Stress appraisal at work: its measurement and implications for well-being

In the five articles forming part of the present thesis, the underlying concepts for the studies and their results have been commented in detail. This last chapter, with an overarching approach, integrates the most remarkable results, draws main theoretical and practical implications, highlights major limitations, proposes new possible directions for research, and draws main conclusions. In this thesis, we analyze the phenomenon of work stress from a cognitive perspective (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and from the positive psychology approach (Seligman & Csikszentmihayi, 2000). Its main objective was to develop and validate a measure of eustress and distress appraisal using the classical (CTT) and modern (Rasch Analysis) approaches to measurement, and to study the invariance of stress appraisal-outcomes model for well-being in two European countries. Simultaneously, the objective of this thesis was to show that eustress and distress appraisals can be shared and yield different types of stress climate, which have impact on individual well-being. In order to add to the current knowledge on the process of work stress and to respond to the objective of this thesis, first, we tried to raise the attention of the academics about the new directions in the research on work stress. Second, we presented a study of development and validation of a scale to measure stress appraisal (the Valencia Eustress Distress Appraisal Scale was, VEDAS) using the classic approach to measurement. Third, this study was broadened by applying modern Rasch Analysis. Fourth, a cross-cultural study was proposed in which a model of stress appraisal outcomes was compared in two different countries. Finally, the last study explored different configurations of shared appraisal of stress (stress climate) and their outcomes. These topics have been reflected in the five articles forming part of this thesis. The Article 1 indicates new directions in the research on work stress and it constitutes an attempt to diffuse the new positive approach to stress in the academic context. It underlines the necessity of broadening research in the stress domain and to include some new proposed research topics, such as: (a) the positive approach to stress that builds on the cognitive perspective to stress and considers both a positive and a negative appraisal of stress; (b) the positive and negative outcomes of stress appraisal; (c) the role of culture in the process of stress; and (d) the impact of the ratio of eustress-distress appraisal in terms of well-being. The Article 1 sets the common background for all the subsequent articles, since the topics it tackles are then undertaken later in the empirical studies that are presented in the Articles 2 to 5. The Article 2 attempts at responding to the necessity of studying stress appraisal phenomenon from both positive and negative perspectives presented in the Article 1. To this end, in the Article 2 a new questionnaire to measure eustress and distress appraisal (Valencia Eustress Distress Appraisal Scale, VEDAS) is developed within the framework of the Classical Test Theory (CTT) approach. This new measure permits a simultaneous assessment of distress and eustress appraisal. It is compact and its items are generic enough to be used in different professions. Until now, the proper measurement of eustress and distress appraisal at work has not been possible to a great extent given that there have been no measures that would permit for a simultaneous assessment of eustress and distress appraisal of the same stressful situations in different occupations. The Article 2 provides us with psychometric properties of the new questionnaire and it leads us to conclude that VEDAS is a robust measure of eustress-distress appraisal. Furthermore, the Article 3 provides a new perspective to test development through the application of Rasch Rating Scale Analysis to the development and validation of the VEDAS. This modern approach offers much more information than the CTT, while at the same time recognizing and offering solutions to the shortcomings of the CTT. The Article 3 comprises additional information on the VEDAS scale, such as the calibration of the items which not only helps us to improve the measure, but also gives us important facts about the construct of stress appraisal and the importance of different sources of eustress and distress. A synthetic look at the Articles 2 and 3 shows that both provide us with consistent information on the dimensionality of the VEDAS, each of them from a different – classical and modern – approximation to measurement. Both articles highlight that the VEDAS has one dominant dimension and the secondary one(s). On the one hand, in the Article 2 we can see that VEDAS is found to be essentially unidimensional, with one dominant dimension (Relationships) and three secondary dimensions (Personal Accountability, Home-Work Balance, and Workload). In the RA, the importance of the items of the “Relationships” distress factors found in the Article 2 was shown, given that all five of them belonged to the group of the most important sources of distress. On the other hand, the additional analysis of dimensionality within RA in the Article 3 suggests the existence of two subdimensions of eustress and distress related to: (a) relationships with, support of and influence on other