Keywords Work psychology, Stress, C

Keywords Work psychology, Stress, Culture (sociology), China, Taiwan
Abstract Towards the end of the twentieth century, the world has witnessed an amazing economic take-off in the East Asia, especially within the territory of so-called "Greater China", encompassing the PRC and Taiwan. Against this economic and cultural background, this study surveyed 258 and 189 employees respectively in Taiwan, and the PRC (Shanghai), to examine generalizability of a generic work-stress model to the Chinese societies. It further examined the sub-cultural differences in the work-stress processes, by drawing contrast of the PRC and Taiwan. In addition, roles of emic constructs of Chinese primary and secondary control beliefs were also examined Results showed that the generic work-stress model could be reasonably applied to Chinese urban work contexts in the PRC and Taiwan. Work stress related as expected to strain effects. At a more refined sub-cultural level, it was found that different sources of work stress became salient contributors to strain outcomes in the PRC and Taiwan. These differences reflect the diverse political, social, and economic characteristics of the two Chinese societies. More importantly, emic constructs of Chinese control beliefs were found to have rather consistent direct effects on strain outcomes. However, indirect (moderating) effects of control beliefs were not strong and inconsistent.

A model of work stress for the Chinese
Work stress has become one of the most serious health issues in the modern world. Researchers have theorized detrimental effects of work stressors on well-being, and have accumulated a substantial and consistent body of research literature, especially in North America and Western Europe (House et al., 1986; Matteson and Ivancevich, 1987; Cooper and Payne, 1978).
However, the validity of a theoretical model has to be established through the process of repeated verification with heterogonous populations of people, time, and culture. The fast emerging Greater China has provided a fertile test field for the work-stress model for three reasons. First, the problem of occupational stress is particularly relevant for the Greater China region, encompassing Taiwan and The People's Republic of China (PRC). Both Chinese societies across the Taiwan Strait are undergoing fundamental transformations of industrial structures from labor-intensive to high-tech, as well as rapid social modernization in both work and life styles. The average annual real growth in Taiwan in 1970-1993 was 8.6 percent; and in the same period the PRC achieved an astonishing 9.3 percent. If the costs of work stress estimated for other countries are equally high in Greater China, it represents a considerable loss of resources.

Second, only recently has attention be given to the application of the Western-originated work-stress model to societies of different cultural characteristics. Both the PRC and Taiwan are collectivistic societies, upholding values and ways of life very different from the individualistic West (Hofstede, 1980). The PRC, in particular, is in the midst of integration with the world since the economic reforms begun in 1978, and the work-stress research is still scant As the population of Chinese in the world is nearly 20 percent of all humans, it is valuable to obtain data from Chinese workers in order to contribute to the generalization of theories and practices in organizational psychology.

Finally, work stress does not occur in vacuum. Work is embedded in the specific political, economic, and social realities (Hofstede, 1980; England, 1975). The Chinese culture is usually represented in a rather monolithic view, and the relatively rich scientific research in Taiwan and Hong Kong are often presumed to be generalizable to all Chinese, including the vast population in the PRC. However, there are rather substantial differences among these distinct Chinese societies, as there are also subtle differences within each of them. In the case of the PRC and Taiwan, although they share a common Confucian cultural heritage and a common Chinese written language, they each developed distinct political and economic systems over the 50-year separation after the civil war. As argued by Child (1996), these systems could then contribute towards shaping observable patterns of organizational behavior. In the case of work stress, salient components of the stress process may vary to reflect these sociocultural specificities in the two societies.

Greater China, then, offers one of the most important contexts for work stress in the world today. It also offers a unique context of a comparison on political, economic, cultural similarity and dissimilarity as reflected in the work-stress process. Based on the extensive review of Western theories and research on work stress, and incorporating salient sociocultural characteristics of a Chinese society (Taiwan in this case), the first author proposed a generic integrative work-stress model for the Chinese (Lu, 1997). This multi-faceted model adopts an interactional view of stress (Cox, 1978; French et al., 1982; Sutherland and Cooper, 1990), and conceptualizes work stress as a personal, subjective, and dynamic process. As presented in Figure 1, the model includes potential sources of stress (stressors), factors of individual differences (moderators/mediators), and consequences of stress (strain) as main components of the work-stress process. As there is no space to go into details of the model, it will suffice to make three brief points regarding the theoretical meta-hypotheses underlying the model.

