-
A Matter of Match? An Experiment on ChoosingSpecific Job
Resources in Different DemandingWork Situations
Marieke van den ToorenEindhoven University of Technology and
Tilburg University
Jan de JongeEindhoven University of Technology
Christian DormannRuhr-University Bochum
Though research on the demand-induced strain compensation (DISC)
modelhas suggested that the type of job resources people employ to
deal with jobdemands may have serious implications for job stress
theory and practice,not much is known about the choices people make
regarding the investmentof job resources. The aim of this study is
to fill this gap in the literature. Inline with the DISC model, we
were particularly interested in the extent towhich people choose
job resources that match job demands (i.e., matchingjob resources)
and job resources that do not match job demands (i.e.,nonmatching
job resources). For that reason, several vignettes were devel-oped
to experimentally examine the extent to which people (92
undergrad-uates) choose cognitive, emotional, and physical job
resources; combina-tions of these specific job resources; and no
job resources at all in differenthypothetical demanding work
situations (i.e., cognitively, emotionally, andphysically demanding
jobs). As predicted, people generally chose cognitivejob resources
to deal with cognitive job demands, emotional job resources to
Marieke van den Tooren, Department of Industrial Engineering and
Innovation Sciences,Human Performance Management Group, Eindhoven
University of Technology, Eindhoven,The Netherlands, and School of
Social and Behavioral Sciences, Department of Social Psy-chology,
Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands; Jan de Jonge,
Department of IndustrialEngineering and Innovation Sciences, Human
Performance Management Group, EindhovenUniversity of Technology;
Christian Dormann, Faculty of Psychology, Department of Workand
Organizational Psychology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum,
Germany.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Marieke van den Tooren,School of Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Department of Social Psychology, Tilburg Univer-sity, P.O. Box
90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands. E-mail:
[email protected]
International Journal of Stress Management 2012 American
Psychological Association2012, Vol. 19, No. 4, 311332
1072-5245/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0030110
311
This
doc
umen
t is c
opyr
ight
ed b
y th
e A
mer
ican
Psy
chol
ogic
al A
ssoc
iatio
n or
one
of i
ts a
llied
pub
lishe
rs.
This
arti
cle
is in
tend
ed so
lely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
-
deal with emotional job demands, and physical job resources to
deal withphysical job demands. Further, results showed that
nonmatching job re-sources were particularly chosen as a supplement
to matching job resourcesrather than as a substitute for matching
job resources. However, in contrastto our predictions, there seemed
to be a dominant role for nonmatchingcognitive job resources in
this respect, whereas nonmatching emotional jobresources were
chosen less often than expected.Keywords: job demands, job
resources, DISC model, match, vignette study
According to many modern job stress models, worker health and
well-being can be explained by two key job characteristics: job
demands and jobresources (e.g., Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; de
Jonge & Dormann, 2003;Karasek & Theorell, 1990). Job
demands can be defined as work-related tasksthat require effort and
vary from solving complex problems via dealing withaggressive
clients to moving heavy objects. Job resources are
work-relatedassets (i.e., opportunities, data, people, things) that
can be employed to dealwith those job demands. Examples of job
resources are job autonomy,emotional support from colleagues and
supervisors, or technical equipment.Generally speaking, three
specific types of job demands and job resourcescan be
distinguished: cognitive, emotional, and physical demands and
re-sources (Hockey, 2000).
Several researchers have pointed out the stress-buffering effect
of jobresources, indicating that high job demands will result in
job strain unlessworkers have sufficient job resources to deal with
their demanding job (e.g.,Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, &
Schaufeli, 2001; Karasek, 1979; Siegrist,1996). One approach in job
stress research has taken this proposition a stepfurther by
suggesting that workers are least likely to experience job strain
ifthey have access to sufficient and, particularly, corresponding
types of jobresources to deal with their job demands (e.g., Cohen
& Wills, 1985; Cutrona& Russell, 1990; Viswesvaran,
Sanchez, & Fisher, 1999).
