See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227914771

Perceived sources of occupational stress among Chinese off‐shore oil

installation workers

Article in Stress and Health · December 2002

DOI: 10.1002/smi.948

CITATIONS READS

18 169

5 authors, including:

Tze Wai Wong We-Qing Chen

The Chinese University of Hong Kong Sun Yat-Sen University
270 PUBLICATIONS 11,724 CITATIONS 144 PUBLICATIONS 2,341 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

ITS Yu Cary Cooper

Hong Kong Occupational & Environmental Health Academy The University of Manchester
320 PUBLICATIONS 11,475 CITATIONS 1,482 PUBLICATIONS 59,409 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tze Wai Wong on 30 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Stress and Health
Stress and Health 18: 217–226 (2002)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/smi.948

Perceived sources of
occupational stress among
C h i n e s e o f f -s h o r e o i l
installation workers
Tze-Wai Wong,1Ł,† Wei-Qing Chen,2 Tak-Sun Yu,1 Yan-Zu Lin3 and Cary L. Cooper4
1
Department of Community & Family Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, PR China
2
Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-Sen University,
Zhongshan Road II, Guangzhou, PR of China
3
Worker’s Hospital of the West Company of South Sea of Chinese Off-shore Oil
Company, Zhanjiang, PR China
4
Manchester School of Management, University of Manchester, Institute of Science &
Technology (UMIST), PO Box 88, Manchester, UK

Summary
To explore the perceived sources of occupational stress and their relative importance among Chinese
off-shore oil installation workers, we used a self-administered questionnaire to study 51 stressors
associated with off-shore oil work among 561 Chinese workers in a state-owned oil company. The
mean scores of 51 individual stressors were calculated and ranked. Factor analysis was used to
identify nine sources of stress which were also ranked according to their standard mean scores. The
top four sources of stress were, in descending order of importance: ‘physical environment of the
workplace’, ‘safety’, ‘interface between job and family/social life’ and ‘career and achievement’. The
perceived sources of work stress in Chinese workers were different from those reported in earlier
studies on UK off-shore oil workers. These differences might be attributable to socio-cultural factors
or possibly, changes in perception to stress over time. A better understanding of the sources of stress
is essential to promote the physical and mental health of off-shore oil workers. More cross-cultural
comparative studies would be useful in elucidating the influence of socio-cultural and environmental
factors on stress perception. Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key Words Introduction

occupational stress; off-shore oil work; Chinese
Ł
Correspondence to: Professor Tze-Wai Wong, Depart-
ment of Community & Family Medicine, Faculty
of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong,
4/F., School of Public Health, Prince of Wales Hospital,
Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong.
†
E-mail: twwong@cuhk,edu.hk
Owing to the harsh working environment, off-
shore oil production is widely regarded as stressful
work (Parkes, 1998; Sutherland, & Cooper, 1989;
Sutherland, & Flin, 1989). This includes the
arduous ocean climate, periodic isolation from
the family and community, living and working
in confined areas, the risks involved in helicopter
and ship travel, rough seas, the monotonous mode
of life and environment, and the special demands
and constraints inherent in off-shore work (Parkes,

