mackey 2014

22
http://opr.sagepub.com/ Organizational Psychology Review http://opr.sagepub.com/content/4/3/258 The online version of this article can be found at: DOI: 10.1177/2041386614525072 2014 4: 258 originally published online 14 March 2014 Organizational Psychology Review Jeremy D. Mackey and Pamela L. Perrewé of self-regulation The AAA (appraisals, attributions, adaptation) model of job stress: The critical role Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology can be found at: Organizational Psychology Review Additional services and information for http://opr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts: http://opr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions: http://opr.sagepub.com/content/4/3/258.refs.html Citations: What is This? - Mar 14, 2014 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jul 14, 2014 Version of Record >> at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014 opr.sagepub.com Downloaded from at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014 opr.sagepub.com Downloaded from

Upload: docs1234567

Post on 15-Dec-2015

35 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

job stress

TRANSCRIPT

http://opr.sagepub.com/Organizational Psychology Review

http://opr.sagepub.com/content/4/3/258The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/2041386614525072

2014 4: 258 originally published online 14 March 2014Organizational Psychology ReviewJeremy D. Mackey and Pamela L. Perrewé

of self-regulationThe AAA (appraisals, attributions, adaptation) model of job stress: The critical role

  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology

can be found at:Organizational Psychology ReviewAdditional services and information for    

  http://opr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://opr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://opr.sagepub.com/content/4/3/258.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Mar 14, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record  

- Jul 14, 2014Version of Record >>

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Article

The AAA (appraisals,attributions, adaptation)model of job stress: Thecritical role of self-regulation

Jeremy D. Mackey and Pamela L. PerreweFlorida State University, USA

AbstractThe AAA model is presented as an integrative conceptualization of workplace stress that combinesresearch from multiple models and theories to account for the numerous complexities thatemployees experience when cognitively evaluating organizational demands. The proposed modelexamines the effects of employees’ organizational stressors on the cognitive appraisal process anddescribes how employees’ emotions and self-regulation affect individual coping behaviors, adapta-tion, and learning from stressful experiences. Practitioner applications, theoretical contributions,and directions for future research are presented.

KeywordsAdapting, appraisals, attributions, coping, emotion, self-regulation

Employees encounter stressful events and

demands in the workplace on a daily basis.

Experienced job stress arises when there is a

disruption to the equilibrium of an individual’s

cognitive-emotional-environmental system by

some external factor(s) (Lazarus & Folkman,

1984). This stress costs organizations billions

of dollars in employee absenteeism, employee

disability claims, and lost productivity (Perrewe

et al., 2005; Spector, Chen, & O’Connell, 2000;

Xie & Schaubroeck, 2001). Understanding the

complexities of the organizational stress

process is critical if researchers want to develop

strategies to help employees manage experi-

enced stress. Although job strain (i.e., the long-

term repercussion and physical manifestation

Paper received 7 February 2013; revised version accepted 1 February 2014.

Corresponding author:

Jeremy D. Mackey, Department of Management, College of Business, Florida State University, 821 Academic Way, P.O. Box

3061110, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Organizational Psychology Review2014, Vol. 4(3) 258–278

ª The Author(s) 2014Reprints and permission:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/2041386614525072

opr.sagepub.com

OrganizationalPsychologyReview

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

of job stress) can result if organizational

demands are not effectively managed by

employees, recent research has argued for the

positive and healthy outcomes associated with

job stress (e.g., LePine, LePine, & Saul, 2007;

Meurs & Perrewe, 2011).

In this paper, we explore the complex

cognitive process employees undergo when

evaluating perceived organizational demands.

We combine research from numerous stress

perspectives to develop a cohesive theoretical

model of employee stress that includes em-

ployees’ appraisals, attributions, emotions,

self-regulation, resources, and adaptation. The

primary contribution of this paper is to develop

and propose an integrative model of stress that

takes into account both the potentially destruc-

tive as well as positive and adaptive functions

of experienced job stress. Further, we introduce

self-regulation as a key mechanism in the stress

process that has been overlooked in occupa-

tional stress research.

Early stress researchers, such as Selye, argued

that stressful experiences did not necessarily

have detrimental effects on individuals. Selye

(1955) envisioned the stress experience as a

process of adaptation that he termed the general

adaptation syndrome. Selye (1976) argued that

some stressful experiences can be associated

with positive feelings and health, but stress

researchers and health professionals tend to

define health and well-being as the absence of

negative states rather than the presence of posi-

tive states (Meurs & Perrewe, 2011; Ryff &

Singer, 1998). Thus, one of our objectives is to

examine the negative as well as the positive and

adaptive aspects of managing job stressors.

Further, we examine the critical role of self-

regulation in the study of occupational stress.

Theoretical foundation

We briefly describe several prominent theories

and models of stress that have substantially

influenced thinking in the study of job stress,

and we utilize these frameworks as we develop

the AAA (i.e., appraisals, attributions, and

adaptation) model of job stress. Our conceptual

model integrates these approaches and expands

upon them for a more comprehensive exam-

ination of the job stress process than previ-

ously available. Perhaps one of the most

popular approaches to understanding psycho-

social stress is the transactional model (Folk-

man & Lazarus, 1990; Lazarus, 1993; Lazarus

& Folkman, 1984, 1987), which uses an

interactionist framework for assessing the

cognitive process employees undergo when

interpreting organizational demands. Lazar-

us’s (1993) transactional model of stress posits

that two processes (i.e., cognitive appraisal

and coping) mediate the relationship between

environmental stressors and job strain.

According to the model, an event in the work

environment initiates the cognitive appraisal

process, which is a cognitive evaluation of

whether the demand is a threat to an employee’s

well-being. If employees perceive a threat or

potential threat to their well-being, the second-

ary appraisal process is engaged to determine if

anything can be done to cope with the situation.

In this secondary appraisal stage, individuals

are said to evaluate their available options for

coping with the stressor. Not all demands are

necessarily appraised as threatening, as some

work demands may be perceived as challenging

experiences that can promote growth. The

emphasis on appraisal and cognition is the heart

of the transactional model, and stress scholars

have continued to use Lazarus’s (1993) transac-

tional model and cognitive appraisal as their

theoretical foundation in empirical studies. Our

integrative conceptual model is designed to

articulate and summarize some of the inter-

mediate linkages between the appraisal process

and coping behaviors.

Over 30 years ago, Karasek (1979)

introduced the demands–control model of job

stress, which has demonstrated a significant

impact on job stress research. Karasek’s pri-

mary argument was that experienced job stress

was the result of the interactive effects of job

Mackey and Perrewe 259

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

demands and decision latitude (i.e., control).

Specifically, he argued that employees in jobs

with high control experience low strain if they

have low job demands, however, they become

active and challenged when they have high

demands. Employees who have low control are

passive if job demands are low, but they expe-

rience high job strain when low control is

coupled with high demands. Although there has

been some support for Karasek’s demands–

control model (e.g., Ganster, Fox, & Dwyer,

2001), the support for the original model has

not been strong and many have found little

evidence for the interactive effects of demands

and control (e.g., Daniels & Guppy, 1994).

Karasek and Theorell (1990) updated the

original model to reflect the demands–control–

support model. Adding social support as an

important factor in determining employee

responses to job demands, both control and

social support can be considered resources for

employees; thus, perhaps a more encompass-

ing approach is the job demands–resources

(JD-R) model (Demerouti & Bakker, 2011;

Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli,

2001), which is predicated on the assumption

that job strain develops when job demands are

high, and motivation is thought to result when

job resources are high. After identifying rele-

vant job demands and job resources within a

given context, the overarching JD-R model

can be applied to various occupational set-

tings, regardless of the specific demands and

resources at play.

In addition to the direct effects of demands and

resources, the JD-R model also predicts that job

resources will buffer the relationship between

demands and strain, and that employees who have

resources will be able to cope with work demands

(Bakker, Demerouti, & Euwema, 2005; Xantho-

poulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2007).

The JD-R model is driven theoretically by the

conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hob-

foll, 1989, 2001), which is a resource-oriented

model based on the notion that individuals strive

to retain, protect, and build resources in order

to buffer against the threat of the potential or

actual loss of valued resources. Resources are

valuable themselves, or they serve as a means

for attaining other resources (Hobfoll, 1989).