people and (b) workload, situations involving others outside work, or the home-work balance. Although the number of the suggested dimensions of eustress and distress vary across the studies, we can see a clear overlap between the results of the CTT and RA. Both studies suggest that stressful situations connected to relationships should be considered a distinct type of a source of distress and eustress. Given that the Article 3 showed that the impact of the possible additional component on the subjects’ responses was relatively weak, we need future scales to provide more information on this respect by expanding the items covering these aspects. The Article 4 addresses the issue of the positive approach to stress first raised by the Article 1 and common to all of the articles of this thesis. It gives empirical evidence to the importance of the positive psychology approach to stress by showing the positive and negative outcomes of stress, as a result of its appraisal. The main contribution of the Article 4 to the previous articles is three-fold. First, the use of structural equation modeling makes it possible to observe the relationships between several variables of interest at the same time; It means that we are able to observe how the two predictor variables (eustress and distress appraisal) relate simultaneously with work engagement and burnout. This kind of research approaches us to the real-life situation where different factors and phenomena mix and occur at the same time. Second, the Article 4 addresses the issue of the role of culture in the process of stress raised in the Article 1. In order to explore this issue, it compares the levels of stress appraisal and its outcomes in two different cultures and adds important information on the invariance of the model of stress appraisal outcomes in two different cultures. Finally, it proposes a model of stress appraisal outcomes invariant across the two countries. Some interesting differences in the levels of distress and eustress appraisals and in burnout and engagement in the two countries are pointed out and discussed. As a final point, the Article 5 broadens the individual perspective described in the previous articles and, inspired by the previous results presented in the Article 4 on the role of social context (culture) on stress appraisal, it examines the role of shared appraisal of stress in a different type of social context at work which are work teams. The Article 5 provides empirical data on the possible influence of a collective construct – the climate of stress – while controlling for the effect of individual eustress and distress appraisal. In this article, we show that stress climate is a distinct phenomenon, which exists at the group level and has influence over the individual level of the employees’ well-being. The Article 5 refers to and provides us with empirical evidence referring to some issues raised in the Article 1, such as the existence of different configurations of eustress and distress appraisals, which in this article are found to exist at a collective level. It shows us that there can exist different configurations (or mixtures) of collective eustress and distress appraisals, and show that there are optimal proportions of positivity to negativity necessary to affect the level of the different components of individual well-being (burnout, engagement, and satisfaction). Especially, it is shown that there are positive outcomes of a collective appraisal of stress that is a mix of positive and negative appraisal (called here balanced climate of stress) and which can be considered optimal to attain certain outcomes for individual well-being. In this article, we can also see that stress consequences can have a dynamic character and unfold over time. The Article 4 and 5 together provide us with a description of how stress process depends on the social context of two kinds: national culture and work teams’ climate. Both climate and culture influence the way people experience and define their work settings (Schneider et al., 2013). However, the concepts on culture and climate in organizations that have been identified by Reichers and Schneider (1990) as characterized by parallel but not overlapping tracks of studies. In this thesis, by focusing on these two aspects of social context, we are bridging these two concepts. The results show us that they both have impact on the levels of the stress appraisal outcomes (i.e. burnout and work engagement), which means that the levels of these outcomes will vary depending on the national culture of the organization or according to the type of stress climate in work teams. Theoretical Implications The development and validation of a questionnaire that measures the appraisal of eustress and distress, as well as the study of the consequences of the outcomes in terms of well-being of the individual and collective appraisal of eustress have given way to new interesting possibilities for research in the area of work and organizational psychology. These new possibilities translate into some clear theoretical implications of the present doctoral thesis. First, the Article 1 indicates new research topics that should be addressed in the future, such as the role of positive appraisal in the process of stress, the possible existence of a ratio of positive to negative appraisal of stressors that ensures positive outcomes at work, as well as the impact of the cultural context in the