More recently, the ideas of specificity and correspondence or
match havebeen integrated into the demand-induced strain
compensation (DISC) model(de Jonge & Dormann, 2003, 2006).
According to the DISC model, workerswho are faced with high
physical job demands (e.g., moving heavy objects)are least likely
to experience job strain if they have access to sufficientphysical
job resources (e.g., a trolley). In a similar vein, it is proposed
thatworkers who are faced with high cognitive job demands (e.g.,
solvingcomplex problems) are least likely to experience job strain
if they have accessto sufficient cognitive job resources (e.g.,
information from handbooks).Finally, workers who are confronted
with high emotional job demands (e.g.,taking care of dying
patients) are least likely to experience job strain whenthey have
access to sufficient emotional job resources (e.g., emotional
sup-port from colleagues; (de Jonge & Dormann, 2003, 2006).
This idea of
312 van den Tooren, de Jonge, and Dormann
This
doc
umen
t is c
opyr
ight
ed b
y th
e A
mer
ican
Psy
chol
ogic
al A
ssoc
iatio
n or
one
of i
ts a
llied
pub
lishe
rs.
This
arti
cle
is in
tend
ed so
lely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
-
correspondence or match is referred to as the matching
hypothesis (cf.Cohen & McKay, 1984; de Jonge & Dormann,
2006).
Up until now, there has been a growing body of empirical
evidence forthe DISC models matching hypothesis (Daniels & de
Jonge, 2010; van denTooren, de Jonge, & Dormann, 2011),
implying that employers should makematching job resources (i.e.,
job resources that match job demands) availableto workers. However,
most research on the DISC model relies heavily onself-reports
(i.e., survey data) and has been criticized for its sample
selectionbias. For instance, a recent overview of the DISC model
revealed thatresearch on the model has been mainly conducted among
service employ-eesin particular, health care workers (van den
Tooren, de Jonge, & Dor-mann, 2011). As a result, many studies
on the DISC model might have beenaffected by common method bias and
a limited generalizability of results. Inaddition to these
methodological limitations of DISC research, a recentvignette study
by van den Tooren and de Jonge (2010) showed that althoughpeople
are generally inclined to use matching job resources, they are
alsoinclined to use nonmatching job resources, that is, job
resources that do notcorrespond to the type of job demands
concerned. For instance, people maymobilize emotional support from
colleagues as a job resource for cognitivedemands. As nonmatching
job resources have proven to be less functionalresources than
matching job resources in dealing with specific types ofdemanding
work situations (van den Tooren, de Jonge, & Dormann, 2011),the
activation of nonmatching job resources could have serious
implicationsfor both theory (e.g., weak support for the
stress-buffering effect of jobresources) and practice (e.g.,
unsuccessful job redesign). These effects areparticularly likely to
manifest themselves when people use nonmatching jobresources as a
substitute for matching job resources (cf. Hobfoll, 2001;Hobfoll
& Lerman, 1989), for instance, because they believe that
matchingjob resources are not sufficiently powerful to deal with
the type of jobdemands concerned. In contrast, if people use
nonmatching job resources asa supplement to matching job resources
to compensate for the lack of fitbetween capacity and demand (cf.
Hobfoll, 2001; Westman, Hobfoll, Chen,Davidson, & Laski, 2005),
the use of nonmatching job resources could workout favorably. The
activation of nonmatching job resources may thus have adifferent
impact on both theory and practice, depending on whether itconcerns
resource substitution or resource supplementation. Although
thevignette study by van den Tooren and de Jonge (2010) revealed
that peopleare sometimes inclined to use nonmatching job resources,
there was noinformation on the issue of resource substitution or
resource supplementation. Tothe best of our knowledge, no research
has been conducted on the extent to whichpeople choose nonmatching
job resources as a substitute for matching jobresources and as a
supplement to matching job resources. Therefore, the aim ofthe
current study is to investigate the choices people make regarding
the invest-
313Choosing Job Resources: A Matter of Match?
This
doc
umen
t is c
opyr
ight
ed b
y th
e A
mer
ican
Psy
chol
ogic
al A
ssoc
iatio
n or
one
of i
ts a
llied
pub
lishe
rs.
