7

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Related Literature

Stress is a much talked about word in today’s time whether or not the seriousness with

which to avoid it and to deal with it, is adequate in organizations. Stress today affects almost all

in some way or the other. Organizations are group of people and therefore they cannot remain

unaffected. If the literature review is of any indication, stress emerges as a key concern in the

business world today. The implication of stress are many, including the morale, attrition,

overhead costs and poor productivity and therefore there have been many researches that have

examined stress and it’s variables. Minter (1999) defines stress as “harmful physical and

emotional responses that occur when requirements of a job do not match the capabilities,

resources or needs of the worker.” Schuler (1982) is of the opinion that stress is “perceived

dynamic state involving uncertainty about something important”.

Pestonjee (1992) defines stress as occurring when demands on an individual exceed his

adjustment resources. He is of the view that while stress is generally believed to have a

deleterious effect of health and performance, recent research has revealed that a minimal level of

stress is essential for effective functioning. It is the individual's reaction to stress which makes all

the difference and may prove to be harmful. According to him the interest in the issue has been

rising and calls the present century as the ‘age of anxiety and stress.’ In the lives of most

individuals stress has been identified as a constant condition. Stress affects the life and

functioning and therefore there has been an importance of stress as a research topic (Abdollahi,

2002).
 8

In addition, Selye, (1956) has been recognised and credited by many researchers as

defining the term stress in the context it is presently used (Oxington, 2005). Selye has been

quoted by Oxington in Psychology of Stress, saying that there would be no life without stress.

According to Oxington, stress is an inevitable result of life. Stress has been defined and

described by many researchers (Lazarus & DeLongis, 1983; Oxington, 2005; Sapolsky, 2004;

Selye, 1956; Storch & Panzerella, 1996). Sapolsky defined stress in his book, Why Zebras Don’t

Get Ulcers (2004) : “A stressor is anything in the outside world that knocks you out of

homeostatic balance and the stress response is what your body does to re-establish homeostasis”.

Sapolsky, (2004) also has explained how anticipation of a stressful event can become a

source of stress. Surprisingly, the body reacts in the same predictable way to an actual stressing

event as it would to an anticipated stressing event (Sapolsky, 2004). Commonly accepted

definitions of stress have also been provided by earlier researchers, such as (Selye, 1956; and

Lazarus & DeLongis, 1983).

According to Selye (1956) generalized adaptation theory, stress is defined as any reaction

of the body to a demand. Demands can be anything ranging from physical injury or tension to

extreme heat or cold. Stressors are either internal or external stimuli that an individual believes to

be demanding. Stressors can be psychologically, physically or socially inflicted. In Selye’s

theory, the body reacts to stress sequentially, according to three stages. The first is the alarm

stage. A typical physical reaction to the alarm stage is movement of the body’s defence

mechanisms, such as a change in hormone levels with the expansion of the adrenal cortex.

Psychological reactions to the alarm stage occur in three steps: alertness to the stressor,

augmented anxiety levels, followed by task and defense oriented behaviors (Selye, 1956).
 9

The resistance stage is the second phase of the body’s reaction to stress. In general,

during this stage of resistance, the body tries to adapt to the stressor. Physical reactions aroused

during the alarm stage return to normal and psychological reactions turn to coping mechanisms.

If the person’s coping is ineffective and this stage is extended, the body moves into the next

stage of exhaustion. In the exhaustion stage, the body cannot resist stress any further. Physical

reactions include swelling and depletion of adrenalin glands damage to the lymphatic system.

Psychological symptoms can be as severe as disorganization of perceptions and thoughts. The

body exhibits symptoms to damaging stress in biological and psychological manifestations.

These manifestations can be anxiety, irritability, headaches, gastrointestinal upset, high blood

pressure and depressive symptoms (Selye, 1956).

