Efficacy Beliefs and Work Stress

7/30/2019 Efficacy Beliefs and Work Stress

1/10

Efficacy Beliefs and Work Stress: An Exploratory StudyAuthor(s): Steve M. Jex and David M. GudanowskiReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13, No. 5 (Sep., 1992), pp. 509-517Published by: Wiley-BlackwellStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2488400 .

Accessed: 30/08/2012 10:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley-Blackwell andJohn Wiley & Sons are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access

toJournal of Organizational Behavior.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2488400?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2488400?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/10

JOURNALOF ORGANIZATIONAL EHAVIOR,VOL. 13,509-517 1992)

Research Efficacybeliefs and workstress:Note An exploratorystudySTEVE M. JEX AND DAVID M. GUDANOWSKICentral Michigan University,U.S.A.

Summary This study investigated the possible role of self-efficacyin the stressprocess by examiningrelations between stressors (role ambiguity, situational constraints, and hours), strains(job dissatisfaction, anxiety, frustration, and turnover intent), and efficacybeliefs (bothindividual and collective). Individual efficacywas related to only two of the four strainsand had no mediating or moderating effects. Collective efficacy, however, was stronglyrelated to both stressors and strains. Collective efficacy also moderated the effect ofwork hours and mediated the relation between situational constraints and two of thestrain measures. It was concluded that the theory of individual self-efficacy (Bandura,1977) may not adequately explain collective efficacy. Future researchon the self-efficacyconstruct as well as its role in the stress process was suggested.

IntroductionIn recent years, self beliefs have emergedas a prominent component in many theories of humanbehavior. This trend can be seen in industrial/organizational psychology as well. Brief andAldag (1981), for example, pointed out that employees in organizations have explicit beliefsand expectations about their performance and suggested that these should be considered whentrying to explain organizational behavior. In addition to pointing out the value of consideringself beliefs and expectations, Brief and Aldag (1981)proposed a model which details the interac-tion between organizational conditions and self beliefs.Despite Brief and Aldag's (1981) suggestions, surprisingly little organizational research hasconsidered self beliefs. One exception to this trend in organizational research has been therecent interest in self-efficacy, which is defined as a person's beliefs about whether they cansuccessfullyperforma task (Bandura, 1977, 1978).Self-efficacy s similarto expectancy(Campbelland Pritchard, 1976),which represents beliefs about the relation between effort andperformance.In fact, some authors have used the two interchangeably (Earley and Lituchy, 1991; Garland,1985). Self-efficacy, however, appears to be more general since it could involve either effortor ability, whereas expectancyfocuses exclusivelyon the relationbetween effortand performance.At present, the issue of distinguishing between self-efficacy and expectancy continues to bedebated (Gist, 1987). According to Bandura (1977), self-efficacybeliefs are determined primarilyby 'inactive mastery', which depends on both perceived and actual prior task performance.Correspondenceegarding his articleshouldbe sent to SteveM. Jex,Department f Psychology,CentralMichiganUniversity,Mt. Pleasant,MI 48859.

The authorswish to thank Ron Newmanfor assistance n datacollectionand TerryBeehrfor his commentsonthismanuscript.0894-3796/92/050509-09$09.50 Received 0May1990? 1992by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Final Revision11April 1991