This
arti
cle
is in
tend
ed so
lely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
-
ment of matching and nonmatching job resources in different
demanding worksituations. In line with the study by van den Tooren
and de Jonge (2010), thepresent study has an experimental design
with vignettes. However, whereas vanden Tooren and de Jonge (2010)
included a sample of health care workers in theirstudy, the current
study was conducted among undergraduates. By means of
theexperimental design and this unique sample, we hope to account
for the commonmethod bias and sample selection bias that might have
affected previous researchon the DISC model.
FUNCTIONAL HOMEOSTATIC REGULATION THEORY
The DISC model has been theoretically based on functional
homeostaticregulation theory (e.g., van den Tooren, de Jonge, &
Dormann, 2011).According to this theory, an explanation for why
people are generallyinclined to use matching job resources is that
they strive for functionalhomeostasis (cf. Carver & Scheier,
1982, 1998; Edwards, 1998). Consider,for instance, a worker who is
confronted with a physically strenuous task(e.g., moving heavy
objects). As this task requires a lot of physical efforts,the
worker may gradually become physically exhausted. At the moment
theworker experiences a discrepancy or an imminent discrepancy
between his orher current physical condition and normal physical
condition (i.e., referencevalue), s/he will come into action to
reduce this discrepancy (Carver &Scheier, 2000). That is, the
worker will mobilize job resources to deal withthe demanding
situation at work concerned. Through lifelong learning pro-cesses
that bear most resemblance to operant conditioning (Skinner,
1969),workers have learned that homeostasis can best be strived for
through the useof matching job resources. In the current example,
this means that the workerwill mobilize physical job resources
(e.g., a trolley). This type of jobresources is considered most
effective because physical job resources providethe physical energy
that is needed to deal with the physically strenuous task(i.e.,
moving heavy objects; cf. Quinn, Spreitzer, & Lam, 2012).
Cognitivejob resources and emotional job resources provide other
types of energyand are therefore less suited to deal with physical
job demands. Instead, thesespecific types of job resources are best
suited to deal with job demands thatrequire cognitive effort and
emotional effort, respectively. As a result, peopleare generally
inclined to use cognitive job resources to deal with cognitivejob
demands, emotional job resources to deal with emotional job
demands,and physical job resources to deal with physical job
demands.
We already mentioned before that although people seem to have a
strongpreference for matching job resources, they also are inclined
to use lessfunctional nonmatching job resources (van den Tooren
& de Jonge, 2010).
314 van den Tooren, de Jonge, and Dormann
This
doc
umen
t is c
opyr
ight
ed b
y th
e A
mer
ican
Psy
chol
ogic
al A
ssoc
iatio
n or
one
of i
ts a
llied
pub
lishe
rs.
This
arti
cle
is in
tend
ed so
lely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
-
Nonmatching job resources can be used either as a substitute for
matching jobresources (e.g., if people believe that matching job
resources are not availablein the work environment; cf. Hobfoll,
2001; Hobfoll & Lerman, 1989) or asa supplement to matching job
resources (e.g., if people believe that matchingjob resources are
not sufficiently powerful to deal with the type of jobdemands
concerned; cf. Hobfoll, 2001; Westman et al., 2005). However,
theextent to which people are inclined to use nonmatching job
resources as asubstitute for matching job resources and as a
supplement to matching jobresources may differ. As stated above,
people who are faced with stressfulwork situations strive for
functional homeostasis (cf. Carver & Scheier, 1982,1998;
Edwards, 1998). Because functional homeostasis in stressful
worksituations can best be accomplished by activating matching job
resources(van den Tooren, de Jonge, & Dormann, 2011), it is
reasonable to assume thatpeople are more inclined to use
nonmatching job resources as a supplementto matching job resources
than as a substitute for matching job resources.