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 T.-W. Wong et al.
1998; Sutherland, & Cooper, 1989; Sutherland,
& Flin, 1989). Such stressful work not only
influences the health and lifestyle of the off-
shore workforce, but also affects their families
(Aiken, & McCance, 1982; Cooper, & Sutherland,
1987; Gann, Corpe, & Wilson, 1990; Norman
et al., 1988; Parkes, 1992, 1994; Rundmo, 1992a,
1992b, 1994; Sutherland, & Cooper, 1991; Taylor,
Morriceet, Clark, & McCann, 1985; Ulleberg, &
Rundmo, 1997). The stress experienced by workers
in this occupation has attracted the attention
of researchers in the disciplines of occupational
medicine, psychiatry, psychology and sociology.
According to the Michigan occupational stress
model, it has been suggested that occupational
stress is a complex, multivariate and dynamic pro-
cess in which stressors, perceived stress, short-term
response, enduring health outcomes, and modi-
fying variables are all inter-related (Cooper, &
Marshall, 1976; House, 1980; Israel, Baker, Gold-
enhar, & Heaney, 1996; Williams, & Cooper,
1996). In this model, whether a potential stres-
sor produces an enduring health outcome or not
is in part dependent on the extent to which the
person perceives the condition as stressful and
responds to it. In addition, his/her perception and
response are also affected by a number of modi-
fying variables (socio-demographic characteristics,
personality, social support, etc.).
A typical occupational stress model indicates that
the source of occupational stress comes mainly
from six aspects (Israel et al., 1996; Sutherland, &
Cooper, 1989). They are: (1) stressors intrinsic to
the job itself, including workload, poor physical
working condition, shift work and physical dan-
ger; (2) role-based stress, involving role conflict,
role ambiguity and responsibility; (3) relationship
with others at work, e.g. supervisors, colleagues
and subordinates; (4) stressors related to career
development, including under-/over-promotion and
the lack of job security; (5) stressors associated
with organizational structure and climate, involv-
ing restrictions on behaviour, office politics, the
lack of effective consultation and participation in
the decision-making process, and (6) the interface
between home and work, which refers to the rela-
tionship between work demands and family/social
demands i.e. the stressors that over-spill from one
life arena to the other. Based on this model, two
studies were conducted among off-shore oil work-
ers in the United Kingdom (Sutherland, & Cooper,
1989, 1996). Both studies reported that these work-
ers perceived stress at work from the following
domains: relationships at work and at home; site
218 Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
management problems; factors intrinsic to the job;
the ‘uncertainty’ element of the work environment;
living in the off-shore environment; safety; the inter-
face between job and family, and career prospects
and reward.
The off-shore oil production in China has rapidly
increased over the past decades. There are now
thousands of off-shore oil production workers. A
socialist country with an ancient civilization, China
has developed an economic system with a distinc-
tive cultural background (Lai, 1995; Lin, & Lai,
1995; Xie, 1996). The key cultural tenets in China
today are influenced by the traditional cultures
of Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and Mao’s
communism. Harmony, hierarchy, collectivism and
personal relations, attributes emphasized by Con-
fucian ethics, all have a significant influence on
Chinese belief, attitude, and practice in their work
and life. Under the socialist system, China’s state-
owned enterprises, besides operating a business,
also provide work and social support for their
employees. The organization and management of
these companies are quite different from those of
their Western counterparts. In view of the socio-
cultural characteristics of the Chinese off-shore oil
workers, we hypothesized that career achievement
and family concerns are major occupational stres-
sors among these workers, in addition to the harsh
physical environment of the oil platforms. The
objective of this study is to explore the perceived
sources of occupational stress and to determine
their relative importance among Chinese off-shore
oil workers.
Subjects and methods
A cross-sectional study was conducted among
561 (96.6 per cent) out of 581 male off-shore
workers on oil-platforms in the South China
Sea. Their ages ranged from 20 to 55 years,
with a mean of 32.4 years. The majority (68 per
cent) attained a secondary school level education;
5 per cent completed only primary school; 15 per
cent finished post-secondary college, and 12 per
cent were university graduates; 68 per cent were
married. The mean duration of working off-
shore was 8.2 years. The subjects were divided
into 12 occupational groups: drilling workers,
attending personnel, deck workers, electricians,
mechanics, service workers, managers, material
workers, power workers, derrick workers, turbine
workers, and others.
Stress and Health 18: 217–226 (2002)
 Stress among Chinese off-shore oil installation workers
The perceived sources of occupational stress in
these workers were measured with the occupational
stress scale (OSS), adapted from the questionnaires
developed by one of us (C.L. Cooper) in previous
studies (Cooper, Sloan, & Williams, 1988; Cooper,
& Sutherland, 1987; Sutherland, & Cooper, 1996).
The OSS covered 51 items (stressors) that described
the sources of stress associated with off-shore oil
installation work. Subjects were asked: ‘Are the fol-
lowing items a source of stress for you?’ and a 1–6
Likert scale was used for each item (1 D Very def-
initely not a source, 2 D Definitely not a source,
3 D Generally not a source, 4 D Generally is a
source, 5 D Definitely is a source, 6 D Very defi-
nitely is a source). Many items (those concerning
the interface between job and family/social life,
safety, management problems and relationship with
others at work, the physical environment of the
workplace, the living environment and the orga-
nizational structure) were based on those used
for off-shore oil workers in the UK (Cooper, &
Sutherland, 1987; Sutherland, & Cooper, 1996).
Most items concerning career and achievement
(five of seven) and managerial roles (three of four)
were adapted from the Occupational Stress Indica-
tor (OSI) (Cooper et al., 1988). The validity and
reliability of the questionnaire have been tested
previously (Chen, Wong, & Yu, 2001).
Before the survey, several trained investigators
explained to all the subjects the aims of the study,
the contents of the questionnaire, and how to com-
plete it. Each worker was then asked to complete the
self-administered questionnaire. During the data
collection, the investigators would answer any
queries raised by the workers. All questionnaires
were immediately checked for errors or omissions
to ensure they were correctly completed.
The means and standard deviations of individual
stressors of the OSS were calculated and the
stressors were ranked according to their means
in descending order. Factor analysis (Dixon, 1997)
was used to identify several factors (representing the
perceived sources of stress) from the 51 stressors.
A factor would emerge when the Eigenvalue was
greater than 1. Within each factor, the item with the
highest factor loading was then identified, and the
item was located on to this factor. A factor loading
of the item whose value was greater than 0.40
was regarded as significant (Dixon, 1997; Gray-
Donald, O’Loughlin, Richard, & Paradis, 1997).
For an individual worker, the score of each factor
was then computed by adding the raw scores of
the stressors loading on that factor. The mean
scores and standard deviations of the factors for
Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
all workers were then calculated. To compare the
relative importance of these factors as sources of
stress, a standardized mean score of each factor
was computed by dividing its mean score by
its maximum value. All statistical analyses were
performed with SPSS for windows, version 9 (SPSS,
1999).
Results
Sources of stress
Nine factors (with Eigenvalues >1) were obtained
from the 51 items of the OSS and explained 62.5 per
cent of the total variance. Except for three items,
the factor loading of all items retained in each of
the nine factors was higher than 0.4. These factors
have been defined in a previous report (Chen et al.,
2001) according to the nature and contents of the
stressors, as follows: ‘the interface between job
and family/social life’, ‘career and achievement’,
‘safety’, ‘management problems and relationships
with others at work’, ‘physical environment of
the workplace’, ‘living environment’, ‘managerial
roles’, ‘ergonomics’ and ‘organizational structure’
(Table I).
Descriptive analysis of individual
stressors
Among the 51 stressors associated with off-shore
oil work, the top five were: ‘unpleasant working
condition due to noise’; ‘feeling isolated from
home and world events while I am off-shore’, ‘I
feel that my own and others’ safety are at risk
if I make a mistake’, ‘disruption to my social
life while working off-shore’; and ‘cannot play
family roles while I work off-shore’ (Table I). The
mean score at 3.77 of the highest-ranking stressor,
‘unpleasant working condition due to noise’, was
significantly higher than that of the second rank
(at 3.61) and below (p D 0.033 compared with
second rank; p D 0.0022 compared with third
rank). The second stressor was significantly higher
than the eighth stressor (p D 0.017) and below,
and the third stressor significantly higher than
the 10th stressor (p D 0.016) and below. There
were no significant differences in the mean scores
in any paired comparisons of the second to fifth
stressors. The five lowest ranking stressors were:
‘over promotion—being promoted beyond my level
of ability’, ‘deterioration in working relationships
after spending long periods together’, ‘difficulties
Stress and Health 18: 217–226 (2002) 219
 T.-W. Wong et al.

