Big five personality and effort–reward imbalance factors in employees’ depressive symptoms

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1744–1755

Big five personality and effort–reward imbalance factorsin employees’ depressive symptoms

Angela Vearing, Anita S. Mak *

Centre for Applied Psychology, University of Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia

Received 20 July 2006; received in revised form 5 May 2007; accepted 22 May 2007Available online 10 July 2007

Abstract

This study investigated the joint effects of the big five personality factors and an extended model of workstress based on Siegrist’s (1996) work on effort–reward imbalance (ERI), on employees’ depressive symp-toms. The elements of the extended model included the effort–reward ratio (ERI ratio), the intrinsic efforttendency of overcommitment (OVC), and workplace social support. Participants were 224 Australianemployees (106 males, 116 females, and 2 with unspecified gender) who volunteered to complete an anon-ymous survey on occupational health. As expected, we found an association between neuroticism (N) andOVC. Regression analysis of depressive symptoms revealed a medium effect of N, followed by small effectsof workplace social support, conscientiousness (C), and ERI ratio, accounting for 44% of the variance indepressive symptoms and providing support to the utility of considering both big five and work stress fac-tors. These findings have implications for future work stress research and the design of stress preventionand management programs for enhancing individual employees’ wellbeing.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Big five personality factors; Neuroticism; Effort–reward imbalance; Work stress; Social support; Depres-sion; Occupational health; Employee wellbeing

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.05.011

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 6201 2704; fax: +61 2 6201 5753.E-mail address: [email protected] (A.S. Mak).

mailto:[email protected]

A. Vearing, A.S. Mak / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1744–1755 1745

1. Introduction

Depressive symptoms linked to personality traits and workplace characteristics can be detri-mental to both individual employees (Chioqueta & Stiles, 2005) and the organisations they workfor, in view of productivity losses due to increased absenteeism and job turnover (Lerner et al.,2004), and reduced performance (Park, Wilson, & Lee, 2004). It is conceivable that employeeswith particular personality traits are more prone to experiencing work stress, which can in turnexacerbate their development and reporting of depressive symptoms (Mak & Mueller, 2001). Thisresearch set out to examine the relationships between the over-arching big five personality factors(McCrae & Costa, 2003) and the elements of an extended model of work-related stress adaptedfrom Siegrist’s (1996) theory of effort–reward imbalance (ERI).

2. The big five personality factors and depressive symptoms

The big five personality theory proposes that individual characteristic patterns of thinking, feel-ing, behaving, and responding to environmental demands can be described in terms of their scoreson five personality domains – extraversion (E), neuroticism (N), agreeableness (A), conscientious-ness (C), and openness to experience (O) (McCrae & Costa, 2003). Previous personality studieshave found N to be a significant predictor of depressive symptoms in Canada (Saklofske, Kelly,& Janzen, 1995), and in Australia (Jorm et al., 2000). N was also related to depression in a work-place sample of doctors from England (Newbury-Birch & Kamali, 2001). In two recent studiesthat utilised all of the big five personality dimensions, depressive symptoms were found to be asso-ciated with high N and low levels of E and C in women intending to relocate (Kling, Ryff, Love, &Essex, 2003), and among university students (Chioqueta & Stiles, 2005).

Clark, Watson, and Mineka’s (1994) earlier review has also found an association between lowerE and depressive symptoms. However, investigations by Jorm et al. (2000) and Saklofske et al.(1995) have not identified E as a predictor of depressive symptoms.

2.1. The effort–reward imbalance model and depressive symptoms

A work stress model that utilises both personal and work-related situational factors is Siegrist’s(1996, 2002) effort–reward imbalance (ERI) model, which has recently been linked to employees’depressive symptoms (Siegrist, 2005). This model is based on the idea of distributive justice,whereby individuals expect that the efforts they put into society will equal the rewards that societyprovides in return, and has both extrinsic (or work-related) and intrinsic elements. In the work-place, employees may perceive stress due to high extrinsic efforts (such as a demanding job wherethey are expected to achieve high results), or stress due to inadequate rewards (such as job securityand promotion prospects). Employees who expend much energy on their job without receivingadequate rewards are said to experience a state of ERI, or have a high effort–reward ratio(ERI ratio), and are at risk of poor physical and mental health outcomes (VanVegchel, DeJonge,Bosma, & Schaufeli, 2005).