In addition, given the close relation between cognition and
emotion(Nussbaum, 2001)emotion affects cognition and cognition
underlies emo-tion (Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, & DeLongis, 1986;
Fredrickson, 2001; Gray,2004; Lazarus, 1993, 2006)it is reasonable
to assume that people who areinclined to use nonmatching job
resources to deal with cognitive job demandswill have a preference
for emotional job resources. Similarly, we may assumethat people
who are inclined to activate nonmatching job resources to dealwith
emotional job demands will have a preference for cognitive job
resources.Though both types of nonmatching job resources are less
functional resourcesthan matching job resources, they may still be
a good substitute for, or supple-ment to, matching job resources in
the demanding work situation concerned. Forinstance, in a
cognitively demanding work situation, workers cognitive
efforts(e.g., finding solutions for complex problems) might elicit
emotions (cf. Lazarus,1991) that disturb cognitive processing (cf.
Zajonc, 1980). In such a situation,where the regulation of
cognitive job demands is impeded, emotional jobresources might
counteract the emotions that disturb cognitive processing,thereby
better enabling workers to fulfill their cognitively demanding job.
Sim-ilarly, in an emotionally demanding work situation, job-related
emotions (e.g.,anger or fear) might disturb cognitive processing,
which, in turn, strengthensemotions or elicits new emotions that
conflict organizational display rules (Zapf,2002). In that
situation, cognitive job resources might preserve workers
capacityfor cognitive processing and, as a result, prevent an
increase of unwantedemotions. In contrast to the close relation
between cognition and emotion, wehave no indication of a common
relation between physical conditions andcognition, or between
physical conditions and emotion. Therefore, it seemsreasonable to
assume that people who are inclined to use nonmatching jobresources
to deal with physical job demands will have no preference for
eithercognitive or emotional job resources. Instead, they will be
inclined to use them
315Choosing Job Resources: A Matter of Match?
This
doc
umen
t is c
opyr
ight
ed b
y th
e A
mer
ican
Psy
chol
ogic
al A
ssoc
iatio
n or
one
of i
ts a
llied
pub
lishe
rs.
This
arti
cle
is in
tend
ed so
lely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
-
equally often. In accordance with this line of reasoning, it
seems highly likelythat if we ask people which specific job
resources they would use to deal withcognitive, emotional, and
physical job demands, respectively, the followinghypotheses will
apply:
Hypothesis 1: To deal with cognitively demanding work
situations,people are most inclined to use cognitive job resources,
less inclined touse a combination of cognitive and emotional job
resources, and evenlesser inclined to use emotional job resources.
People are least inclinedto use physical job resources, other
combinations of job resources, andno job resources at all.
Hypothesis 2: To deal with emotionally demanding work
situations,people are most inclined to use emotional job resources,
less inclined touse a combination of emotional and cognitive job
resources, and evenlesser inclined to use cognitive job resources.
People are least inclined touse physical job resources, other
combinations of job resources, and nojob resources at all.
Hypothesis 3: To deal with physically demanding work situations,
peo-ple are most inclined to use physical job resources, less
inclined to usecombinations of physical and cognitive job resources
and physical andemotional job resources, and even lesser inclined
to use cognitive jobresources and emotional job resources. People
are least inclined to useother combinations of job resources, and
no job resources at all.
METHOD
Design
Data were collected by means of a vignette study. Compared
withtraditional survey research, an advantage of a vignette study
is that vignettesallow standardization of demanding work
situations, leading to more uniformdata (Hughes & Huby, 2002).
As will be discussed in the Procedure section,we used a
within-subjects experimental design in which all participants
wereexposed to the vignettes in random order.
Sample
The study sample consisted of 92 undergraduates from a Dutch
univer-sity of technology (64 males and 28 females). The mean age
was 20.3 years
316 van den Tooren, de Jonge, and Dormann
This
doc
umen
t is c
opyr
ight
ed b
y th
e A
mer
ican
Psy
chol
ogic
al A
ssoc
iatio
n or
one
of i
ts a
llied
pub
lishe
rs.
This
arti
cle
is in
tend
ed so
lely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
-
(SD 1.8). Participants had experience with jobs on the side (M 4
years,SD 2.7) and holiday jobs (M 4 years; SD 2.3).