Situational conditions, such as job status, enjoy-

able work environment, and job tenure, are

resources that are sought by employees. Personal

resources, such as job self-efficacy, allow

employees to fulfill job roles, while shielding

them from the strain that may be induced by such

roles. Resource loss is posited to be the primary

determinant of stress. Resource gain becomes cri-

tically important in the context of resource loss

because currently held resources can be used to

prevent resource loss. Thus, employees without

the appropriate type and amount of resources may

be susceptible to ‘‘rapid and impactful loss spir-

als’’ (Hobfoll, 2001, p. 338), and employees with

the appropriate type and amount of resources may

experience positive resource gains.

Although these various approaches to

understanding job stress emphasize different

key components of the stress process, the

transactional model of stress, job demands–

control model, JD-R model, and COR theory all

acknowledge the important roles played by

individual cognition, appraisal, and resources.

We develop an integrative, comprehensive

model of job stress that acknowledges the con-

tributions of prior theoretical approaches and

empirical research. This integrative model

helps to bring a plethora of stress research

together in a cohesive fashion that combines

findings from multiple theories and models of

stress into one informative framework. When

researchers operate from only one paradigm or

model of job stress, important explanatory con-

structs can be overlooked. By integrating numer-

ous approaches to the job stress process, we

believe we have been able to take the best of

what each of these approaches have to offer and

integrate them into one cohesive job stress

model. Further, at the heart of our model is the

role of self-regulation as a key mechanism to

understanding why some individuals are able

to learn and adapt to stressors effectively, and

260 Organizational Psychology Review 4(3)

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

others are unable to do so effectively. Self-

regulation may explain why behaviors in

response to specific events may vary across time

and contexts. Individuals’ action tendencies to

behave or cope with experienced emotions are

likely affected by their ability to self-regulate.

Although self-regulation has been a topic of

interest in the psychological sciences, it has not

been highlighted as an important mechanism in

the job stress process.

Toward an integrative andcomprehensive theoryof job stress

The AAA model developed in this paper, and

presented in Figure 1, is consistent with other

approaches to the study of job stress, but is most

closely tied to the transactional model of stress.

The traditional transactional model of stress

relies on an environmental demand initiating a

subjective cognitive appraisal process that

drives emotions, coping behaviors, and per-

sonal outcomes.

Organizational stressors, individualcharacteristics, and cognitive appraisals

Organizational stressors are conceptualized as

perceived job demands that elicit a primary

appraisal. Job demands are the organizational,

physical, or social features of the job that

necessitate persistent mental or physical effort

(Demerouti et al., 2001). The proponents of the

JD-R model argue that job demands are those

aspects of the job associated with psychologi-

cal and/or physiological costs for employees

(Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). One premise of

this model is that not all demands lead to

‘‘costs’’ for employees. Although job demands

include organizational constraints, interperso-

nal conflict, and perceived injustice (Fox,

Spector, & Miles, 2001), they may also include

additional responsibility and accountability

that does not necessarily translate into a

‘‘cost’’ for employees. The proposed model

is consistent with the transactional approach

of examining stress, and it focuses on how

employees subjectively interpret objective

environmental conditions.

Challenge and hindrance

organizational stressors

Job strain

Health and well-being

Primary appraisal • Threat • Challenge • Unimportant

or irrelevant

Coping behaviors

Personal resources and

liabilities

Positiveemotion

• Pride • Excitement • Surprise

Negative emotion

• Guilt • Shame • Anger • Anxiety

Job resources and liabilities

Self -regulation

Action tendencies

Secondary appraisalAttributions

Learning and adapting gained fromearlier stressor experiences

Figure 1. The AAA model of job stress and the role of self-regulation.

Mackey and Perrewe 261

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

The primary appraisal stage of the transac-

tional model of stress is important in determining

how individuals will respond to perceived

demands. Accordingly, an event in the work

environment engages the cognitive appraisal

process (i.e., primary appraisal). The appraisal

is an evaluation of whether the event is a threat

to the individual’s well-being, whether it is chal-

lenging, or if it can be dismissed as benign. At this

stage of the process, individuals rely upon a sub-

jective assessment of whether the organizational

demand is relevant or irrelevant to their

well-being (Peacock, Wong, & Reker, 1993). If

the demand is deemed irrelevant and there is no

personal significance to employees’ health and

well-being, the cognitive evaluation process will

discontinue. If a relevant encounter with a

demand (e.g., person, event, or situation) is

thought to be harmful, threatening, or challenging

(Lazarus, 1994), the cognitive evaluation process

continues with individuals making attributions

about the relevant demand.

Research on occupational stress has

acknowledged the positive, as well as negative,

effects of stressors on performance (e.g., Lepine,

Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005) and employee

attitudes (e.g., Boswell, Olson-Buchanan, &

LePine, 2004). Perhaps the most detailed

account of ‘‘positive’’ versus ‘‘negative’’ stres-

sors can be attributed to earlier notions of

‘‘opportunity versus threat’’ characterizations

of workplace stimuli (Sutton & Kahn, 1986),

which have been updated and more specifically

defined in the hindrance–challenge occupational

stressor model (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling,

& Boudreau, 2000). Hindrance and challenge

stressors exist as realities of the workplace

(e.g., hindrance stressors include organizational

politics; challenge stressors include job over-

load). LePine et al. (2007) developed categories

of stressors they labeled ‘‘hindrance’’ and ‘‘chal-

lenge’’; we include their typology in our model.

Hindrance stressors are those demands

generally appraised as threatening that trigger

negative emotions and constrain personal gain,

personal growth, personal development, and/

or work-related accomplishment; hindrance

stressors may trigger negative emotional forms

of coping (LePine et al., 2007). Challenge

stressors are generally appraised as demands

that likely trigger positive emotions and

promote learning performance, personal gain,

personal development, personal growth, and/

or work-related accomplishment; challenge

stressors may be motivational and trigger

problem-solving coping (LePine et al., 2005;

LePine et al., 2007).

Although hindrance and challenge stressors

may generally lead to various negative or

positive outcomes, research has shown that even

challenge stressors do not always lead to positive

behaviors, demonstrating that these ‘‘good’’

stressors have been linked to counterproductive

work behaviors through the mediating role of

emotion (Rodell & Judge, 2009). Further, chal-

lenge stressors are also considered ‘‘strain-pro-

voking’’ (Webster, Beehr, & Love, 2011);

however, they may offer opportunities that, if

met, result in high performance and a strong

sense of accomplishment.

Organizational demands may reflect both

challenging and threatening aspects; it is the

appraisal of the demands that really matters.

Recently, research has shown that stressors can

be simultaneously appraised as both a threat

and an opportunity, or a challenge and a

hindrance (Webster et al., 2011). Thus, it is

important to recognize that it is the individual’s

appraisal of the challenge or hindrance that

ultimately determines the response (e.g., Gian-

cola, Grawitch, & Borchert, 2009).

Appraisals are based on mental models that

represent both the self and the environment, and

individuals make appraisals through either a

controlled or an automatic mechanism of pro-

cessing information (Power & Dalgleish, 1997).

It is important to note that even traditionally

regarded ‘‘challenge’’ stressors or demands

(e.g., workload) may be appraised as threaten-

ing depending upon dispositional characteris-

tics (e.g., negative affectivity). Further,

traditionally regarded ‘‘hindrance’’ stressors or

262 Organizational Psychology Review 4(3)

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

demands (e.g., organizational politics) may be

appraised as challenging depending upon indi-

vidual characteristics (e.g., political skill).

Thus, stable individual characteristics are

argued to affect the primary cognitive appraisal

of an organizational demand.

There are hundreds of individual differences

that may affect individual appraisals of

situations, and a comprehensive discussion is

well beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, we

offer a couple of examples of how some well-

researched traits might affect the primary

appraisal. Specifically, we mention positive and

negative affectivity, as well as general self-

efficacy. Negative affectivity (NA) is the ten-

dency to experience negative emotions across

time and situations, whereas positive affectivity

(PA) is the tendency to experience positive

emotions across time and situations (Watson

& Clark, 1984). Trait NA represents an individ-

ual’s predisposition to experience aversive

emotional states. Those high on NA focus on

the negative, and are less satisfied with them-

selves and their lives than those low in NA.

High NA people tend to view the world in a

negative way and view their environment as

threatening, whereas those high in PA tend to

view their environment as positive and challen-

ging (Perrewe & Spector, 2002). General self-

efficacy (GSE) represents individuals’ beliefs

about their general self-competence (Eden &

Kinnar, 1991; Eden & Zuk, 1995). Individuals

high in GSE believe they can overcome the

demands and struggles they face. Thus, the

same job demand (e.g., additional responsibil-

ity) might be appraised as threatening or costly

to individuals high in NA and challenging to

individuals high in PA and/or high in GSE.

