| Abstract | Past research has highlighted the benefits of the positive psychological resource of psychological capital (PsyCap) on increasing well-being and decreasing ill-being in the workplace. This thesis investigates PsyCap in the context of work stress. Past research has established that PsyCap is related to lower stress, but has not explored the mechanisms through which this influence occurs. Furthermore, the cross-cultural aspects of this relationship have not been adequately examined, despite arguments that PsyCap may be more relevant in Western, individualistic contexts.
This thesis aimed to investigate the influence of PysCap on the stress and coping process of adult (aged 18 to 65) employees from various nations (Australia, Hungary, Japan, China, and Singapore). The conceptual models used to describe the stress and coping process were based on the transactional and revised transactional models of stress (Goh et al., 2010; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Transactional stress theory describes the stress process as a dynamic sequence of events beginning with appraisals of the stressor, followed by a psychophysiological stress response, followed by coping, followed by subsequent stress responses which are influenced by coping effectiveness. In attempting to verify these processes, this thesis involved three separate phases: Study 1 Phase 1, Study 1 Phase 2, and Study 2. Structural equation modelling (AMOS Version 28) was used to test all hypothesised models.
In Study 1, employees were categorised into individualistic (highIND) and collectivistic (highCOLL) groups to investigate the influence of PsyCap on the stress and coping process across these two cultural value orientations. Study 1 Phase 1 used multigroup latent variable confirmatory factor analysis (highIND group n = 309, highCOLL group n = 351) to establish cross-group measurement invariance of the instruments used to measure the following constructs: PsyCap, cognitive stress appraisals (perceived threat, perceived control), emotional stress responses (positive affect, negative affect), and coping (problem-focused, support-seeking, self-blame, behavioural disengagement, self-distraction, and substance use coping). Results showed that both metric and scalar invariance were satisfied. Following the establishment of measurement invariance, Study 1 Phase 2 used multigroup latent variable structural equation modelling to test a hypothesised structural model of PsyCap’s influence on the stress and coping process (highIND group n = 276, highCOLL group n = 243). The resulting models for the highIND and highCOLL groups were compared to investigate similarities and differences in the stress/coping process for individualistic and collectivistic employees.
The Study 1 Phase 2 results found that PsyCap had a strong influence on the stress and coping process regardless of value orientation, influencing not only appraisals of the stressor but also directly and indirectly influencing emotional stress responses (by increasing positive affect and decreasing negative affect). PsyCap also led to increased problem-focused and support-seeking coping, and decreased disengagement and substance use coping for both value orientation groups. However, although PsyCap led to decreased threat appraisal and increased control appraisal for both groups, there were some between-group differences in its indirect influences on the emotional stress response. Namely, it was found that for individualistic employees, PsyCap had an additional role in decreasing negative affect by increasing perceived control, and for collectivistic employees, PsyCap had an additional role in increasing positive affect by decreasing perceived threat. For collectivistic employees, PsyCap also had a direct influence on decreasing negative affect that did not occur through threat or control appraisal—this influence was not significant for individualistic employees. Finally, comparisons between the individualistic and collectivistic employee groups also found that PsyCap had a stronger influence on decreasing threat appraisal for individualistic employees.
Study 2 retested the Study 1 structural model on a separate sample of Australian employees (n = 165). Study 2 improved upon the Study 1 methodological design by introducing a pre-post design model that more clearly represented the chronological processes implied in the transactional stress/coping models. Study 2 also included a control variable (trait affect) to control for the variance in employees’ positive/negative emotion that was due to a general disposition towards higher affectivity. Due to methodological considerations, Study 2 involved a path analysis with observed rather than latent variables. The Study 2 results provided some support for the Study 1 results. However, they also uncovered new and interesting findings—particularly the role of trait affect as an important variable explaining a possible mechanism through which PsyCap influenced the stress process. Specifically, PsyCap was related to increased trait affect, which resulted in lower perceived threat, lower negative affect, and higher positive affect in response to a work stressor. The results of this thesis describe the influence of PsyCap on the stress and coping process, explain subtle differences in this influence for individualistic/collectivistic employees, and highlight a need for further research about the role trait affect plays in PsyCap/stress processes. In doing so, they add to the current knowledge of how PsyCap may be effectively used in a work stress management context. |
|---|