and focus on caring for the family’s needs; on the other hand, the same environment demands that she persevere at work in order to support the family and enabling her husband to dedicate himself to Torah learning, thereby maintaining the traditional social order of the community.

Although Kobasa (1979) postulated that hardiness may decrease the feeling of stress, in light of the specific nature of the variables of employment hardiness and daily stress examined in this study, we argue that the relationship between these variables may stem from the opposite direction (i.e., exposure to intensive daily stressors can diminish hardiness). Thus, in contrast to Kobasa’s (1979) hardiness concept that is presented as a personality trait, the employment hardiness concept is a situational, state characteristic that is limited to the work domain, where the experience of daily stress represents a prolonged and ongoing condition for the participants. In this context, the daily stressors experienced by working ultraorthodox women are likely to generate a substantial burden on the woman’s resources, which may lead to a sense of distress and impair her employment hardiness. Thus, we hypothesized:

Hypothesis 6: The higher the level of daily stress experienced by the participants, the lower their level of employment hardiness will be.

Research Goal

In addition to the above-mentioned hypotheses, a primary objective of this study was to examine the overall contribution of the facilitators and inhibitors to explaining employment hardiness among working ultraorthodox women. The research model for this study is presented in Figure 1.

Method

Sample and Data Collection

The research sample consisted of 319 ultraorthodox working Jewish women in Israel. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 64 (M = 34.4, SD = 11.1), 280 (88%) women were married, and 39 (12%) were single. The average number of children was 5.56 (SD = 3.01), and the mean age of the youngest child was 2.14 (SD = 3.1). The education level of most (78%) of the participants was postsecondary: 16% had a full or partial high school education and 6% were college graduates. Regarding ethnic origin (according to self-definition), 32.3% of the women were Mizrahi (of Asian-North African origin), 54.8% were Ashkenazi (of European American origin), and 12.9% were of mixed parental origin. Regarding religious affiliation, 36% were Sephardi, 19% were Hassidic, 35% were national ultraorthodox, and 9% were of Lithuanian origin. The average score for self-rated health was 4.11 (SD = 0.79), on a scale ranging from 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good). The average score for self-assessed financial situation was 2.67 (SD = 0.78), on a scale ranging from 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good). Most (77%) of the participants worked part time, and the average number of hours of work per week was 30.2 (SD = 5.20).

Data were collected in 10 different cities and communities in Israel with a high concentration of ultraorthodox residents, comprising a convenience sample. Questionnaires were distributed by research assistants in each ultraorthodox community selected for the sample. The women were approached at popular meeting places such as children’s playgrounds, health care facilities, and other community sites where ultraorthodox women commonly congregate. As an incentive to the participants, all those completing the questionnaires received a modest gift (a choice of pen, diary, calculator, or sewing equipment). In some cases, the research assistants waited while the participants completed the questionnaires. In other cases, the assistants scheduled a visit to the participant’s home to collect the completed questionnaires. In each of the cases, the questionnaires were inserted into an envelope and combined with the other questionnaires to maintain the participants’ anonymity. The average time required to complete the questionnaires was 20 min, and the response rate was 70%.

Instruments

Employment Hardiness Questionnaire

Based on Kobasa’s (1979) concept of hardiness, Kulik (1999) developed a questionnaire measuring employment hardiness. The questionnaire (see Appendix A) comprised 17 items on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (almost always). The questionnaire was validated among a sample of job seekers, where high employment hardiness was associated with a lower sense of daily stress among both younger and older job seekers (Kulik, 1999). Discriminant validity distinguished between working and nonworking ultraorthodox Jewish women (Kulik, 2012). Factor analysis of the questionnaire used in this study revealed the following three factors that combined to explain 66% of the variance: employment self-efficacy—reflecting a sense of self-efficacy at work (e.g., “I do well in job interviews”—Cronbach’s α reliability = .78), openness to change at work—reflecting the participant’s readiness to accept change at work in order to integrate and persevere at the workplace (e.g., “I’m prepared to do things at work for which I have no experience”—Cronbach’s α reliability = .72), work commitment—reflecting a tendency to work involvement and a desire to be part of the job market (e.g., “Even when I have a hard time finding a job, I don’t lose hope”—Cronbach’s α reliability = .70). One score was derived for each of the three employment factors by computing the mean of the items, that is, higher scores indicated higher levels of employment hardiness in each of the factors.