Thus, primary appraisals are based on

mental models that represent both the self (i.e.,

personal resources and liabilities) and the

organization. This differs from the JD-R model

because it takes appraisals into account when

defining whether demands are costly or chal-

lenging. According to the JD-R model, job

demands are defined as ‘‘those physical, social,

or organizational aspects of the job that require

sustained physical and/or psychological effort

and are, therefore, associated with physiologi-

cal and/or psychological costs’’ (Xanthopoulou

et al., 2007, p. 122). The JD-R model definition

of job demands is circular because job

demands, ‘‘by definition,’’ are costly. Based

on a substantial amount of research (e.g.,

Giancola et al., 2009; Lazarus, 1994; Peacock

et al., 1993), job demands are not inherently

threatening/costly or challenging; it depends

upon the appraisal.

Appraisals, attributions, and emotions

Appraisals of situations, whether perceived as

threatening or challenging, will elicit some

emotional response. Although emotions in the

workplace have been argued to be a result of a

cognitive appraisal (Perrewe & Zellars, 1999),

not all cognitive appraisals elicit an emotional

response because some appraisals may deem

the stimulus to be irrelevant or unimportant.

Emotional responses are the result of the

appraisal or interpretation of the person–envi-

ronment relationship, not of an objective sti-

mulus. Emotions have a major impact on

individual health and well-being, and can

express individuals’ appraisal of the person–

environment relationship (Smith & Lazarus,

1990).

Research suggests that the appraisal process

affects emotions when individuals make

attributions for the demands they experience

(Perrewe & Zellars, 1999). Attributions are sub-

jective, perceptual assessments and represent

individuals’ causal explanations for their out-

comes (Heider, 1958; Weiner, 1985). Typically,

individuals make attributions when an important,

surprising, and/or unexpected outcome occurs,

especially if the outcome is negative. For exam-

ple, if employees are required to work overtime

without pay because their work has not been

completed, they may feel angry if they attribute

this to the supervisor making unreasonable

demands. However, if employees believe the

Mackey and Perrewe 263

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

supervisor had no control over the situation, anger

is less likely to occur. Further, if employees

attribute overtime to their lack of effort, they may

feel guilty for not working harder. Individuals are

more likely to experience anger or anxiety when

they blame others for their misfortune and guilt

when they blame themselves. Thus, appraisals

will elicit emotions, but the specific emotions

experienced are largely due to the attributions

made to the situation.

The different attributions made by employ-

ees for falling behind or for workplace demands

likely will lead to different emotional responses

(Weiner, 1985). Prior research provides strong

evidence for the importance of attributions in

determining emotions (Weiner, 1985, 1986,

1995, 2010). Further, as we examine later, the

emotions individuals experience are linked to

specific workplace outcomes (Weiner, 1985).

Employees’ affective responses are generated

from the different attributed causes of stress, as

well as the type of cognitive evaluation (i.e.,

threat or opportunity).

Weiner (1985) argued that the perceived

causes of success and failure are analyzed

along three dimensions: locus (i.e., whether or

not the cause of the outcome is perceived to be

located within the individual, such as ability or

effort, or outside the individual, such as the

task or luck), stability (i.e., the individual’s

perception that the cause will or will not con-

tinue over time), and controllability (i.e.,

whether a cause is under the volitional control

of an individual). If employees believe the

threat demand is due to a lack of effort, the

likely response will be a sense of guilt for

failure to fulfill an obligation. Research

examining students’ appraisals of their emo-

tions found guilt to be strongly associated with

attributions of self-responsibility and control

in a situation (Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). Guilt

is evoked by a self-judgment of responsibility

following a violation of a norm (Wicker,

Payne, & Morgan, 1983), and is caused by

behavior (Roseman, Antoniou, & Jose,

1996). Guilt is an emotion that brings up

recurring thoughts about past transgressions,

and guilt has been linked to contemplation of

undoing actions, retribution, self-punishment,

and seeking forgiveness (Roseman, Weist, &

Swartz, 1994; Tangney, 1990). Guilt is usually

experienced as some combination of anxiety,

regret, remorse, and/or tension (Baumeister,

Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994).

Employees’ attributions also have been

linked to the emotions of self-esteem (Weiner,

1985) and pride (Hareli & Weiner, 2002; Wei-

ner, 2010). Positive self-esteem and pride are

both self-reflective emotions experienced

when employees attribute a positive outcome

to the self (Weiner, 1985; Weiner, Russell, &

Lerman, 1978, 1979). Interpreting demands

as positive challenges and attributing these

challenges to internal, controllable causes is

proposed to be associated with feelings of

esteem and pride. Self-esteem reflects affec-

tionate feelings toward oneself (Brown & Dut-

ton, 1995), whereas pride is a self-conscious

emotion stemming from positive stimuli that

are attributed to employees’ abilities or efforts

(Williams & DeSteno, 2008).

When employees appraise the threat demand

as arising from their own failure due to a lack of

ability (i.e., a stable, internal, and uncontrol-

lable attribution), the emotional response to

such an attribution for employees is likely to be

shame, an emotion described as ‘‘feeling self-

conscious’’ (Roseman et al., 1994). Shame is

often thought of as the opposite of pride, and

occurs when failure is attributed to oneself

(Pekrun & Frese, 1992). Shame occurs due to

severe scrutiny and negative evaluations of the

entire self, and can be extremely painful

(Tangney, 1990). The key to shame is that it is

caused by a personal characteristic that is not

under volitional control and has been made

public. Thus, shame results from a self-caused

outcome (Roseman et al., 1996), and manifests

as self-consciousness and feelings of being

small (Roseman et al., 1994). Humiliation is

described as a partial or full loss of dignity (Dil-

lon, 1997), which Weiner (2010) identified as

264 Organizational Psychology Review 4(3)

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

another emotional reaction to internal, stable,

and uncontrollable attributions.

Research has indicated that anger is influ-

enced by causal ascriptions concerning why a

social contract has not been fulfilled by another

party, indicating that employees perceiving

organizations to be the responsible parties for

threats are likely to react with anger (Hareli &

Weiner, 2002; Perrewe & Zellars, 1999; Wei-

ner, 1985). Anger makes people feel like yell-

ing, saying something negative, wanting to

physically or psychologically hurt somebody or

something, and/or experiencing physiological

symptoms, such as feeling blood rushing

through the body (Roseman et al., 1994).

Finally, appraised challenges linked to

external and organizationally controllable causes

have been linked to gratitude (Hareli & Weiner,

2002; Weiner, 1985) and excitement (Weiner

et al., 1979). Gratitude serves as the moral

memory of employees, and as a means for social

cohesion (Hareli & Weiner, 2002). As an emo-

tion, gratitude depends on recognizing the

experience of gain or benefit and judging that an

external source was responsible for the positive

outcome (Emmons & McCullough, 2003).

These are some examples of the interplay

between primary appraisals, attributions, and

emotions. The message drawn from prior

research and theory is that emotions are not only

the result of individuals’ primary appraisals as to

whether the demand is a relevant threat or

challenge, but also of the attributions made

regarding the source of the threat or challenge.

After the primary appraisal, attributions, and felt

emotion, employees engage in a secondary

appraisal to determine whether they have the

resources to effectively cope with the stressor.

The secondary appraisal leads to an action ten-

dency that is based on not only the felt emotion,

but also the perceived personal and job

resources, as well as personal liabilities and job

constraints. In the next section, we examine

individual behavioral tendencies associated with

experienced emotions, as well as the central role

of self-regulation.

Emotion, action tendencies, andself-regulation

Emotions will affect the perceived coping

options available (i.e., secondary appraisal), as

well as individual action tendencies (Smith &

Lazarus, 1990). Action tendencies are urges to

behave in a certain manner when experiencing

positive or negative emotions. For example,

individuals may have a tendency to behave

aggressively toward someone when angry,

they may have a tendency to cry when feeling

sad, and they may have an action tendency to

flee or retreat when scared. However, it is

important to note that individuals have the

ability to suppress or self-regulate these action

tendencies and select from a number of differ-

ent coping behaviors. Interestingly, research in

occupational stress has, to a large extent,

ignored the important role of self-regulation.