Table I. Mean score of stressors in the OSS.

Item description Factor loading Mean (SD) Rank
Factor 1: The interface between job and family/social life (19.26, 37.76%)
1. Risk of marriage/love relationship breakdown because I work 0.720 2.65 (1.46) 30
off-shore
2. Leaving my wife/partner to cope with situations at home during my 0.687 3.22 (1.56) 16/17
working off-shore
3. My wife’s/partner’s attitude to my working off-shore 0.687 2.63 (1.42) 32
4. Worried about poor relationship with children being disturbed by 0.651 3.05 (1.60) 22/23
working off-shore for a long time
5. Cannot play family roles while working off-shore 0.643 3.53 (1.62) 4/5
6. Disruption to my social life while working off-shore 0.574 3.53 (1.54) 4/5
7. Feeling isolated from home and world events while I am off-shore 0.530 3.61 (1.58) 2
8. Working in an all-male environment 0.516Ł 2.96 (1.61) 25/26
9. Monotonous off-shore living and working environment 0.508† 3.47 (1.59) 6/7
Factor 2: Career and achievement (2.45, 4.81%)
1. Under promotion—working at a level below my level of ability 0.714 2.80 (1.45) 28
2. My level of ability has not been enough utilized and exerted 0.702 2.91 (1.45) 27
3. Absence of any potential career advancement 0.657 3.10 (1.54) 18/19
4. Lack of emotional support and encouragement from superiors 0.644 2.64 (1.39) 31
5. Worried about a decrease in income during my resting period 0.558 3.22 (1.65) 16/17
on-shore
6. Pay differentials 0.556 3.32 (1.64) 13
7. Rate of pay 0.524 3.47 (1.53) 6/7
Factor 3: Safety (1.89, 3.71%)
1. Worried about inadequate emergency response to accidents (e.g. fire, 0.674 3.30 (1.59) 14
explosion) because of long distance from land
2. Worried about disasters caused by harsh and unpredictable off-shore 0.666 3.43 (1.61) 8
climates
3. Lacking confidence about off-shore medical facilities 0.602 3.10 (1.53) 18/19
4. Feeling inadequate when someone has an accident 0.589 3.07 (1.50) 21
5. Travelling between land base and off-shore worksite by helicopter or 0.585 3.41 (1.68) 9
ship
6. I feel that my own and others’ safety are at risk if I make a mistake. 0.557 3.54 (1.59) 3
7. Long periods of intensive concentration 0.499 3.09 (1.60) 20
8. Worried about accident caused by my decision in work 0.436 2.96 (1.61) 25/26
9. Monotonous food and shortage of fresh vegetables and fruits 0.372 3.35 (1.48) 12
Factor 4: Management problems and relationships with others at work
(1.73, 3.40%)
1. Worried about not getting cooperation at work 0.764 2.30 (1.23) 45
2. Having no one to talk over problem with 0.759 2.29 (1.31) 46
3. Relation with supervisors 0.666 2.41 (1.34) 42
4. Deterioration in working relationships after spending long periods 0.625 2.14 (1.19) 50
together
5. Inadequate instructions to do the job 0.532 2.46 (1.26) 37
6. Difficulties concentrating on work when I am thinking about home 0.524 2.20 (1.29) 49
7. Worried that there is no suitable on-shore work for me, because I 0.435 3.25 (1.72) 15
have been working off-shore for too long
Factor 5: Physical environment of the workplace (1.64, 3.21%)
1. Unpleasant working condition due to vibration 0.741 3.40 (1.54) 10
2. Unpleasant working condition due to noise 0.727 3.77 (1.56) 1Ł
3. Unpleasant working conditions due to heat 0.658 3.36 (1.54) 11
Factor 6: Living environment (1.41, 2.76%)
1. Poor air circulation in the living accommodation 0.687 2.42 (1.39) 41
2. Rest being disturbed because of the sharing of living accommodation 0.643 2.60 (1.45) 33
with others
3. Living with persons having different lifestyle and behaviours 0.517 2.43 (1.30) 39/40