3/10

510 S. M. JEX AND D. M. GUDANOWSKIOther sources of information about self-efficacy beliefs include verbal persuasion from others,vicarious learning, and emotional arousal.Bandura (1982) and others (e.g. Gist, 1987; Riggs, 1989) have suggested that the self-efficacyconcept can also be applied to groups. Riggs (1989) defined 'collective' efficacy as 'each indivi-dual's assessment of their group's collective ability to performjob-related behaviors' (p. 7).Unfortunately, compared to the individual level, little is known about either the determinantsor consequences of collective efficacy beliefs. It has been implied, however, that the theoryof individual self-efficacy can be used to explain individuals' perceptions of groups (Gist, 1987;Riggs, 1989).Though not extensive, organizational research has begun to show some consistentrelationshipsbetween self-efficacy beliefs and task performance. As examples, Barling and Beattie (1983)showed that strong self-efficacy beliefs were associated with high levels of sales performance,while Taylor, Locke, Lee, and Gist (1984) found a similar relation between self-efficacybeliefsand faculty research productivity. Unfortunately, no organizational research has examined therelation between 'collective' efficacy beliefs and task performance. Riggs (1989), however, foundthat the performance of softball teams was positively related to beliefs individual teammembershad about the efficacy of their team.Despite this recent progress, one could argue that self-efficacy researchneeds to be expandedto areas other than job performance. The study of work-related stress, in particular, has beenconducted under the assumption that employees areratherpassive recipients of stressful organi-zational conditions. Most stress research has simply examined relations between stressors (i.e.role conflict, role ambiguity, lack of perceived control) andoutcomes suchasjob (dis)satisfaction,anxiety, psychosomatic symptoms, absenteeism,andjob performance(Spector, Dwyer and Jex,1988). Intervening processes such as the interaction between stressors and self beliefs havelargely been ignored.If self-efficacy (both individual and collective) is to be included in the study of work stress,the potential role of self-efficacy in the stress process must be determined. According to Beehrand Newman (1978), environmental stressors interact with characteristics of the individual toproduce stressreactions. According to this model, self-efficacybeliefs can best be conceptualizedas a moderator variable. One might predict that individuals who do not believe that they willbe able to carryout theirjob responsibilities (low levels of self-efficacy)would view organizationalstressors as being more threatening and show more negative reactions than those who aremore confident (high levels of self-efficacy). It is plausible that collective efficacywould providethe same moderating effect as individual efficacy, although this would be more likely foremployees whose jobs require considerable interaction with the work group. It is also possiblethat the group may be seen as a potential source of social supportwhen stressors occur (LaRocco,House and French, 1980).Brief and Aldag (1981), however, implied that one of the immediate effects of job-relatedstressors may be to lower one's level of self-efficacy. Reductions in self-efficacy beliefs, in turnmay lead to job-related strains. According to this viewpoint, self-efficacywould be a mediatingvariable. Stumpf, Brief and Hartman (1987), proposed that reductions in self-efficacy beliefslead to more emotion-focused coping, which is generally not as successful as problem-focusedcoping (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Their study supported this proposition. Because thisoccurs at the individual level, stressors may also decrease collective efficacy perceptions.Decreases in collective efficacy perceptions could lead to strain because suchperceptions increaseemployee uncertainty regarding effort leading to high levels of job performance (Beehr andBhagat, 1985). Again, this would be most likely for employees whose jobs require considerableinteraction with the work group.


4/10

EFFICACY BELIEFS 511ThecurrentstudyThe current study was designed to assess the relation between self-efficacy beliefs (individualand collective) and both stressors (role ambiguity, situational constraints, work hours) andpsychological strains (iob dissatisfaction, anxiety, frustration, intention to quit). Tests werealso conducted to assess whether self-efficacy was most plausibly a moderator or mediator ofthe relations between stressors and strains.Since it has been implied that collective efficacycan be explained by the theory of individualself-efficacy (Bandura, 1982; Gist, 1987; Riggs, 1989), we alsonoted differencesin the correlationsinvolving individual versus collective efficacy. This comparison was thought to be fair, sinceboth forms of efficacy were operationalized with the same degree of rigor and the distributionswere similar(Cooper and Richardson, 1986).

MethodSubjectsSubjects were 154 male and female non-faculty employees of both the University of SouthFlorida and Central Michigan University. In all, 500 employees from both universities wereselected. Employees ranged in age from 23 to 68 years of age, with a mean of 41.2 years.There were 68 males and 86 females. There were a total of 67 diverse job titles representedin the sample. Examples include engineer, librarian, accountant, secretary,refrigeration techni-cian, and medical technician.Although the response rate (30 per cent) was somewhat low, the demographic characteristicsof the sample were quite similar to other studies of university employees (Spector et al., 1988).In addition, the demographic profiles of subjects from the two universities were similar, suggest-ing that combining data from these two sources was justified. Data were collected from Augustto December of 1989.MeasuresStressorsThe three stressors were role ambiguity, situational constraints, and workload. Role ambiguitywas measured by Beehr, Walsh and Taber's (1976) four-item scale. These items are intendedto measure the extent to which goals, performance standards, and expectations are clearlyspecified by one's supervisor. Internal consistency has been found to be acceptable for thisscale (0.71; Spector et al., 1988).Situational constraints was measured with an 11-itemscale developed by Peters and O'Connor(1980). Items focused on situational constraints in the areas of organizational rules/procedures,availability of supplies, interruptions by other people, and incorrect instructions. Subjectswereasked to indicate the frequency with which each of the situational constraints prevented themfrom performing their job. Reliability of this scale has been estimated to be 0.88 (Spectoretal., 1988).Workload was measured by simply asking subjects to indicate the average number of hoursper week they worked at all paid jobs.Psychological strainThe four measures of psychological strainwere overalljob (dis)satisfaction, frustration, anxiety,and intent to quit. Overalljob (dis)satisfaction was assessed by the three-item overalljob satisfac-