Lazarus & DeLongis, (1983), who have done extensive work in the field of stress,

developed two models of life stress as it exists in the research. These two different models are

the life events and daily hassles. In the life events model, it is argued that certain life events bring

about change and force the individual to adapt, causing stress (Lazarus & DeLongis, 1983). The

second model, daily hassles, Lazarus and DeLongis argued, is the basis of defining stress. Daily

hassles is a term used to identify the exasperating and stressful burdens people deal with every

day that increases stress levels. Anxiety about losing weight, undemanding work and lack of

family time, would all be considered daily hassles. Certain hassles can be temporary or chronic,

but Lazarus and DeLongis believed that it is important to distinguish them from the bigger life-

challenging events, such as a death in the family or loss of a job. In Lazarus and DeLongis

model, stress is based on the individual’s perception of the stressor. Stress is a complex system

of processes and not just a simple variable. Oxington, (2005) further elaborated on the works of

Lazarus and DeLongis. Oxignton considered stress to the body’s physical reaction to a situation
 10

that is disagreeable. He described how different events cause different degrees of stress; for

example, missing the bus or train or waiting in a relatively long queue can cause mild stress,

which according to (Lazarus & DeLongis, 1983),

Would be considered daily hassles. The death of a loved one or loss of a job can cause

severe stress, making this type of life changing event a life event, according to (Lazarus &

DeLongis, 1983). Stress can also have diverse sequential durations, such as acute and chronic

stress. According to Oxington, (2005), chronic stress includes stress that is not short term. Health

concerns, lingering problems and financial difficulties may be sources of chronic stress. Acute

stress on the other hand is caused by a reaction to a short-lived, urgent threat. This threat can

either be real or perceived (Violanti, 1983).

The underlying theme in the working definition of stress is the significance placed on

perception. Stress is experienced when social demands and not adequately met by an individual

followed by consequences for not meeting demands. The individual has to perceive an imbalance

of demands and response capability in order to feel stress (Violanti, 1983).

Work related stress Triggers causing stress, also known as stressors are “characteristics

of the job environment which pose a threat to an individual” (Caplan, Cobb, French, Harison, &

Pinneau, 1975). When we talk of good work culture, it is indicative of these stressors being

lesser in number, frequency and intensity but no work environment is completely free of these

stressors. Systematic efforts to identify, control and manage the factors that induce stress in

among the employees is something not all organizations can afford to do. The other aspect of

stress has been looked in other research as a relationship between the employees and their

environment, which could probably be seen as an employee stretching his or her resources,
 11

endangering his or her health or well being or taxing himself or herself in the process of

delivering the duties So in a way it is not improper to relate stress to the negative effects of the

workplace in conjunction with employee characteristics, well-being and health (Beehr, 1995;

Evans & Cohen, 1987).

The word stress brings to the mind the thought that it is related to an individual but when

the implications of job stress are studied it is found that it is dysfunctional to the organizations

too (Kahn et all., 1964). Some of the variable that have been found to influence occupational

stress are worker control (Spector, 1982), social support (House, 1981) and locus of control

(Spector, 1982; Parkes, 1989).

Since work and an individual’s life is intertwined, the stressful experiences at home or at

places other than the workplace also has been studied by researchers and it has been observed

that on the-job-experiences are related to off-the-job-experiences (Clark, Nye, & Viktor, 1978).

The overall job satisfaction of the employees is found to be good wherever satisfaction with

occupational choices, career advancement and personal life exists (Scarpello, Vida, & Campbell,

1983).

Despite Kahn‘s extensive research on stress, it was much later that he was recognised as a

leader in this field. Kahn et all. (1964) studies explore the variable of role ambiguity, role

overload and role-conflict. The variables of role ambiguity, role-overload and role conflict were

explored by Kahn’s studies. In order to get or exchange information, take assistance or direction,

sales people interact with the customers, superiors or colleagues who are their role-senders.

These demands and expectations by the role-senders are perceived as stressors when the sales

people believe there is a conflict, among demands; ambiguity about expectations and role
 12

overload of demands and expectations. This happens more explicitly when the salesperson

witnesses that the expectations and demands of two or more members of his or her role set, say

the superior and the customer are incompatible with each other (Kahn et all., 1964). Role

ambiguity is a perceived lack of information that a salesperson may need to perform the job

adequately; role ambiguity can also be the uncertainty about expectations (Kahn et all., 1964).