Procedure
In a laboratory environment, participants were presented 12
differenthypothetical, demanding work situations (i.e., vignettes)
that had been cre-ated by the researchers. The different scenarios
were presented randomly tothe participants on a computer screen.
Each scenario represented a highlydemanding work situation in a
different profession. The vignettes weredesigned to represent a
cognitively, emotionally, or physically demandingwork situation.
When designing the vignettes, the researchers emphasized thetype of
job demands concerned and avoided mentioning possible accompa-nying
demands (or suggesting that they could be active as well).
Theprofessions in the four scenarios representing cognitive job
demands wereaccountant, air traffic controller, journalist, and
criminal judge. The profes-sions in the four scenarios representing
emotional job demands were policeofficer, teacher, ambulance
attendant, and family guardian, and the profes-sions in the four
scenarios representing physical job demands were garbagecollector,
shoe salesman, cashier, and construction worker. When
selectingthese 12 professions, the researchers took into account
the degree of ambi-guity in job content. Of the chosen professions,
we believed that they wereprimarily characterized by either
cognitive, emotional, or physical job de-mands. The professions
have been classified accordingly. Three examplevignettes are
presented in the Appendix.
Participants were asked to imagine themselves being the central
figure(i.e., worker) in the vignettes who is experiencing the
demanding situationconcerned. After participants had read a
vignette (and imagined themselvesin the demanding situation), they
were asked what specific type of jobresources or combination of job
resources they would use in that particulardemanding work
situation. By mouse clicking the respective button on thescreen,
participants could choose one of the following options: (1)
cognitivejob resources, (2) emotional job resources, (3) physical
job resources,(4) a combination of cognitive and emotional job
resources, (5) a com-bination of cognitive and physical job
resources, (6) a combination ofemotional and physical job
resources, (7) a combination of cognitive,emotional, and physical
job resources, or (8) no job resources. Responsecategories 1
through 7 have been based on the three specific types of
jobresources that can be distinguished: cognitive, emotional, and
physical jobresources. The categories were created in such a way
that all possible optionswere covered; participants could choose
either one specific job resource or a
317Choosing Job Resources: A Matter of Match?
This
doc
umen
t is c
opyr
ight
ed b
y th
e A
mer
ican
Psy
chol
ogic
al A
ssoc
iatio
n or
one
of i
ts a
llied
pub
lishe
rs.
This
arti
cle
is in
tend
ed so
lely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
-
combination of specific job resources. We also included the
option to chooseno job resources at all (i.e., response category
8), as we wanted to make surethat people would choose particular
job resources from conviction rather thansimply choosing resources
randomly because they had to make a choice.
Before the vignettes were presented, participants were explained
theconcept of job resources and were given examples of cognitive,
emotional,and physical job resources (e.g., the opportunity to take
a mental break, alistening ear from colleagues, and ergonomic
aids). Because the availabilityof job resources may not be equally
distributed across people and is unlikelyto be stable over time,
different information was communicated about thepresence of job
resources in the demanding work situations. It was suggestedthat
the availability of job resources was either limited or abundant.
Thisinstruction varied randomly across participants.
We did not clarify the nature of the vignettes (i.e., whether a
particularvignette represented a cognitive, emotional, or physical
job demand). However,after the study, participants were asked to
judge each of the vignettes as acognitively, emotionally, or
physically demanding job. This manipulation checkrevealed that the
vignettes were designed properly: On average, more than 90%of the
participants classified the vignettes as intended by the
researchers (e.g., ifa vignette was designed to represent a
cognitively demanding work situation,90% of the participants
classified the vignette as such).
Data Analysis
Because the teacher scenario seemed ambiguous (about one third
of theparticipants classified this scenario as a cognitively
demanding work situation),it was decided to leave this vignette out
of the analyses. For each of the 11remaining vignettes, eight
resource variables were created that represented thedifferent
resources participants could choose from (i.e., single cognitive,
emo-tional, and physical job resources; combinations of these
specific types of jobresources; and no job resources).
