Nevertheless, this picture is also unsatisfying because although the effects ofwork on men and women who are directly comparable is one key focus for research, it does not represent the current picture of men’s and women’s experiences with work. Men tend to be in more senior positions, have greater autonomy, spend fewer hours on household labour, receive more pay, and hold more supervisory positions (Blumberg, 1991; Grossman & Chester, 1990; Powell, 1988). Even when they hold the same job, men tend to be given greater autonomy and are more likely to be given leadership roles, rather than maintenance tasks (Powell, 1988). Women are more likely to have to move to accommodate their partner’s career opportunities, be subjected to sexual harassment, and have special demands related to the poor fit of their health issues with company policy (i.e. pregnancy considered a problem, whereas men’s greater incidence of alcoholism and heart disease is not considered a genderrelevant concern). In addition, women are more likely to be expected to take time off work for care of an ill child or parent (even her spouse’s parent), and are more likely to be expected to take time away from their careers for child rearing.
Psychology has further blurred the study of how women are affected by work through applying individualistic models of stress and coping to the study of women’s workplace experiences. This post focuses on this theme and discusses the literature on women’s stress and coping by introducing a communal perspective to our evaluation. In particular, there has been an almost exclusive emphasis on the study of the individual’s perceived control in the workplace, to the point that few other psychological dimensions of either the work environment or people’s response to it have been studied (Karasek et al., 1981, 1987). This is not to say that the lack of control influences men, but not women. LaCroix (1984) and LaCroix and Haynes (1984) found that the situation of high demand and low control in the workplace increased women’s risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), compared to women in job situations of low demand and high control. Men’s CHD in these studies was not found to be differentially affected by levels of demand and control. High-demand/lowcontrol work environments have similarly been associated with women’s reports of greater cigarette smoking and chest pain (Biener et al., 1986; Haynes et al., 1987). These studies, however, tend to focus on clerical workers, a category in which women are over-represented and which may provide particularly low levels of autonomy and compensation. Hence, the studies may actually represent the risk of a given occupational category, and not of the general lack of control. Furthermore, studies have equated role ambiguity or clarity of supervisors as indicators of control, whereas many low-control situations are neither ambiguous nor unclear.
The primary question that we raise is whether control and individual action are the central variables to study in order to understand women’s experience of stress in the workplace. Miller (1980) found that control was more a concern for men than for women. For men, job satisfaction was associated with positional authority, having decision making power, and not having close supervision. For women, high job satisfaction was associated with the use of thought and independent judgment, and the opportunity to utilize skills and ability. Another way to look at the influence of work experiences on men’s and women’s lives is to take a cultural perspective. The workplace is traditionally dominated by a male culture, which is based not on the team model that is marketed by personnel departments, but on an individualistic, dominance-based model. Power and authority are the main themes in this culture. Even when peoplework together, status and hierarchical relationships predominate. To the extent that there exists a distinguishable women’s culture, it does not seem to differ from the current workplace culture on the need for esteem or the value of success. Rather, women tend to both offer and receive support more often and more effectively than men (Hobfoll & Vaux, 1993; Kessler et al., 1985). They tend to be more willing to work with a team, rather than dominate the team (Powell, 1988; Radecki & Jennings, 1980), and they are more likely to consider others’ needs, as well as their own. This is not to say that there is not appreciable overlap between men’s and women’s cultures. Even when collectivist and individualistic cultures that characterize Eastern versusWestern cultures are compared, considerable overlap exists, at the same time that they are distinctive (Triandis et al., 1990). In this post we examine how stress affects women and how coping may moderate the effects of that stress.We also explore the underlying assumptions of the individualistic model of stress and coping, and contrast them with a model that incorporates both individualism and communalism. Our own multiaxial model of coping is presented as an alternative structure that provides a different perspective on the experience of stress and how coping strategies may operate in response to stress.