Psychological Empowerment Questionnaire

This 18-item questionnaire was developed by Parsons (1998). Participants were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement with each item on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (almost always). Kulik and Megidna (2011) found that the level of psychological empowerment as measured by the questionnaire was associated with intrinsic motivators for volunteering among women. One overall score was derived by calculating the mean of the scores on all items, with a higher score indicating a higher level of psychological empowerment. The Cronbach’s α reliability of the questionnaire used in this study was .88.

Community Empowerment Questionnaire

The Community (Political) Empowerment Questionnaire was developed by Zimmerman and Zahniser (1991) as a measure of leadership and political control in the community. The questionnaire included 17 items (e.g., “I prefer to lead rather than to follow”) and responses ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (almost always). The measure has been validated among a variety of populations in several societies and covering a broad age range. For instance, Ozer and Schotland (2011) found a relationship between the measure and different aspects of well-being and achievement. One overall score was derived by computing the mean of the scores on all of the items, with a higher score indicating a higher level of community empowerment. The Cronbach’s α reliability of the measure used in this study was .88.

Support at Work Questionnaire

The Support at Work Questionnaire was constructed by Kulik (2007). This 12-item questionnaire measures various aspects of social support provided to the working women at the workplace, such as work flexibility, supportive work supervision, and opportunities for ongoing consultation at work. Responses were based on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (agree to a very great extent). The questionnaire has been validated by Kulik and Liberman (2013), and the association of support at work with home–work conflict among working mothers was found to be negative. One overall score was derived by computing the mean of the scores on all of the items on the questionnaire, with higher values indicating a greater level of social support at the workplace. The Cronbach’s α reliability of the instrument used in this study was .88.

Gender-Role Ideology Questionnaire

The original questionnaire developed by Singleton and Christiansen (1977) was translated into Hebrew by Kulik and Kitaichik (2014) and included 20 statements referring to roles of men and women at home, at work, and in society (e.g., “Most of the social achievements attained until today have been attributed to men, and it can be expected that the situation will be the same in the future”). Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree with each statement on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). One overall score was derived for each participant by computing the mean of the responses on all of the items: The higher the score, the more egalitarian the participants’ gender-role ideology was. The Cronbach’s α internal reliability of the questionnaire used in this study was .83. The questionnaire was validated recently in several studies (e.g., Kulik & Kitaichick, 2014), and was found to be related to greater marital intimacy. Moreover, Kulik and Tsoref (2009) found that the mother’s nonegalitarian gender-role ideology as measured by the questionnaire contributed most to explaining maternal gate keeping. One overall score was derived for the questionnaire by calculating the mean of the responses on all of the items: The higher the score, the more egalitarian the women’s gender-role ideology was. The Cronbach’s α reliability of the questionnaire used in this study was .80.

Work Centrality Questionnaire

The questionnaire was developed by Kanungo (1982) and measures the extent to which the participant embraces work as significant and central to her self-perception. Participants were asked to respond to 10 statements (e.g., “My work is an important part of my life”). The 5-point response scale ranged from 1 (completely untrue) to 5 (very true). The questionnaire was found to have high construct validity and could be distinguished from measures of work involvement (Paullay, Alliger, & Stone-Romero, 1994). A higher score indicates a higher level of work centrality in the participant’s life.

Perceived Daily Stress Questionnaire

The questionnaire was developed by Cohen, Kamarck, and Mermelstein (1983) and consisted of 14 items (e.g., “during the last month, to what extent did you get angry because of events that were beyond your control?”). The response scale ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (very frequently). The questionnaire has been utilized frequently among researchers to assess the prolonged sense of daily pressure and has been validated in various populations. For example, Schiffrin and Nelson (2010) found that perceived daily stress as measured by the scale was negatively associated with happiness. One overall score was derived by calculating the mean of the responses to all of the items in the questionnaire. The higher the score, the more the participant felt a high level of daily stress. Cronbach’s α reliability for the questionnaire used in this study was .88.

Background Questionnaire

Participants were asked to indicate their age, country of birth, area of residence, marital status, parental status, number of children living at home, education level, spouse’s education, religious affiliation, and self-assessments of their financial and health situations.

