International Journal of Psychology

ISSN: 0020-7594 (Print) 1464-066X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pijp20

The Moderating Effects of Activity Level and Locus

of Control in the Personal Control-Job Stress
Relationship

Pamela L. Perrewe

To cite this article: Pamela L. Perrewe (1987) The Moderating Effects of Activity Level and
Locus of Control in the Personal Control-Job Stress Relationship, International Journal of
Psychology, 22:2, 179-193, DOI: 10.1080/00207598708246776

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207598708246776

Published online: 27 Sep 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 10

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pijp20

Download by: [Central Michigan University] Date: 10 December 2015, At: 17:56
 International Journal of Psychology 22 (1987) 179-193 179
North-Holland

THE MODERATING EFFECTS OF ACTIVITY LEVEL

AND LOCUS OF CONTROL IN THE PERSONAL
CONTROL-JOB STRESS RELATIONSHIP

Pamela L. PERREWE *
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:56 10 December 2015

The Floriah State Universiy, Tallaharsee, USA

Revised version received March 1987

The present study examines the moderating effects of two personality types in the personal
control-job stress relationship. Individuals with a high activity level and belief in powerful others
(dimension of external locus of control) had the strongest negative relationship between personal
control and psychological anxiety. In addition, individuals with a high belief in chance or fate
(dimension of external locus of control) had the strongest negative relationship between personal
control and pulse rate. The findings suggest that employees with a high activity level and/or
external locus of control benefit the most from having control over their work environment.

Introduction

For most people, work occupies a major portion of their lives, in

terms of both time and importance. Work can be a tremendous source
of challenge and satisfaction, however, it can also be stress-inducing
and harmful. Organizations exert a great deal of influence on em-
ployees in order to channel behaviors toward desired goals. Confor-
ming to organizational norms, however, can be costly to the individual
(and, ultimately, the organization) in terms of increased pressure or job
stress and a loss of personal control.

Stress-reducingeffects of control

Personal control can be defined as individuals’ beliefs in their ability

to affect a change, in the desired direction, on the environment (Green-
berger and Strasser 1986). More specifically, control can be viewed as
Author’s address: P.L. Perrewe, Dept. of Management, Florida State University, Tallahassee,
FL 32306-1042, USA.

0020-7594/87/$3.50 0 1987, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)

 180 P.L Perrend / Personal conirol-job siress relaiionship

the belief that one can influence the environment. Thompson (1981)
argues that there are four different categories of control: behavioral,
cognitive, informational, and retrospective control. Behavioral control
is defined as a belief that a behavioral response is available that can
terminate the event, make it less probable or less intense, or change the
duration of timing. Cognitive control is defined as the belief that a
cognitive strategy is available that can affect the aversiveness of an
event (e.g., ignoring or distracting oneself from the events). A third
type, informational control, refers to some type of communication or
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:56 10 December 2015

message given to the potential recipient of a stressful event (e.g.,

warning signals). Finally, Thompson (1981) includes a category for
attributions of control made after exposure to a stressful situation,
namely retrospective control. This type of control involves attributing
causes to events that have already occurred. The present study focuses
on behavioral control rather than the other typologies within the
control construct.
Numerous studies have examined the impact of having a behavioral
response available in an aversive situation on psychological and physio-
logical stress. Glass et al. (1971), for example, studied behavioral
control by giving direct control to another subject - not the subject
being exposed to the aversive stimuli (noise). Four conditions were
manipulated: (1) perceived control, in which subjects believed they
could signal another subject to press a button which would terminate
the noise; (2) no perceived control, in which the other subject had a
control button, but no opportunity was given to communicate with
him;(3) together-no button, in which neither subject could control the
noise; and (4) alone-no button, in which the subject was exposed to
the noise without anyone else in the room and without means for
termination. Glass et al. (1971) found that the work of adapting to
uncontrollable, in contrast to controllable, noise resulted in heightened
tension (measured by tonic skin conductance) and impaired perfor-
mance on a proof-reading task after termination of the noise. Adapta-
tion was operationalized as the decrement in amplitude of phasic skin
conductance responses to successive noise stimuli. The researchers
concluded that it is not necessary for subjects to exert control, but only
perceive that control is possible (i.e., through access to another who
presumably has direct control).
In a shock-avoidance experiment, Hokanson et al. (1971) examined
the impact of behavioral control over rest periods. Subjects underwent
 P.L Perrewe / Personal control-job stress relationship 181