EXAMINING THE MODEL OF RUGGED INDIVIDUALISM
Coping behaviors play an important role in people’s response to stress (Endler & Parker, 1990; Lazarus&Folkman, 1984; McCrae&Costa, 1986). However, the influence of coping is still not well understood, and research regarding its influence has tended to be atheoretical (Carver et al., 1989; Schwarzer & Schwarzer, 1996). In particular, we criticize current methods as being tuned to an individualistic perspective that sociologically has been termed “rugged individualism”. Rugged individualism pits man against the elements in his fight for survival. This perspective esteems control and action and ignores social and communal aspects of coping (Riger, 1993). Important gender and ethnic differences in coping are missed by adopting this Lone Ranger, “man against the elements” perspective. Esteeming individualism asserts two underlying assumptions. As Riger (1993, p. 280) writes:
Agreat deal of research in psychology rests on the assumption that the healthy individual is one who is self-contained, independent and self-reliant, capable of asserting himself and influencing his environment. Coping research, particularly that conducted on stress in the workplace, has promoted this perspective, with an emphasis on active, problem-focused coping. That problem-focused efforts may even be antisocial and affect others negatively or sabotage potential support has been ignored (Lane & Hobfoll, 1992). Some coping scales even categorize such behaviors as “Visit a friend” and “Spend time with a special person” as types of avoidant coping (Endler & Parker, 1990). It is instructive that avoidant coping, as measured by this scale, was related to negative outcomes for men, but unrelated to negative outcomes for women. Secondly, individualism denies the influence of the environment. Sampson (1993, p. 12) writes:
Effort is expended in developing precise ways to measure and assess individual psychological states and perceptions and to evaluate individual behavior outcomes. The social context within which these individual perceptions and activities take place is put off to the side, occasionally alluded to, but rarely if ever systematically addressed.
Coping research suggests that when action is not chosen, the alternatives are either avoidance or “passive” attempts to reduce discomforting emotions (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). These alternative strategies are the most strongly related to psychological outcomes, with more avoidance and emotion-focused coping producing greater psychological distress (Endler & Parker, 1990; Freedy et al., 1992). Research has suggested that men are more likely to adopt actions designed to alter the problem, whereas women are more likely to cope by managing their emotional responses to stress or by using avoidance (Billings & Moos, 1984; Endler & Parker, 1990; Stone & Neale, 1984). Some have suggested that these gender differences result from the action demands that men experience versus the emotional demands that women encounter because of the different role settings they typically occupy (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Roth & Cohen, 1986). However, we argue that, because the underlying models are based on individualism, the positive things that women are more likely to do are never measured.
THE STRESS OF WORK AND ITS INFLUENCE ON WOMEN
With more women entering the labor force, women are being confronted with workplace stressors that are shared with men, as well as stressors unique to their gender. Although they may share particular work-related stressors, men and women may perceive and react to these stressors differently according to their social support resources and coping orientation.
Both male and female employees experience stressors related to such variables as: (i) role ambiguity, involving a lack of clarity about job roles, expectations or criteria in order to perform adequately; (ii) role conflict, where directives are incompatible and conflicting, or when available resources are insufficient to meet job demands; role overload, which involves having too many demands, and may include time pressure; and (iv) lack of autonomy, resulting from significant supervisor control combined with limited opportunity to participate in decision making (Billings & Moos, 1982).
Although the specific ways in which men and women react to and choose to cope with these shared stressors may differ, in general, all can contribute to a sense of job dissatisfaction, and may have a variety of additional implications. For example, chronic job-related stress can result in job tedium, burnout, and reduced efficiency, motivation, and productivity (Akabas, 1988; Maslach, 1982; Pines & Aronson, 1981). Physical health problems and somatic complaints, as well as various mental health problems (e.g. anxiety, depression, marital discord) also have been linked to workplace stressors (House & Wells, 1978; Jackson & Maslach, 1982; LaRocco & Jones, 1978; LaRocco et al., 1980; Repetti et al., 1989).