220 Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 18: 217–226 (2002)
 Stress among Chinese off-shore oil installation workers

Table I. (Continued).
Item description Factor loading Mean (SD) Rank
§
4. Disturbance in the living accommodation due to noise from 0.517 2.99 (1.48) 24
machinery
5. Lack of privacy due to the sharing of living accommodation with 0.475 2.25 (1.28) 47
others
Factor 7: Managerial roles (1.24, 2.43%)
1. Over promotion—being promoted beyond my level of ability 0.704 1.97 (1.24) 51†
2. I have to offend someone in my work. 0.669 2.36 (1.24) 43
3. Morale and organizational climate 0.617 2.22 (1.26) 48
4. Having to monitor and manage others’ work. 0.616 2.43 (1.28) 39/40
Factor 8: Ergonomics (1.15, 2.25%)
1. I often run fast at work. 0.694 2.31 (1.22) 44
2. I am often required to work for long periods with my body in 0.647 2.52 (1.31) 34/35
physically awkward positions.
3. I often move or lift heavy objects at work. 0.642 2.69 (1.34) 29
Factor 9: Organizational structure (1.11, 2.17%)
1. Rotation of 28 days working off-shore and 28 days resting on-shore 0.619 2.44 (1.49) 38
2. Working 14 days of day-shift alternating with 14 days of night-shift 0.456 2.52 (1.53) 34/35
3. Lack of paid holidays 0.391 3.05 (1.63) 22/23
4. Feeling of deprivation of freedom, due to too many regulations and 0.384 2.49 (1.43) 36
disciplines when working off-shore
Eigenvalues and the percentage of variance explained by the factors are shown in parentheses.
Ł Rank 1, mean score significantly higher (p D 0.033) than that of rank 2 (item 7 of factor 1) and below.
† Rank 51, mean score significantly lower (p D 0.0099) than that of rank 50 (item 4 of factor 4) and above.

in concentrating on work when I am thinking
about home’, ‘morale and organizational climate’,
and ‘lack of privacy due to the sharing of living
accommodation with others’. The mean score of
the lowest ranking stressor (51st rank), ‘over
promotion—being promoted beyond my level of
ability’ (at 1.97) was significantly lower than that
of the second lowest (50th rank) stressor and all
those above it (p D 0.0099). The mean score of the
50th stressor was significantly lower than that of the
46th and above (p D 0.025), while the 49th stressor
was significantly lower than the 43rd stressor
(p D 0.017). There were no significant differences
in the mean scores in any paired comparisons of
the 47th to the 50th stressors.
Mean and standardized mean scores
of factors (sources of stress) of the
OSS
Table II shows the means, the standardized means
and the ranks of the nine factors of the OSS.
Since the mean scores of the factors are related
to the number of items loaded on to them, and
the number of items may differ for each factor,
we ranked them by the standardized mean scores
(relative to the maximum score of each factor).
The standardized mean score of each of the top
four sources of stress was higher than that of
the total scale (51 stressors). The standardized
mean scores of the remaining five sources of stress
were lower than that of the total score. The top
four sources of stress were, in descending order:
‘physical environment of the workplace’, ‘safety’,
‘interface between job and family/social life’, and
‘career and achievement’. The standardized mean
score of the highest-ranking source of stress was
significantly higher than that of the second rank
(p < 10
16 ), which in turn was significantly higher
than the mean score of the third rank (p < 10
16 ).
The latter, however, was not significantly higher
than that of the fourth rank. The lowest ranking
mean score was seen in ‘managerial roles’, which
was significantly lower than those of all the ranks
above it (p < 10
5 ).
Discussion
This was the first study on occupational stress
among Chinese off-shore oil installation work-
ers. Our questionnaire, developed from previous
research on off-shore oil workers at the North
Sea oil field in the UK (Cooper, & Sutherland,
1987; Sutherland, & Cooper, 1996) and the OSI
(Cooper et al., 1988), was highly specific for this

Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 18: 217–226 (2002) 221
 T.-W. Wong et al.