process of stress. Second, the results of the Articles 2 and 3 support the idea that the newly developed VEDAS questionnaire could be a particularly effective instrument in the evaluation of the appraisal of distress and eustress. It provides a commensurable measure of both eustress and distress appraisal, which makes it possible to study their coexistence in the work context. A closer look at stress where we can discern its positive and negative appraisal would make it possible to find answers to new research questions, not only about the negative outcomes of distress, but also about the positive outcomes of eustress. Also, the VEDAS scale could help us to provide more comprehensive responses to the following questions: How can stressful situations be dealt with? Does positive appraisal of stressors always provoke positive outcomes for individuals? In which circumstances it is not recommended to stimulate positive appraisal of demanding situations? All this information may be useful in deciding at what point enthusiasm should be moderated by prudence when undertaking challenges that may also involve risks. Third, the use of Rasch Analysis in the Article 3 gives an example of benefits of the application of the RA in work and organizational psychology, it suggests that RA should be used more frequently in this field, and provides work and organizational psychologists a comprehensive guide on how to apply the RA in organizational research. The work shows also to what extent collapsing response options based on empirical data can help in improving the instrument, instead of merely assuming theoretically the optimum number of response alternatives (which is a common practice), in increasing its clarity and in ensuring a better functioning of a response scale. The Article 3 gives therefore an example of a good practice in test development and encourages researchers in the work and organizational area to apply RA in their research. Fourth, the results of the hierarchy of the sources of eustress and distress draw our attention to the fact that the items least frequently identified both as sources of distress and eustress refer to home-work interference and the situations that occur outside work. Future research could clarify the issue of the role of work-life spillover in the appraisal of distress and eustress at work. Fifth, the present thesis shows that more research is needed to study the complex relationship between the dimensions of culture, the perception, and the meaning of stressors in different countries. When studying work stressors, it is crucial to take into consideration both contextual factors related to work, as well as the persons’ evaluation of the stressors. In this line, it is suggested that the emphasis should be put on the positive experiences connected to stress at work (Luthans, 2002), in addition to the dominant negative approach to stress. It is also important to analyze the relationship between stressor appraisals and their interaction on employees’ well-being and health. Cross-cultural studies should explicitly consider operationalizations of national contexts, such as public expenditure on social services, labor market flexibility policies, and the unionization of the labor force or general working conditions. Sixth, the results also raise a debate about the role of the negative ingredient in stress appraisal which may be necessary to initiate coping with stress process and about the possible optimal configuration of distress and eustress appraisal that would lead to most favorable results at work (e.g. work engagement). For example, it has been suggested that an exaggerated positive appraisal of work challenges can be related to workaholism and be a threat for health (Kofta, 2003). Seventh, the present thesis makes a strong emphasis on the importance of multilevel research in the area of work stress and it emphasizes that the future research on the phenomenon of work stress should take into consideration not only the individual perspective, but also the context of the group, which has a significant impact in the process of stress. Finally, it also suggests that the functioning of the process of coping in situations that are predominantly appraised as challenge or as threat should be examined. A question that arises in the present work on the basis of the results commented in the Article 5 is whether the dominant appraisal of eustress makes individuals ignore the threats connected to the same stressful situations and, in consequence, make them not employ any coping strategy, which in turn results in negative long-tern consequences for individual well-being. Future studies should find the answer to the question on whether an ingredient of negative appraisal of stress is always necessary to launch the coping process in order to ensure the best outcomes for the individual well-being. Practical Implications On the basis of the results presented in this thesis, some practical implications can be drawn that refer to the issue of coping with stress and managing stress at work to obtain healthier and more efficient individuals and work teams. The new questionnaire VEDAS provides us with the information on the perception of opportunity/challenge and of threat of the same stressor. Using this questionnaire in managerial practice can improve our knowledge of the individual experiences of stress at work and empirically ensure that stressful situations can be