an aversive 30-minute shock-avoidance procedure in which the experi-

mental subjects had optional control over rest periods. A yoked control
group had comparable rest periods imposed on them. It was found that
the experimental group manifested substantially reduced systolic blood
pressure levels relative to the yoked control group. Hokanson et al.
(1971) argue that the availability of an avoidance response has an
arousal-reducing effect on individuals.
In one of the few field experiments on control, Langer and Rodin
(1976) examined the effects of an intervention designed to give elderly
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:56 10 December 2015

nursing home residents more choices and encourage more control and
responsibility for everyday events. Results indicated residents became
more active, increased alertness, and reported feeling happier than the
comparison group who were taken care of by the staff. An 18-month
follow-up study demonstrated that the effects of the intervention were
still operating. The experimental (self-choice) groups showed better
health and activity patterns, and had lower mortality rates than the
staff-supported and no-treatment groups (Rodin and Langer 1977).
Recently, Musante et al. (1983) examined the effects of choice on
affective reactions. It was predicted that choosing a trial decision rule
would increase satisfaction regarding the outcome of a dispute and
conflict resolution procedures. It was found that regardless of the role
in the dispute (accuser, accused, or no knowledge), those subjects who
exercised control through choice evaluated all aspects of the trial more
positively than those subjects not given choice.
In general, behavioral control can reduce both physiological and
psychological stress and, in many cases, increase motivation, perfor-
mance, and satisfaction (see Miller (1979) and Thompson (1981) for
reviews). Furthermore, evidence suggests that simply the belief that one
can exercise control may be sufficient to reduce stress (Gatchel 1980).

The role of control in occupational stress

Karasek’s (1979) model of job demands and decision latitude is

perhaps the most explicit statement on the stress-reducing effects of
control in the workplace. Karasek (1979) postulated that psychological
and physiological stress results from the joint effects of job demands or
‘work load’ and the range of decision latitude or ‘job control’. Specifi-
cally, job stress or ‘strair;’ occurs when the job demands are high and
job decision latitude is low. When job demands and decision latitude
 182 P.L. Perrewk / Personal control-job stress relationship

are high, Karasek defines the job as ‘active’. An active job is hypothe-
sized to lead to the ‘(. ..) development of new behavior patterns both
on and off the job’ (1979: 288). Karasek (1979) tested his model with
national survey data from the United States and Sweden. The con-
sistent finding is that the combination of high job demands and low
decision latitude is associated with mental strain and job dissatisfac-
tion. However, more ‘active’jobs (high job demands and high decision
latitude) are associated with satisfaction and reduced depression, even
though they are demanding. ‘Passive’ jobs (low job demands and low
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:56 10 December 2015

decision latitude) are associated with dissatisfaction. Thus, the adverse

effects of low decision latitude or ‘control’ are not limited to employees
working on demanding jobs.
Various forms of the control construct have been examined in a
number of different areas of organizational research including par-
ticipation in decision-making (Locke and Schweiger 1979) and job
redesign (Hackman and Oldham 1976). In a meta-analysis of studies
concerning autonomy and participation at work, Spector (1986) found
that high levels of personal control were associated with high levels of
job satisfaction, commitment, involvement, performance, and motiva-
tion. In addition, Spector (1986) found that high levels of personal
control were associated with low levels of physical symptoms, emo-
tional distress, role stress, absenteeism, and turnover.
The effects of personal control appear to be extremely positive,
however, one consistently intriguing problem in stress research is the
differential pattern of reactions and responses to apparently identical
stressful stimuli. Averill (1973) argues that some researchers have found
little or no stress-reduction among individuals who had control. In
addition, some individuals actually experienced an increase in stress
when they had control. Averill (1973) concludes that one must account
for the meaning of the control response in its context. One implication,
of course, is that researchers should consider individual differences
when examining personal control.
Hackman and Oldham (1976), for example, argue that enriched jobs
(includes employee autonomy) work best for employees with high
growth need strength. In addition, Rodin et al. (1980) note that
individuals do not always desire more personal control and may not
respond favorably to it. Thus, individual difference moderators appear
to be an important area of research in the personal control-stress
relationship.
 P.L Perrend / Personal control-job stress relationship 183