When a salesperson perceives his role exceeding his or her abilities to perform the tasks, role

overload is felt (Kahn et all., 1964).

Dispositional, psychological and sociological characteristics influence these perceived

stressors. Additionally (Kahn et all., 1964) demonstrates that persistent stressors overwhelm a

person’s resources and have a dysfunctional impact on behavioral and psychological job

outcomes like job performance and satisfaction. Correlation between stressors such as role

ambiguity, role conflict, role overload, resource inadequacy, underutilization of skills and

absenteeism have been found in other studies as well (Gupta & Beehr, 1979; Jamal, 1984).

Encouraging relations play an important role in helping the employees to cope better with

role overload (Cohen & T.A., 1985; Cobb, 1976). Social, supportive or emotional supports are

informative inputs received from others recognizing the individual as a valued individual or that

they all belong to the same network of communication and mutual obligation.

Support from others provides cushioning effect from stressors and help improve coping

with stress. Support and encouragement also helps the individual remain task focused and better

prepared for problem resolution, apart from being able to take actions so as to reduce role

overload. We shall continue to discuss literature relevant to the areas of Organizational Role

Stress, multiple roles, stress, satisfaction, gender difference, and the mediating factors of
 13

hardiness, social support and coping strategies. The effects of multiple roles on the individual,

has been the topic of some theoretical discussion. In general, there are two opposing viewpoints

on how multiple role involvement affects a person. The first viewpoint, represented by Goode

(1960), asserts that multiple role involvement has detrimental effects on the individual such as

role overload and role conflict. Inter Role Distance is briefly defined as Conflicts between the

various roles occupied by an individual. Role Expectation Conflict is defined as Conflicting

expectations and demands on a role occupant. The opposing viewpoint represented by Marks

(1977); Sieber (1974) and Thoits, (1983) states that multiple role involvement does not

necessarily have negative effects and that it may have positive effects such as extra rights and

privileges, status security, personal enrichment and psychological well-being. Role strain

comprises two overlapping problems: role overload and role conflict. Role strain refers to

constraints imposed by time.

As role obligations increase sooner or later a time barrier comes up that forces the

individuals to honor some role obligations at the expense of attending to others. Role conflict,

refers to discrepant expectations irrespective of time pressures. On occasion, the individual must

choose between the expectations of two different role obligations because compliance with the

expectations of the other. The more roles one accumulates, the greater the probability of

exhausting one’s supply of time and energy, and of confronting conflicting obligations, leading

to role strain and psychological distress. Marks (1977); Sieber (1974) and Thoits, (1983) have

questioned the assumption that human energy is limited or ‘scarce’ and that multiple role

involvement leads only to role strain. Marks (1977) described an alternative approach to human

energy. Noting that all multiple role persons do not appear to be struggling with role conflicts or

suffering from role overload, he questioned the scarcity of energy and, instead, described an
 14

alternative approach wherein involvement in roles does not necessarily use up energy. Instead it

may actually create energy for use in that role or in other roles.

According to Marks (1977) people seem to find the time and energy for anything they are

highly committed to and often feel more energetic after having done it. Thus the human

resources of time and energy are flexible and because of that multiple role involvement need not

result in role strain. Sieber (1974) went even further, arguing that being involved in numerous

roles which is also termed as, role accumulation, has many rewards. These rewards include rights

and privileges that come with the role, resource for status enhancement and role performance,

personality enrichment and ego gratification and social security. Role privileges include inherent

rights that are built into the role that serves as inducements to recruitment and continuance of

role performance. For example, work roles often include vacation time, access to low cost

insurance, opportunities for promotions, status and a sense of doing something important. The

more roles on occupies, the more privileges one has available (Sieber, 1974).