In addition to ERI ratio itself, the ERI model of work stress further incorporates an intrinsiceffort variable known as ‘‘overcommitment’’ (OVC) (Siegrist, 2002; VanVegchel et al., 2005), a

1746 A. Vearing, A.S. Mak / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1744–1755

personality characteristic reflecting a personal need for control in dealing with work demands.Employees high on OVC cope with these demands by displaying a pattern of attitudes, behav-iours, and emotions characterised by an excessive striving at work. These employees are predis-posed to exaggerate the demands from work and have difficulty withdrawing from work andrelaxing even outside work hours. Employees with this intrinsic effort tendency are more proneto reporting a higher level of ERI ratio, and are at an increased risk of adverse health outcomes(VanVegchel et al., 2005). Joksimovic, Starke, Knesebeck, and Siegrist (2002) have found a mod-erate correlation between OVC and trait negative affectivity. However, we are not aware of pub-lished research on the relationship between OVC and any of the big five personality factors, andwhether the personality characteristic of OVC remains a relevant variable when the over-archingpersonality domains are simultaneously considered.

Components of the ERI Model have been used to examine the effect of workplace stress ondepressive symptoms. Pikhart et al. (2004) administered questionnaires to employees across East-ern Europe and found that those who reported higher effort–reward ratios also tended to reporthigher levels of depression. Effort–reward imbalance, along with OVC, have also been found to beassociated with depressive symptoms in Japanese factory workers (Tsutsumi, Kayaba, Theorell, &Siegrist, 2001), Japanese workers in a corporation (Watanabe, Irie, & Kobayashi, 2004), andworkers in four Belgian firms (Godin & Kittel, 2004).

2.2. Workplace social support and depressive symptoms

Recent conceptualisation of work-related stress has recognised the value of work-based socialsupport in decreasing and/or preventing depressive symptoms. A number of previous studies havelinked lower levels of depression to supervisor support (Golding, 1989; Nakata et al., 2004; Wang& Patten, 2001) and co-worker support (Nakata et al., 2004; Wang & Patten, 2001). Some recentERI studies have included employees’ perceptions of social support as a factor in their health out-comes, with the evidence suggesting the utility of incorporating social support in a model of work-related stress (VanVegchel et al., 2005).

2.3. The present study

At the time of writing, the bulk of ERI research has been conducted in Europe and there is noreported research on the combined effects of the big five personality factors and the ERI model. Itis unclear how the personality characteristic of OVC may be linked with each of the big fivefactors.

Based on the literature reviewed, our first research objective was to examine the relationshipsbetween the big five factors and each of the components in the extended ERI model (incorporat-ing workplace social support) among Australian employees. Specifically, we hypothesised a posi-tive relationship between N and OVC.

Our second objective was to investigate the relative and joint effects of the big five and compo-nents of the extended ERI model on employees’ depressive symptoms, using hierarchical regres-sion analysis and controlling for participants’ gender and age. Specifically, our second researchhypothesis was that depressive symptoms would be associated with high N, low E, and low C;as well as with high ERI ratio, high OVC, and low workplace social support. We also tested a


third hypothesis that ERI variables and workplace support would contribute to the explanation ofdepressive symptoms beyond the contributions from big five personality factors.

3. Method

3.1. Participants

Participants were a convenience sample of 224 employees from three organisations in Australia.Of these participants, 60 (33 female and 27 male) were employees from two retail organisations inNew South Wales (NSW), and 164 (83 female, 79 male, and 2 unspecified) were employees from apublic service organisation in Canberra and Melbourne. The response rates were 28% for theretail sector, and 46% for the public service sector. Participants ranged in age from under 20 to60–64, with the most common age groups being 25–29 (26.8%), 30–34 (14.7%), and 20–24 (12.5%).

Respondents from the retail organisations worked in areas of management (35.6%), administra-tion (20.3%), sales (20.3%), operational (11.9%), professional (6.8%), and technical (5.1%). Mostwere employed on a full-time basis (93.2%), and full-time employees worked an average of44 h/week. A total of 34.9% held a tertiary degree or diploma.