Whenstudies began to address the impact of employment specifically forwomen, research focused less on the specific workplace stressors mentioned above, and more on the addition of the employee role to those of wife and mother. Conceptualizations of multiple roles for women included the scarcity hypothesis (Goode, 1960), where a greater number of roles is likely to deplete limited resources, with negative consequences for women’s health and well-being, and the enhancement hypothesis (Marks, 1977; Sieber, 1974), where an increased number of roles provides greater potential to access resources (e.g. self-esteem, social status, financial gains), and the ability to delegate obligations required by the various roles. More roles, therefore, provide expanded opportunities that are likely to result in greater health benefits (Gove & Zeiss, 1987; Thoits, 1983; Verbrugge, 1982).
When examining the health of women, the perceived quality of women’s social roles has been found to be more important than the number of roles per se (Barnett & Baruch, 1985; Baruch & Barnett, 1986; Baruch et al., 1987). Therefore, it is essential when addressing coping orientation to look not only at the job-related stressors common among men and women, but also at the home and workplace stressors that are unique to working women. This provides information about how women assess the quality of their roles, and can give clues to the special support needs of employed women.
JOB-RELATED STRESSORS UNIQUE TO WOMEN
Management typically portrays the workplace as gender neutral, but there is ample evidence that gender bias exists on both overt and more subtle levels. This bias contributes to the special stressors facing working women. First, there is limited appreciable promotion of women to higher organizational ranks (Cowan, 1989; Grant, 1988; Kim, 1994). Hence, regardless of the fact that the opportunities for and acceptance of women in the workplace are improving, the glass ceiling effect remains, and women still are not well integrated in many organizational systems. Even where women work in traditional female professions, such as nursing, teaching, housekeeping, and food service, the management is male dominated (Powell, 1988). In some instances, a “men’s club” mentality has resulted in outright discrimination and sexual harassment. The tendency is for managers to underrate and underreward women compared to men with identical credentials (Bhatnagar, 1988; Lott, 1985; Rosenfield & Stephan, 1978). Even with the same job, in the same occupation, women’s earnings are typically lower than those of men (J. Kim, 1994; M. Kim, 1989; Powell, 1988). Indeed, this compensation gap increases as women ascend the corporate ladder into the executive ranks (J. Kim, 1994).
WORKPLACE SUPPORT
The existence of discrimination, sexual harassment, and the glass ceiling are factors that indicate an underlying lack of institutional support for women. An absence of support for women is further evidenced by the paucity of family-friendly initiatives, ranging from childcare assistance and leave for the caretaking of sick family members, to job-relocation for both members of dual-income families (Cowan, 1989). Provisions that have been developed such as flexitime and flexplace programs are not widespread and do not appear to ease the burden of work–family conflict for women with major family responsibilities (Beutell & Greenhaus, 1986).
In terms of access to workplace support on an interpersonal level, women have an apparent disadvantage when compared to men. Several studies have demonstrated that workplace support has been more effective in limiting work-related stress for men than for women (Baruch et al., 1987; Etzion, 1984; House, 1981). Geller & Hobfoll (1994) examined gender differences in the amount and effectiveness of interpersonal work support. Despite the fact that the men and women in this study reported receiving similar amounts of support from their co-workers and supervisors, men benefitted more from these support sources. It is possible that men benefit more from their work relationships because they may interact with their colleagues on a more informal level, which House (1981) suggests may be most effective in the prevention of work stress and its negative consequences. Because individualistic characteristics are so highly valued in the workplace, and because men are inclined toward this individualistic orientation, support may be provided more genuinely among men and may be more effective since it can involve mutual exchange and spontaneous acts, rather than role-required behavior. Some of the negative sequelae of women’s limited access to effective, interpersonal work support include social isolation, difficulty finding mentors, and decreased status in the workplace (Bhatnagar, 1988).