Subsequently, these resource variables weredummy coded. For
instance, if a participant indicated that s/he would use
singlecognitive job resources in a particular vignette, the
accompanying eight resourcevariables were, in line with the order
described previously, dummy coded as 1 00 0 0 0 0 0, respectively.
Similarly, if a participant had chosen a combination ofcognitive
and emotional job resources, the eight resource variables were
dummycoded as 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0, respectively. A mean score was
calculated for eachresource variable over the four vignettes
representing cognitive job demands (i.e.,accountant, air traffic
controller, journalist, and criminal judge), the three vi-gnettes
representing emotional job demands (i.e., police officer,
ambulanceattendant, and family guardian), and the four vignettes
representing physical job
318 van den Tooren, de Jonge, and Dormann
This
doc
umen
t is c
opyr
ight
ed b
y th
e A
mer
ican
Psy
chol
ogic
al A
ssoc
iatio
n or
one
of i
ts a
llied
pub
lishe
rs.
This
arti
cle
is in
tend
ed so
lely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
-
demands (i.e., garbage collector, shoe salesman. cashier, and
construction work-er). Table 1 shows the means of the eight
resource variables in each specific typeof demanding work
situation.
To test Hypotheses 1 through 3, we followed a conservative
top-downapproach (see Figure 1). Specifically, because paired
samples t tests wouldprobably have enhanced capitalization by
chance, a repeated measures mul-tiple analysis of variance (MANOVA)
was conducted for each type of jobdemands (i.e., cognitive,
emotional, and physical job demands). However, tojustify these
three separate repeated measures MANOVAs, it was firstinvestigated
whether the extent to which participants had chosen
singlecognitive, emotional, and physical job resources,
combinations of thesespecific types of job resources, and no job
resources differed between thespecific types of job demands (see
Figure 1, above the dotted line). For thispurpose, a repeated
measures MANOVA was conducted in which job re-sources and job
demands were both specified as within-subject factors. Jobresources
consisted of eight levels (i.e., cognitive, emotional, physical,
cog-nitive emotional, cognitivephysical, emotionalphysical,
cognitiveemotionalphysical, and no job resources) and job demands
consisted ofthree levels (cognitive, emotional, and physical). A
significant interactioneffect between job resources and job demands
in the multivariate test wouldimply that the extent to which
participants had chosen single cognitive,emotional, and physical
job resources, combinations of these specific types ofjob
resources, and no job resources differed between the specific types
of jobdemands (i.e., cognitive, emotional, and physical job
demands).
Next, a repeated measures MANOVA was conducted for each type
ofjob demands (see Figure 1, below the dotted line) in which job
resourceswere specified as a within-subject factor with eight
levels (i.e., cognitive,emotional, physical, cognitiveemotional,
cognitivephysical, emotionalphysical, cognitiveemotionalphysical,
and no job resources). For each
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of the Resource
VariablesCognitive
jobdemands
Emotionaljob
demandsPhysical job
demands
M SD M SD M SDCognitive job resources .52 .30 .07 .15 .04
.13Emotional job resources .03 .08 .47 .31 .03 .11Physical job
resources .07 .16 .00 .00 .49 .29Cognitive and emotional job
resources .16 .18 .36 .28 .03 .08Cognitive and physical job
resources .08 .16 .00 .04 .23 .25Emotional and physical job
resources .02 .06 .02 .09 .09 .18Cognitive, emotional, and physical
job
resources .02 .08 .02 .08 .03 .08None (no job resources) .12 .19
.06 .15 .08 .16
319Choosing Job Resources: A Matter of Match?
This
doc
umen
t is c
opyr
ight
ed b
y th
e A
mer
ican
Psy
chol
ogic
al A
ssoc
iatio
n or
one
of i
ts a
llied
pub
lishe
rs.
This
arti
cle
is in
tend
ed so
lely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
-
repeated measures MANOVA, a significant main effect of job
resourceswould imply that the extent to which participants had
chosen single cogni-tive, emotional, and physical job resources,
combinations of these specifictypes of job resources, and no job
resources differed within the specific typeof demanding job
concerned (i.e., cognitive, emotional, or physical jobdemands).
