| Summary: | Bibliography: pages 333-360. === To study Type A behaviour as a moderator of relationships between role demands and psychological and behavioural strain, 234 volunteer subjects from a medium-sized life insurance society completed three questionnaires under standardized testing conditions, tapping Type A behaviour (Session 1) and various role dimensions (Session 2) and indices of strain (Session 3). Absenteeism data were taken from employee record cards, as were data for some demographic and organizational variables (race and sex), while others, (company tenure, age and organizational level) were explored in the questionnaires. Assessment sessions were staggered, with one-month intervals between each, to reduce the effects of response sets. Factor analysis of responses to the role dimensions questionnaire confirmed the hypothesized factor structure and led to the development of scales for role conflict, ambiguity, overload and qualitative underload. The reliability and validity of these scales are discussed. Partial correlations (with the linear effects of the demographic and organizational variables removed) and multiple linear regressions indicate that role conflict, ambiguity, overload and underload may be described as social-psychological stressors, in terms of psychological strain, while only underload is weakly related to absenteeism. Type A behaviour is not found to moderate relationships between stressors and strain, with the exception of an effect for underload which may be accounted for in statistical, rather than psychological, terms. Results are interpreted as evidence of the need for improved work design and redesign, particularly in South African organizations. Implications of findings with respect to sequential models of strain, as well as the nature of the relationship between Type A behaviour and CHD, are discussed.
|
|---|
