Work stress-strain relationship. A

Work stress-strain relationship. A series of Pearson correlation analyses were conducted to test the relationship between work stress and strain outcomes (see Table IR). Table III shows that in both the PRC and Taiwanese samples, employees who reported higher work stress reported worse mental well-being. For Taiwanese employees, those who reported higher work stress also reported worse physical well-being. However, work stress was only marginally correlated with job satisfaction in the Taiwanese sample. Therefore, H1 was partially supported.
Direct effects of control beliefs. Table III also shows the correlation analyses testing the direct relations of CPC and CSC on strain outcomes. In both samples, employees avowed higher CPC reported higher job satisfaction. For Taiwanese employees, they also reported better physical well-being. Yet, CPC was not related to mental well-being in either sample. Therefore, H3.1 was partially supported.

In both samples, employees avowed higher CSC reported worse mental well-being. For Taiwanese employees, they also reported worse physical well-being. Yet, CSC was not related to job satisfaction in either sample. Therefore, H4.1 was partially supported.

Indirect effects of control beliefs. To test the moderating effects of CPC on the work stress-strain relationship, the procedure suggested by Cohen and Cohen (1983) was used to demonstrate the statistical significance and form of the main and interaction terms. Using hierarchical regression, the following variables were entered in the sequence indicated:
(1) work stress;
(2) CPC;
(3) the product term representing work stress x CPC.
Cultural differences in work stress: East vs West

The present study surveyed two samples of Chinese employees from two political, social and economically diverse societies: the PRC and Taiwan. Results showed that in Greater China work stress was negatively related to mental and physical well-being, and was marginally negatively related to job satisfaction. These results lend support to our H1 and corroborated previous studies in the West (e.g. Quick et al., 1997; House et at, 1986; Spector et al., 1988), and some pioneering work in Chinese societies Gamal and Xie, 1991; Lu, 1997; Lu et al., 1997b, 1999b). These results are also consistent with the generic work-stress model (Figure 1). We can now be reasonably confident to claim cross-cultural universality in the work stress-strain relationship.
However, this universality does not logically imply uniformed underlying mechanisms. There may be different paths linking perceived work stress to reported strain effects. Results concerning control beliefs in the present study are worth commenting here. In many psychological and organizational theories developed in the West, beliefs and feelings of control have often be conceptualized as a key factor in mitigating the effects of stress (Spector, 1982; Steptoe and Appels, 1989). However, crossing the East-West divide, culture construes quite different ways of viewing and achieving personal control (Lu, 1997; Weisz et al., 1984). In the collectivist East, the conception of control as an aggressive and persistent battle in achieving and maintaining mastery over the external environment may be viewed as rather restrictive, narrow-minded and immature (Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Weisz et al., 1984).

In fact, in the present study, a measure of perceived control developed according to the Western conception (OSI-2 control scale) was administered but achieved very low reliability coefficients in both Chinese samples (PRC: chi = 0.38, TW: chi = 0.51). Nonetheless, the same scale yielded a Cronbach's chi of.86 for a UK sample (Lu et aL, 2000). This poor psychometric quality with the Chinese samples therefore, is not likely due to innate weaknesses or fragility of the scale, rather it may imply that this Western idea of control at work is foreign and not salient in the Chinese mentality. The OSI-2 control scale mainly measures control as perceived personal influence at work. For instance, "performance assessment should reflect personal efforts", and "employee participation in organizational life is desirable' are beliefs underlying this conception of control. These views are indeed important and relevant in the Western work life, and hence scale has demonstrated good reliability and validity (Rees and Cooper, 1992). Nonetheless they are largely irrelevant in a Chinese work context.

