Research Institute on Addictions, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York 14203, USA.
J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2012 Mar;73(2):303-10. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2012.73.303.
Research on supervisor social control provided little evidence for a relation to employee alcohol use, and only one study explored illicit drug use. Based on past research, several hypotheses were developed that the relation between supervisor social control and substance use depends on (a) the dimension social control (contact vs. enforcement), (b) the temporal context of substance use (on the job vs. off the job), and (c) substance legality (alcohol vs. illicit drugs).
Data came from a national probability sample of U.S. workers. Supervisor social control represented both supervisor contact and supervisor enforcement. Measures of alcohol and illicit drug use each assessed several dimensions of off-the-job use (overall use, overall impairment, and use after work) and on-the-job use (use before work, use during the workday, and impairment during the workday).
As hypothesized, the results did not support a relation of supervisor contact to off-the-job or on-the-job alcohol use and illicit drug use. Supervisor enforcement was unrelated to off-the-job alcohol use but was negatively related to on-the-job alcohol use. Supervisor enforcement was negatively related to both off-the-job and on-the-job illicit drug use.
These findings help clarify the generally unsupportive findings from past research for a relation between supervisor social control and employee alcohol use, as well as extend this line of research to include illicit drug use. The results suggest that to fully understand the relation of supervisor social control to employee substance use, one must consider the dimension of supervisor social control, temporal context of substance use, and substance legality.
关于主管社会控制对员工饮酒行为的影响,研究结果鲜有证据支持,且仅有一项研究探索了非法药物使用情况。基于以往的研究,提出了几个假设,即主管社会控制与物质使用之间的关系取决于:(a)社会控制的维度(接触与执行);(b)物质使用的时间背景(工作中与工作外);(c)物质的合法性(酒精与非法药物)。
数据来自美国全国概率性工人样本。主管社会控制既代表主管的接触也代表主管的执行。酒精和非法药物使用的测量方法均评估了工作外使用的几个维度(总体使用、总体损伤和工作后使用)和工作中使用(工作前使用、工作中使用和工作中损伤)。
正如假设的那样,结果不支持主管接触与工作外或工作内的酒精使用和非法药物使用之间的关系。主管执行与工作外的酒精使用无关,但与工作中的酒精使用呈负相关。主管执行与工作外和工作内的非法药物使用均呈负相关。
这些发现有助于澄清过去关于主管社会控制与员工饮酒行为之间关系的研究中普遍缺乏支持的结果,并将这一研究方向扩展到包括非法药物使用。结果表明,要全面了解主管社会控制与员工物质使用之间的关系,必须考虑主管社会控制的维度、物质使用的时间背景和物质的合法性。