Table II. Mean and standardized scores of nine factors (sources of stress) and the OSS.
Name of factors No. of Raw score Standardized score
stressors
Mean (SD) Mean RankŁ
Physical environment of the workplace 3 10.53 (4.12) 58.50 1†
Safety 9 29.24 (10.39) 54.15 2†
Interface between job and family/social life 9 28.66 (10.66) 53.07 3
Career and achievement 7 21.44 (8.14) 51.05 4†
Organizational structure and climate 4 10.50 (4.70) 43.75 5
Living environment 5 12.70 (5.21) 42.23 6
Ergonomics 3 7.52 (3.26) 41.78 7
Management problems and relationships with others at work 7 17.04 (6.70) 40.57 8†
Managerial roles 4 8.98 (3.71) 37.41 9
OSS (total scale) 51 146.62 (45.73) 47.92
Ł In descending order by the mean score.
† Mean score significantly higher (p < 2 ð 10
6 ) than that immediately below it.

occupational group. The occupational stress scale
(OSS) has been shown to be a valid and reliable
tool for measuring stress (Chen et al., 2001). The
response rate was high, at 96.6 per cent. Factor
analysis was the main tool used in this study to
explore the source of occupational stress. Our sam-
ple size of 561 was sufficient for this statistical
method, according to the criterion suggested by
Cattell (Mainous, 1993).
There are several limitations in this study. In our
questionnaire design, comments on occupational
stressors other than those originally included in
the questionnaire for UK oil workers were sought
from a panel of doctors working on the platforms.
Although they did not provide additional stressors,
omissions were still possible. Moreover, owing to
the cross-sectional nature of the study design, the
stability of the questionnaire could not be assessed.
The use of a self-administered questionnaire might
lead to information bias, such as an exaggeration
of perceived work stress. The workers might be
motivated to prompt the management to improve
their work conditions or their pay packages
to compensate for the bad working conditions.
Another possible source of information bias might
be due to the low education level of some workers,
who might not fully understand the questionnaire.
To minimize this, well-trained investigators were
present throughout the data collection process to
provide guidance and explanation to the workers,
if required, when they completed the questionnaire.
Of the nine sources of perceived stress, ‘physi-
cal environment of the workplace’ (noise, vibration
and heat) ranked the top position. Previous studies
have shown that high levels of noise and vibra-
tion caused by machines were very common in
the working and living environment on platforms
(Ross, 1978; Xu et al., 1992). In addition, the plat-
forms where our subjects worked were located
in tropical waters, and the temperature was high
throughout the year. Studies conducted in the
North Sea in both UK and Norwegian waters indi-
cated that the unpleasant working conditions due
to noise, vibration, cold and humidity were sig-
nificant predictors of the off-shore oil workers’
job dissatisfaction and perception of health condi-
tions (Sutherland, & Flin, 1989). In other studies,
insomnia among off-shore oil platform workers was
shown to be aggravated by high levels of vibration
and noise (Kraus, 1998). The importance of the
physical environment as a source of stress in our
study therefore agrees with these studies.
Safety is important to workers in every occupa-
tion. This is especially so for off-shore oil workers
owing to the presence of extra hazards. Safety issues
have been emphasized in many off-shore oil com-
panies (Wagenaar, Groeneweg, & Hudson, 1994).
In this company, the off-shore workers had to
undergo a series of safety training sessions before
they could start their work. These included the
use of respiratory protective equipment, fire fight-
ing, emergency evacuation and survival skills at sea.
Once they started work, safety education and emer-
gency drills were routine activities on the platforms.
In addition, almost all of the subjects had real-life
experience in evacuation from the platforms before
a hurricane came. Some workers had sustained or
witnessed accidents at work in the past. Accidents
on the platforms are uncommon. If one occurs,
the consequences are often disastrous and even
life-threatening. On the platforms, only basic med-
ical care was available for the workers. Although