EMPHASIS ON INDIVIDUALISTIC ORIENTATION IN THE WORKPLACE
The emphasis on individualistic characteristics as opposed to communal qualities may present a key obstacle to women obtaining necessary institutional, as well as interpersonal, workplace social support. Gupta et al. (1983) have argued that social problems such as women’s social isolation and difficulty finding mentors may be tied to women’s inability to gain access to the “old-boy network” of advancement, which involves off-the-job social and extracurricular activities essential for recognition, acceptance, and promotion in most organizations. In large part, this may stem from expectations for employees to act according to the individualistic-male model of managerial success, which includes agenic characteristics such as self-reliance and dominance. Simultaneously, there are covert messages punishing women for exhibiting these male gender role traits. At the same time, however, communal characteristics, such as nurturance, and interdependence, are not coping traits that are valued in most organizations (Grant, 1988). Put another way, women are paradoxically excluded from the one communal element of work—the old boys network—because their behavior is deemed too communal and not individualistic enough, but punished for exhibiting the esteemed traits more commonly exhibited by their male colleagues.
According to some authors, conflicting expectations at work place women in an irresolvable dilemma. If they want to retain people’s approval, they must demonstrate such qualities of female gender role as warmth and expressiveness. If they want to succeed professionally, however, they must act according to the individualistic, power-centered model by being assertive, competitive, and firm (Bhatnagar, 1988; Grant, 1988).
Investigators assessing factors contributing to the provision of support found that assertive coping may attract support (Dunkel-Schetter & Skokan, 1990). Individuals who cope more actively and are less passive are given greater support in response to their efforts. This might suggest that assertive women demonstrating characteristics of agency would be best able to access workplace support. However, both men and women have been socialized to expect the gentle and empathic, communal role in women (Martin et al., 1983). In addition, if women’s assertiveness is misread as aggressive, they may alienate and anger potential supporters.
Despite the fact that people prefer to interact with and support individuals whom they perceive to possess similar characteristics, women seem to be less positively evaluated by males, even when they exhibit traits of an individualistic orientation deemed necessary for business success (Eagly et al., 1992). Mathison (1986) found that women were actually more negative toward an assertive woman than were men. This phenomena may be attributed to the different goals that people believe are achieved by association with men and women in the work domain. In the interpersonal domain, both men and women prefer supportive relationships with women (Reis et al., 1985). If women are perceived as compassionate and sensitive, they can best provide interpersonal support. If men are perceived as competent and powerful, they are best able to provide work support (Bhatnagar, 1988), so their assertive orientation may be evaluated more positively in work settings.
In one of the few experimental investigations of how assertive men and women are evaluated in the workplace, Geller & Hobfoll (1993) found evidence of a double bias, with each gender preferring to mentor and offer support to their own gender. They suggest that this may represent a historical change in women’s socialization. Due to increased awareness and sensitivity to problems such as the glass ceiling and lack of mentors, women may be recognizing a need for increased camaraderie. Women also may be developing increased understanding and acceptance of women adopting a more individualistic orientation. As men do not share women’s plight, they either may not be experiencing this change, or may be experiencing it more slowly. However, since males hold the majority of key supervisory positions at this time, these findings support the fact that women are at a disadvantage in terms of organizational advancement.
STRESS AT HOME
The focus on stress in working women’s home lives has been on inadequate household assistance from their partners. Women with families often have additional home burden since: (i) women’s traditional core role has involved household responsibilities (Barnett & Baruch, 1987); and (ii) working men have been slow to pick up the slack at home. Typically, women take responsibility for much more of the family’s home labor even when both members of a dual-career couple have full-time jobs (Cowan, 1989; Pleck, 1985; Powell, 1988). The most striking finding is that women spend more than twice as much time on housework and childcare than men. Although the husbands of employed wives are increasing their proportion of total family labor, the increase is due to wives’ decreased participation, rather than to husbands’ greater time commitments. Also, although men are increasing their number of child contact hours, women still perform the vast majority of childcare and household tasks. This unequal division of household labor contributes an average of 10 additional work hours each week to the schedules of employed women.
In addition to the roles of spouse and parent, it is women who typically take on additional family-related roles and responsibilities. For example, women’s communal orientation makes them more likely than men (e.g. their husbands or brothers) to become the primary carer for an elderly or sick family member, even when the family member is more closely related to the woman’s partner or spouse (e.g. mother-in-law). With the increasing number of aging Americans, there is a growing likelihood that more women will be in the position of primary caretaker for their children and their aging parents, in addition to holding a full-time job.