simultaneously appraised as threats and as challenges. In this way, it is possible to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of each type of stressful situations. The information on whether the appraisal of distress always accompanies the appraisal of eustress can be of great relevance for supervisors, managers, and leaders, who have to be cautious when encouraging the appraisal of challenges and when stimulating an excessive positive appraisal of stress (which often is a common practice in some organizations), without taking into account the negative consequences of a disproportionate eustress appraisal. It is important to be aware that under certain conditions challenges may become threatening. An excessive appraisal of eustress may be detrimental because, as we can presume on the basis of the results presented in the Article 5, it may impede individuals to employ preventive strategies that help in decreasing the negative effects of distress appraisal which frequently occurs at the same time as the appraisal of eustress, when a person is facing demanding situations. Also, the existence of the positive and negative consequences of stress appraisal implies that in practice the emphasis should be put on human virtues and on showing employees how to appraise stressful encounters in a more positive way. Revealing the hierarchy of stressors can help us to discern those stressful situations that would require most attention and on which it is more important to concentrate and which are the most important to prevent or stimulate. The Article 3 indicates the types of situations that, when appraised in a more positive way, could have the greatest impact of employees well-being. Therefore, it invites to make a shift from trying to identify the possible sources of distress and repairing damage to encouraging positive appraisal of the stressors and promoting human virtues at work (Luthans, 2002). Especially, practitioners’ attention should be drawn to the fact that situations that refer to discrimination, favoritism or alienation of employees should be avoided as they induce one of the highest levels of distress appraisal and one of the lowest levels of eustress appraisal. In the same time, the employees should be given more opportunities to be accountable for their own actions and be responsible for important decisions, given that personal accountability at work turns out to be a great source of eustress. Also, this thesis shows that special importance should be given to stressful events that occur at the workplace, given that those demanding situations that concern work but occur outside work and involve people outside work are normally considered a minor source of distress and eustress. This information is good news for managers as they generally have much more influence on what concerns employees’ work environment than on what happens in their lives outside work. Furthermore, the results show that cross-cultural comparisons that involve stress are especially relevant for the expats and for supervisors managing multicultural teams. For instance, the results presented in the Article 4 suggest that Spanish managers who work in Poland should take into account that Polish workers may have a tendency to suffer higher levels of burnout than Spaniards when exposed to the same stressful situations. This fact may be induced by cultural and contextual factors. This information can be crucial to help managers understand the importance of designing such environment at work that would create more situations that could be appraised as challenges and opportunities instead of threats according to their cultural background and teach the employees how to perceive these events as greater challenges. All in all, the issues commented above open a variety of possibilities for the design of training courses in the organizations, oriented at stress management at work and teamwork in order to benefit from the positive side of stress appraisal and cultural diversity at work, so the employees learn from their colleagues more positive ways of perceiving work and the fundamental role of management as meaning creators and protectors of the quality of working life (Peiró & Rodríguez, 2008). The orientation towards training, the degree of autonomy and the relationships subordinate-supervisor should adapt to different cultures with the aim of attaining their maximum efficacy (Gelade et al., 2008). These training actions should take into account work teams as a whole, since, as Article 5 shows us, work teams are powerful units that, though collective processes and collective meanings, have impact on individual well-being. Final Conclusions In general, the following main contributions can be drawn from the five articles comprised in this thesis: 1. The present thesis underlines the importance of examining the process of stress from the cognitive perspective to stress and from the positive psychology approach. 2. It provides a new questionnaire that allows measuring simultaneous appraisal of distress and eustress. 3. It uncovers the hierarchy of stressful situations at work, indicating the stressors that are more and less frequently evaluated as distress and eustress. 4. It constitutes an example of the use of the RA applied to the area of work and organizational psychology. 5. It shows that the direction and the strength of the relationships between the distress and eustress appraisal and its outcomes (burnout a