Individual difference moderators

An individual’s activity level is predicted to act as a moderator in the
personal control-stress relationship. Activity level is defined as a
general pressure for vigorous activity (Thurstone 1951). This construct
is highly correlated and very similar to Friedman and Rosenman’s
(1974) Type A behavior pattern (see Rosenman and Chesney 1980).
The Type A individual manifests a behavioral syndrome that reflects a
sense of urgency and competitive striving. Individuals manifesting a
high activity level feel driven by a lack of time and deadlines. Low
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:56 10 December 2015

perceived control may create a concern that they will not be able to
meet their ‘time deadlines’, thus leading to higher levels of psychologi-
cal anxiety and physiological arousal.
The second individual difference variable that will be examined is
locus of control. Rotter (1986) defines locus of control as the extent to
which people perceived that events are contingent upon their own
behavioral (internal locus of control) or that events are determined by
other powerful individuals, fate or chance (external locus of control).
The concept of locus of control has similarities with Kahn et al.’s
(1964) concept of neurotic anxiety. Individuals with high neurotic
anxiety (similar to high external locus of control) are described as
having extreme sensitivity to potentially stressful events, a proneness
toward negative emotional states, a concern with their health, and a
great sense of futility. Kahn et al. (1964) found that anxiety-prone
(external locus of control) individuals reported higher degrees of ten-
sion than low neurotic (internal locus of control) individuals under
both low and high role conflict. Since individuals with a high external
locus of control have generalized feelings of helplessness (Houston
1972), perceived personal control may actually decrease these helpless
feelings, thus decreasing their anxiety and physiological arousal. Indi-
viduals with a high internal locus of control, however, already believe
they have some degree of control and that their behavior determines
subsequent evtnts or end states. Thus, perceiving themselves to have
personal control my not have as intense an impact for these individuals
as it would with a high external locus of control. Based on the previous
discussion, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 1. Individuals with a high activity level are hypothesized to
have the strongest negative relationship between personal control and
psychological anxiety.
 184 P.L Perrewe / Personal control-job stress relationship

Hypothesis 2. Individuals with a high activity level are hypothesized to

have the strongest negative relationship between personal control and
physiological arousal.

Hypothesis 3. Individuals high on internal locus of control are hy-

pothesized to have the weakest negative relationship between personal
control and psychological anxiety.

Hypothesis 4. Individuals high on internal locus of control are hy-

Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:56 10 December 2015

pothesized to have the weakest negative relationship between personal

control and physiological arousal.

Hypothesis 5. Individuals high on external locus of control are hy-

pothesized to have the strongest negative relationship between personal
control and psychological anxiety.

Hypothesis 6. Individuals high on external locus of control are hy-

pothesized to have the strongest negative relationship between personal
control and physiological arousal.
In general, individuals with a high activity level and external locus of
control are hypothesized to benefit the most from,personal control in
regard to reduction in psychological anxiety and physiological arousal.

Method

Subjects and procedure

The sample consisted of 125 volunteer undergraduate students from a large south-
em university. Students who volunteered to participate were given extra-credit in their
introductory management class. Subjects were individually run through the experiment
to avoid the possibility of group effects. When the subjects arrived, they were seated at
an oblong table and asked to complete Zuckerman’s (1960) Affect Adjective Check
List. All subjects were asked to relax and left by themselves in the room for 5 minutes.
When the experimenter returned to the room, the subjects’ pulse rate was recorded.
Subjects were told they were to sort envelopes by zip codes into six large mail bins
with corresponding zip codes. They were also told that the experimenter would be
bringing in additional envelopes three more times and that they should try to keep up
with the pace. This task is similar to actual letter sorting operations of the Postal
Service, and was chosen as a realistic simulation of actual stressful work. Hurrell(1985)
has documented the effects of this type of letter-sorting work on psychological strains
in his examination of over 5,OOO postal workers.
 P...!I PerroVP / Personal control-job stress relationship 185

To encourage motivation in the sorting task, subjects were told that the amount of
extra-credit they would receive was contingent on the number of envelopes they sorted.
In reality, each subject would receive 5 points regardless of their performance. Subjects
were also informed that their accuracy would be spot checked. If the subject had no
further questions, the experimenter left the room and the subject began to sort the
envelopes. The experimenter returned every 5 minutes (for a total of 20 minutes) with
additional envelopes. Each time the experimenter entered the room, the subject’s pulse
rate was recorded. At the end of 20 minutes subjects were asked to stop working. Their
pulse rate was recorded for the fifth and final time. Subjects were taken into another
room and asked to fill out a second questionnaire that contained the manipulation
check and measures the anxiety.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:56 10 December 2015

Behavioral control was operationalized through verbal instructions. In the high

control condition, subjects could choose to (a) rearrange and/or stack the mail bins,
(b) sort the enveloped into bundles first and then put them into the appropriate bins,
(c) stand or sit while sorting, and (d) actually stop the experimenter from bringing
more envelopes. During the study, no subject elected to stop the experimenter from
bringing in more envelopes. Subjects in the control groups were instructed to (a) sort
the envelopes into the appropriate bins one by one, and (b) remain seated. Earlier pilot
testing demonstrated this manipulation to be effective.

