Department of Psychology, University of Helsinki, Finland.
J Occup Environ Med. 2010 Jan;52(1):1-7. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181c559ea.
We examined whether different Type A behavior dimensions have divergent influence on work stress.
The sample comprised 752 participants from the Cardiovascular Risk in Young Finns Study. Data were collected by questionnaires. Type A behavior was reported in subjects' adolescence and adulthood, and work stress was reported in adulthood. Work stress was measured according to Karasek's job demands-job control model and Siegrist's effort-reward imbalance (ERI).
High leadership predicted lower job strain. High hard-driving predicted higher job strain. High leadership predicted lower ERI in 2001 and higher reward at work. High aggression, hard-driving, and eagerness-energy predicted ERI.
Leadership predicted low work stress, whereas high hard-driving seemed to predispose the employee to work stress. The current findings add to the work stress literature by showing a divergent influence of different Type A dimensions on work stress.
我们研究了不同的 A 型行为维度是否对工作压力有不同的影响。
该样本包括来自心血管风险在年轻的芬兰人研究中的 752 名参与者。数据通过问卷调查收集。A 型行为在受试者的青少年和成年期报告，工作压力在成年期报告。工作压力根据 Karasek 的工作要求-工作控制模型和 Siegrist 的努力-回报不平衡（ERI）来衡量。
高领导能力预示着较低的工作压力。高驱力预示着较高的工作压力。高领导能力在 2001 年预示着较低的 ERI 和更高的工作回报。高攻击性、高驱力和高渴望能量预示着 ERI。
领导能力预示着低工作压力，而高驱力似乎使员工容易产生工作压力。当前的研究结果通过显示不同 A 型维度对工作压力的不同影响，为工作压力文献增添了新内容。