Results

Relationships Between the Main Research Variables and Employment Hardiness Factors (Testing Hypotheses 1, 2, 4, and 5)

Background variables

Background variables were found to be associated with the three factors of employment hardiness (see Table 1). Self-assessed financial situation was found to be positively associated with openness to change at the workplace and employment self-efficacy: The better the participants’ self-assessed financial situation, the more open they were to change at the workplace and the higher their employment self-efficacy. A positive association was found between age and employment self-efficacy, so that the older the participants were, the higher their sense of employment self-efficacy was. The number of children living at home was not found to be associated with any of the aspects of employment hardiness. Additionally, multivariate analysis of variance was performed in order to examine the differences among the three factors of employment hardiness by marital status (married and single). This analysis yielded no significant differences: F(3, 315) = 2.56, p = .07, η² = .02. However, a one-way analysis of variance revealed a single significant difference, which related to the work commitment factor of employment hardiness: F(1, 319) = 4.97, p < .05, η² = .01. Single women were found to have a higher level of work commitment than did married women. The mean level of work commitment for single women was M = 3.20 (SD = 0.83), whereas the married participants’ level of work commitment was M = 3.00 (SD = 0.72).

Table 1.

Matrix of Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for Research Variables.

		Research variables
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1	Financial situation
2	Age	−.01
3	Children	−.25***	.12*
4	Workplace support	.09	.18***	.02
5	Psychological empowerment	.01	.09	.01	.23***
6	Community empowerment	.01	.01	−.10	.08	.35***
7	Gender-role ideology	.01	.07	−.14*	.07	.21***	.22***
8	Work centrality	.04	.10	.10	.20***	.25***	.20***	−.03
9	Daily stress
10	Openness to change at work	.16**	−.03	−.02	.24***	.44***	.39***	.25***	.20***	.09
11	Employment self-efficacy	.20***	.22***	−.10	.27***	.47***	.47***	.24***	.23***	−.38***	.51***
12	Work commitment	−.02	.02	−.09	−.01	.17**	.20***	.17**	.31***	.23***	.24***	.17***
13	M	2.64	34.5	4.1	3.22	3.86	3.10	3.13	3.78	4.02	3.93	3.78	3.03
14	SD	.78	10.40	2.35	.73	.47	.74	.47	.55	.67	.61	.66	.78

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Environmental and personal resources

Workplace support was found to be positively associated with two of the three factors of employment hardiness: The higher the participants’ perceived workplace support, the more open they were to change at work and the higher their employment self-efficacy. A positive relationship was found between psychological and community empowerment on one hand, and all three factors of employment hardiness on the other. This association indicates that the more the women viewed themselves as empowered, the higher their sense of employment hardiness in all three factors of employment hardiness.

Gender-role ideology and work centrality

This attitude was found to be positively related to the three aspects of employment hardiness, so that the more egalitarian the participants’ gender-role ideology, the higher their levels of employment hardiness in all three factors. In addition, work centrality was positively associated with the three factors of employment hardiness, so that higher work centrality was associated with higher levels of employment hardiness.

Perceived daily stress

Daily stress was found to be positively associated with work commitment and negatively associated with employment self-efficacy, so that a higher sense of daily stress corresponded to a higher level of work commitment and a lower level of employment self-efficacy.

General Contribution of the Research Variables to Explaining Employment Hardiness (Also Testing Hypothesis 3)

To examine the general contribution of the research variables (background variables, environmental and personal resources, work-promoting attitudes, and perceived daily stress) to explaining employment hardiness, a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted on each of the three employment-hardiness factors (for the three regression analyses, see Table 2). We also used regression analyses to test Hypothesis 3, which postulated that the relationship between workplace support and each of the employment hardiness factors is mediated by psychological and community empowerment. The mediation hypothesis was also examined using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) causal steps approach.

Table 2.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis: Employment Hardiness.

Step	Measures	Openness		Efficacy		Commitment
Step	Measures	Δ_Adj R ²	β	Δ_Adj R ²	β	Δ_Adj R ²	β
1		.01		.09***		.02*
	Financial situation		.16**		.17**		−.09
	Marital status		−.06		−.07		−.04
	Age		.02		.22***		.15*
	Children at home		.03		−.05		−.13*
2		.05***		.03***		.00
	Workplace support		.23***		.19***		−.03
3		.22***		.25***		.04**
	Psychological empowerment		.34***		.30***		.13
	Community empowerment		.25***		.34***		.15*
4		.02*		.00		.09***
	Gender-role ideology		.12*		.06		.15*
	Work centrality		.09		.06		.32***
5		.01		.05***		.02**
	Financial situation		.01		.02		−.16**
	Marital status		.02		.04		−.00
	Age		−.05		.15**	.09
	Children at home		.03		−.05		−.15**
	Workplace support		.15**		.11*		−.09
	Psychological empowerment		.30***		.21***		.10
	Community empowerment		.22**		.32***		.09
	Gender-role ideology		.12*		.07		.15**
	Work centrality		.10		.07		.31***
	Perceived daily stress		−.03		−.21***		.16**
	Total R ²	.31***		.42***		.17***
	F	10.50***		17.12***		5.58***