Measures

Perceptions of control (e.g., freedom as to how to work) were measured by a 3-item

scale partially adopted from Karasek (1979). The scale was piloted to ensure adequate
internal consistency reliability. Two categories of dependent measures were assessed;
perceived anxiety, and physiological arousal. Zuckerman’s (1960)21-item Affect Adjec-
tive Check List was administered to obtain a measure of perceived anxiety immediately
following task assembly. Zuckerman’s (1960) scale has been successfully used as an
indicant of anxiety in a number of experimental studies (e.g., Houston 1972; Burger
and Arkin 1980;Solomon et d. 1980).
In addition to Zuckerman’s (1960) scale, Parisen et al.’s (1969) Subjective Stress
Scale was administered as an incident of anxiety. This measure is a revised version of
Kerle and Bialek’s (1958) Subjective Stress Scale. Satisfactory reliability of this scale
(alpha = 0.90) has been demonstrated in other research (e.g., Carroll 1978).
Subject’s pulse rate was monitored during the sorting task as an incident of
physiological arousal. Pulse rate has been defined as the number of heart beats per
minute, as measured from an appendage of the body distal to the heart (Gardner 1981).
Pulse rate has been found to be a construct valid index of arousal (Andreassi 1980). In
addition, heart rate and/or pulse rate appears to be the most frequently used index of
physiological arousal (Gardner 1981). Pulse rates were taken from the subject’s right
wrist for 15 seconds on five discrete time periods.
Activity level (Thurstone 1951) was one of the individual difference variables
examined. Thurstone’s (1951)activity subscale measures an individual’s general pres-
sure for vigorous activity. This construct is similar to Friedman and Rosenman’s (1974)
Type A behavior pattern concept. The Type A individual manifests a behavioral
syndrome that reflects a sense of urgency and competitive striving. Rosenman and
 186 P.L. Perrewd / Personal control-job stress relationship

Chesney (1980) concluded, as a result of their literature review, that Thurstone’s

Temperament Schedule subscale demonstrates the highest correlation with Type A
behavior pattern of any psychometric self-report measure. Mayes et al. (1984), in a
longitudinal field study, showed Thurstone’s activity subscale to have strong test-retest
reliability, internal consistency (0.79),and construct validity. The items on Thurstone’s
scale were originally rated on a three-point scale (i.e., ‘yes’, ‘?’,and ‘no’). Mayes et al.
(1984), however, used a five-point Likert scale to enhance scale score variability. The
present study used their five-point scale with verbal anchors ranging from ‘definitely
true’ to ‘definitely false’.
The second individual difference factor examined was locus of control. Levenson’s
(1972)Locus of Control Scale was used as a measure of the extent to which individuals
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:56 10 December 2015

believe events in their lives are under their own control, under the control of powerful
others, or up to fate or chance. Levenson’s scale is a refinement of Rotter’s (1966)
Internal-External Scale which measures the extent to which people perceive that events
are contingent upon their own behavior (internally controlled) or that events are
determined by fate, chance, or powerful others (externally controlled). Levenson (1972)
subdivided the external concept into two parts as measured by her Powerful Others and
Chance scales. The Internal scale is similar to Rotter’s internal concept and measures
internal locus of control. Previous research has indicated the scales have good reliabil-
ity and validity (Levenson 1973a,b, 1974; Levenson and Miller 1976; Logsdon et al.
1978).Both individual difference scales were administered two to three weeks prior to
the experiment.

The data were analyzed through multiple regression statistical techniques. The
Affect Adjective Check List pre-task measure and the baseline recording of pulse rate
were partialled out of the equation prior to entering in any of the independent variables
(Cohen and Cohen 1983).

Descriptive statistics

The manipulation check, perceived control, was found to be reliable at the 0.89level
(internal consistency). In addition, the dependent measures appeared to have accepta-
ble reliability using 0.70 as the criterion ( N u ~ a l l y1978). Zuckerman’s Affect Adjective
Check List was found to be reliable in both pre-task (0.73) and post-task (0.74)
administration. The Subjective Stress Scale (0.92), also measuring anxiety, demon-
strated high reliability. Finally, subjects’ pulse rates (0.96) while working on the task ’
demonstrated high reliability. The individual difference variables, however, had lower
reliability coefficients. Thurstone’s Temperament Schedule (0.73) measuring activity

pulse rates were measured prior to actual task assembly. These recordings were not included
when calculating the reliability estimates. Thus. the reliabilities were estimates from recordings
taken time 2, time 3, time 4. and time 5 (Lee, during actual task assembly).
 P . L P e r r e d / Personal control-job stress relationship 187

level demonstrated acceptable reliability. Levenson's (1972) Locus of Control Scale,

however, was disappointing. The Internal Subscale (0.52), the Chance Subscale (0.68),
and The Powerful Others Subscale (0.70)all had fairly low reliabilities.