First, work stress is viewed here as a personal phenomenon, hence id perceived stress" is a necessary mediator linking potential sources of stress and various consequences of stress. Second, vast individual differences in vulnerability to stress mainly reflected in internal and external resources, contribute towards shaping observable patterns of the work-stress process. They may: alter an individual's perception of a potential source of stress (direct effect); impact on the transformation of perceived stress into various consequences of stress (indirect effect); and ameliorate these stress consequences (direct effect). Third, this model takes a person-centered psychological perspective without pre-excluding important sociocultural influences on the work-stress process. Specifically, culture is viewed to shape the values, beliefs, and behaviors of its member through its core issues of concern as well as its distinct political, economic, and societal structures. These prevailing cultural influences are then reflected in the specificities of a particular phenomenon, such as the work-stress process.

To date, a series of empirical research conducted in Taiwan have already lent general support to this generic model of work stress. These studies include analyses focused on potential sources of work stress for employees of large structured organizations vis--a-vis small family-based enterprises (Lu et al., 1995, 1997a; Lu and Lo, 1995); direct and indirect effects of internal vis-d-vis external resources, such as work motivation (Lu, 1999), locus of control (Lu et al., 1999a), and work values (Lu and Lin, 2002); consequences of work stress for the individual vis--vis the organization (Lu et aL, 1997a); individual, job, and occupational differences in the work-stress process (Lu and Kao, 1999; Lu et al, 1997b, 1999b). Although the main axis of potential sources of stress -> perceived stress -> consequences of stress, as well as direct/indirect effects of resources (Figure 1) have been repeatedly supported by empirical evidence from independent samples across a broad spectrum of organizational hierarchies (managers vs non-managers) and occupational background in Taiwan, a fine-grained analysis focusing on the prevailing influences of culture is still needed to enrich theoretical implications of the model. Such an effort can provide a more appropriate cultural context for applications of the model in organizational management, such as job relocation training (Lu and Cooper, 1995). Contrasting the PRC and Taiwan, and relating possible differences in work stress to their distinct political, economic, and social characteristics is an appropriate starting point in the effort of "unpackaging" culture on work stress (Bond, 1998).

A theoretical framework for the present study
Considering the limited capacity of a single empirical investigation, a more concise theoretical framework (Figure 2) was devised based on the generic work-stress model (Figure 1). As can been seen in Figure 2, "demographics and job characteristics", "sources of stress", "control beliefs", and "strain" are four major components of the model.
In Figure 2, "demographic and job characteristics" are treated as background variables to be controlled in analyzes, as all of these listed factors have been shown to impact on the work-stress process (Lu and Kao, 1999; Cooper, 1983; Robbins, 1996; Ross and Altmaier, 1994).
"Sources of stress" are construed as antecedents, including eight distinct aspects of the work life. Although different researchers developed or adopted different schemes to categorize sources of work stress, there are considerable commonalites. For instance, Burke (1988) provided a summary of findings for six categories of stressors: physical environment, role stressors, organizational structure and job characteristics, relationships with others, career development and work-family conflict. Recently, Cooper et al. (1988) identified six sources of stress at work: factors intrinsic to the job, management role, relationship with others, career and achievement, organizational structure and climate, home/work interface. Our eight categories of stressors (Figure 2)