Individuals have the ability to control and

regulate impulses, performance, and other

behaviors. The ability to manage internal states

and alter behavioral responses is commonly

known as self-regulation (Muraven & Baumeis-

ter, 2000), which allows individuals to meet

deadlines, persevere through adversity, resist

temptations, and be kind to others even when

others are difficult. Self-regulation is the capac-

ity for altering actions to conform to morals,

ideals, values, and social expectations in order

to pursue long-term goals (Baumeister, Vohs,

& Tice, 2007). It enables individuals to restrain

from inappropriate behaviors, such as aggressive

acts toward a supervisor when angered. Self-

regulation implies an inner strength or energy

available to manage demands and bring about

positive outcomes. On the constructive side,

self-regulation has been associated with good

adjustment and positive psychological states

(Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). On the

destructive side, poor self-regulation has been

associated with increased vulnerability,

substance-abuse, and eating disorders (Tangney

et al., 2004). Much of the research on self-

regulation has focused on well-adjusted versus

Mackey and Perrewe 265

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

destructive behaviors. Research regarding the

role of self-regulation in occupational stress is

very limited.

Research in psychology (Hagger, Wood,

Stiff, & Chatzisarantis, 2010) and neuroscience

(Heatherton, 2011) has provided evidence that

self-regulation consumes a limited personal

resource. When individuals engage in self-

regulation (e.g., resisting the temptation to

aggress against a supervisor), the amount of this

personal resource available is reduced. The state

of being low in self-regulatory resources due to

previous self-regulation is termed ‘‘ego deple-

tion’’ (Baumeister et al., 2007). Thus, if organi-

zational stressors and subsequent emotions are

managed successfully using self-regulation

initially, self-regulation may be depleted over

time if the stressors are not removed.

Being low in self-regulation has been shown

to have a number of negative consequences for

individuals. For example, low self-regulation

has been associated with passivity (Baumeister,

Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998), less sta-

mina (Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998), the

likelihood of being persuaded by weak argu-

ments (Wheeler, Brinol, & Hermann, 2007),

declines in social competence (Muraven, Col-

lins, Morsheimer, Shiffman, & Paty, 2005), and

aggression (DeWall, Baumeister, Stillman, &

Gailliot, 2007).

Coping with stressors requires individuals to

continually monitor their environment for

harmful or threatening stimuli (Lazarus &

Folkman, 1984), and monitoring requires

self-regulation in the form of attention control.

We argue that coping with stressors requires

individuals to utilize self-regulatory resources

in order to stop or buffer inappropriate coping

behaviors such that good self-regulation will

buffer poor action tendencies and actual beha-

viors (e.g., yelling at a coworker when angry).

However, self-regulation, if used frequently,

can deplete a limited resource. Fortunately,

depletion in self-regulation is not permanent.

In fact, self-regulation can be restored and even

enhanced through practice and repeated

exercise (Muraven, Baumeister, & Tice,

1999). We will examine how to enhance and

replenish self-regulation later in this paper.

Although self-regulation has been noted as

important for managing emotions (Lazarus &

Folkman, 1987), the occupational stress

literature has not developed the role of self-

regulation regarding the relationship between

action tendencies and coping behaviors. In the

next section, we discuss several coping beha-

viors that are typically examined in organiza-

tional stress research, as well as the role of

self-regulation in influencing coping behaviors.

Coping behaviors

Coping reflects employees’ ever-changing cogni-

tive and behavioral efforts to handle organiza-

tional demands that tax or exceed their

resources (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Coping

is process oriented, contextual, and there are no

assumptions about what represents inherently

good or bad coping. This means that coping

focuses on what employees think and do when

responding to and managing organizational

demands. Coping has two primary functions:

alter the employee–environment interaction

(i.e., problem-solving coping) and/or regulate

stressful emotions (i.e., emotion-focused coping).

Both require self-regulation.

Problem-solving forms of coping have been

shown to be used more often in situations where

individuals appraise that something can be done

to alter or change a negative and/or stressful

situation than when individuals appraise that

they cannot alter or change the negative and/

or stressful situation (Folkman & Lazarus,

1980, 1985). Specifically, when individuals

perceive some control over the situation, they

likely will engage in problem-solving coping.

Seeking information about what needs to be

done, changing one’s own behavior, and taking

action on the environment are examples of

problem-solving coping efforts.

Emotion-focused coping typically is used when

individuals determine they have no means to

266 Organizational Psychology Review 4(3)

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

change the situation or if they do not have the abil-

ity or resources to effectively alter a situation (i.e.,

the stressor must simply be accepted; Folkman &

Lazarus, 1980). Emotion-focused coping efforts

include distancing and escape/avoidance of the

stressor, and emphasizing the positive (Folkman

& Lazarus, 1985). Such efforts allow the person

to avoid focusing on the troubling situation. If

individuals can use self-regulation and reappraise

stressors as nonthreatening (either through dis-

tancing or withdrawal), the cognitive basis of the

threat likely is removed (Lazarus, 1993).

Although problem-solving efforts attempt to

alter the situation in a positive way, emotion-

focused coping alters only the way the individ-

ual interprets the situation. It is too simple to

argue that certain coping behaviors necessarily

are adaptive or maladaptive because the

response to the stressor is determined by expec-

tations of whether a positive outcome will occur

(Eriksen, Murison, Pensgaard, & Ursin, 2005).

Next, we discuss aggression, effort, and with-

drawal as three examples of typical behavioral

reactions to stressors at work.

Aggression. Workplace aggression has been

broadly conceptualized as any verbal or

physical behavior that is performed with the

intention to harm someone either physically or

psychologically (Baron & Richardson, 1994).

Although the determinants of aggression

sometimes are ambiguous and major acts of

workplace violence (e.g., attacks with weapons)

are uncommon, it is clear that the psychological

impact of workplace aggression is profound for

employees (Griffin & O’Leary-Kelly, 2004).

Workplace aggression involves an externally

focused, negative affective reaction and includes

forms of nonviolent behaviors (e.g., stealing,

intentional work slowdowns, spreading rumors,

refusing to provide needed resources), as well as

hostile behaviors (e.g., attacks with weapons,

physical assault, threats of violence, vandalism;

Harvey, Summers, & Martinko, 2010). Individ-

uals who experience a lot of negative emotions

(e.g., anger) will be likely to have an action

tendency toward aggression. Individuals with

good self-regulation, even when experiencing

negative emotions, are more likely to refrain from

angry outbursts or aggressive acts than individu-

als with poor self-regulation who are more likely

to engage in reactionary, aggressive acts (Baume-

ister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994).

Effort. Work effort (Brown & Leigh, 1996;

Campbell & Pritchard, 1976) consists of

direction, duration (i.e., time commitment),

and intensity (i.e., force). Employees can

devote time and energy to organizations,

which typically is how work effort is oper-

ationalized. Individuals are thought to possess

a great degree of volitional control over their

level of effort, which may be sensitive to

heightened environmental demands. Weiner

(2010) presented an attribution-based theory

of intrapersonal motivation that accounted for

individuals’ attributions and emotions in influ-

encing the intensity, latency, and persistence

of intrapersonal motivation. Emotions such

as pride, shame, and guilt all are thought to

influence levels of intrapersonal motivation

through secondary appraisal processes and

action tendencies. We argue that when work

demands increase/decrease, for example,

action tendencies may be more/less likely to

lead to increased effort as a coping behavior

when self-regulation is high/low.

Withdrawal. In contrast to motivational

effects, attribution research (Weiner, 1985,

1986) suggests that perceptions of failure due

to low ability and emotions (e.g., shame)

inhibit motivation and lead to withdrawal.

Accordingly, the cognitive basis of the threat

(i.e., demand) can be removed if employees

can reappraise demands as nonthreatening

(i.e., either through distancing or withdrawal;

Lazarus, 1993). The coping behavior of

reappraisal uses self-regulation in the form of

attention control. Aggression, effort, and

withdrawal are important examples of work-

place coping behaviors that are all related

Mackey and Perrewe 267

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

to some level of self-regulation. The out-

comes of coping behaviors can and usually

will influence employees’ job strain, health,

and well-being, as well as future cognitive

appraisals. Specifically, the results of out-

comes will influence employees’ reevalua-

tions of the quality, quantity, and salience

of their personal and job resources.

Learning and adapting gained fromearlier stressor experiences

Employees’ reassessments of the types,

amounts, and salience of their resources will

almost assuredly alter how their personal

resources bias their future cognitive processes.

When employees alter their subjective assess-

ments of the quantity, quality, and salience of

their personal resources, they will ultimately

accentuate or attenuate their perceptions of the

severity and salience of their stressors. Thus,

employees who adapt during this stage of the

process may be able to reduce the negative

effects of stressors over time (Folkman &

Lazarus, 1988).