Finally, for each significant main effect of job resources, a
posthoc test was conducted to examine what resource variables
differed fromeach other in the specific demanding work situation
concerned. The post hoctests were corrected with a Bonferroni
adjustment.
RESULTS
Repeated Measures MANOVAs
The multivariate test of the repeated measures MANOVA showed a
signif-icant interaction effect between job resources and job
demands. This findingimplies that the extent to which participants
had chosen single cognitive, emo-tional, and physical job
resources, combinations of these specific types of jobresources,
and no job resources differed between the specific types of
jobdemands, F(14, 78) 109.06, p .01, partial 2 .95. In the
subsequentrepeated measures MANOVAs (one for each type of job
demand), wefound a main effect for job resources in a cognitively
demanding worksituation, F(7, 85) 96.72, p .01, partial 2 .89, an
emotionally
Figure 1. Different steps taken in the data analysis.
320 van den Tooren, de Jonge, and Dormann
This
doc
umen
t is c
opyr
ight
ed b
y th
e A
mer
ican
Psy
chol
ogic
al A
ssoc
iatio
n or
one
of i
ts a
llied
pub
lishe
rs.
This
arti
cle
is in
tend
ed so
lely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
-
demanding work situation, F(6, 86) 204.63, p .01, partial 2 .94,
anda physically demanding work situation, F(7, 85) 70.65, p .01,
partial 2 .85. In other words, the extent to which participants had
chosen singlecognitive, emotional, and physical job resources,
combinations of thesespecific types of job resources, and no job
resources differed within eachspecific type of demanding work
situation. Results of the post hoc tests arediscussed next.
Post Hoc Tests: Cognitive Job Demands
As shown in Table 2 and Figure 2, people who were presented
with
Table 2. T-Statistics of the Post Hoc Tests for Cognitive Job
DemandsCRa ERa PRa CR_ERa CR_PRa ER_PRa CR_ER_PRa Nonea
CRb ERb 14.56a PRb 10.67a n.s. CR_ERb 9.10a 6.19b n.s. CR_PRb
11.00a n.s. n.s. n.s. ER_PRb 14.79a n.s. 1.54a 7.32a 3.50a
CR_ER_PRb 14.79a n.s. n.s. 7.32a 3.32a n.s. Noneb 9.50a 4.75b n.s.
n.s. n.s. 4.91b 4.68b
Note. Superscripts indicate which resource variable is
significantly more often chosen. CRcognitive resources; CR_ER
combination of cognitive and emotional resources; CR_ER_PR
combination of cognitive, emotional, and physical resources; CR_PR
combination of cognitiveand physical resources; ER emotional
resources; ER_PR combination of emotional andphysical resources;
None no resources were chosen; n.s. no significant difference
between jobresources in row and column; PR physical resources.a
Column row. b Row column. p .05. p .01.
Figure 2. Specific types of job resources (in the order
cognitive, emotional, physical, cognitiveemotional,
cognitivephysical, emotionalphysical, cognitiveemotionalphysical,
and no jobresources) respondents chose in different types of
demanding work situations.
321Choosing Job Resources: A Matter of Match?
This
doc
umen
t is c
opyr
ight
ed b
y th
e A
mer
ican
Psy
chol
ogic
al A
ssoc
iatio
n or
one
of i
ts a
llied
pub
lishe
rs.
This
arti
cle
is in
tend
ed so
lely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
-
cognitively demanding work situations chose single cognitive job
resourcesmore often than single emotional and physical job
resources, combinations ofspecific job resources, and no job
resources at all. In addition, people chosea combination of
cognitive and emotional job resources more often thansingle
emotional job resources, a combination of emotional and physical
jobresources, and a combination of cognitive, emotional, and
physical jobresources. However, a combination of cognitive and
emotional job resourceswas chosen equally often as single physical
job resources, a combination ofcognitive and physical job
resources, and no job resources at all (i.e., their usedid not
differ significantly). Finally, results revealed that people chose
no jobresources more often than single emotional job resources, and
that singleemotional job resources were chosen equally often as
single physical jobresources and combinations of cognitive and
physical job resources, emo-tional and physical job resources, and
cognitive, emotional, and physical jobresources.