Findings
Objective control had a strong positive impact on perceived control ( F = 272.63,
p < 0.001) with an R 2 of 0.714. Thus, the hypothesized relationship (manipulation
check) was confirmed.
Activity level moderated the perceived control-perceived anxiety (Subjective Stress
Scale) relationship ( F = 3.133, p < 0.10)increasing R2 from 0.015 to 0.043 (see table
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:56 10 December 2015

1). Breaking the regression equation down into low (one standard deviation below the
mean), moderate (the mean), and high levels (one standard deviation above the mean)

Table 1
Interactive effects of activity level with perceived control on strains.

Variables (4) B R= F
PERCEIVED ANXIETY
(A) subjective Siress Scale
Step 1: Perceived control - 0.055 0.015 1.639
Activity level (2,108) -0.020 0.015 0.017
Step 2: Per. control X Type A (1.107) -0.189 0.043 3.133 '

(B) Affect Adjective Check List

Step 1: AACL pre-test (1.109) 0.538 0.293 45.264
Step 2: Activity level - 0.061 0.317 3.385 a
Perceived control (2,107) -0.018 0.340 3.784 '
Step 3: Per. control X Type A (1,106) - 0.016 0.343 0.472

PHYSIOLOGICAL AROUSAL
(A) Puke rate
Step 1: Pulse time 1 2.465 0.499 82.440
pulse time 2 (2.108) 0.186 0.511 2.544
Step 2: Perceived control 0.969 0.522 2.591
Activity level (2.106) - 1.287 0.523 0.346
Step 3: Per. control X
activity level A (1.105) -0.592 0.524 0.151
______________------------------------------------------
Activity level
Low (3.152) Moderate (3.563) High (3.974)
+
f,, = 0.651(~) 0.888 f,, -
0.728(~)+ 0.880 f,h -0.806(~)+0.872
p < 0.10; p c 0.01.
Low activity level was computed as one standard deviation below the mean, moderate was
simply the mean. and high was computed as one standard deviation above the mean.
 188 P.L Perrewk / Personal control-job stress relationship

of activity level, it can be seen that the negative relationship between perceived control
and perceived anxiety becomes stronger as activity level increases. This is consistent
with the hypothesis that high activity level individuals will have the strongest negative
relationship between perceived control and psychological anxiety. Activity level did not
moderate the perceived control-perceived anxiety relationship using the Affect Adjec-
tive Check List (see table 1). Finally, activity level did not moderate the perceived
control-pulse rate relationship.
High Activity Level individuals reported less anxiety when they perceived them-
selves to have a lot of personal control. Rosen et al. (1970) described Type A people
(construct similar to high activity level) as hard driving, persistent, involved in work,
and achievement-oriented. Personal control may reduce psychological anxiety in indi-
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:56 10 December 2015

viduals with high activity levels by giving them a mechanism in which to achieve their
goals. Since these individuals are so involved in their work, personal control or
autonomy may be perceived as a way in which they can remain or become even more

Table 2
Interactive effects of locus of control (chance) with perceived control strains.

Variables (df) B R2 F
PERCEIVED ANXIETY
(A) Subjective Stress Scale
Step 1: Perceived control -0.064 0.015 2.580
Chance (LOC) (2.108) 0.334 0.149 17.018 '
Step 2: Per. control X chance (1,107) -0.012 0.150 0.043

(B) A/fect Adjective Check List

Step 1: AACL pre-test (1,109) 0.538 0.293 45.264 '
Step 2: Perceived control - 0.20 0.319 4.790
Chance (LOC) (2.107) 0.034 0.337 2.934
Step 3: Per. control x chance (1.106) - 0.004 0.338 0.103

PSYCHOLOGICAL AROUSAL
(A) Pulse rate
Step 1: Pulse Time 1 2.465 0.499 82.440 '
Pulse Time 2 (2.108) 0.186 0.511 2.544
Step 2: Perceived control 0.951 0.522 2.491
Chance (LOC) (2,106) - 0.282 0.522 0.052
Step 3: Per. control x chance (1,105)
........................................................- 1.791 0.541 4.253
Lonu oj control (Chance)

-
Low (2.091)
f, - 2.794(~)+57.866 f,,, -
(Moderate (2.822)
-4.103(~)+ 57.660
High (3.553)
3, = - 5.412(~)+ 57.454
~~

p .c 0.10; b p c 0.05; p c 0.01.