5/10

512 S. M. JEX AND D. M. GUDANOWSKItion scale of the Michigan Organizational Assessment Scale (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins andKlesh, 1979). Internal consistency for this scale has been estimated to be 0.90 (Spector et al.,1988).Frustration was measured by a three-item scale asking respondents to indicate the overallextent to which they find their jobs frustrating. Peters and O'Connor (1980) estimated theinternal consistency of this scale to be 0.81.A modified version of the 10-item state scale of Spielberger's (1979) State Trait PersonalityInventory (STPI) was used to measure anxiety. Specifically, subjects were asked how they feltat work during the past 30 days. Some of the descriptions were feeling calm, tense, nervous,worried, and frightened. Each item was answered in termsof the degree to which the respondentfelt that way. The internal consistency of this scale has been estimated to be 0.90 (Spectoretal., 1988).Turnover intent was measured by a single item asking respondents to indicate how oftenthey considered quitting their present job (Spector et al., 1988).EfficacybeliefsIndividual and collective efficacy beliefs were measured with two scales developed by Riggs(1989). The individual efficacy scale consisted of 11 items reflecting the degree to which subjectsbelieved they were capable of doing theirjob well. Examples of items include 'I have confidencein my ability to do my job', 'I doubt my ability to do my job' and 'Few people in my lineof work can do a better job than I can'. The collective efficacyscale contained 10items reflectingindividual subjects' perceptions of the extent to which their respective departmentswere capableof functioning effectively. Examples of these items include 'The department I work for hasabove average ability', 'The members of this department have excellent job skills' and 'Depart-ments that can perform their jobs as well as this department are rare'. Internal consistenciesof both individual and collective efficacyscales have been estimated to be 0.81 and 0.84, respecti-vely (Riggs, 1989).ProcedureAt each of the two universities, a sample of non-faculty employees was randomly chosen fromeach university directory. While the selection procedure was as random as possible, an effortwas made to include approximately equal numbers of males and females as well as a diversesampling of job titles. This was done by alternating each selection by gender. In addition,as the sample was being chosen, a count of the number of employees by job title was keptso that some job titles would not be overly represented in the sample. Selected employeeswere sent a questionnaire along with a letter describing the purpose of the study and askingfor their participation. Questionnaires were returnedby mail to the senior author.

ResultsDescriptive statistics will be discussed first, followed by correlations, and the tests for bothmoderating and mediating effects.Descriptive statisticsDescriptive statistics for all variables are presented at the bottom of Table 1. Included aremeans, standard deviations, and coefficient alphas (where appropriate). Although not shown,


6/10

EFFICACY BELIEFS 513observed ranges for most of the variables covered the entire possible range; thus, restrictionof range did not appear to be a problem. One exception was anxiety, which ranged from 12to 34 out of a possible range of 10 to 48. There also did not appear to be any extremelyhigh individual or collective efficacy values (which would indicate extremelylow levels of efficacybeliefs). Coefficient alphas were calculated where appropriate and all were reasonably high,ranging from0.79 to 0.87.Table 1.Descriptive tatisticsand ntercorrelationsmongallvariables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91. Roleambiguity2. Situationalconstraints 0.45*3.Hours 0.03 0.064. Satisfaction -0.32* -0.47* -0.045.Frustration 0.42* 0.56* 0.09 -0.32*6.Anxiety 0.29* 0.43* 0.01 0.30* 0.48*7. Intent 0.36* 0.45* 0.04 -0.69* 0.50* 0.14*8. Individualfficacy -0.11 -0.01 -0.04 -0.08 0.14* 0.35* 0.119. Collective fficacy 0.42* 0.56* -0.08 -0.56* 0.34* 0.37* 0.50* 0.14*Mean 13.2 22.1 43.3 14.2 11.1 19.4 2.7 23.3 25.6Standard eviation 6.1 8.0 9.0 3.3 3.7 4.7 1.4 7.5 7.8Coefficient lpha 0.84 0.87 NA 0.87 0.84 0.80 NA 0.84 0.79N=143-154.p< 0.05.Low scores on the efficacy scales indicate high levels of efficacy beliefs.