222 Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 18: 217–226 (2002)
 Stress among Chinese off-shore oil installation workers
medical advice and support on land were available,
the hospital facility was far away and unable to
provide timely emergency care when such a need
arose. These facts contributed to the workers’ per-
ception that safety was the second most important
source of stress.
Interference with family and social life is a
feature that off-shore oil workers share with
other occupations such as seafarers and off-shore
fishermen. Unlike the others, the work schedules of
off-shore oil workers are more regular, resulting in
a cyclical separation from the family and social life
on-shore. Some studies indicated that this periodic
absence was an important occupational stressor
for these workers. The intermittent isolation from
the wife and family and social life on-land not
only impaired the workers’ health and work
efficiency, but also negatively affected their spouses’
health. This has been termed ‘intermittent husband
syndrome’ (Clark, McCann, Morrice, & Taylor,
1985; Morrice, Taylor, Clark, & McCann, 1985;
Taylor et al., 1985). According to the traditional
Chinese culture, a family is regarded as a basic,
inseparable social unit, and is the origin of all
interpersonal relationships (Chiu, Kosinski, &
Frederick, 1995). The personal life of the Chinese
is organized around the family (Lu, 1999). A study
in Hong Kong indicated that the Chinese family did
not prefer shift work, because shift workers were
often unable to participate in family gatherings
(Chiu et al., 1995). All these supported our findings
that ‘interface between job and family/social life’
was the third most important source of stress.
Stress from career success has been regarded to
exert a negative influence on Hong Kong Chinese
factory workers (Chiu et al., 1995). This could be
explained by the traditional Chinese family value
that puts emphasis on the individual’s career suc-
cess. In a traditional Chinese society, an individual’s
success in their career usually implies that, beside
himself/herself, the family members derive some
benefits from his/her success. These include power,
honour and a higher income. ‘Bringing honour to
the ancestors of the family’ has been preached by
Confucian ethicists in China as a major goal in the
life of the Chinese. Under this influence, career suc-
cess becomes an important source of satisfaction,
and pride to the individual and to his/her family
as well. Individuals and their family members often
have high hopes and demands of themselves in
their career. This might explain why the workers
regarded ‘career and achievement’ as an impor-
tant source of occupational stress. Traditionally,
Chinese employees were more oriented towards
Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
honour and power, but recent studies by Chen and
Lu showed that they have shifted their interests
to financial gains (Chen, 1995; Lu, 1999). In our
study, perceived stress from ‘career and achieve-
ment’ covered several items that reflected income
and career advancement. Items reflecting income
were accorded higher scores than those reflect-
ing career advancement, which concurred with
their findings.
Less important sources of stress were ‘organiza-
tional structure’, ‘living environment’, and ‘man-
agement problems and relationships with others at
work’. Most of the items loading on to these factors
are concerned with the demands of a company on
the workers, such as the work–rest cycle, irregular
holidays, sharing a dormitory and the relationship
with supervisors and colleagues at work. The rela-
tively low ranking of these sources of stress suggests
the subservience of the individual’s interests to that
of the group or the organization, a reflection of
the collectivistic culture of Chinese society. It is
a traditional cultural norm among the Chinese to
emphasize the importance of ‘team spirit’ and the
individual’s responsibility to the community, and
to discourage open conflict with others (Chiu et al.,
1995; Lai, 1995; Lin, & Lai, 1995). China today
as a socialist state, often emphasizes the individ-
ual’s obligations to the State in a similar manner to
that of the past feudalistic China. Chinese workers
are therefore more likely to comply with organiza-
tional goals and standards and to promote group
and social harmony (Chiu et al., 1995; Lai, 1995;
Lin, & Lai, 1995). If a worker is in conflict with
the organization, his supervisors and co-workers,
he may suffer losses of status and material ben-
efits. A similar phenomenon was also found in
other studies in Hong Kong (Chiu et al., 1995).
‘Managerial roles’ was the lowest-ranking source
of stress. This might be due to the small number
of managers in the workforce. ‘Ergonomics’ was
also a low-ranking source. Most work processes
on the platform were automated and therefore less
affected by ergonomic factors (Parkes, 1998).
A comparison of the 12 top stressors between
the UK (Sutherland, & Flin, 1989) and Chinese
off-shore oil personnel shows marked differences
(Appendix 1). The stressors that involved individual
career development and rewards and benefits from
work were prominent among the UK workers. By
contrast, the major stressors for Chinese workers
were ‘physical environment of the workplace’,
‘safety’ and ‘interface between job and family/social