WORK–FAMILY ROLE CONFLICT
In the lives of both men and women, family life is usually the most important aspect (Barnett & Baruch, 1987), and, along with job satisfaction, is a significant predictor of general life satisfaction (Gutek et al., 1988).Yet,workingwomen often feel conflicted about the combination of these roles. Since women have stronger personal, social and societal pressure to adhere to the roles focusing on family and household tasks, it is working women more so than working men who experience the strains of competing work and family demands (Barnett & Baruch, 1987; Beutell & Greenhaus, 1986).
Three different types of conflict that relate to the work–family role dilemma have been described (Beutell & Greenhaus, 1986; Gutek et al., 1988). The first, time-based conflict, involves the distribution of time, energy and opportunities between the occupational and family roles. Here, scheduling is difficult and time is restricted since the demands and the behaviors required to enact them are incompatible. Women often experience fatigue since the two roles compete for personal resources. The second conflict has been termed strainbased conflict, referring to the spillover of strain, or an emotional state that is generated in one role, into the performance of another role. Behavior-based conflict, the third type of work–family conflict, refers to the incompatible sets of behaviors an individual has for work and for family. Because of these separate set of behaviors, women often find it difficult to shift gears from one role to another.
For some women, their career commitment has resulted in changed priorities, in which equal priority for home and work roles replaces the traditional preference for the home role (Pines & Aronson, 1981). Some less traditionally minded women resolve the dilemma by giving the career precedence over their family whenever the two conflict. Other women, and they are increasing in number, are choosing to deal with this work–family conflict by not having a family at all (Gutek et al., 1988; Powell, 1988).
Most common, however, are women who cope with their conflict at the work–family interface by over-adhering to gender-role stereotypes at home. Due to their communal orientation, many women do not view their jobs as justification for attending less to their families and household work. Therefore, they feel personal pressure that causes them to feel guilt and anxiety when they cannot fulfill all of their responsibilities. “These women believe that in addition to being ‘super-professionals,’ they have to be ‘super-mothers’ and ‘superhomemakers’” (Pines & Aronson, 1981). Because childcare is hard to find, expensive, and often breaks down,workingwomen who are single parents or have children with a disability are likely to experience greater stress resulting from the work–family conflict (Goldberg et al., 1992).
HOME-BASED SUPPORT
Researchers have concluded that employment is associated with improved mental health for women only if partner support is received, as reflected by a favorable attitude toward womenworking and as demonstrated by an equitable division of household labor (Kessler& McRae, 1982; Ross et al., 1983). In addition, several studies have demonstrated that family support has been most effective in reducing work stress for women, while work-related sources of support have been most effective in the attenuation of these effects among men (Baruch et al., 1987; Etzion, 1984; House, 1981).
Geller & Hobfoll (1994) found that household assistance from partners was related to women reporting greater tedium and work-related stress—a counterintuitive finding that also has been noted in research by Baruch & Barnett (1986) and Hochschild & Machung (1989). There are several possibilities that may account for this finding. First, the support that is provided to women by their partners must correspond to their needs (Cohen & McKay, 1985; Cutrona, 1990). It may be that the household assistance women receive is too low to meet their needs, or that another aspect of support, such as emotional support, is needed and expected, but not provided. The stress experienced by many women may also be so great that the household support may come too late to be effective. When resources are overtaxed, social support reserves may be less effective. If partner assistance does not fit the needs of women adequately, this may actually result in greater strain. According to Parry (1986), employment can reduce the risk of psychological symptoms caused by stressful life events when support is sufficient, but results in increased symptoms when adequate support is unavailable. Another possibility is that women who report receiving the greatest amounts of household assistance may be receiving “high hassle support” (Geller & Hobfoll, 1994). Although women may be receiving assistance, the positive aspects my be associated with stress, and may overshadow the perceived helpfulness of the support. For example, if a woman must consistently remind her partner to complete household chores, or if he does them inadequately, frustration may develop and the woman may need to redo the task. Additionally, women may have difficulty accepting household assistance from their partners due to their communal orientation. Receiving a great deal of assistance may be interpreted by working women to mean they are failing at their “real” role as wife and mother. Feelings of guilt and failure may contribute to the experience of greater strain.