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

Mối quan hệ căng thẳng căng thẳng nơi làm việc. Một loạt các Pearson tương quan phân tích được thực hiện để kiểm tra mối quan hệ giữa kết quả công việc căng thẳng và căng thẳng (xem bảng IR). Bảng III Hiển thị ở Trung Quốc và Đài Loan mẫu, nhân viên báo cáo cao hơn công việc căng thẳng báo cáo tồi tệ hơn tinh thần tốt được. Đối với nhân viên Đài Loan, những người báo cáo cao hơn công việc căng thẳng cũng báo cáo tồi tệ hơn về thể chất tốt được. Tuy nhiên, công việc căng thẳng là chỉ nhẹ tương quan với sự hài lòng của công việc trong mẫu Đài Loan. Vì vậy, H1 được hỗ trợ một phần.Trực tiếp ảnh hưởng của kiểm soát tín ngưỡng. Bảng III cũng trình bày những phân tích mối tương quan kiểm tra các mối quan hệ trực tiếp của CPC và CSC trên kết quả căng thẳng. Trong cả hai mẫu, thị trấn này có nhân viên avowed CPC cao hơn báo cáo sự hài lòng cao của công việc. Đối với nhân viên Đài Loan, họ cũng báo cáo tốt hơn thể chất tốt được. Tuy vậy, CPC không liên quan đến tinh thần tốt được trong một trong hai mẫu. Do đó, H3.1 được hỗ trợ một phần.Trong cả hai mẫu, thị trấn này có nhân viên avowed cao CSC báo cáo tồi tệ hơn tinh thần tốt được. Đối với nhân viên Đài Loan, họ cũng báo cáo tồi tệ hơn về thể chất tốt được. Tuy vậy, CSC không liên quan đến sự hài lòng của công việc trong một trong hai mẫu. Do đó, H4.1 được hỗ trợ một phần.Gián tiếp ảnh hưởng của kiểm soát tín ngưỡng. Để kiểm tra những ảnh hưởng duyệt của CPC mối quan hệ căng thẳng căng thẳng nơi làm việc, các thủ tục được đề xuất bởi Cohen và Cohen (1983) được sử dụng để chứng minh ý nghĩa thống kê và các hình thức của các điều khoản chính và tương tác. Sử dụng hồi qui phân cấp, các yếu tố sau đây đã được nhập vào trong trình tự chỉ định:(1) work stress;(2) CPC;(3) the product term representing work stress x CPC.Cultural differences in work stress: East vs WestThe present study surveyed two samples of Chinese employees from two political, social and economically diverse societies: the PRC and Taiwan. Results showed that in Greater China work stress was negatively related to mental and physical well-being, and was marginally negatively related to job satisfaction. These results lend support to our H1 and corroborated previous studies in the West (e.g. Quick et al., 1997; House et at, 1986; Spector et al., 1988), and some pioneering work in Chinese societies Gamal and Xie, 1991; Lu, 1997; Lu et al., 1997b, 1999b). These results are also consistent with the generic work-stress model (Figure 1). We can now be reasonably confident to claim cross-cultural universality in the work stress-strain relationship.However, this universality does not logically imply uniformed underlying mechanisms. There may be different paths linking perceived work stress to reported strain effects. Results concerning control beliefs in the present study are worth commenting here. In many psychological and organizational theories developed in the West, beliefs and feelings of control have often be conceptualized as a key factor in mitigating the effects of stress (Spector, 1982; Steptoe and Appels, 1989). However, crossing the East-West divide, culture construes quite different ways of viewing and achieving personal control (Lu, 1997; Weisz et al., 1984). In the collectivist East, the conception of control as an aggressive and persistent battle in achieving and maintaining mastery over the external environment may be viewed as rather restrictive, narrow-minded and immature (Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Weisz et al., 1984).In fact, in the present study, a measure of perceived control developed according to the Western conception (OSI-2 control scale) was administered but achieved very low reliability coefficients in both Chinese samples (PRC: chi = 0.38, TW: chi = 0.51). Nonetheless, the same scale yielded a Cronbach's chi of.86 for a UK sample (Lu et aL, 2000). This poor psychometric quality with the Chinese samples therefore, is not likely due to innate weaknesses or fragility of the scale, rather it may imply that this Western idea of control at work is foreign and not salient in the Chinese mentality. The OSI-2 control scale mainly measures control as perceived personal influence at work. For instance, "performance assessment should reflect personal efforts", and "employee participation in organizational life is desirable' are beliefs underlying this conception of control. These views are indeed important and relevant in the Western work life, and hence scale has demonstrated good reliability and validity (Rees and Cooper, 1992). Nonetheless they are largely irrelevant in a Chinese work context.