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

In each of the regression analyses, the background variables were entered in the first step as control variables; in the second step, workplace support was entered; in the third step, personal resources (psychological and community empowerment) were entered. The variables in the second and third steps were entered in this order to examine the mediation hypothesis. In the fourth step, work-promoting attitudes were entered (gender-role ideology and work centrality), while perceived daily stress (the inhibitor variable in the present research) was entered in the fifth step. All the research variables explained significant percentages of the variance in the three factors of employment hardiness. That is, the highest percentage of explained variance was in employment efficacy (42%), followed by openness to change at work (31%), and finally by work commitment (17%).

Openness to change at work

In the first step, self-assessed financial situation was the only background control variable found to contribute significantly to explaining the variance in openness to change at work. The positive direction of the β value indicates that the better the women’s self-assessed financial situation was, the more open they were to change at work. Workplace support, entered at the second step, also contributed significantly to explaining openness to change at work: The higher the participants’ sense of workplace support, the more open they were to change at work. The personal resources entered in the third step also contributed positively and significantly to openness to change at work: The higher the levels of reported empowerment, the more open the participants were to change at work. It should be noted that when the personal resources were entered in the third step, the contribution of workplace support was not reduced significantly (β = .22 in the second step and β = .20 in the third step). Moreover, according to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) causal steps approach to examining mediating effects, it may be concluded that the two dimensions of empowerment did not mediate in the relationship between perceived social support at the workplace and openness to change at work. Upon examining the contribution of the work-promoting attitudes, which were entered in the fourth step, only gender-role ideology was found to contribute significantly to openness to changes at work: The more egalitarian the participants’ gender-role ideology, the more open they were to change at work. Perceived daily stress was not found to contribute to explaining the participants’ openness to change at work.

To summarize, it appears that the personal resource variables (sense of psychological and community empowerment) contributed most to explaining the variance in openness to change at work, whereas workplace support contributed somewhat less. Thus, we may conclude that the facilitating factors contributed more to explaining openness to change at the workplace than did the inhibiting factors.

Employment self-efficacy

Of the background variables, self-assessed financial situation and age were found to contribute significantly to explaining employment self-efficacy. The better the women’s assessments of their financial situation and the older they were, the higher their perceived employment self-efficacy was. Workplace support was also found to contribute significantly to explaining employment self-efficacy: The greater the participants’ perceived workplace support, the higher the level of employment self-efficacy was. The personal resource variables (psychological and community empowerment) were also found to contribute significantly to explaining employment self-efficacy. As in the case of openness to change at work, when the personal resources were entered in the third step, the contribution of workplace support was not significantly reduced (β = .19 in the second step and β = .15 in the third step). Moreover, according to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) causal steps approach to examining mediating effects, it may be concluded that the empowerment dimensions did not mediate the relationship between perceived social support at the workplace and employment self-efficacy. The two work-promoting attitudes entered in the fourth step did not contribute significantly to explaining employment self-efficacy. Finally, perceived daily stress was found to contribute significantly to explaining this variable and, as expected, its contribution was negative: The greater the participants’ perceived daily stress, the lower their employment self-efficacy. Thus, we may conclude that personal resources contributed most significantly to explaining the variance in employment self-efficacy.

Work commitment

The participants’ age and the number of children were the only background variables that contributed significantly to explaining the variance in work commitment. The direction of the β coefficient indicates that the older the participant was, the higher her level of work commitment, whereas the more children she had, the lower her level of work commitment was. Support at the workplace and psychological empowerment were not found to contribute significantly to explaining the variance in work commitment. Because the two variables are not related to the outcome variable (work commitment), according to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) causal steps approach to examining mediating effects, it may be concluded that the empowerment dimensions did not mediate the relationship between support at work and work commitment. However, community empowerment did contribute significantly to explaining the variance in work commitment: The greater the woman’s sense of empowerment, the higher her level of work commitment. In addition, both types of work-promoting attitudes were found to contribute significantly to work commitment: The more egalitarian the participants’ gender-role ideology and the higher their work centrality, the higher their level of work commitment was. In the final step, after partialing out the contribution of the variables that were entered into the regression analysis in previous steps, self-assessed financial situation was found to contribute significantly to explaining work commitment, although the direction of the β coefficient reveals a negative relationship between self-assessed financial situation and work commitment. This indicates that the better the participants’ assessments of their financial situation, the lower their sense of work commitment was. Finally, the higher the level of perceived daily stressors, the higher the participants’ work commitment was.