After coping with or responding to a stressor,

individuals receive feedback regarding the

results of their response; this feedback can

influence their experienced stress. If coping

attempts prove to be effective in alleviating the

stressful experience, this will be reflected in

subsequent appraisals, such that when faced with

similar organizational demands, the emotion

elicited will be positive rather than negative

(Folkman & Lazarus, 1988). Of course, inef-

fective attempts to cope with stressors may lead

to more negative appraisals of job demands. The

individual can alter the perception of the stressor

and/or the outcome expectancies regarding

future experiences based upon this feedback

(i.e., learning). Central to this discussion is the

implied role of expectations, which are judg-

ments about the relationship between a given

level of effort and an outcome.

According to cognitive activation theory

(Ursin & Eriksen, 2004), individuals develop

expectancies that can be positive (i.e.,

expectations that they can successfully cope),

negative (i.e., expectations that anything they

do will result in a negative outcome; hope-

lessness), or neutral (i.e., expectations that

there is no relationship between what they do

and a particular outcome; helplessness). These

expectations are based on the attributions

made about the source of the demand and they

drive the resulting emotions and behavioral

responses (e.g., withdrawal, effort or

motivation).

The feedback from individuals’ behavioral

responses can elicit learning and adaptation.

According to Meurs and Perrewe (2011),

behavioral responses to stressful events can

have either training effects or straining effects.

Specifically, Meurs and Perrewe (2011, pp.

1056–1057) argued that ‘‘the experience of the

stress itself has both positive (i.e., training

effects) and negative (i.e., straining effects)

ramifications for the individual, as driven by

expectancies.’’ Learning (i.e., training effects)

is the most important reason individuals have a

decrease in their stress response (Ursin, 1998).

Learning provides the means for reducing the

uncertainty regarding the expectations of future

outcomes of stressful demands (Meurs &

Perrewe, 2011).

As discussed in Meurs and Perrewe (2011),

individuals learn from stressful experiences at

work, which is particularly true when it is

believed that these demanding or stressful

situations will occur again. Unfortunately, not

everyone experiences learning or training

effects from the feedback to their responses to a

demand. When individuals experience low

self-regulation, and are unable to cope with

stressors, or they ruminate over stressors, this

prolongs physiological activation and recovery

(i.e., straining effects), which have been linked

to poor health and well-being (Harris, Ursin,

Murison, & Eriksen, 2007; Meurs & Perrewe,

2011). When individuals learn from their

responses to stressful experiences, this can

reduce uncertainty, enhance personal resources

268 Organizational Psychology Review 4(3)

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

(e.g., reinforces individual self-efficacy), and

help with individuals’ self-regulation. Of

course, rumination and a lack of recovery from

stressors may create straining effects that

further deplete personal resources and individu-

als’ self-regulation. Given the importance of

self-regulation, the question becomes how best

to ensure self-regulation can be enhanced and

replenished.

Enhancing self-regulation

The least well understood aspect of self-

regulation is how individuals replenish their

resource when self-regulation has depleted it.

There is some evidence that suggests rest is one

way to replenish the resource, as individuals

exhibit better self-control after a good night’s

sleep (Baumeister & Tierney, 2011). Further,

asking people to think and write about the

things that are truly important to them appears

to offer some protection from ego depletion.

Experimental research has found that

self-affirmation prior to or immediately after

initial self-regulatory behaviors seems to pre-

vent impaired performance on subsequent tasks

(Schmeichel, Vohs, & Baumeister, 2003).

Although there are some experimental studies

examining ways to replenish self-regulation,

we argue that there are personal and organiza-

tional resources that may help to either prevent

ego depletion or to enhance self-regulation

once depleted.

According to researchers in this area (e.g.,

Baumeister et al., 2007; Muraven et al., 1999),

self-regulation is similar to a muscle. Just as mus-

cles tire from exertion and exercise, exercise also

will make muscles stronger. Regular exertions of

self-regulation actually can improve individuals’

self-regulation over time and make them more

resistant to self-regulation depletion. Further,

efforts to control behaviors in one area, such as

exercising regularly, lead to improvements in

unrelated areas, such as studying and working

to meet deadlines (Baumeister et al., 2007). Thus,

although individuals may have to use self-

regulation to manage their behavioral tendencies

and emotions after an appraised threatening stres-

sor, the use of self-regulation actually may be

adaptive in helping to restore and enhance self-

regulation. Further, self-regulation is an impor-

tant mechanism for successful coping behaviors.

Although self-regulation has been dis-

cussed as a muscle that, when used, may

make self-regulation stronger, less is known

about the boundary conditions under which

self-regulation may be replenished or enhanced.

In other words, are there conditions under which

using self-regulation leads to continued depletion

versus strengthening self-regulation? We argue

that both job and personal resources may affect

the depletion or strengthening of self-regulation.

We limit our discussion to mentioning some of

the more well-researched resources in the organi-

zational stress literature; thus, the discussion is

more illustrative than exhaustive.

Researchers have incorporated both job and

personal resources into models of job stress

(Demerouti & Bakker, 2011). Although job

resources typically are provided by the organi-

zation and/or those within the organization,

employees bring their own personal resources

(e.g., stable individual characteristics) with

them into the workplace. Job resources are the

social, psychological, physical, or organiza-

tional features of jobs that have the potential to

be functional in achieving workplace goals,

reducing job demands, and/or stimulating

personal growth, learning, and development

(Demerouti et al., 2001). Job resources can

come from various levels of an organization,

including the macro, organizational level (e.g.,

career advancement opportunities, compensa-

tion, and job security), the interpersonal level

(e.g., support from coworkers and manage-

ment), the job position level (e.g., input in

decision making and role clarity), the task level

(e.g., autonomy, performance feedback, and

task significance), and even perceived success

at work (Grebner, Elfering, & Semmer, 2010).

Frequently, social support is examined as an

important job resource in the workplace (Beehr

Mackey and Perrewe 269

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

& Glazer, 2001), and may come from a variety

of sources (e.g., coworkers, supervisors, sub-

ordinates). In general, social support in the

workplace has been found to positively affect

individuals’ health and well-being (Viswes-

varan, Sanchez, & Fisher, 1999). Research on

job resources has found positive effects on

outcomes, such as job strain, health and well-

being, and performance. However, we argue

that job resources are likely to affect these

outcomes at least partially through constructive

coping behaviors and, hence, self-regulation.

Personal resources may include employees’

individual characteristics and personal support.

Previous research (e.g., Avey, Luthans, &

Jensen, 2009; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demer-

outi, & Schaufeli, 2009) has identified several

personal resources, including resiliency (Zellars,

Justice, & Beck, 2011), self-efficacy (Chen,

Gully, & Eden, 2001), family social support

(Thompson, Poelmans, Allen, & Andreassi,

2007), and political skill (Ferris et al., 2007; Per-

rewe et al., 2004; Perrewe et al., 2005) that have

beneficial effects for employees. Although some

personal resources (e.g., employee traits) can

directly affect employees’ cognitive appraisals

and evaluations of organizational demands

(Folkman & Lazarus, 1990), we also argue that

they can affect self-regulation.

Self-regulation depends on three main

components: a commitment to standards,

monitoring of the self, and the capacity to

change the self’s responses (Baumeister &

Tierney, 2011). All are necessary for effective

self-regulation. A problem with any one of

these can produce failure in self-regulation.

Self-regulation cannot proceed without a com-

mitment to standards because self-regulation

is the effortful attempt to alter one’s behavior

so as to meet a standard. Standards include

ideals, expectations, goals, and values. There

is some evidence that problems with standards

can contribute to a failure to self-regulate. In

particular, vague, ambiguous, or conflicting

standards can undermine self-regulation. For

example, if two supervisors disagree as to how

employees should perform the job, or employ-

ees are simply unsure of their role in the work-

place, employees will not have a solid

performance standard. Conflicting standards is

one important source of self-regulatory break-

down (Baumeister et al., 1994). Thus,

resources, such as role clarity, should have a

positive association with self-regulation.

The second component of self-regulation is

the monitoring of one’s behavior, which is an

essential component of self-regulation. Carver

and Scheier (1981) argued that the main

purpose of self-awareness was to facilitate

self-regulation; thus, the ability to accurately

assess and monitor behavior is critical for

self-regulation. Resources such as political skill

and self-monitoring should be directly associ-

ated with self-regulation. Further, success in

self-regulation is more likely when individuals

observe their own behavior, such as attention

to situations that might induce tension, so as

to anticipate them or avoid them in the future

(Baumeister et al., 1994).