Respondents from the public service organisation ranged in classification levels, (with increas-ing ranks) from Australian Public Service (APS) Levels 1–4 (28%), to APS Levels 5–6 (30%), andExecutive Level 1 or above (42%). Respondents worked in areas of professional (46.0%), admin-istration (22.7%), management (22.1%), technical (4.9%), and customer support (4.3%). Mostwere employed full-time (94.5%), and full-time employees worked an average of 39.7 h/week. Atotal of 85.9% held a tertiary degree or diploma.

3.2. Measures

A questionnaire on occupational health was used to survey participants’ levels of effort, reward,overcommitment (OVC), workplace social support, big five personality factors, depressive symp-toms, and demographic details (including age, gender, education, and type of work). As can beseen in Table 1 that lists descriptive statistics of all the scaled scores, all the scales attained satis-factory internal consistency reliabilities.

3.2.1. Effort–reward imbalanceExtrinsic effort and reward were measured by Siegrist et al.’s (2004) Short ERI Questionnaire.

This scale comprises 5-point items that measure employees’ perceptions of extrinsic effort (fiveitems for this sample as physical demand was not relevant here) and reward (11 items) in theworkplace. Items measuring extrinsic effort include ‘‘I have constant time pressure due to a heavywork load’’, and items measuring inadequate reward include ‘‘My job promotion prospects arepoor’’. Each item is answered in two steps. The resulting possible effort scale scores ranged from5 to 25, with higher scores indicating that workplace demands are perceived as stressful. Theresulting possible reward scale scores ranged from 11 to 55, with a higher score indicating a per-ception of being relatively free from distress due to inadequate reward. The internal consistency ofthe effort scale ranges from .61 to .78, and the reward scale from .77 to .88 (Siegrist et al.).

Table 1Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among demographic, big five, and ERI variables, and depressive symptoms

Variable M SD Alpha 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Gender – – – �.08 .03 .16 .11 .17 �.11 �.01 �.01 �.03 .052. Age – – – �.18* �.17 .03 .12 .07 �.01 .00 �.01 �.143. Extraversion 3.33 .79 .85 �.29* .25* .13 .34* .03 .04 .14 �.18*

4. Neuroticism 2.63 .78 .84 �.42* �.35* �.20* .30* .13 �.03 .53*

5. Agreeableness 3.94 .60 .80 .42* .17 �.16 �.04 .26* �.31*

6. Conscientiousness 4.01 .62 .82 .12 �.12 �.06 .07 �.34*

7. Openness to experience 3.64 .61 .78 .06 .17 .09 �.038. Overcommitment 13.26 3.22 .74 .46* �.23* .36*

9. Log of effort–reward ratio �.37 .18 – �.37* .36*

10. Workplace support 30.75 5.28 .85 �.30*

11. Depressive symptoms 15.91 3.96 .83

* p < .01.

1748A

.V

earin

g,

A.S

.M

ak

/P

erson

ality

an

dIn

divid

ua

lD

ifferen

ces4

3(

20

07

)1

74

4–

17

55


3.2.2. OvercommitmentOVC was assessed by six items from Siegrist et al.’s (2004) Short ERI Questionnaire. Employ-

ees’ personal tendency towards continually thinking about and exaggerating work demands ismeasured using six items written in 4-point Likert-type scales, and item scores summed to providean overall possible score of 6–24. An example item is ‘‘I get easily overwhelmed by time pressuresat work’’. This scale has a satisfactory internal consistency, with Siegrist et al. reporting reliabil-ities from .64 to .82.

3.2.3. Workplace social supportWorkplace social support was measured by a modified version of Caplan, Cobb, French, Van

Harrison, and Pinneau’s (1975) Social Support Scale. This modified measure consists of four ques-tions tapping into perceived levels of support from two sources – supervisor and co-workers.Example items include ‘‘How easy is it to talk with each of the following people?’’. Internal reli-abilities have been reported as .90 (supervisor support) and .84 (co-worker support) (Brough &Frame, 2004). For this study, responses pertaining to perceived amounts of social support fromboth sources were summed for an assessment of total workplace support, as it was untenableto use the distribution of supervisor social support by itself for parametric statistical analyses.With most employees in this sample reporting a high level of supervisor support, the shape of thisdistribution was monotonic increasing and could not be transformed to approximate the normaldistribution. The distribution of the combined 8-item scale of workplace support, however, hadacceptable levels of skewness and kurtosis, and the scale attained a satisfactory internalconsistency.