Discussion

Employment hardiness is a relatively new psychological construct deriving from the general concept of hardiness introduced earlier by Kobasa et al. (1982), which represents a state characteristic (Jiménez et al., 2014). This study aimed to provide insights into the concept of employment hardiness by identifying its sources among a sample of working ultraorthodox Jewish women in Israel. Understanding the factors that facilitate employment hardiness on one hand and the factors that inhibit its development on the other is important in modern as well as in traditional societies. However, it is of particular relevance to populations that encounter personal and environmental difficulties in the process of integrating into the labor force, as exemplified by the case of ultraorthodox women in Israel. In this context, Friedman (1991) identified a new kind of gender classification in the contemporary ultraorthodox community: On one hand, the ultraorthodox Jewish woman is subject to theological and patriarchal dictates, which generally lower her social status. However, she is the economic mainstay of her family and contributes significantly to her family’s welfare.

The research findings reflect a complex configuration of variables, which were identified as facilitating or inhibiting the participants’ employment hardiness. It is noteworthy that of the three employment hardiness factors, the facilitators and inhibitors explained the highest of variance in self efficacy, followed by openness to change at work. The lowest percentage of explained variance was in work commitment. Regarding the specific research hypotheses, the personal and environmental resources were found to contribute significantly to explaining employment hardiness, especially the factors of openness to change at work and employment self-efficacy. However, this was not the case with the work commitment factor, where the explanatory power of environmental and personal variables was less significant (partial confirmation of Hypotheses 1 and 2). Although our findings revealed positive associations between the three aspects of employment hardiness which reflected their shared content, it would appear that the set of variables that explain work commitment differs from the set of variables that explain the other two factors of employment hardiness. The various sources of work commitment suggest that the nature of this employment hardiness factor as measured in the current research may have been extrinsic rather than intrinsic.

In this vein, Meyer and Allen (1991) argued that as a psychological state, work commitment has at least three distinct components reflecting a desire (affective commitment), a need (continuance commitment), and an obligation (normative commitment) to continue working in an organization. Each component is considered to develop as a function of different antecedents and has different implications for on-the-job behavior. According to this argument, women in this study reported an obligation (normative commitment) to their work. Their high work commitment may not have been motivated by positive forces (such as empowerment or social support), rather, its origin may have been the fear of losing their source of financial livelihood. This would have a detrimental impact on their family’s material welfare and would be a deviation from the social norms of their community, whereby women are expected to assume the role of the family’s primary breadwinner.

The reasoning that work commitment originates from fear is supported by an additional finding in the regression analyses. After partialing out the contribution of other variables, the analyses revealed that although experiencing daily stress was negatively associated with employment self-efficacy and openness to change at work (resulting in impeding their growth), it was positively associated with work commitment (partial confirmation of Hypothesis 6). Thus, an increase in daily stress was accompanied by an increase in work commitment. Furthermore, of the three aspects of employment hardiness, only work commitment was associated with work centrality (partial confirmation of Hypothesis 5). Therefore, the research findings reveal a complex set of variables that explain work commitment: The facilitators of hardiness in the aspect of work commitment are daily stress, work centrality, and an egalitarian gender-role ideology. A large number of children in the family and a good self-assessed financial situation were found to reduce work commitment, so that these variables could be considered as inhibitors of employment hardiness. Although a large number of children grants the working ultraorthodox mother legitimacy to focus efforts on her family at the expense of work commitment as revealed in other studies (e.g., Ahn & Mira, 2002), a good financial situation may reduce the threat of economic distress, thereby diminishing her level of commitment to participate in the labor force.

Workplace support was found to be positively associated with two of the three aspects of employment hardiness (openness to change at work and employment self-efficacy). However, contrary to expectations, the relationship between workplace support and all three factors of employment hardiness was not mediated by sense of empowerment (failing to confirm Hypothesis 3). In all likelihood, the lack of an association between workplace support and the women’s sense of empowerment suggests that ultraorthodox women are empowered by a set of elements outside the workplace. Specifically, ultraorthodox women evidently derive empowerment from aspects of their life such as the nature of the ultraorthodox community, their religious beliefs, and their basic worldview.