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

Từ khóa làm việc tâm lý học, căng thẳng, văn hóa (xã hội học), Trung Quốc, Đài LoanTrừu tượng đến cuối thế kỷ 20, thế giới đã chứng kiến một tuyệt vời kinh tế cất cánh ở đông á, đặc biệt là trong lãnh thổ của cái gọi là "đại Trung Quốc", bao gồm Trung Quốc và Đài Loan. Chống lại nền tảng này kinh tế và văn hóa, nghiên cứu này khảo sát nhân viên 258 và 189 tương ứng ở Đài Loan và Trung Quốc (Thượng Hải), để kiểm tra generalizability của một mô hình căng thẳng làm việc chung với xã hội Trung Quốc. Nó tiếp tục kiểm tra sự khác biệt văn hóa phụ trong quá trình làm việc căng thẳng, bằng cách vẽ tương phản của Trung Quốc và Đài Loan. Ngoài ra, vai trò của các cấu trúc quan Trung Quốc kiểm soát tiểu học và trung học niềm tin cũng đã kiểm tra kết quả cho thấy rằng các mô hình căng thẳng làm việc chung hợp lý có thể được áp dụng cho Trung Quốc làm việc đô thị bối cảnh ở Trung Quốc và Đài Loan. Làm việc căng thẳng liên quan như mong đợi để tác dụng căng thẳng. Ở mức tiểu văn hóa hơn tinh tế, nó đã được tìm thấy rằng nhiều nguồn khác nhau của công việc căng thẳng đã trở thành những người đóng góp nổi bật để lọc các kết quả ở Trung Quốc và Đài Loan. Những khác biệt này phản ánh những đặc điểm chính trị, xã hội, kinh tế và đa dạng của xã hội Trung Quốc hai. Quan trọng hơn, các cấu trúc quan của niềm tin Trung Quốc kiểm soát đã được tìm thấy có tác động trực tiếp thay vì phù hợp kết quả căng thẳng. Tuy nhiên, hậu quả gián tiếp (dịu) của kiểm soát niềm tin đã không mạnh mẽ và không phù hợp.Một mô hình của công việc căng thẳng cho người Trung QuốcCông việc căng thẳng đã trở thành một trong những vấn đề sức khỏe nghiêm trọng nhất trong thế giới hiện đại. Các nhà nghiên cứu có lý thuyết bất lợi ảnh hưởng của công việc căng thẳng trên phúc lợi, và đã tích lũy được một cơ thể đáng kể và nhất quán của nghiên cứu văn học, đặc biệt là ở Bắc Mỹ và Tây Âu (nhà et al., 1986; Matteson và Ivancevich, năm 1987; Cooper và Payne, 1978).Tuy nhiên, tính hợp lệ của một mô hình lý thuyết đã được thành lập thông qua quá trình lặp đi lặp lại quy trình xác minh có dân số heterogonous người, thời gian, và văn hóa. Đại Trung Quốc đang nổi lên nhanh chóng đã cung cấp một lĩnh vực thử nghiệm màu mỡ cho các mô hình công việc-căng thẳng cho ba lý do. Đầu tiên, các vấn đề về lao động căng thẳng là đặc biệt thích hợp cho khu vực đại Trung Quốc, gồm Đài Loan và của nhân dân Trung Hoa dân Quốc (PRC). Cả hai xã hội Trung Quốc qua eo biển Đài Loan đang trải qua các biến đổi cơ bản của công nghiệp cấu trúc từ lao động công nghệ cao, cũng như nhanh chóng hiện đại hóa xã hội trong cả công việc và cuộc sống phong cách. Thực tế, tăng trưởng hàng năm trung bình tại Đài Loan năm 1970-1993 là 8,6%; và trong cùng kỳ Trung Quốc đạt được một phần trăm 9.3 đáng kinh ngạc. Nếu chi phí của công việc căng thẳng ước tính cho các nước khác là bình đẳng cao ở đại Trung Quốc, nó đại diện cho một mất mát đáng kể nguồn tài nguyên.Thứ hai, chỉ mới có sự chú ý được trao cho các ứng dụng của mô hình công việc-căng thẳng có nguồn gốc từ Tây để xã hội của đặc điểm văn hóa khác nhau. Trung Quốc và Đài Loan là collectivistic xã hội, phát huy giá trị và cách của cuộc sống rất khác nhau từ cá nhân Tây (Hofstede, 1980). Trung Quốc, đặc biệt là ở giữa hội nhập với thế giới kể từ cuộc cải cách kinh tế bắt đầu vào năm 1978, và nghiên cứu làm việc căng thẳng là vẫn còn rất ít vì dân số Trung Quốc trên thế giới là gần 20 phần trăm của tất cả mọi người, nó có giá trị để có được dữ liệu từ các công nhân Trung Quốc nhằm góp phần để tổng quát của lý thuyết và thực hành trong tổ chức tâm lý học.Finally, work stress does not occur in vacuum. Work is embedded in the specific political, economic, and social realities (Hofstede, 1980; England, 1975). The Chinese culture is usually represented in a rather monolithic view, and the relatively rich scientific research in Taiwan and Hong Kong are often presumed to be generalizable to all Chinese, including the vast population in the PRC. However, there are rather substantial differences among these distinct Chinese societies, as there are also subtle differences within each of them. In the case of the PRC and Taiwan, although they share a common Confucian cultural heritage and a common Chinese written language, they each developed distinct political and economic systems over the 50-year separation after the civil war. As argued by Child (1996), these systems could then contribute towards shaping observable patterns of organizational behavior. In the case of work stress, salient components of the stress process may vary to reflect these sociocultural specificities in the two societies.Greater China, then, offers one of the most important contexts for work stress in the world today. It also offers a unique context of a comparison on political, economic, cultural similarity and dissimilarity as reflected in the work-stress process. Based on the extensive review of Western theories and research on