Low Chance individuals were computed as one standard deviation below the mean, moderate
was simply the mean, and high Chance was computed as one standard deviation above the
mean.
 P.L Perrewd / Personal control-job stress relationship 189

involved with their work. Thus, personal control may have anxiety-reducing effects due
to its congruence with these individuals' needs or desires. Allowing individuals with a
high activity level some personal control over their work may be a viable way to keep
their anxiety level down.
Internal LOC did not have a moderating effect on any of the perceived control-stress
relationships. This is not surprising when one considers the low reliability of the
Internal Subscale. In addition, Chance LOC had no effect on either of the perceived
control-perceived anxiety relationships. As table 2 demonstrates, however, Chance
LOC moderated the relationship between perceived control and pulse rate (F = 4.253,
p < 0.05) increasing R Z from 0.522 to 0.541. Breaking the equation down into low,
moderate, and high levels of Chance LOC,it can be seen that the negative relationship
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:56 10 December 2015

between perceived control and pulse rate becomes stronger as Chance LOC increases.
This is consistent with the hypothesis that individuals high on external locus of control
(e.g., Chance) will have the strongest relationship between perceived control and
physiological arousal. Individuals who generally believe the events in their lives are up

Table 3
Interactive effects of locus of control (powerful others) with perceived control on strains.

Variables (4
1 B R2 F
PERCEIVED ANXIETY
(A) Subjective Stress Scale
Step 1: Perceived control - 0.069 0.015 2.637
Powerful others (LOC) (2,108) 0.192 0.61 5.259 a
Step 2 : Per. controlxpow. others (1,107) 0.032 0.063 0.279

(B) Afject Adjective Check List

Step 1 : AACL pre-test (1,109) 0.538 0.293 45.264
Step 2: Perceived control - 0.020 0.319 4.328
Powerful others (LOC) (2,107) 0.012 0.321 0.365
Step 3: Per. controlxpow. others (1,106) - 0.026 0.346 3.936 a

PHYSIOLOGICAL AROUSAL
(A) Pulse rate
Step 1: Pulse Time 1 2.465 0.499 82.440
Pulse Time 2 (2,108) 0.186 0.511 2.544
Step 2: Powerful others (LOC) 0.143 0.511 0.014
Perceived control (2,106) 0.901 0.522 2.344
Step 3: Per. controlxpow. others (1,105) 0.133 0.522 0.025
_________________------------------------------------
Locus of control (Powerful Others) '
Low (2.190) Moderate (2.939) High (3.688)
9, = 0.077(~)+0.250 Y,,,= - 0.096(~)+0.259
A f h= -0.116(~)+0.268

' p < 0.05; p < 0.01.

Low of the Powerful Others scale was computed as one standard deviation below the mean,
moderate was the mean, and high was computed as one standard deviation above the mean.
 190 P.L. Perrend / Personal control-job stress relationship

to chance or fate may experience a reduction in physiological arousal when they

perceive themselves to be more in control. Essentially, the difference between feelings
of helplessness (their general state) and feelings of being in control may be large
enough to create a more relaxed state and reduce pulse rate.
Powerful Others LOC did not moderate the perceived control-perceived anxiety
relationship using the Subjective Stress Scale. However, as can be seen in table 3,
Powerful Others LOC moderated the perceived control-perceived anxiety (Affect
Adjective Check List) relationship ( F = 3.936, p < 0.05)increasing R Z from 0.321 to
0.346. Breaking the equation down into low, moderate and high levels of Powerful
Others LOC, it can be seen that the negative relationship between perceived control
and perceived anxiety becomes stronger as Powerful Others LOC increases. This is
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:56 10 December 2015

consistent with the hypothesis that individuals with a high external locus of control
(e.g., Powerful Others) will have the strongest negative relationship between perceived
control and psychological anxiety. Finally, Powerful Others LOC did not moderate the
perceived control- pulse relationship.
The Powerful Other LOC subscale moderated the relationship between perceived
control and psychological anxiety. Individuals with a high Powerful Others orientation
reported less experienced anxiety when they perceived themselves to have a high level
of personal control. Since external locus of control is associated with a generalized state
of helplessness, these individuals may become more psychologically relaxed when these
feelings of helplessness are replaced by personal feelings of control.