Hypotheses 4 and 5, which relate to the impact of work-promoting attitudes (egalitarian gender-role ideology and work centrality), were partially confirmed by the research findings. Egalitarian gender-role ideology was associated only with openness to change at work and with work commitment as revealed by other studies (e.g., Nordenmark, 2004). However, egalitarian gender-role ideology was not associated with employment self-efficacy. An explanation for these differential findings may derive from the basic attitude of the ultraorthodox community regarding working women. Ultraorthodox society subscribes to basic values that strive to maintain the status quo and prevent change. A woman acting in a manner that reflects openness to change—in this case change at the work—is liable to be seen as rebuffing the fundamental values of the community. Thus, women holding an egalitarian gender-role ideology are the only ones who would allow themselves to be open to workplace change and show greater work commitment.

Although we did not offer any hypotheses regarding the participants’ background variables, which served as control variables in the research model, several findings are noteworthy. The participants’ marital status did not contribute to explaining any of the employment hardiness factors. Hence, we may conclude that single young women in the ultraorthodox community experience an intensive process of anticipatory socialization to the dual role of married women and breadwinners and that they have embraced a perception of work similar to that of their married counterparts. However, as revealed by other researchers (e.g., Hardill & Watson, 2004), having small children at home inhibits their commitment to work and can therefore be considered as an inhibitor to employment hardiness. In contrast, older age may facilitate employment hardiness.

In sum, the analysis of the predictors of the three factors included in the concept of employment hardiness did not reveal a set of variables that was uniformly related to all of the aspects of employment hardiness. Some of the resources were found to be facilitators in one case, but inhibited employment hardiness in the presence of other factors. Thus, the findings of this study enhance understanding of the employment hardiness construct. Specifically, the findings revealed that each factor of employment hardiness is explained by a different set of inhibitors and facilitators. This highlights the need to adopt a perspective which considers the unique characteristics of each factor, in an attempt to increase the overall employment hardiness of ultraorthodox working women.

Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research

One of the limitations of this study relates to the generalizability of the findings. The participants in this study belonged to a traditional society, where males and religious authorities determine women’s life style. However, the situation of ultraorthodox Jewish women in Israel is unique, in light of their role as workers who not only contribute to supporting the family, but whose income is generally higher than that of their husbands, because the husbands devote their time to religious study. To achieve broader generalizability regarding the sources of employment hardiness among working women in traditional communities undergoing modernization, there is a need to conduct further research among a variety of cultures and communities.

Furthermore, owing to the cross-sectional design of the study, there is no way of determining the causal relationships among the research variables. Some of the variables were found to be facilitators for one factor of employment hardiness but were inhibitors for the other factors. However, because the data on the explanatory and outcome variables were collected at one point of time, it is possible that the relationships between the variables stemmed from the opposite direction, that is, employment hardiness impacts the experience of daily stressors as well as the other facilitators and inhibitors. Thus, in future studies, we recommended examining the sources of employment hardiness based on a longitudinal design (e.g., collecting data on facilitators and inhibitors at T₁ and collecting data regarding employment hardiness at T₂). By adopting a longitudinal research design, the causal relationships between the research variables could be determined more conclusively. Finally, because Employment hardiness was measured using a relatively new instrument, efforts should be invested in examining its validity and reliability over time.

Practical Recommendations

It appears that employment hardiness constitutes an important coping resource. Hence, career counselors working with traditional women in the general labor market are advised to seek ways to assist them in developing this resource. Among relevant interventions would be skill-building workshops that focus on strategies for coping with stressful work situations. Appropriate reframing could also enable ultraorthodox women to better integrate their family and career roles. In this context, it is possible to help them see the advantages of advancement in terms of enhancing their role as family provider. Moreover, career counselors need to be aware of the complexity of the employment hardiness construct and adapt all three of its components to the client’s situation. In so doing, it is essential that they be cognizant of the potential value conflict so that the proper interventions can be pursued. Although stress may actually serve to enhance women’s employment hardiness and encourage the development of commitment to work in the short term, there may be adverse consequences in the long term, such as the experience of emotional distress. Therefore, it would be worthwhile for career counselors to facilitate work commitment among ultraorthodox women while stressing alternative, more positive incentives.

Beyond the implications for career counselors, the current findings also highlight the role that organizations employing traditional women can play in designing a workplace that will promote their employment hardiness. For instance, organizations can provide support that will enable these women employees to accept work changes more readily. They can also encourage active involvement in the workplace in order to bolster the women’s work commitment. Finally, employment self-efficacy can be enhanced among this population by offering meaningful training activities that will broaden the women’s skillset as well as by frequent recognition of their success as workers.