Similarly Thoits, (1983) asserted that people get a sense of identity from their roles. Role

requirements give purpose, meaning, direction and guidance to one’s life. This sense of

meaningful existence and purposeful, ordered behaviour are crucial to psychological health.

Furthermore roles produce ego-gratification or the sense of being appreciated or needed by

others. A lack of roles in people’s lives leaves them without a sense of who they are and how to

behave. They may experience anxiety, depression or even severely disorganized behaviour

(Rose, 1962).

Pareek (1975) for the sake of convenience uses the word role for any position a person

holds in an organisation or system and the term function to indicate a set of inter-related
 15

expectations from a role. An individual may occupy several roles. Pestonjee, (1992) stresses that

“one of the key concepts to understand the integration of the individual with an organisation is

the role assigned to him within the overall structure of the organisation.” Prof Pestonjee further

adds that the definition of role indicates that there are inherent problems in the performance of a

role and, therefore, stress is inevitable.

Related Studies

According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), stress is defined as an individual’s physical

and psychological reaction to an event or object or which is appraised as a threat. Similarly,

according to Campbell (2006) as cited in Bataineh (2013), stress is an adverse reaction

that individuals manifest when they encounter excessive pressure or other types of

demands placed on them. Stress especially arises when individuals are under overwhelming

situation and believe that they are incompetent to handle. The definitions reflect that stress

is psychophysical phenomena which come into existence as a result of a continuous

interaction between the individual and the environment. Said it differently, when college

students, for instance, often deal with pressures associated with finding a job or a potential life

partner, such stressors do not cause anxiety or tension by themselves. Instead, the feeling

of stress results from the interaction between stressors and the students’ perception and

reaction to those stressors (Romano, 1992).

With respect to the levels of stress and stressors, previous literature has invariably

documented that college students are exposed to different kinds of stressors and stress

level. For instance, in a study conducted with the sample of 249 student participants,

undergraduate university students were found to experience higher levels of stress as a result
 16

of academic commitments, financial pressures, and lack of time management skills. The

students’ health, emotional state, and academic performance can be devastated when they

negatively interpret the stressful context or when the stress level intensifies (Ranjita Misra &

Mckean, 2000). In agreement with this finding, Waghachavare, Dhumale, Kadam, and Gore

(2013) surveyed a large sample (N = 1200) and demonstrated that college students experienced a

certain level of stress associated with healthy lifestyles and academic factors. Recently, Bhat

U et al. (2018) concluded that psychological stress is highly prevalent among college

students especially among engineerings and art students and those who are residing with their

families.

Ross, Niebling, and Heckert (1999) examined interpersonal, intrapersonal, academic

and environmental sources of stress and generally found daily hassles to be more stress-inducing

factors than more than significant life events, in which intrapersonal sources of stress were

the leading stressors. More specifically, the study delineated that change in sleeping habits,

vacations/breaks, changes in eating habits, increased workload, and new responsibilities

were the top five sources of stress among college students. Besides, Azila-Gbettor, Atatsi,

Danku, and Soglo (2015) have carried out a cross-sectional study in 275 business students in

Ghana and found that academic factors (e.g., getting good grade, exam stress, inadequate

educational materials and achieving academic goal), intarpersonal and self-stressors (e.g., fear

of failure, dealing with personal issue, and study skills), relationship interpersonal and social

stressors (e.g., academic competition, and social support), teaching quality, relations with

and support from teachers stressors (e.g., delaying in marking and feedback, accessing

learning materials, understanding the expectation of teaching staff) and environmental,

campus, administration and transition stressors (e.g., college transition and campus
 17

adjustment) are among the commonly stress producing factors in the students. Moreover,

the study disclosed that environmental, campus, administration and transition stressors were

the most stressful category. In another study, college students’ high-stress levels were

appeared to be positively related to their negative perception of one’s self, and unhealthy

behaviors such as poor diet, lack of exercise, and inconsistent sleep patterns (Walton, 2002).