COMMUNAL ORIENTATION: DEVELOPING A COLLECTIVIST PERSPECTIVE
Despite the fact that the existing literature is filled with references to women being more communally-oriented as opposed to men, who tend to be more individualistic, few attempts have been made to study coping behavior in a way that considers both perspectives. The existing literature has persisted in portraying individualistic coping as the most desirable and most effective approach. Furthermore, despite the fact that investigators have repeatedly found that men and women cope in similar ways and report equal use of problem-focused coping (e.g. Folkman&Lazarus, 1980, 1985; Folkman et al., 1986a, b; Forsythe&Compas, 1987), the literature has persisted in portraying men as effective, individualistic copers and women as ineffective, emotional copers.
Women’s active, direct coping has been ignored, as well as any results suggesting that men use ineffective means of coping. For instance, Parkes (1990) found that men reported more use of suppression coping than did women; in other words, men reported more use of withdrawal, restraint, compromise, and ignoring the problem. Carver et al. (1989) found that men were more likely than women to use alcohol and drug disengagement, and Hobfoll et al. (1994) found that men reported more aggressive rather than assertive coping. Despite these findings, men have been consistently portrayed as being good copers. This bias is seen even more clearly in the workplace coping literature. The majority of this research has focused on Caucasian, middle-class males to the almost total exclusion of women (Long, 1990; Long et al., 1992). Even studies investigating the impact of unemployment have centered on men, despite the fact that women are more likely to lose their jobs. The impact of this has not been investigated because women are assumed to be less affected (Leana & Feldman, 1991).
Hobfoll and his colleagues have addressed this issue in a line of research presenting a new model of coping, and a companion coping instrument, developed to investigate coping from both individualistic and communal viewpoints, rather than emphasizing either approach. This work has allowed investigation of how well the traditional malebiased, individualistic assumptions regarding coping actually represent the realm of coping behavior.
THE MULTIAXIAL MODEL OF COPING
To study coping in a context that allows for both individualistic and communal orientations, we developed the multiaxial model of coping and a companion test instrument, the Strategic Approach to Coping Scale (SACS).We began with a dual-axis model (Hobfoll et al., 1994), the two axes representing active–passive and prosocial–antisocial dimensions. A communal orientation would suggest that the active–prosocial orientation would be the most effective. Active–antisocial action might be personally productive, but might also alienate others, be destructive to social networks, and eventually backfire on the individual. Passive–prosocial orientations could support others, but might not lead to goal-directed behavior for the individual. Passive–antisocial behavior could be the most destructive, both personally and socially, but might be adopted in a defensive strategy.
A communal perspective suggests that, even when being active, behavior may be either direct or indirect. For example, in Japanese culture it is socially inappropriate to embarrass your business opponent. Hence, it is common practice to manipulate the environment indirectly so that your company gains an advantage without the other company losing face (Weisz et al., 1984). Such environmental manipulations demand great activity and a goal-directed posture, but they are performed indirectly and behind the scenes. Similarly, in African-American culture, people’s actions may be aimed at altering settings to enhance others’ well-being, rather than directly aiming actions at the people themselves (Dressler, 1985).
Our prior research did not find appreciable evidence for people who are extremely passive to be either prosocial or antisocial, but relatively passive behavior was at times linked to prosocial or passive–antisocial coping (Hobfoll et al., 1994). This may be because when people become passive they become asocial, rather than prosocial or antisocial. By being passive, one simply does not act toward others.We had expected a passive–aggressive kind of coping to occur, but this may be depicted better in our current model by being indirect and antisocial, rather than by seeing someone as passive and antisocial. As people become more active, their demeanor vis-`a-vis the social environment becomes more relevant according to the model. Hence, people can be active and prosocial or antisocial in carrying out those actions.