Conclusions

The present study found personality moderating effects in the per-

sonal control-job stress relationship. Specifically, individuals with a
high activity level and/or belief in powerful others reported less
psychological anxiety when given control over the work situation. In
addition, individuals with a strong belief that chance or fate determines
their life outcomes had a lower pulse rate when given control over the
work environment. Thus, it appears that employees with a high activity
level and/or an external locus of control benefit the most from having
control over their work situation.
This is a particularly important finding since individuals exhibiting
Type A behavior, which is similar to high activity level (Orpen 1982),
and/or external locus of control (Kahnet al. 1964) have been found to
be susceptible to job stressors. Giving employees control over their
work may be a viable way of decreasing job stress without decreasing
job demands, and thus, productivity.
It is of interest to note that the present findings appear to be
inconsistent with some of the literature on locus of control. For
 P.L Perrewd / Personal control-job siren relationship 191

example, Rothbaum et al. (1982) have developed a model of control

that consists of primary and secondary control processes. Rothbaum et
al. state that individuals use primary control processes in an attempt to
change the environment to fit the individual’s perception of reality.
When this is not feasible, secondary control attempts come into play,
and the individual attempts to fit in with the changed perception of the
world, to modify his/her cognitive structures. Secondary control and
external locus of control are closely related, as external control could
be described as a lack of personal control (Rothbaum et al. 1982).
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:56 10 December 2015

Rather than dwell on the uncontrollability aspects, emphasis is placed

on the idea that ‘people reserve energy for activities that match the
form of control they feel best able to exercise’ (1982: 20). Thus, based
on Rothbaum et al.’s review, externals should prefer situations in which
another individual (e.g., the experimenter) has control of the situation.
This is clearly not the case in the present study. Individuals with an
external locus of control exhibited less strain when they perceived
themselves to have control. It is possible that, although externals prefer
secondary control, physiological and psychological stress is reduced
with primary control. Obviously, additional research is warranted in
this area.
Future research is needed to explore the differential impacts of
personality types on psychological versus physiological job strains.
Furthermore, examining the effects of two or more control types (e.g.,
cognitive and informational control) may provide additional insights
regarding the beneficial effects of control for organizations.

References
Andreassi, J.L., 1980. Psychophysiology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Averill, J., 1973. Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship to stress. Psychological
Bulletin 80, 286-303.
Burger, J.M. and R.M. Arkin, 1980. Prediction, control, and learned helplessness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 38,482-491.
Carroll, S.J., 1978. Psychological needs as moderators of reactions to job enrichment in a field
setting. Academy of Management Proceedings,55-57.
Cohen, J. and P. Cohen, 1983. Applied multiple regression correlation analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd 4.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Friedman, M. and R.H. Rosenman, 1974. Type A behavior and your heart. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.
Gardner, D.G.,1981. Activation theory and task design: development of a conceptual model and
an empirical test. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Purdue University.
 192 P.L Perrewt! / Personal control-job stress relationship

Gatchel, R.J., 1980. ‘Perceived control: a review and evaluation of therapeutic implications’. In:
A. Baum and J. Singer (eds.), Advances in environmental psychology, Vol. 2. Applications of
personal control. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glass, D.C., B. Reim and J.E. Singer, 1971. Behavioral consequences of adaptation to controllable
and uncontrollable noise. Journal of Experimental Psychology 7, 244-257.
Greenberger, D.B. and S. Strasser, 1986. Development and application of a model of personal
control in organizations. Academy of Management Review 11, 164-177.
Hackman, J.R. and G. Oldham, 1976. Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16, 250-279.
Hokanson, J.E., D.E. DeGood, M.S.Forest and T.M. Britain, 1971. Availability of avoidance
behaviors in modulating vascular-stress responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology 19, 60-68.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:56 10 December 2015