Correlationsamong all variables are also presented inTable 1. As can be seen, intercorrelationsamong stressors and strains were moderate. One exception was the strong relation betweenjob satisfaction and turnover intent (-0.69). Stressor-strain correlations were similar in magni-tude to other studies in which these measures have been used (cf. Spector et al., 1988).Relations between stressors, strains, and the two efficacymeasures are presented in the bottomtwo rows of the correlation matrix. As can be seen, individual efficacy was not significantlyrelated to any of the three stressors. It was however, weakly related to frustration (0.14) andmoderate related to anxiety (0.35). Low levels of individual efficacy beliefs are associated withhigh levels of frustration and anxiety. Collective efficacy was strongly related to both role ambi-guity and situational constraints (0.42 and 0.56, respectively). Correlations between collectiveefficacy and psychological strains were all significant, ranging from -0.56 with satisfactionto 0.34 with frustration. As with individual efficacy, high levels of collective efficacy beliefswere associated with low levels of stressors and psychological strains.ModeratoranalysisTests for the moderating effects of both individual and collective efficacy beliefs were carriedout using cross-product regression procedures outlined by Cohen and Cohen (1983). Table2 summarizes the moderator tests by showing the percentage of variance accounted for byeach of the cross-product terms. As can be seen, individual efficacy had no moderating effectson any of the stressor-strain relations. Collective efficacy, however, moderated the relationbetween constraints and frustration and the relations between hours and three of the psychologi-


7/10

514 S. M. JEX AND D. M. GUDANOWSKIcal strains (satisfaction, anxiety, intent). To further explore these moderating effects, regressionlines for those one standard deviation above and those one standard deviation below the meanon collective efficacy were compared (Cohen and Cohen, 1983). This comparison revealedthatsituational constraints had a somewhat stronger relationship with frustration for those withhigh levels of collective efficacy. This represented a weak effect, although it must be notedthat it was contrary to our predictions. Regression of both satisfaction and anxiety on hours,however, did show greater differences as a function of collective efficacy. For those with lowlevels of collective efficacy, regression slopes representing the effect of hours on satisfactionand anxiety were -0.20, and -0.29, respectively. For those with high levels of collective efficacy,slopes were 0.02, and -0.02, respectively. Regressions of intent on hours also differed as afunction of collective efficacy, although this effect was quite small. The slope for those withlow levels of collective efficacy was 0.06 compared to -0.02, for those with high levels ofcollective efficacy.

Table 2. Varianceaccounted or by eachinteraction erm relativeto the total varianceaccounted orineachstrainmeasureStrains

Interactions Satisfaction Frustration Anxiety Intent1. Roleambiguityx individual fficacy 0.00/0.10* 0.02/0.22* 0.01/0.21* 0.01/0.09*2. Situational onstraintsx individualefficacy 0.00/0.17* 0.01/0.34* 0.01/0.25* 0.00/0.16*3. Hours x individual fficacy 0.00/0.00 0.00/0.01 0.00/0.08* 0.00/0.004. Roleambiguityx collective fficacy 0.00/0.28* 0.01/0.22* 0.00/0.15* 0.00/0.22*5. Situationalonstraintsx collectiveefficacy 0.00/0.31* 0.04*/0.36* 0.01/020* 0.00/0.25*6. Hoursx collective fficacy 0.04t/0.344 0.01/0.13* 0.04*/0.17* 0.03t/0.23*N= 143-154.*p< O.O1,p < 0.05. Values o the eftof the slashrepresenthe variance ccountedorbyeach nteractionterm,values to the right represent he total varianceaccounted or in each strainmeasureafter the two individualvariables nd nteractionwereentered nto the regression quation.

Mediator analysisIn accordance with James and Brett (1984), the mediated regression analysis examined thechange in the effect of stressors on strains when efficacy entered each regression equation.A separatetest was done to assess the mediating effects of both individual and collective efficacy.Since mediator analysis assumes that the predictors (stressors) are correlated with the mediator(efficacy), we first examined this assumption. As shown in Table 1, individual efficacy wasnot correlated with any of the stressors, thus violating the assumption. Collective efficacywassignificantly related to role ambiguity and situational constraintsbut unrelatedto work hours.Table 3 represents the variance accounted for in each of the strain measures when individualand collective efficacy entered each equation after stressors. As can be seen, individual efficacyaccounted for unique variance in anxiety, while collective efficacyaccounted for a unique amountof variance injob satisfaction and intent.In addition to contributing unique variance, evidence of mediation is shown by a reductionin the effects of predictors when the mediator enters a regression equation. For anxiety, there