Footnotes

Appendix A

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was funded by the Israel National Insurance Institute.

References

Ahn

Mira

(2002). A note on the changing relationship between fertility and female employment rates in developed countries. Journal of Population Economics, 15, 667–682. doi:10.1007/s001480100078

Armstrong-Stassen

Schlosser

(2008). Benefits of a supportive development climate for older workers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 419–437. doi:10.1108/02683940810869033

Aryee

Luk

(1996). Work and nonwork influences on the career satisfaction of dual-earner couples. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 38–52. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.0032

Aspinwall

L. G.

Staudinger

U. M.

(Eds.). (2003). A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions and future directions for a positive psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Bonanno

G. A.

(2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59, 20–36. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.20

Cohen

Kamarck

Mermelstein

(1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385–396. doi:10.2307/2136404

Collard

Epperheimer

J. W.

Saign

(1996). Career resilience in a changing workplace. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.

Cook

A. H.

(1992). Can work requirements accommodate to the needs of dual-earner families? In Lewis

Izraeli

D. N.

Hootsmans

(Eds.), Dual-earner families: International perspectives (pp. 204–220). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

10.

Eagly

A. H.

Steffen

V. J.

(1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735–754. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735

11.

Friedman

(1991). Hachevra haharedit: Mekorot, megamot, vetahalichim [The ultra-Orthodox society: Sources, trends, and processes]. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies (Hebrew).

12.

Ghorbani

Watson

P. J.

(2005). Hardiness scales in Iranian managers: Evidence of incremental validity in relationships with the five factor model and with organizational and psychological adjustment. Psychological Reports, 96, 775–781. doi:10.2466/pr0.96.3.775-781

13.

Goodman

Witztum

(2002). Cross-cultural encounters between care-providers: Rabbis’ referral letters to a psychiatric clinic in Israel. Social Science & Medicine, 55, 1309–1323. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00278-7

14.

Grandey

A. A.

(2001). Family-friendly policies: Organizational justice perceptions of need-based allocations. In Cropanzano

(Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol. 2, pp. 145–173). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

15.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Powell

G. N.

(2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72–92. doi:10.5465/AMR.2006.19379625

16.

Hardill

Watson

(2004). Career priorities within dual career households: An analysis of the impact of child rearing upon gender participation rates and earnings. Industrial Relations Journal, 35, 19–37. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2338.2004.00298.x

17.

Hirschfeld

R. R.

Feild

H. S.

(2000). Work centrality and work alienation: Distinct aspects of a general commitment to work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 789–800.

18.

Igbeneghu

B. I.

Popoola

S. O.

(2011). Influence of locus of control and job satisfaction on organizational commitment: A study of medical records personnel in university teaching hospitals in Nigeria. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). Paper 573. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/575

19.

Israel

B. A.

Checkoway

Schulz

Zimmerman

(1994). Health education and community empowerment: Conceptualizing and measuring perceptions of individual, organizational, and community control. Health Education & Behavior, 21, 149–170. doi:10.1177/109019819402100203

20.

Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Statistical abstract of Israel 2012, no. 63. Jerusalem, Israel: Author.

21.

Jiménez

B. M.

Muñoz

A. R.

Hernández

E. G.

Blanco

L. M.

(2014). Development and validation of the occupational hardiness questionnaire. Psicothema, 26, 207–214. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2013.49

22.

Judge

T. A.

Bono

J. E.

Erez

Locke

E. A.

(2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 257–268. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.257

23.

Kanungo

R. N.

(1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 341–349. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.341

24.

Katz

Kahn

R. L.

(1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.

25.

Kieffer

C. H.

(1984). Citizen empowerment: A developmental perspective. Prevention in Human Services, 3, 9–36. doi:10.1300/J293v03n02_03

26.

Klohnen

E. C.

(1996). Conceptual analysis and measurement of the construct of ego-resiliency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1067–1079. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.1067

27.

Kobasa

S. C.

(1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1–11. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.1

28.

Kobasa

S. C.

Maddi

S. R.

Kahn

(1982). Hardiness and health: A prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 168–177. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.168

29.

Kulik

(1999). Gender differences in the intensity of work-seeking and responses to unemployment: A comparative analysis [Otzmat hipus avoda vetguvot le’avtala; nituach mashve bein gvarim lenashim]. Research report. Ramat Gan, Israel: The School of Social Work, Bar Ilan University (in Hebrew).

30.