Another study was conducted on academic stress among college students in the faculty

of education at King Saud University. The result of the study showed that academic overloads,

course awkward, inadequate time to study, workload every semester, exams awkward, low

motivation, and high family expectations produced moderate level of stress among students. It

was also found that fear of failure was the primary source of stress among students (Bataineh,

2013).

Several previous literature seemed to have an agreement on the general prevalence

of stress among the college students, but the sources of stress and magnitude of stress

among students are not consistent across the studies. Although many studies reported high

level of stress among the students, some studies also found university students to experience a

moderate level of stress, anxiety, and depression (e.g., Bataineh, 2013; Bayram & Bilgel,

2008; Thawabieh & Qaisy, 2012). We guess that such differences in the documented

findings might be associated with the nature of the stressors, the individual’s cognitive

appraisal, and coping resources, or methodological issues, and sample variations.

Empirical studies on the influence of gender on stress were found to be

contradictory and mixed up (Azila-Gbettor et al., 2015). For example, Sulaiman, Hassan,

Sapian, and Abdullah (2009) found that female students have experienced a higher level of
 18

stress compared to male students because they tend to be extra emotional and sensitive

toward what is happening in their surroundings. Jogaratnam and Buchanan (2004) found

the same finding that female students reported a higher level of stress than their male

counterparts concerning the time pressure dimension of stress. More to these findings, stress

and anxiety levels among female college students were found to be elevated compared to

counterparts (Bayram & Bilgel, 2008).

Possible elucidations for female students experiencing higher stress levels could include

women taking on the role of being the caretaker of the family while also working and

being a successful student. Females usually report a higher level of self-imposed stress and

report more physiological reactions to stressors than males while males report lower stress

levels because they are taught to be masculine and not show emotional weakness. In

another study, the association between gender and stress has also shown that women found

themselves in more stressful situations than males (Matud, 2004).

A factor in women feeling more stressed is how they perceive life events and the

responsibilities of taking on social roles. Also, women tend to be more affected by the stress

and energy of those around them. Another reason women have higher stress levels is that

they tend to cope more emotionally than men while men deal with stress and frustration

on a rational non-emotional level. Researchers have suggested that emotion-focused coping

is ineffective and more likely to be associated with psychological distress than is problem-

focused coping (Matud, 2004).

Unlike these findings, Khan et al. (2015) found that school boys are more stressed than

school girls. This might be due the higher expectations and responsibilities that parents put on
 19

boys as well as the high standard goals that boys want to attain in their plans (Khan et al., 2015).

Likewise, in a study conducted in Ghana, male students were found to experience a higher

level of stress than female students (Azila-Gbettor et al., 2015). On the other hand, other studies

reported that there is no significant difference between male and female on academic stress (e.g.,

Bhosale, 2014; Omoniyi & Ogunsanmi, 2012).

Several studies have ascertained that there is an inverse relationship between students’

level of stress and their academic performance with the assumptions that higher level of

stress hampers students’ effective functioning in the field of learning (Bennett, 2003; Elias,

Ping, & Abdullah, 2011). In a study conducted among 656 undergraduate students in India,

low performing and high performing students were found to have significantly different scores

on different sources of stress (Veena & Shastri, 2016).

Similarly, Taylor and Owusu-Banahene (2010) concluded that stress has a crippling

effect on students’ academic performance. In addition, components of stress such as social and

financial stress were also claimed to decline students’ academic performance (Pariat, Rynjah, &

Kharjana, 2014). From the reviewed literature, it seems that many studies are in favor of the

adverse effect of stress on students. However, there some studies which challenge the

inverse relationship between stress and academic performance and advocate for the positive

contribution of stress to students’ learning outcome.

For instance, Siraj et al. (2014) explored the association between stress levels and the

academic performances and demonstrated that respondents with a high and severe stress level

were observed to have a higher cumulative grade point average. The medical students were

found to be highly capable of managing their stress well and, thus, deny the adverse effect of
 20

stress on their academic performance. On the other hand, other studies found no statistically

significant relationship between stress and academic performance (Azila-Gbettor et al., 2015;

Jogaratnam & Buchanan, 2004).