work stress, and incorporating salient sociocultural characteristics of a Chinese society (Taiwan in this case), the first author proposed a generic integrative work-stress model for the Chinese (Lu, 1997). This multi-faceted model adopts an interactional view of stress (Cox, 1978; French et al., 1982; Sutherland and Cooper, 1990), and conceptualizes work stress as a personal, subjective, and dynamic process. As presented in Figure 1, the model includes potential sources of stress (stressors), factors of individual differences (moderators/mediators), and consequences of stress (strain) as main components of the work-stress process. As there is no space to go into details of the model, it will suffice to make three brief points regarding the theoretical meta-hypotheses underlying the model.First, work stress is viewed here as a personal phenomenon, hence id perceived stress" is a necessary mediator linking potential sources of stress and various consequences of stress. Second, vast individual differences in vulnerability to stress mainly reflected in internal and external resources, contribute towards shaping observable patterns of the work-stress process. They may: alter an individual's perception of a potential source of stress (direct effect); impact on the transformation of perceived stress into various consequences of stress (indirect effect); and ameliorate these stress consequences (direct effect). Third, this model takes a person-centered psychological perspective without pre-excluding important sociocultural influences on the work-stress process. Specifically, culture is viewed to shape the values, beliefs, and behaviors of its member through its core issues of concern as well as its distinct political, economic, and societal structures. These prevailing cultural influences are then reflected in the specificities of a particular phenomenon, such as the work-stress process.To date, a series of empirical research conducted in Taiwan have already lent general support to this generic model of work stress. These studies include analyses focused on potential sources of work stress for employees of large structured organizations vis--a-vis small family-based enterprises (Lu et al., 1995, 1997a; Lu and Lo, 1995); direct and indirect effects of internal vis-d-vis external resources, such as work motivation (Lu, 1999), locus of control (Lu et al., 1999a), and work values (Lu and Lin, 2002); consequences of work stress for the individual vis--vis the organization (Lu et aL, 1997a); individual, job, and occupational differences in the work-stress process (Lu and Kao, 1999; Lu et al, 1997b, 1999b). Although the main axis of potential sources of stress -> perceived stress -> consequences of stress, as well as direct/indirect effects of resources (Figure 1) have been repeatedly supported by empirical evidence from independent samples across a broad spectrum of organizational hierarchies (managers vs non-managers) and occupational background in Taiwan, a fine-grained analysis focusing on the prevailing influences of culture is still needed to enrich theoretical implications of the model. Such an effort can provide a more appropriate cultural context for applications of the model in organizational management, such as job relocation training (Lu and Cooper, 1995). Contrasting the PRC and Taiwan, and relating possible differences in work stress to their distinct political, economic, and social characteristics is an appropriate starting point in the effort of "unpackaging" culture on work stress (Bond, 1998).A theoretical framework for the present studyConsidering the limited capacity of a single empirical investigation, a more concise theoretical framework (Figure 2) was devised based on the generic work-stress model (Figure 1). As can been seen in Figure 2, "demographics and job characteristics", "sources of stress", "control beliefs", and "strain" are four major components of the model.In Figure 2, "demographic and job characteristics" are treated as background variables to be controlled in analyzes, as all of these listed factors have been shown to impact on the work-stress process (Lu and Kao, 1999; Cooper, 1983; Robbins, 1996; Ross and Altmaier, 1994)."Sources of stress" are construed as antecedents, including eight distinct aspects of the work life. Although different researchers developed or adopted different schemes to categorize sources of work stress, there are considerable commonalites. For instance, Burke (1988) provided a summary of findings for six categories of stressors: physical environment, role stressors, organizational structure and job characteristics, relationships with others, career development and work-family conflict. Recently, Cooper et al. (1988) identified six sources of stress at work: factors intrinsic to the job, management role, relationship with others, career and achievement, organizational structure and climate, home/work interface. Our eight categories of stressors (Figure 2)