3.2.4. Big five personality factorsThe big five personality factors were measured with the Big Five Inventory (Benet-Martinez &

John, 1998). This scale consists of items assessing participants’ levels of E (8 items), N (8 items), A(9 items), C (9 items), and O (10 items). Participants indicated on a 5-point Likert-type scale theextent to which they see themselves as someone who could be described by each item. Item scoresfor each subscale were averaged, yielding five scale scores ranging from 1 to 5. Each subscaleexhibits a high degree of internal consistency, with a mean Cronbach’s alpha of .83 (Benet-Mar-tinez and John).

3.2.5. Depressive symptomsDepressive symptoms was measured using Israel, House, Schurman, Heaney, and Mero’s

(1989) 11-item abridged adaptation of the Centre for Epidemiological Studies-Depressed MoodScale (CES-D). Respondents indicated how often they had felt symptoms such as ‘‘I felt de-pressed’’ and ‘‘I felt lonely’’ during the last week, on a 3-point scale from 1 = hardly ever to3 = most of the time. Possible summed scale scores ranged from 11 to 33. The internal consistencyfor this scale is .80 (Israel et al.).

3.3. Procedure

With the permission of their organisations, prospective participants were invited to participatein a voluntary and anonymous employee survey approved by the University Human Ethics Com-


mittee, via a notice sent out two days prior to the distribution of the paper questionnaire itself inthe prospective participants’ mailboxes at work. The completion of the questionnaire generallytook between 10 min and 20 min, and could be done during or outside of work time. Participantswere asked to seal completed questionnaires in the reply-paid envelopes provided, and post themto the university researchers. A reminder notice was sent out two weeks after the initial distribu-tion of the surveys.

4. Results

4.1. Calculation of effort–reward ratio and prevalence of ERI

Following Siegrist et al. (2004), we calculated participants’ effort–reward ratio (ERI ratio),according to the formula e/(r · c), where e = total extrinsic effort, r = total inadequate reward,and c = the correction factor (5/11). An ERI ratio above 1.0 indicates that extrinsic efforts exceedrewards. To correct the positive skewness of the distribution of the effort–reward ratio, we furthercomputed the logarithm values of ERI ratios and used these values in the subsequent parametricanalyses, as recommended by Siegrist et al. (2004).

In the present sample of 224 Australian employees, only 5 people (2.2%) had an ERI ratioabove 1.0 (or logarithm value of 0), a state of ERI. We took this into consideration and basedour subsequent analyses on only the continuous variable of the logarithmically transformedERI ratio.

4.2. Descriptive statistics

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of the scaled variables. The distributions of depressivesymptoms and ERI ratios were positively skewed, whereas that of C was negatively skewed. Inview of the skewness of these distributions, we adopted a conservative level of significance ofp = .01 in subsequent statistical analyses.

4.3. Differences between the retail and public service sectors

Independent t-tests were conducted to determine whether there were differences in depressivesymptoms and their predictors between the retail and public service employees, with a Bonferroniadjustment of Type I error rate for multiple testing. Compared to public servants, employees inthe retail sector reported higher levels of E (t(220) = �3.45, p = .001), OVC (t(219) = �4.01,p < .001), and ERI ratio (t(216) = �3.82, p < .001). The numerically higher level of depressivesymptoms among the retail workers (M = 16.76 compared with 15.63 among public servants)did not constitute statistical significance.

4.4. Intercorrelations

The present reporting of bi-variate and multivariate results will be based on the combined sam-ple of employees. This is to capture a greater diversity of individual differences, and to provide a


bigger sample size for conducting hierarchical regression analyses involving a large number of pre-dictor variables.

Table 1 presents the intercorrelations among the big five personality variables, OVC, log of ERIratio, workplace support, and depressive symptoms for the combined sample. We noted (a) amoderate positive association between N and OVC, and (b) a small positive correlation betweenA and workplace social support.

On identifying significant bi-variates of depressive symptoms, we noted that E, A, C, and work-place social support maintained small to moderate negative associations, whereas OVC, ERI ra-tio, and N maintained moderate to strong positive associations with depressive symptoms.