life’. These differences might reflect disparities
between a traditional Chinese culture and a modern
Stress and Health 18: 217–226 (2002) 223
 T.-W. Wong et al.
Western culture (collectivism versus individualism)
in the workers’ perception of the stressors (Chiu
et al., 1995; Xie, 1996). They might also be
influenced by differences in the economic system
(capitalism versus socialism). Unlike Western off-
shore oil workers, Chinese off-shore oil employees
are less concerned with threats of redundancy and
job loss (Sutherland, & Cooper, 1996). Under
the present system, all state-owned enterprises are
obliged to provide jobs for these workers until
retirement, when they will enjoy a pension (Lin, &
Lai, 1995). It is not clear whether the differences
in stressors were also caused by other factors,
such as differences in the physical environment
of the workplace, safety measures and a shorter
work–rest cycle (2 weeks) adopted by the UK
workers (Parkes, 1998) compared with that of
our subjects (4 weeks). The difference in the time
periods when the two studies were conducted
might have affected the workers’ perception of
the sources of occupational stress and accounted
for the differences in the results. A cross-cultural
comparative study would be required to elucidate
the reasons for these differences.
In conclusion, off-shore oil workers are exposed
to a stressful environment contributed by multiple
sources. ‘Physical environment of the workplace’,
‘safety’, ‘career and achievement’ and ‘interface
between job and family/social life’ were the major
sources of occupational stress among Chinese off-
shore oil workers. Several measures should be
implemented to reduce or eliminate these sources
in the work environment. The improvement of
working and living conditions on the platforms,
in particular, the reduction of noise levels in the
work environment, should be accorded the highest
priority. Secondly, safety management should be
strengthened. An adjustment of the work schedule
for example, by adopting the British or Norwegian
practice of a shorter work–rest cycle and longer
rest periods, would be less disruptive to family and
social life. A better understanding of the sources
of stress and their effective control are essential
to promote the physical and mental health of the
workforce, and to ensure a safe process in off-shore
oil production.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their gratitude to their
colleagues at the Worker’s Hospital of the West
Company of South Sea of Chinese Off-shore Oil
Company, Drs Ling Zhi-ming, Tang Jing-Song, Liu
224 Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Jian-Yi, Liu Yuan-Pong, to all the off-shore oil workers
of the Company who participated in this study, and to
Andromeda Wong who proofread the manuscript.
References
Aiken, G.J.M., & McCance, C. (1982). Alcohol consumption
in off-shore oil rig workers. British Journal of Addiction,
77, 305–310.
Chen, C.C. (1995). New trends in reward allocation
preferences: A Sino-U.S. comparison. Academy of
Management Journal, 38, 408–428.
Chen, W.Q., Wong, T.W., & Yu, T.S. (2001). Reliability
and validity of the Occupational Stress Scale for Chinese
off-shore oil installation workers. Stress and Health, 17,
175–183.
Chiu, R.K., & Kosinski Jr., F.A. (1999). Chinese culture
collectivism and work-related stress: Implications
for employment counselors. Journal of Employment
Counselling, 32, 98–110.
Clark, D., McCann, K. Morrice, K., & Taylor, R. (1985).
Work and marriage in the off-shore oil industry.
International Journal of Social Economics, 12, 36–47.
Cooper, C.L., & Marshall, J. (1976). Occupational sources of
stress: A review of the literature relating to coronary heart
disease and ill health. Journal of Occupational Psychology,
49, 11–28.
Cooper, C.L., & Sutherland, V.J. (1987). Job stress, mental
health, and accidents among off-shore workers in the oil and
gas extraction industries. Journal of Occupational Medicine,
29, 119–125.
Cooper, C.L., Sloan, S.J., & S. Williams (Eds) (1988).
Occupational stress indicator management guide. Darville
House, Oxford: NFER-NELSON Publishing Company
Limited.
Dixon, J.K. (1997). Grouping techniques. In Munro, B.H.
(Ed.), Statistical methods for health care research (3rd ed.)
pp. 310–340. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Gann, M., Corpe, U., & Wilson, I. (1990). The application of
a short anxiety and depression questionnaire to oil industry
staff. Journal of the Society of Occupational Medicine, 40,
138–142.
Gray-Donald, K., O’Loughlin, J., Richard, L., & Paradis, G.
(1997). Validation of a short telephone administered
questionnaire to evaluated dietary interventions in low
income communities in Montreal, Canada. Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health, 51, 326–331.
House, J.S. (1980). Occupational stress and the mental and
physical health of factory workers. Michigan: The University
of Michigan Ann Arbor.
Israel, B.A., Baker, E.A., Goldenhar, L.M. & Heaney, C.A.
(1996). Occupational stress, safety, and health: conceptual
framework and principles for effective prevention
interventions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
1, 261–286.
Kraus, R.S. (1998). Exploration, drilling and production of
oil and nature gas. In Stellman J.M. (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of
occupational health and safety, (4th edn) pp. 75.1–75.13.
Geneva: ILO.