The third component of self-regulation is

the capacity to regulate and make changes

to behaviors. As mentioned earlier, self-

regulatory operations consume a limited

resource that operates like strength or energy

(Baumeister et al., 1994; Baumeister &

Heatherton, 1996). This provides an important

explanation for a number of empirical findings

and anecdotal observations that suggest that

after people exert self-control to regulate

some behavior, they seem vulnerable to self-

regulatory breakdowns in other, and seemingly

unrelated, spheres.

For example, if employees are working

overtime and they are exhausted, they might

exhibit a number of behaviors indicative of poor

self-regulation (e.g., eating badly, becoming

angry easily, or neglecting personal grooming).

Simply arguing that stressors (i.e., working over-

time) caused these behaviors is not precise

enough. Employees working overtime might be

utilizing most of their limited self-regulation

resource, leaving less left over for other

270 Organizational Psychology Review 4(3)

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

behaviors (e.g., eating well, being kind, and

grooming). Resources, such as resiliency and

social support (e.g., talking with coworkers in

the same situation), may have a direct impact

on lessening ego depletion or replenishing the

self-regulation resource. Based on these argu-

ments, we suggest that both job and personal

resources directly impact employee self-

regulation by helping to replenish self-

regulation resources and limiting resource

depletion.

Discussion

Identical demands may evoke quite different

affective and behavioral responses from indi-

viduals attributing different meanings to the

same demand (Dewe, 1989). Employees with

differing amounts of personal resources may

make different appraisals, different attributions,

experience different emotions, and experience

contrasting levels of attitudinal and behavioral

responses and adaptations to the same demands.

We emphasize the role of self-regulation in the

stress process, and argue that self-regulation has

been an overlooked explanatory variable that

should be integrated into a cohesive theory of

occupational stress. The AAA model of job

stress combines research from multiple models

and theories to account for the numerous

complexities that employees experience when

cognitively evaluating organizational demands.

We examine how self-regulation may be the key

to understanding how and why employees

engage in positive and negative coping beha-

viors, as well as the impact these behaviors have

on job strain, health, learning, and adapting.

Implications for theory and research

Perhaps the most significant theoretical contri-

bution of the current proposed model is the

inclusion of self-regulation as a key mechanism

for understanding why individuals choose con-

structive or destructive coping behaviors.

Although research on self-regulation has been

popular in the psychological sciences for

decades, the organizational science literature

has not fully utilized this important stream of

research. Interestingly, research on emotional

labor and emotion regulation seem to run paral-

lel to much of the work on self-regulation.

Research on emotion regulation originated

in developmental psychology in the early 1980s

(Gaensbauer, 1982), and considerable attention

has been given to the examination of emotion

regulation strategies. Perhaps the most popular

categorization of emotion regulation strategies

is seen in Gross’s (1998) model of emotion reg-

ulation. Gross proposed an emotion regulation

theory that distinguished between antecedent-

focused and response-focused emotion regula-

tion. Regulatory efforts attempting to influence

the emotional response tendencies are termed

antecedent-focused regulation. This type of strat-

egy is intended to change individuals’ felt emo-

tions. Examples of such strategies include

cognitive reappraisal of situations, selective

exposure to situations, and selective attention to

events. Regulatory efforts attempting to influence

emotional responses are termed response-

focused regulation. This type of strategy targets

one’s expressed emotions, rather than inner feel-

ings. An example of such strategies is the sup-

pression of expressions. These strategies imply

use of a form of self-regulation.

The concept of emotional labor originated in

Hochschild’s (1983) work on emotional man-

agement, examining individuals’ regulation of

emotional experiences at work in accordance

with the job requirements and norms. Hochs-

child (1983) coined the term emotional labor to

highlight the exchange nature of such effort,

and the economic value of emotional display in

the service setting. At the heart of the emotional

labor construct, as proposed by Hochschild, is

individuals’ self-regulation of emotions with

the purpose of adhering to organizational

expectations in terms of emotional display.

According to Hochschild (1983), it takes

personal energy to contain emotions. Over

time, the effort expended containing emotions

Mackey and Perrewe 271

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

can adversely affect individuals’ physical and

psychological health.

Emotion regulation refers to individuals’

abilities to understand their emotional experi-

ences, and to engage in healthy coping strate-

gies to manage these emotions. Individuals with

good emotion regulation skills are able to

control their urges to behave impulsively, such

as reckless behavior or physical aggression. It

appears that emotion regulation might be a

specific type of self-regulation. Further,

Grandey (2000) argued that emotions bring

with them corresponding response tendencies

that often need to be inhibited. Inhibition is a

process that requires personal energy and

‘‘energy is not available for other tasks, such as

the immune system’’ (Grandey, 2000, p. 100).

Emotion regulation is an effortful process, and

it competes for one’s limited cognitive resources

with other self-regulatory tasks. The work of

Muraven and Baumeister (2000) focused on

self-regulation, and suggested that emotion regu-

lation might be a specific type of self-regulation

(Cropanzano, Weiss, & Elias, 2004). The work

of Baumeister and his colleagues has tremendous

implications for the study of emotional labor and

emotion regulation. Research on emotion regula-

tion in the organizational sciences and research

on self-regulation in the psychological sciences

both support the idea that when individuals

engage in regulatory behavior, personal resources

will be depleted. However, if Muraven and Bau-

meister (2000) are correct, regulatory resources

are akin to a muscle and, with exercise, these

resources can be strengthened; thus, the long-

term effects of regulation may lead to learning

and adapting.

Research on self-regulation is sorely needed in

the organizational sciences. The work of Baume-

ister and his colleagues, although insightful, pri-

marily has focused on experimental, short-term

consequences of depletion (e.g., persistence on

a task, eating a cookie). As researchers, we have

much to learn from bringing self-regulation the-

ory into the organizational sciences, and we

believe, much to gain. The implications for job

stress research have been examined in this

paper. However, self-regulation has implica-

tions for research in many areas such as

leadership, ethical decision making, counter-

productive work behaviors, deviance, and

organizational politics and influence, to name

a few.

Implications for practice

Organizations use a great deal of resources in

an effort to manage employees’ stress (Cooper,

Dewe, & O’Driscoll, 2001). The AAA model of

job stress provides a framework from which

organizations can determine how to stage

interventions to smooth the stress management

process for employees. Although interventions

may occur at a number of stages in the con-

ceptual model, interventions occurring during

the attribution-making process and when

employees evaluate their levels and qualities

of their personal and job resources may be

particularly helpful.

Interventions designed to address the types

of attributions employees make can focus on

encouraging employees to make realistic attri-

butions. Internal and controllable attributions

are preferable when possible because these

attributions are more likely to lead to positive

outcomes than attributions reflecting a lack of

perceived control or purposeful harm inflicted

by the organization or coworkers. There are

numerous cognitive biases employees have that

can complicate making realistic attributions.

For example, the self-serving bias (Bradley,

1978) suggests that employees have the ten-

dency to take credit for positive outcomes and

blame others for negative outcomes. Thus,

employees may overestimate the role and intent

of the organization regarding threatening stres-

sors. Ultimately, this blame may result in nega-

tive emotions that can lead to dysfunctional

coping behaviors (e.g., aggression). To counter-

act this potential problem, organizations can

use attributional retraining techniques to help

272 Organizational Psychology Review 4(3)

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

employees focus on making realistic and objec-

tive attributions (Harvey et al., 2010).

Further, interventions designed to enhance

personal and job resources may be particularly

powerful given the impact of resources on self-

regulation. For example, ensuring employees

have the proper training may help their task

self-efficacy, which affects not only their

appraisal of organizational stressors, but also

their self-regulation. Making sure employees

have control over important aspects of their

work and have high-quality relationships with

others in the workplace are resources that

should affect self-regulation, which, in turn,

leads to positive coping behaviors. We argue

that job and personal resources are critical

for replenishing self-regulation, as well as

limiting self-regulation depletion. Through

self-regulation, these resources should help

employees to choose positive coping beha-

viors, which leads to less job strain and better

health and well-being.

Conclusion

We developed a comprehensive model depicting

the job stress process that illustrates how and why

responses to stressors can lead to negative as well

as positive outcomes for individuals. Further, we

examine the role of appraisals, attributions,

emotions, and resources as precursors to coping

behaviors. Most important, we emphasize the

role of self-regulation as a key explanatory

mechanism that has been overlooked in the orga-

nizational sciences, and we discuss some impor-

tant next steps for theory and research on job

stress. We hope these ideas stimulate increased

interest in this important area of inquiry.