4.5. Regression analysis predicting depressive symptoms

A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to assess the contributions of eachpredictor variable to explaining variance in depressive symptoms in the total sample of employees.At the first step, the demographic variables of gender and age, along with the dispositional big fivepersonality factors (E, N, A, C, and O), were entered. The next step included the components ofthe extended ERI Model: OVC, log of effort–reward ratio, and workplace support.

The assumptions of normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity of residuals in multiple regres-sion analyses were all met, and there was no evidence of multicollinearity. Table 2 presents thesummary of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis of depressive symptoms. At the first step,

Table 2Hierarchical regression analysis for big five and ERI factors predicting depressive symptoms

B SE B b R2 DR2

Step 1

Gender 0.19 .48 .02Age �0.08 .11 �.04Extraversion �0.24 .33 �.05Neuroticism 2.20 .35 .44**

Agreeableness �0.46 .44 �.07Conscientiousness �1.07 .42 �.17*

Openness to experience 0.80 .41 .12 .33**

Step 2

Gender 0.11 .45 .01Age �0.09 .10 �.05Extraversion �0.23 .30 �.05Neuroticism 2.02 .34 .41**

Agreeableness �0.06 .42 �.01Conscientiousness �1.05 .39 �.17*

Openness to experience 0.54 .39 .08Overcommitment 0.29 .25 .07Log of effort–reward ratio 0.72 .26 .18*

Workplace support �0.14 .05 �.19* .44** .11**

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


a significant 32.8% of the variance in depressive symptoms was explained, with N and C being theonly significant predictors.

At the second and final step, the addition of OVC and log of ERI ratio explained a significantadditional 11.4% of the variance (out of a total of 44.2% explained), F (3, 201) = 13.66, p < .001.The significant predictors, in order of decreasing Beta weights, were N (moderate effect), lowworkplace support (small effect), high ERI ratio (small effect), and low C (small effect).

5. Discussion

5.1. Overcommitment and the big five

Our first hypothesis predicting a positive association between OVC and N was supported by asignificant correlation coefficient of moderate magnitude. This result is consistent with Joksimovicet al.’s (2002) finding on the relationship between OVC and negative affectivity. The personal ten-dency towards taking work seriously and not being able to shut down thoughts about work out-side of work hours appears to overlap with N. OVC could represent an aspect of N that ismanifested in the work context and is adverse for employees’ mental health. A review of ERI stud-ies suggests that employees’ OVC is also harmful to their cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, andgeneral health (VanVegchel et al., 2005).

5.2. Big five and ERI predictors of depressive symptoms

Our second hypothesis regarding the predictors of depressive symptoms was largely supportedby the results obtained. Findings based on regression analysis have indicated that depressivesymptoms were associated with high levels of N and ERI ratio, and low levels of workplace sup-port and C. The bi-variate association between E and depressive symptoms disappeared whenother big five factors were simultaneously considered. Similarly, the bi-variate association betweenOVC and depressive symptoms was no longer maintained in the multiple regression analysis.

Results of the hierarchical regression analysis support our third hypothesis that ERI and work-place social support variables would contribute to the explanation of employees’ depressive symp-toms, beyond the contributions from the big five. This result suggests that even in a sample withonly a small proportion of employees suffering actual effort–reward imbalance, the effort–rewardratio is useful for assessing the propensity for work-related stress. Present findings have clearlyestablished the importance of both the big five personality and the extended ERI models in under-standing employees’ emotional wellbeing.

The present pattern of relationships between the big five personality factors and depressivesymptoms is largely consistent with previous research on the big five framework (Chioqueta &Stiles, 2005; Kling et al., 2003), highlighting the particular importance of N, and to a lesser extentC, in predicting depression risk among employees.

Current findings further broadly corroborate existing ERI literature from Europe and Japan onelevated depressive risk among employees reporting high workplace effort relative to reward,those with a personal tendency towards OVC, and individuals perceiving a low level of social sup-port (Godin & Kittel, 2004; Pikhart et al., 2004; Tsutsumi et al., 2001; Watanabe et al., 2004). We


note that the relationship between OVC and depressive symptoms was no longer significant whenN was also included in the present investigation, which contrasts with Watanabe et al’s findingthat OVC still contributed to depressive risk after controlling for negative affectivity.