Houston, B.K., 1972. Control over stress, locus of control, and response to stress. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 21,249-255.
Hurrell, J., 1985. Machine-packed work and the Type A behavior pattern. Journal of Occupational
Psychology 58, 15-25.
Kahn, R.L., D.M. Wolfe, R.P. Quinn, J.D. Snoek and RA. Rosenthal, 1964. Organizational
stress: studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.
Karasek, R.A., 1979. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job
redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly 24,285-308.
Kerle, H.H. and H.M. Bialek, 1958. Construction, validation. and application of a subjective stress
scale. (Staff memorandum.) Monterey, CA. Presidio of Montery, U.S. Army Leadership
Human Research Unit.
Langer, E.J. and J. Rodin, 1976. The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the
aged: a field experiment in an institutional setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology 34, 191-198.
Levenson, H., 1972. Distinctions within the concept of internal-external control: development of
a new scale. Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Association 7,259-268.
Levenson, H., 1973a. Multi-dimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology 41, 397-404.
Levenson, H., 1973b. Perceived parental antecedents of internal, powerful others, and chance
locus of control orientations. Development Psychology, 9, 260-265.
Levenson, H., 1974. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internal-ex-
ternal control. Journal of Personality Assessment 38, 377-383.
Levenson, H. and J. Miller, 1976. Multidimensional locus of control in sociopoliticial activists of
conservative and liberal ideologies. Journal of Personality and social Psychology 33, 199-208.
h k e , E. and D. Schweiger, 1979. Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16,250-279.
Logsdon, S.A., A.E. Bourgeois and H. Levenson, 1978. Locus of control, learned helplessness, and
control of heart rate using biofeedback. Journal of Personality Assessment 42, 538-544.
Mayes, B.T., W.E. S i c and D.C. Ganster, 1984. Convergent validity of ?Lpe A behavior pattern
scales and their ability to predict physiological responsiveness in a sample of female public
employees. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 7.83-108.
Miller, S.M.,1979. Controllability and human stress: method, evidence, and theory. Behaviour
Research and Therapy 17,287-304.
Musante, L., M.A. Gilbert and J. Thibaut, 1983. The effect of control on perceived fairness of
procedures and outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 19,223-238.
Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric theory (2nd 4.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Orpen, C., 1982. Type A personality as a moderator of the effects of role conflict, role ambiguity
and role overload on individual strain. Journal of Human Stress, June, 8-14.
 P.L. Perrewd / Personal control-job stress relationship 193

Parisen, P.M., R. Rich and C.W. Jackson, Jr., 1969. Suitability of the subjective stress scale for
hospitalized subjects. Nursing Research 18 529-533.
Rodin, J. and E.J. Langer, 1977. Long-term effects of a control-relevant intervention with the
institutionalized aged. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35, 897-902.
Rodin, J., K. Rennert and S.K. Solomon, 1980. ‘Intrinsic motivation for control: fact or fiction’.
In: A. Baum and J. Singer (eds.), Advances in environmental psychology. Vol. 2. Applications
of personal control. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rosenman, R.H. and M.A. Chesney, 1980. The relationship of Type A behavior pattern to
coronary heart disease. Activitas Nervosa Superior 22, 1-45.
Rosenman, R.H., M. Friedman, R. Straw, C.D. Jenkins, S.J. Zyzanski and M. W u m , 1970.
Coronary heart disease in the Western Collaborative Group Study: a follow-up experience of4
1/2 years. Journal of Chronic Diseases 23,173-190.
Downloaded by [Central Michigan University] at 17:56 10 December 2015

Rothbaum, F., J. Weisz and S. Snyder, 1982. Changing the world and changing the self: a
two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42,
5-37.
Rotter. J., 1966. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs 80, (1, Whole No. 609).
Solomon, S., D.S., Holmes and K.D. McCaul, 1980. Behavioral control over aversive events: does
control that requires effort reduce anxiety and physiological arousal? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 39, 729-736.
Spector. P.E., 1986. Perceived control by employees: a meta-analysis of studies concerning
autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations 39, 1005-1116.
Thompson, S.C., 1981. Will it hurt less if I can control it? A complex answer to a simple question.
Psychological Bulletin 90, 89-101.
Thurstone, L.L., 1951. The dimensions of temperament. Psychometrika 16, 11-20.
Zuckerman, M., 1960. The development of an affect adjective check list for the measurement of
anxiety. Journal of Consulting Psychology 24, 457-462.

Cette recherche ttudie les effets modtrateurs de deux types de personnalitt dans la relation
contrale personnel-stress d(l au job. Les individus qui ont un niveau d’activitb tlevt et croyent h
la puissance des autres (dimensions de / o m of control externe) montraient une relation trts
ntgative entre contrale personnel et anxittt psychologique. De plus, les individus qui croyent
fortement dans la chance ou la malchance (dimension de locus o/ control externe) montraient une
relation trCs ntgative entre contrale personnel ct taux de pulsion. Les rtsultats suggtrent que les
employts qui ont un niveau d’activitk &lev6et/ou un locus of control interne tirent le maximum de
btntfices d‘avoir le contrble sur leur environnement de travail.