References

Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Jensen, S. M. (2009). Psy-

chological capital: A positive resource for com-

bating employee stress and turnover. Human

Resource Management, 48, 677–693.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job

demands–resources model: State of the art. Jour-

nal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C.

(2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job

demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, 10, 170–180.

Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human

aggression (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Plenum

Press.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., &

Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active

self a limited resource? Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 74, 1252–1265.

Baumeister, R., & Heatherton, T. (1996). Self-

regulation failure: An overview. Psychological

Inquiry, 7(1), 1–15.

Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M.

(1994). Losing control: How and why people fail

at self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic

Press.

Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F.

(1994). Guilt: An interpersonal approach. Psycho-

logical Bulletin, 115(2), 243–267.

Baumeister, R. F., & Tierney, J. (2011). Willpower:

Rediscovering the greatest human strength. New

York, NY: The Penguin Press.

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M.

(2007). The strength model of self-control.

Current Directions in Psychological Science,

16, 351–355.

Beehr, T. A., & Glazer, S. (2001). A cultural perspec-

tive of social support in relation to occupational

stress. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.),

Research in occupational stress and well being

(Vol. 1, pp. 97–102). Oxford, UK: Elsevier

Science.

Boswell, W. R., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & LePine,

M. A. (2004). Relations between stress and work

outcomes: The role of felt challenge, job control,

and psychological strain. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 64, 165–181.

Bradley, G. W. (1978). Self-serving biases in attribu-

tion process: Re-examinations of fact or fiction

question. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 36(1), 56–71.

Mackey and Perrewe 273

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Brown, J., & Dutton, K. A. (1995). The thrill of vic-

tory, the complexity of defeat: Self-esteem and

people’s emotional reactions to success and fail-

ure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 68(4), 712–722.

Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at

psychological climate and its relationship to job

involvement, effort, and performance. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 81, 358–368.

Campbell, J. P., & Pritchard, R. D. (1976). Motiva-

tion theory in industrial and organizational

psychology. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook

of industrial and organizational psychology (pp.

63–130). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and

self-regulation: A control-theory approach to

human behavior. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V.,

& Boudreau, J. W. (2000). An empirical exami-

nation of self-supported work stress among U.S.

managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,

65–74.

Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001).

Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale.

Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62–83.

Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J., & O’Driscoll, M. P.

(2001). Organizational stress: A review and cri-

tique of theory, research, and applications. Thou-

sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cropanzano, R., Weiss, H. M., & Elias, S. M.

(2004). The impact of display rules and emo-

tional labor on psychological well-being at

work. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.),

Research in occupational stress and well being.

Volume 3: Emotional and physiological pro-

cesses and positive intervention strategies (pp.

45–89). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Daniels, K., & Guppy, A. (1994). Occupational stress,

social support, job control, and psychological well-

being. Human Relations, 47, 1523–1544.

Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2011). The job

demands–resources model: Challenges for future

research. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA

Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 37(2), 1–9.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schau-

feli, W. B. (2001). The job demands–resources

model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology,

86, 499–512.

DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Stillman, T. F., &

Gailliot, M. T. (2007). Violence restrained:

Effects of self-regulation and its depletion on

aggression. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 43, 62–76.

Dewe, P. J. (1989). Examining the nature of work

stress: Individual evaluations of stressful experi-

ences and coping. Human Relations, 42, 993–1013.

Dillon, R. S. (1997). Self-respect: Moral, emotional,

political. Ethics, 107, 226–249.

Eden, D., & Kinnar, J. (1991). Modeling Galatea:

Boosting self-efficacy to increase volunteering.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 770–780.

Eden, D., & Zuk, Y. (1995). Seasickness as a self-

fulfilling prophecy: Raising self-efficacy to boost

performance at sea. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 80, 628–635.

Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003).

Counting blessings versus burdens: An experi-

mental investigation of gratitude and subjective

well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 84(2), 377–389.

Eriksen, H. R., Murison, R., Pensgaard, A. M., &

Ursin, H. (2005). Cognitive activation theory of

stress (CATS): From fish brains to the Olympics.

Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30, 933–938.

Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrewe, P. L.,

Brouer, R. L., Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007).

Political skill in organizations. Journal of Man-

agement, 33(3), 290–320.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of

coping in a middle-aged community sample. Jour-

nal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219–239.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it

must be a process: Study of emotion and coping

during three stages of a college examination.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

48, 150–170.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). The relation-

ship between coping and emotion: Implications

for theory and research. Social Science in Medi-

cine, 26, 309–317.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Coping and

emotion. In N. L. Stein, B. Leventhal, & T.

274 Organizational Psychology Review 4(3)

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Trabasso (Eds.), Psychological and biological

approaches to emotion (pp. 313–332). Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counter-

productive work behavior (CWB) in response to

job stressors and organizational justice: Some

mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and

emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59,

291–309.

Gaensbauer, T. J. (1982). Regulation of emotional

expression in infants from two contrasting care-

taking environments. Journal of American Acad-

emy of Child Psychiatry, 21, 163–170.

Ganster, D. C., Fox, M., & Dwyer, D. (2001).

Explaining employee health care costs: A pro-

spective examination of stressful job demands,

personal control, and physiological reactivity.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 954–964.

Giancola, J. K., Grawitch, M. J., & Borchert, D.

(2009). Dealing with the stress of college: A

model for adult students. Adult Education Quar-

terly, 59, 246–263.

Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the

workplace: A new way to conceptualize emo-

tional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psy-

chology, 5, 95–110.

Grebner, S., Elfering, A., & Semmer, N. K. (2010).

The success resource model of job stress. In P.

L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in

occupational stress and well being. Volume 8:

New developments in theoretical and conceptual

approaches to job stress research (pp. 61–108).

Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.

Griffin, R. W., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2004). The

dark side of organizational behavior. San Fran-

cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused

emotion regulation: Divergent consequences for

experience, expression, and physiology. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 224–237.

Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis,

N. L. D. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength

model of self-control: A meta-analysis. Psycholo-

gical Bulletin, 136(4), 495–525.

Hareli, S., & Weiner, B. (2002). Social emotions and

personality inferences: A scaffold for a new

direction in the study of achievement motivation.

Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 183–193.

Harris, A., Ursin, H., Murison, R., & Eriksen, H.

R. (2007). Coffee, stress and cortisol in

nursing staff. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 32,

322–330.

Harvey, P., Summers, J. K., & Martinko, M. J. (2010).

Attributional influences on the outcome–aggres-

sion relationship: A review and extension of past

research. International Journal of Organization

Theory and Behavior, 13(2), 174–201.

Heatherton, T. F. (2011). Neuroscience of self and

self-regulation. Annual Review of Psychology,

62, 363–390.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal

relations. New York, NY: Wiley.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A

new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American

Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.

Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, com-

munity, and the nested-self in the stress process:

Advancing conservation of resources theory.

Applied Psychology: An International Review,

50, 337–370.

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart:

Commercialization of human feelings. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision

latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job

redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly,

24(2), 285–308.

Karasek, R., & Thoerell, T. (1990). Healthy work:

Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of

working life. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Lazarus, R. S. (1993). From psychological stress to

the emotions: A history of changing outlooks.

Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 1–21.

Lazarus, R. S. (1994). Psychological stress in the

workplace. In R. Crandall & P. L. Perrewe (Eds.),

Occupational stress: A handbook (pp. 3–14).

New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, apprai-

sal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional

theory and research on emotions and coping.

European Journal of Personality, 1, 141–169.

Mackey and Perrewe 275

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

LePine, J. A., LePine, M. A., & Saul, J. R. (2007).

Relationships among work and non-work chal-

lenge and hindrance stressors and non-work and

work criteria: A model of cross-domain stressor

effects. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.),

Exploring the work and non-work interface

(research in occupational stress and well being)

(pp. 35–72). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A.

(2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge

stressor-hindrance stressor framework: An expla-

nation for inconsistent relationships among stres-

sors and performance. Academy of Management

Journal, 48(5), 764–775.

Meurs, J. A., & Perrewe, P. L. (2011). Cognitive acti-

vation theory of stress: An integrative theoretical

approach to work stress. Journal of Management,

37, 1043–1066.

Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-

regulation and depletion of limited resources:

Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psycholo-

gical Bulletin, 126, 247–259.

Muraven, M., Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M.

(1999). Longitudinal improvement of self-

regulation through practice: Building self-

control strength through repeated exercise. The

Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 446–457.