5.3. Practical implications

Various practical implications can be drawn from the present findings. Once again, employeeshigh on N, including its manifestation through OVC where employees find it difficult to switch offafter work, have been found to have an elevated risk for being depressed. Similar to interventionresearch on the disposition of OVC to work (Aust, Peter, & Siegrist, 1997), organisations couldaim to provide workers with stress prevention and management programs that focus on relaxationskills, worksite physical activity, increased awareness of emotions, and coping strategies to helpreduce anxiety and worry. Practical implications for workplace support include investing inincreasing supervisor and co-worker support. Supervisors could be alerted to the payoffs in dis-playing sensitivity to subordinates’ needs and undertake training in offering them support andassistance, which was found to decrease employee depressive symptoms in one study (Heaney,Price, & Rafferty, 1995). Increasing co-worker support could include providing employees withsocial activities and fostering a sense of social community at work.

Practical implications based on the ERI model could focus on decreasing extrinsic efforts andincreasing rewards. To decrease efforts, workloads should be evenly distributed, overtime reduced,and rest days included (Siegrist, 2002). Apart from providing appropriate remuneration, percep-tions of rewards could stem from esteem from significant others in the workplace and promotionopportunities (Tsutsumi & Kawakami, 2004; VanVegchel, DeJonge, Meijer, & Hamers, 2001).

5.4. Future research and conclusions

Future research examining the relative and joint contributions of the big five and ERI model ofwork stress to employee adjustment could access larger samples from different sectors, and useimproved methodology, such as a longitudinal design, other sources of data additional to employ-ee self-reports, and alternative indicators of employee strain and wellbeing. By obtaining largersample sizes, it may be possible to test whether the relationship between the variables holds fordifferent employment sectors. One limitation with the present use of self-reports for all the mea-sures is common method variance; the resulting moderate to strong association between N anddepressive symptoms could lead to an underestimation of the unique effects of the componentsof the work stress model.

Future research could also seek to obtain higher response rates, as non-responders may possessdifferent qualities than responders. Given the presently identified moderate association betweenOVC and N, it would be interesting to explore the stability of OVC as a presumed personal char-acteristic, or whether it is primarily a response pattern triggered off by certain demand character-istics of job-related situations (e.g., having to constantly meet deadlines) and which may bemodified by changing jobs.

In conclusion, consistent with recent evidence coming from Europe and Japan, perceptions ofefforts relative to rewards in the workplace were found to contribute to employees’ reports ofdepressive symptoms in the present Australian sample. A notable extension to existing research


is that the utility of the ERI model of work stress could be improved with the incorporation ofindividual perceptions about workplace support, and especially the considerations of the over-arching personality dimensions of N and C, and possibly also A and E.

References

Aust, B., Peter, R., & Siegrist, J. (1997). Stress management in bus drivers: A pilot study based on the model of effort–reward imbalance. International Journal of Stress Management, 4, 297–305.

Benet-Martinez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitraitmultimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,729–750.

Brough, P., & Frame, R. (2004). Predicting police job satisfaction and turnover intentions: The role of social supportand police organisational variables. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 33, 8–16.

Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Van Harrison, R. V., & Pinneau, S. R. (1975). Job demands and worker

health: Main effects and occupational differences. Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education, andWelfare.

Chioqueta, A. P., & Stiles, T. C. (2005). Personality traits and the development of depression, hopelessness, and suicideideation. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1283–1291.

Clark, L. A., Watson, D., & Mineka, S. (1994). Temperament, personality, and the mood and anxiety disorders. Journal

of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 103–116.Godin, I., & Kittel, F. (2004). Differential economic stability and psychosocial stress at work: Associations with

psychosomatic complaints and absenteeism. Social Science and Medicine, 58, 1543–1553.Golding, J. M. (1989). Role occupancy and role-specific stress and social support as predictors of depression. Basic and

Applied Social Psychology, 10, 173–195.Heaney, C., Price, R. H., & Rafferty, J. (1995). Increasing coping resources at work: A field experiment to increase

social support, improve work team functioning, and enhance employee mental health. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 16, 335–352.Israel, B., House, J., Schurman, S., Heaney, C., & Mero, R. (1989). The relation of personal resources, participation,

influence, interpersonal relationships and coping strategies to occupational stress, job strains and health. Work and

Stress, 3, 163–194.Joksimovic, L., Starke, D., Knesebeck, O., & Siegrist, J. (2002). Perceived work stress, overcommitment, and self-

reported musculoskeletal pain: A cross-sectional investigation. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 9,122–138.

Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Henderson, A. S., Jacomb, P. A., Korten, A. E., & Rodgers, B. (2000). Predicting anxietyand depression from personality: Is there a synergistic effect of neuroticism and extraversion? Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 109, 145–149.Kling, K. C., Ryff, C. D., Love, G., & Essex, M. (2003). Exploring the influence of personality on depressive symptoms

and self-esteem across a significant life transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 922–932.Lerner, D., Adler, D. A., Chang, H., Lapitsky, L., Hood, M. Y., Perissinotto, C., et al. (2004). Unemployment, job

retention, and productivity loss among employees with depression. Psychiatric Services, 55, 1371–1378.Mak, A. S., & Mueller, J. (2001). Negative affectivity, perceived occupational stress, and health during organisational

restructuring: a follow-up study. Psychology and Health, 16, 125–137.McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood. New York: The Guilford Press.Nakata, A., Haratani, T., Takahasi, M., Kawakami, N., Arito, H., Kobayashi, F., et al. (2004). Job stress, social

support, and prevalence of insomnia in a population of Japanese daytime workers. Social Science and Medicine, 59,1719–1730.

Newbury-Birch, D., & Kamali, F. (2001). Psychological stress, anxiety, depression, job satisfaction, and personalitycharacteristics in preregistration house officers. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 77, 109–111.

Park, K., Wilson, M. G., & Lee, M. S. (2004). Effects of social support at work on depression and organizationalproductivity. American Journal of Health Behavior, 28, 444–455.


Pikhart, H., Bobak, M., Pajak, A., Malyutina, S., Kubinova, R., Topor, R., et al. (2004). Psychosocial factors at workand depression in three countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Social Science and Medicine, 58, 1475–1482.

Saklofske, D. H., Kelly, I. W., & Janzen, B. L. (1995). Neuroticism, depression, and depression proneness. Personality

and Individual Differences, 18, 27–31.Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 1, 27–43.Siegrist, J. (2002). Reducing the social inequalities in health: Work-related strategies. Scandinavian Journal of Public

Health, 30, 49–53.Siegrist, J. (2005). Social reciprocity and health: New scientific evidence and policy implications. Psychoneuroendo-

crinology, 30, 1033–1038.Siegrist, J., Starke, D., Chandola, T., Godin, I., Marmot, M., Niedhammer, I., et al. (2004). The measurement of

effort–reward imbalance at work: European comparisons. Social Science and Medicine, 58, 1483–1499.Tsutsumi, A., & Kawakami, N. (2004). A review of empirical studies on the model of effort–reward imbalance at work:

Reducing occupational stress by implementing a new theory. Social Science and Medicine, 59, 2335–2359.Tsutsumi, A., Kayaba, K., Theorell, T., & Siegrist, J. (2001). Association between job stress and depression among

Japanese employees threatened by job loss in a comparison between two complementary job-stress models.Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 27, 146–153.

VanVegchel, N., DeJonge, J., Bosma, H., & Schaufeli, W. (2005). Reviewing the effort–reward imbalance model:Drawing up the balance of 45 empirical studies. Social Science and Medicine, 60, 1117–1131.

VanVegchel, N., DeJonge, J., Meijer, T., & Hamers, J. P. (2001). Different effort constructs and effort–rewardimbalance: Effects on employee well-being in ancillary health care workers. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 24,128–136.

Wang, J. L., & Patten, S. B. (2001). Perceived work stress and major depression in the Canadian employed population,20–49 years old. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 283–289.

Watanabe, M., Irie, M., & Kobayashi, F. (2004). Relationship between Effort–Reward Imbalance, low social supportand depressive state among Japanese male workers. Journal of Occupational Health, 46, 78–81.

Documents

Big five personality and effort–reward imbalance factors in employees’ depressive symptoms