Lai, G.N. (1995). Work and family roles and psychological
well-being in Urban China. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 36, 11–37.
Lin, N., & Lai, G.N. (1995). Urban stress in China. Social
Science and Medicine, 41, 1131–1145.
Stress and Health 18: 217–226 (2002)
 Stress among Chinese off-shore oil installation workers
Lu, H.W. (1999). Society motivation: an investigation among
citizens of thousands families in Wuhan. New Chinese
Digest (Xinhua Wenzhai), 11, 20–22.
Lu, L. (1999). Work motivation, job stress and employees’
well-being. Journal of Applied Management Studies, 8,
61–72.
Mainous, A.G. (1993). Factor analysis as a tool in primary
care research. Family Practice, 10, 330–336.
Morrice, K., Taylor, R., Clark, D., & McCann, K. (1985).
Oil wives and intermittent husbands. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 147, 479–483.
Norman, J.N., Ballantine, B.N., Brebner, J.A., Brown, B.,
Gauld, S.J., Mawdsley, J., Roythorne, C., Valentine, M.J.,
& Wilcock, S.E. (1988). Medical evacuations from off-
shore structures. British Journal of Industrial Medicine,
45, 619–623.
Parkes, K.R. (1992). Mental health in the oil industry: a
comparative study of on-shore and off-shore employees.
Psychological Medicine, 22, 997–1009.
Parkes, K.R. (1994). Sleep patterns, shiftwork, and individual
differences: a comparison of on-shore and off-shore control-
room operators. Ergonomics, 37, 827–844.
Parkes, K.R. Psychosocial aspects of stress, health and safety
on North Sea installations. Scandinavian Journal of Work,
Environment and Health, 24, 321–333.
Ross, B.C. (1978). Noise on off-shore platforms. Occupational
Health, 30, 524–527.
Rundmo, T. (1992a). Risk perception and safety on off-
shore petroleum platforms, part I: perception of risk. Safety
Science, 15, 39–52.
Rundmo, T. (1992b). Risk perception and safety on off-shore
petroleum platforms, part II: perceived risk, job stress and
accidents. Safety Science, 15, 53–68.
Rundmo, T. (1994). Association between safety and
contingency measures and occupational accidents on off-
shore petroleum platforms. Scandinavian Journal of Work,
Environment and Health, 20, 128–131.
Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
SPSS (1999). SPSS Professional Statistics 9.0. Chicago: SPSS
Inc.
Sutherland, V.J., & Cooper, C.L. (1989). Occupational stress
in the off-shore oil and gas industry. International Reviews
of Ergonomics, 2, 183–215.
Sutherland, V.J., & Cooper, C.L. (1991). Personality, stress,
productivity, and involvement in the off-shore oil and
gas industry. Personality and Individual Differences, 12,
195–204.
Sutherland, V.J., & Cooper, C.L. (1996). Stress in the off-
shore oil and gas exploration and production industries: an
organizational approach to stress control. Stress Medicine,
12, 61–78.
Sutherland, V.J., & Flin, R.H. (1989). Stress at sea: a review of
working conditions in the off-shore oil and fishing industries.
Work Stress, 3, 269–285.
Taylor, R., Morriceet, K., Clark, D., & McCann, K. The
psycho-social consequences of intermittent husband
absence: an epidemiological study. Social Science and
Medicine, 20, 877–885.
Ulleberg, P., & Rundmo, T. (1997). Job stress, social support,
job satisfaction and absenteeism among off-shore oil
personnel. Work Stress, 11, 215–228.
Wagenaar, W.A., Groeneweg, J., & Hudson, P.T.W. (1994).
Promoting safety in the oil industry. Ergonomics, 37,
1990–2013.
Williams, S., & Cooper, C.L. (1998). Measuring occupational
stress: development of the pressure management indicator.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 306–321.
Xie, J.L. (1996). Karasek’s model in the People’s Republic
of China: Effects of job demands, control, and individual
differences. Academy of Management Journal, 39,
1594–1618.
Xu, F.Z., Zhang, M.Y., Yu, A.R., Chang, H., Sun, J., &
Liu, X. (1992). A study on energy consumption and
nutrition investigation of workers on off-shore drilling
platforms. Acta Nutrimenta Sinica, 14, 390–397.
Stress and Health 18: 217–226 (2002) 225
 T.-W. Wong et al.

Appendix 1: Comparison of the items given the highest stress rating between UK and
Chinese off-shore oil personnel

Sutherland and Cooper’s research The present study

Rank Stressors Rank Stressors

1 Lack of paid holidays 1 Unpleasant working conditions due to
noise
2 Rate of pay 2 Feeling isolated from home and world
events while I am off-shore
3 Pay differentials 3 I feel that my own and others’ safety are at
risk, if I make a mistake
4 Lack of job security 4 Cannot play family roles while I work
off-shore
5 Last minute changes in crew relief 5 Disruption to my social life during
arrangements working off-shore
6 Working with inadequately trained people 6 Being afraid of disasters caused by harsh
and changeable off-shore climates
7 Unpleasant working conditions due to 7 Unpleasant working conditions due to
noise vibration
8 Lack of promotional opportunities 8 Unpleasant working conditions due to heat
9 Not getting co-operation at work 9 Monotonous and dull off-shore living and
working environment
10 Working 28 days on/off 10 Rate of pay
11 Not being able to use my full potential 11 Travelling between on-shore and off-shore
by helicopter or ship
12 Delay in crew change due to severe 12 Monotonous food and shortage of fresh
weather conditions vegetables and fruits

226 Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 18: 217–226 (2002)

View publication stats