8/10

EFFICACY BELIEFS 515Table 3. Summary f regression nalysis esting or the mediating ffectsof both individual nd collectiveefficacy

Incremental ariance ccounted orStrains Step1 stressors Step2 Individual fficacy FinalmultipleR2Satisfaction 0.21* 0.01 0.22*Frustration 0.38* 0.02 0.40*Anxiety 0.21* 0.08* 0.29*Intent 0.19* 0.02 0.21*Incremental ariance ccountedorStrains Step1 stressors Step2 collective fficacy FinalmultipleR2Satisfaction 0.21* 0. 13* 0.34*Frustration 0.38* 0.00 0.38*Anxiety 0.21* 0.02 0.23*Intent 0.19* 0.08* 0.27*

*p < 0.01.

was little change in the betas representing the effects of stressors after individual efficacy wasentered into the equation. For satisfaction and intent, entering collective efficacy into the equa-tion had little effect on the betas representing the effect of hours and role ambiguity. Neitherof these betas were significantly different from zero when stressors entered the respective equa-tions alone. The betas representing the contribution of situational constraints to the predictionof both job satisfaction and intent, however, were reduced considerably (-0.38, p < 0.05 to-0.17, p > 0.05 and 0.34, p < 0.05 to 0.18, p > 0.05, respectively).This is consistent with thefact that stressors did not contribute any unique variance to the prediction of either of thesestrainswhen entered after collective efficacy.Thus, collective efficacy could operate as a mediatorof the relations between situational constraints and both job satisfaction and intent. It shouldbe noted that these may not represent independent effects, since job satisfaction and intentwere so strongly correlated (-0.69). Furthermore, since there was significant intercorrelationbetween all dependent variables, this could have caused redundancy in the analyses. One shouldalso be cautious when interpreting the separate effects of role ambiguity and situational con-straintssince they were highly correlated (0.45).

DiscussionThis study was designed primarily as an exploration of the possible role of self-efficacybeliefsin the work stress process. To do this, we initially wanted to determine whether self-efficacywas related to variables (stressors and strains) that are of interest to work stress researchers.Individual efficacy was moderately related to anxiety, weakly related to frustration,but unrelatedto stressors. Collective efficacy was strongly related to two out of three stressors and all ofthe psychological strains, suggesting that it may be an important variable to be consideredin work stress research (Brief and Aldag, 1981).As stated earlier, it has been suggested that efficacy is a moderator variable (Beehr andNewman, 1978), while others have implied that efficacy is a mediator (Brief and Aldag, 1981).Individual efficacy appeared to be neither amoderator or mediator. Collective efficacy moderatedfour of the stressor-strain relations. The strongest effects were on the relations between workhours and two of the four strain measures. Working long hours was associated with high levelsof anxiety and low levels of job satisfaction when employees did not believe their departmentswere capable of doing their jobs well. Employees who believed their departments were capable


9/10

516 S. M. JEX AND D. M. GUDANOWSKIof performing well did not appear to be adversely affected by long hours. It should be noted,however, that the moderator effects observed were quite modest. In addition, since collectiveefficacy was highly correlated with role ambiguity ad situational constraints, the test of theinteraction between these stressors and collective efficacy was difficult to interpret (Zedeck,1971). Both of these factors suggest that replication is needed before strong conclusions canbe drawn with regard to the presence or absence of moderating effects.Mediator tests showed that individualefficacy again had no effect. Collective efficacy, however,mediated the relation between situational constraints and two of the strain measures (satisfactionand intent), suggesting that the most immediate result of situational constraintsmay be loweredcollective efficacy beliefs, which may subsequently result injob-related strains.This makes intui-tive sense because situational constraints are often experienced at the department level (Petersand O'Connor, 1980). Consider the following examples of situational constraints taken fromPeters and O'Connor's scale ('other employees', 'your supervisor', 'interruptions by otherpeople', 'inadequate help from others'). It is possible, however, that since collective efficacyand situational constraints were highly correlated (0.52), they may be confounded. This needsto be explored in further research. As with the moderating effects, this finding needs replicationbut suggests a possible explanatorymechanism for the effects of situational constraints.Another purpose of this study was to compare correlations involving individual andcollectiveefficacy. As was shown, correlations involving collective efficacy beliefs were much strongerthan those involving individual efficacy.In addition, the correlation between these two measureswas.quite modest (0. 14), though statistically significant.These differencessuggest that individualand collective efficacy may be reflectingdifferent processes. Perhaps individual efficacy beliefsare more consistent across situations than collective efficacy beliefs, since a person's knowledgeof their own ability is more extensive than their knowledge of the work group's ability. Furtherresearch and theorizing on differences between individual and collective efficacy is certainlyneeded before collective efficacy can be auseful construct in any researchdomain.This study presented evidence regarding the role of self-efficacy in the stress process andits results areencouraging enough to warrant further studyof the topic. Researchon occupationalstress could currently use more guidance by theory, and self-efficacy theory could prove useful.Furthermore, beliefs regarding collective efficacy may be most useful. It is recommended thatfuture researchcontinue to explore the role of self beliefs in the stress process.

ReferencesBandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory,Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Bandura, A. (1978). 'The self system in reciprocal determinism', AmericanPsychologist, 33, 344-355.Bandura, A. (1982). 'Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency', AmericanPsychologist, 37, 122-147.Barling, J. and Beattie, R. (1983). 'Self-efficacy beliefs and sales performance', Journal of OrganizationalBehaviorManagement, 5, 41-51.Beehr, T. A. and Bhagat, R. S. (1985). 'Introduction to human stress and cognition in organizations'.In: Beehr, T. A. and Bhagat, R. S. (Eds) Human Stress and Cognition in Organizations,John Wiley& Sons, New York, pp. 3-19.Beehr, T. A. and Newman, J. E. (1978). 'Job stress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness:A facet analysis, model, and literaturereview', PersonnelPsychology, 31, 665-699.Beehr, T. A., Walsh, J. T. and Taber, T. D. (1976). 'Relationships of stress to individually and organizatio-

nally valued states: Higher order need strength as a moderator', Journal of Applied Psychology, 61,35-40.Brief, A. P. and Aldag, R. J. (1981). 'The "self" in work organizations: A conceptual review', Academyof Management Review, 6, 75-88.


10/10

EFFICACY BELIEFS 517Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D. and Klesh, J. (1979). 'The Michigan Organizational AssessmentQuestionnaire'. Unpublished manuscript. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Campbell, J. P. and Pritchard, R. D. (1976). 'Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psy-chology'. In: Dunnette, M. (Ed.) Handbook of Industrialand OrganizationalPsychology, Rand McNally,Chicago, pp. 63-130.Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/RegressionAnalysisfor the BehavioralSciences,Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Cooper, W. H. and Richardson, A. J. (1986). 'Unfair comparisons', Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,179-184.Earley, P. C. and Lituchy, T. R. (1991). 'Delineation of goal and efficacy effects: A test of three models',Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 81-98.Garland, H. (1985). 'A cognitive mediation theory of task goals and human performance', MotivationandEmotion, 9, 345-367.Gist, M. E. (1987). 'Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource manage-ment', Academy of Management Review, 12, 472-485.James, L. R. and Brett, J. M. (1984). 'Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation', Journalof AppliedPsychology, 69, 307-321.LaRocco, J., House, J. and French, J. (1980). 'Social support, occupational stress and health', Journalof Health andSocial Behavior, 21, 202-218.Lazarus, R. S. and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping,Springer, New York.Peters, L. H. and O'Connor, E. J. (1980). 'The behavioral and affectiveconsequences of performance-relatedsituational variables', OrganizationalBehavior and HumanPerformance, 25, 79-96.Riggs, M. L. (1989). 'The development of self-eficacy and outcome scales for general applications'. Paperpresented at Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Convention, Boston, MA.Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. J. and Jex, S. M. (1988). 'Relations of job stressors to affective, health, andperformance outcomes: A comparison of multiple data sources', Journal of Applied Psychology, 73,11-19.Spielberger, C. D. (1979). 'Preliminary manual for the State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI)'. Unpub-lished paper, University of South Florida, Tampa.Stumpf, S. A., Brief, A. P. and Hartman, K. (1987). 'Self-efficacyexpectations and coping with career-relatedevents', Journalof VocationalBehavior, 31, 91-108.Taylor, M. S., Locke, E. A., Lee, C. and Gist, M. (1984). 'Type A behavior and faculty and researchproductivity:What are the mechanisms?' OrganizationalBehaviorand HumanPerformance, 34, 402-418.Zedeck, S. (1971). 'Problems with the use of "moderator" variables', Psychological Bulletin, 76, 295-3 10.

Documents

Efficacy Beliefs and Work Stress