Kulik

(2007). Equality in the division of household labor: A comparative study of Jewish women and Arab-Muslim women in Israel. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 423–440. doi:10.3200/SOCP.147.4.423-440

31.

Kulik

(2012). Techushat ha’atzama: Erkei hayim vemerkaziut chaye avoda bekerev nashim charediot hametzuyot beshuk ha’avoda [Empowerment, life values, and work centrality among ultra-Orthodox women in the job market]. Jerusalem: Research report submitted to the Israel National Insurance Institute.

32.

Kulik

Kitaichik

(2014). Marital intimacy and selected correlates of gender roles: A comparative analysis of Israeli husbands and wives. Women’s Studies: An Inter-Disciplinary Journal, 43, 823–842. doi:10.1080/00497878.2014.921509

33.

Kulik

Klein

(2010). Swimming against the tide: Characteristics of Muslim-Arab women in Israel who initiated divorce. Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 918–931. doi:10.1002/jcop.20405

34.

Kulik

Liberman

(2013). Work-family conflict, resources and role set density: Assessing their effects on distress among working mothers. Journal of Career Development, 40, 445–465. doi:10.1177/0894845312467500

35.

Kulik

Megidna

(2011). Women empower women: Volunteers and their clients in community service. Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 922–938. doi:10.1002/jcop.20478

36.

Kulik

Tsoref

(2009). Explaining fathers’ involvement in child care: Recent findings from Israel. International Journal of Child & Family Welfare, 12, 97–115.

37.

Laschinger

H. K. S.

Finegan

Shamian

(2001). The impact of workplace empowerment, organizational trust on staff nurses’ work satisfaction and organizational commitment. Health Care Management Review, 26, 7–23. doi:10.1097/00004010-200107000-00002

38.

Maddi

S. R.

(2004). Hardiness: An operationalization of existential courage. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 44, 279–298. doi:10.1177/0022167804266101

39.

Malchi

(2010). Hishtalvutam shel haredim ba’alei haskala gevoha o miktzoit bemekomot avoda [Integration of academically trained ultra-Orthodox Jews in the workplace]. Jerusalem: Israel Ministry of Industry, Commerce, and Employment.

40.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

(1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89. doi:10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z

41.

Nordenmark

(2004). Does gender ideology explain differences between countries regarding the involvement of women and of men in paid and unpaid work? International Journal of Social Welfare, 13, 233–243. doi:10.1111/j.1369-6866.2004.00317.x

42.

Ozer

E. J.

Schotland

(2011). Psychological empowerment among urban youth measure development and relationship to psychosocial functioning. Health Education & Behavior, 38, 348–356. doi:10.1177/1090198110373734

43.

Parsons

(1998). Evaluation of empowerment practice. In Gutierrez

L. M.

Parsons

R. J.

Cox

E. O.

(Eds.), Empowerment in social work practice: A sourcebook (pp. 204–218). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

44.

Paullay

I. M.

Alliger

G. M.

Stone-Romero

E. F.

(1994). Construct validation of two instruments designed to measure job involvement and work centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 224–228. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.2.224

45.

Schiffrin

H. H.

Nelson

S. K.

(2010). Stressed and happy? Investigating the relationship between happiness and perceived stress. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 33–39. doi:10.1007/s10902-008-9104-7

46.

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2000, October). Positive psychology: A progress report. Paper presented at the Second Positive Psychology Summit, Washington, DC.

47.

Singleton

Jr Christiansen

J. B.

(1977). The construct validation of a shortform attitudes towards feminism scale. Sociology and Social Research, 61, 294–303.

48.

Spielberger

C. D.

Gorsuch

R. L.

Lushene

R. E.

(1970). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

49.

Walsh

Gordon

J. R.

(2008). Creating an individual work identity. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 46–61. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.09.001

50.

Weiss

Freund

A. M.

Wiese

B. S.

(2012). Mastering developmental transitions in young and middle adulthood: The interplay of openness to experience and traditional gender ideology on women’s self-efficacy and subjective well-being. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1774–1784. doi:10.1037/a0028893

51.

Zimmerman

M. A.

Rappaport

(1988). Citizen participation, perceived control, and psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 725–750. doi:10.1007/BF00930023

52.

Zimmerman

M. A.

Zahniser

J. H.

(1991). Refinements of sphere-specific measures of perceived control: Development of a sociopolitical control scale. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 189–204. doi:10.1002/1520-6629(199104)19:2<189::AID-JCOP2290190210>3.0.CO;2-6