[. . .] The ERI appears to be the stronger of the two models although the DCM has explanatory value for specific occupations." Further, MacArthur and MacArthur (1999) note that the DCM and the ERI measure independent factors.
As noted previously, there is a current lack of theory about the nature of stress, and a dearth of information on the interaction between stress and health reactions. As such, this research proposal attempts to determine how specific work events lead to health and emotional problems. Further, it attempts to contribute to the theoretical knowledge of how psychosocial stresses can lead to workplace issues.
Given that Calnan et al. suggest that Siegrist and Peter's earned reward imbalance model seems to be "stronger" than Karasek's Job Demand-Job Control (DCM) model, this research proposal attempts to continue to determine the nature of stresses that lead to harms within the context of Siegrist and Peter's earned reward imbalance (ERI) model. Siegrist and Peter's ERI model also has the advantage of being more amenable to hazard measurement than the DCM model.
To recap, the ERI model suggest that low rewards, when coupled with high effort creates strains that lead to adverse mental and physical outcomes. This imbalance "... violates core expectations about reciprocity and adequate exchange" (Siegrist, 1996, p. 28).
Essential to the ERI model is the concept of employee expectations. In Siegist's terms, these "core expectations about reciprocity and adequate exchange" drive the imbalance that leads to emotional and physical harm. As such, a better understanding of such core expectations is essential to understanding the ERI model. Further, an understanding of these expectations could possibly lead to future hazard measurement, where company rewards could be measured against a solid understanding of employee expectations.
Hypothesis: Core expectations, (as defined within Siegrist and Peter's earned reward imbalance model), include immediate expectations of specific salary requirements, wage increases, working conditions, and social and emotional feedback, as well as longer-term expectations about status.
Objectives: The main objective of this study is to identify specific core expectations within workers. Further, this study is also designed to attempt to determine a number of potential psychological underpinnings to these reported expectations of reciprocity and exchange.
This proposed case study, by definition, is designed to provide anecdotal and qualitative evidence that identifies core expectations according to the ERI model. Participants in this study will be information technology (IT) workers within several Fortune 500 companies. Research will take place with the permission of these companies, although participation will be optional (not required for all employees). Five hundred workers, selected at random, will take place in this study.
Subjects will include both males and females, individuals of different ages, races, religions, and occupations.
Each study participant will be required to complete both a questionnaire and an interview. Questionnaire and interviews will contain a series of open-ended, pre-defined questions designed to elicit subjects to reveal their core expectations about a number of work related subjects.
Bongers, P. M, de Winter, C.R., Kompier, M.A.J., and Hildebrandt, V.H. 1993. Psychosocial factors at work and musculoskeletal disease. Scandanavian Journal of Work and Environmental Health, 19(5), 297-312.
Cox, T. And Griffiths, A. 1996. Assessment of Psychosocial Hazards at Work, in Handbook of Work and Health Psychology. Schagbracq, M., Winnubst, J.A.M. And Cooper, C.L. (Eds). JohnWiley and Sons Ltd., Chichester.
Buckle, P. And Devereux, J. 2000, The state of scientific knowledge regarding work related neck and upper limb musculoskeletal disorders. Proceedings of the XIVth triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association and 44th meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society, July 29-August 4 San Diego, California, pp5-434-436.
Calnan, M., Wadsworth, E., May, M., Smith, A. And Wainwright, D. 2004. Job strain, effort-- reward imbalance, and stress at work: competing or complementary models? Scand J. Public Health, 32(2):84-93.
Kasarek, Jr. R.A. 1979. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications of job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 24.
Kivim ki, M., Leino-Arjas, P., Luukkonen, P., Riihim ki, H., Vahtera, J., and Kirjonen, J. 2002. Work stress and risk of cardiovascular mortality: prospective cohort study of industrial employees. BMJ, 325: 857. 27 August 2004. Available online at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/325/7369/857.
Myers, A.H., Baker, S.P., Li, G., Smith, G.S., Wiker, S., Liang, K.-Y. And Johnson, J.V. 1999. Back Injury in Municipal Workers: A Case-Control Study. American Journal of Public Health, 89 (7).
Schnall, P.L. And Landsbergis, P.A. 1994. Job Strain and Cardiovascular Disease. Ann. Rev. Public Health, 5:381-411.
Siegrist, J. And Peter, R. 1996. Measuring Effort-Reward Imbalance at Work. Guidelines, University of Dusseldorf.
"Psychosocial Hazards or Risk Factors." 27 August 2004. Web. 22 April 2019. <https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/psychosocial-hazards-risk-factors/3904271>.
"Psychosocial Hazards or Risk Factors." Essaytown.com. August 27, 2004. Accessed April 22, 2019.