Muraven, M., Collins, R. L., Morsheimer, E. T.,

Shiffman, S., & Paty, J. A. (2005). The morning

after: Limit violations and the self-regulation of

alcohol consumption. Psychology of Addictive

Behaviors, 19, 253–262.

Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F.

(1998). Self-control as limited resource: Regula-

tory depletion patterns. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 74, 774–789.

Peacock, E. J., Wong, P. T., & Reker, G. T. (1993).

Relations between appraisals and coping sche-

mas: Support for the congruence model. Cana-

dian Journal of Behavioural Science, 25, 64–80.

Pekrun, R., & Frese, M. (1992). Emotions in work

and achievement. In C. L. Cooper & D. T.

Robertson (Eds.), International review of indus-

trial and organizational psychology (Vol. 7, pp.

153–200). Chichester, UK: St. Edmundsbury

Press, John Wiley & Sons.

Perrewe, P. L., & Spector, P. E. (2002), Personality

research in the organizational sciences. In G. R.

Ferris & J. J. Martocchio (Eds.), Research in

personnel and human resources management

(Vol. 21, pp. 1–64). Oxford, UK: JAI Press/Else-

vier Science.

Perrewe, P. L., & Zellars, K. L. (1999). An examina-

tion of attributions and emotions in the transac-

tional approach to the organizational stress

process. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

20, 739–752.

Perrewe, P. L., Zellars, K. L., Ferris, G. R., Rossi,

A. M., Kacmar, C. J., & Ralston, D. A. (2004).

Neutralizing job stressors: Political skill as an

antidote to the dysfunctional consequences of

role conflict stressors. Academy of Management

Journal, 47, 141–152.

Perrewe, P. L., Zellars, K. L., Rossi, A. M., Ferris, G.

R., Kacmar, C. J., Liu, Y., . . . Hochwarter, W.

(2005). Political skill: An antidote in the role

overload–strain relationship. Journal of Occupa-

tional Health Psychology, 10(3), 239–250.

Power, M., & Dalgleish, T. (1997). Cognition and emo-

tion: From order to disorder. Hove, UK:

Psychology Press.

Rodell, J. B., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Can ‘‘good’’

stressors spark ‘‘bad’’ behaviors? The mediat-

ing role of emotions in links of challenge and

hindrance stressors with citizenship and coun-

terproductive behaviors. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 94(6), 1438–1451.

Roseman, I. J., Antoniou, A. A., & Jose, P. E.

(1996). Appraisal determinants of emotions:

Constructing a more accurate and comprehen-

sive theory. Cognition and Emotion, 10,

241–277.

Roseman, I. J., Weist, C., & Swartz, T. S. (1994).

Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals differenti-

ate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 67, 206–221.

Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1998). The contours of

positive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9,

1–28.

Schmeichel, B. J., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F.

(2003). Intellectual performance and ego deple-

tion: Role of the self in logical reasoning and

276 Organizational Psychology Review 4(3)

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

other information processing. Journal of Person-

ality and Social Psychology, 85, 33–46.

Selye, H. (1955). Stress and disease. Science, 122,

625–631.

Selye, H. (1976). The stress of life. New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.

Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of

cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology, 48, 813–838.

Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Emotion and

adaptation. In L. A. Pervin, (Ed.), Handbook of

personality: Theory and research (pp. 609–637).

New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Spector, P. E., Chen, P. Y., & O’Connell, B. J.

(2000). A longitudinal study of relations between

job stressors and job strains while controlling for

prior negative affectivity and strains. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 85, 211–218.

Sutton, R., & Kahn, R. L. (1986). Prediction, under-

standing, and control as antidotes to organiza-

tional stress. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of

organizational behavior (pp. 272–285). Engle-

wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Tangney, J. P. (1990). Assessing individual differ-

ences in proneness to shame and guilt: Develop-

ment of the self-conscious affect and attribution

inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 59(1), 102–111.

Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L.

(2004). High self-control predicts good adjust-

ment, less pathology, better grades, and interper-

sonal success. Journal of Personality, 72,

271–322.

Thompson, C. A., Poelmans, S. A. Y., Allen, T. D., &

Andreassi, J. K. (2007). On the importance of cop-

ing: A model and new directions for research on

work and family. In P. L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster

(Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well

being: Exploring the work and non-work interface

(Vol. 6, pp. 73–113), Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Ursin, H. (1998). The psychology in psychoneuroen-

docrinology. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23,

555–570.

Ursin, H., & Eriksen, H. R. (2004). The cognitive

activation theory of stress. Psychoneuroendocri-

nology, 29, 567–592.

Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999).

The role of social support in the process of work

stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 54(2), 314–334.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affec-

tivity: The disposition to experience aversive

emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96,

465–490.

Webster, J. R., Beehr, T. A., & Love, K. (2011).

Extending the challenge-hindrance model of

occupational stress: The role of appraisal. Journal

of Vocational Behavior, 79, 505–516.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of

achievement motivation and emotion. Psycholo-

gical Review, 92(4), 548–573.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motiva-

tion and emotion. New York, NY: Springer.

Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A

foundation of a theory of social conduct. New

York, NY: Guilford Press.

Weiner, B. (2010). The development of an

attribution-based theory of motivation: A history

of ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 28–36.

Weiner, B., Russell, D., & Lerman, D. (1978). Affec-

tive consequences of causal ascriptions. In J. H.

Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New

directions in attribution research (Vol. 2,

pp. 59–88). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Weiner, B., Russell, D., & Lerman, D. (1979).

Cognition-emotion process in achievement-

related contexts. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 37(7), 1211–1220.

Wheeler, S. C., Brinol, P., & Hermann, A. D. (2007).

Resistance to persuasion as self-regulation:

Ego-depletion and its effects on attitude change

processes. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 43, 150–156.

Wicker, F. W., Payne, G. C., & Morgan, R. D.

(1983). Participant descriptions of guilt and

shame. Motivation and Emotion, 7, 25–39.

Williams, L. A., & DeSteno, D. (2008). Pride and

perseverance: The motivational role of pride.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

94(6), 1007–1017.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., &

Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of personal

Mackey and Perrewe 277

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

resources in the job demands–resources model.

International Journal of Stress Management, 14,

121–141.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., &

Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Reciprocal relationships

between job resources, personal resources, and

work engagement. Journal of Vocational Beha-

vior, 74, 235–244.

Xie, J. L., & Schaubroeck, J. (2001). Bridging

approaches and findings across diverse

disciplines to improve job stress research. In P.

L. Perrewe & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in

occupational stress and well being: Exploring

theoretical mechanisms and perspectives (Vol.

1, pp. 1–53). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.

Zellars, K. L., Justice, L., & Beck, T. E. (2011). Resi-

lience: New paths for building and sustaining indi-

vidual and organizational capacity. In P. L. Perrewe

& D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational

stress and well being: The role of individual differ-

ences in occupational stress and well being (Vol. 9,

pp. 1–37). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.

Author biographies

Jeremy D. Mackey is a PhD candidate in Orga-

nizational Behavior and Human Resource Man-

agement at Florida State University. His current

research interests include interpersonal mis-

treatment, abusive supervision, job stress, and

attribution theory. Some of his research has

been published in the Journal of Organizational

Behavior, Journal of Business and Psychology,

Journal of Managerial Psychology, Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, and The

Leadership Quarterly.

Pamela L. Perrewe, PhD, is the Haywood and

Betty Taylor Eminent Scholar of Business

Administration and Distinguished Research

Professor at Florida State University. She

received her Bachelor degree in Psychology

from Purdue University and her Master’s and

PhD degrees in Management from the Univer-

sity of Nebraska. Dr. Perrewe primarily tea-

ches courses in Organizational Behavior and

Human Resource Management and has taught

at the undergraduate, master’s, and PhD levels.

Dr. Perrewe has focused her research interests

in the areas of job stress, coping, organiza-

tional politics, emotion, and personality. Dr.

Perrewe has published over 30 book chapters

and over 100 journal articles in journals such

as Academy of Management Journal, Journal

of Management, Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, Journal of Organiza-

tional Behavior, Human Relations, and Per-

sonnel Psychology. She serves as a member

of the Editorial Review Board for Academy

of Management Journal, Journal of Occupa-

tional Health Psychology, Human Resource

Management Review, and Leadership and

Organizational Studies. She has fellow status

with Southern Management Association, the

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psy-

chology, and the American Psychological

Association. Finally, she is the coeditor of an

annual series entitled, Research in Occupa-

tional Stress and Well Being published by

Emerald.

278 Organizational Psychology Review 4(3)

at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 10, 2014opr.sagepub.comDownloaded from