Post Hoc Tests: Emotional Job Demands
Table 3 and Figure 2 show that people who were presented with
emo-tionally demanding work situations chose emotional job
resources mostoften, either as a single job resource or in
combination with cognitive jobresources. Further, both single
emotional job resources and a combination ofcognitive and emotional
job resources were chosen more often than singlecognitive and
physical job resources, other combinations of specific
jobresources, and no job resources at all. Finally, results
revealed that single
Table 3. T-Statistics of the Post Hoc Tests for Emotional Job
DemandsCRa ERa PRa CR_ERa CR_PRa ER_PRa CR_ER_PRa Nonea
CRb ERb 10.41b PRb 4.06a 14.72a CR_ERb 8.37b n.s. 12.38b CR_PRb
3.88a 14.59a n.s. 11.83a ER_PRb n.s. 13.32a n.s. 10.66a n.s.
CR_ER_PRb n.s. 12.83a n.s. 11.23a n.s. n.s. Noneb n.s. 10.76a 4.13b
8.49a 3.63b n.s. n.s.
Note. Superscripts indicate which resource variable is
significantly more often chosen. CRcognitive resources; CR_ER
combination of cognitive and emotional resources; CR_ER_PR
combination of cognitive, emotional, and physical resources; CR_PR
combination of cognitiveand physical resources; ER emotional
resources; ER_PR combination of emotional andphysical resources;
None no resources were chosen; n.s. no significant difference
between jobresources in row and column; PR physical resources.a
Column row. b Row column. p .05. p .01.
322 van den Tooren, de Jonge, and Dormann
This
doc
umen
t is c
opyr
ight
ed b
y th
e A
mer
ican
Psy
chol
ogic
al A
ssoc
iatio
n or
one
of i
ts a
llied
pub
lishe
rs.
This
arti
cle
is in
tend
ed so
lely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
-
cognitive job resources were chosen more often than single
physical jobresources and a combination of cognitive and physical
job resources, butequally often as a combination of emotional and
physical job resources, acombination of cognitive, emotional, and
physical job resources, and no jobresources at all.
Post Hoc Tests: Physical Job Demands
Finally, in Table 4 and Figure 2, it is shown that people who
werepresented with physically demanding work situations chose
single physicaljob resources more often than single cognitive and
emotional job resources,combinations of specific job resources, and
no job resources at all. Inaddition, results revealed that a
combination of cognitive and physical jobresources was chosen more
often than single cognitive and emotional jobresources, other
combinations of specific job resources, and no job resourcesat all.
In contrast, a combination of emotional and physical job resources
waschosen equally often as single cognitive and emotional job
resources, acombination of cognitive and emotional job resources, a
combination ofcognitive, emotional, and physical job resources, and
no job resources at all.Finally, it was shown that people chose
single cognitive job resources equallyoften as single emotional job
resources, and that both types of job resourceswere chosen equally
often as a combination of cognitive and emotional jobresources, a
combination of cognitive, emotional, and physical job resources,and
no job resources at all.
Table 4. T-Statistics of the Post Hoc Tests for Physical Job
DemandsCRa ERa PRa CR_ERa CR_PRa ER_PRa CR_ER_PRa Nonea
CRb ERb n.s. PRb 12.39b 13.68b CR_ERb n.s. n.s. 14.53a CR_PRb
6.27b 7.14b 5.38a 7.39b ER_PRb n.s. n.s. 10.05a n.s. 4.11a
CR_ER_PRb n.s. n.s. 14.09a n.s. 7.96a n.s. Noneb n.s. n.s. 11.47a
n.s. 4.43a n.s. n.s.
Note. Superscripts indicate which resource variable is
significantly more often chosen. CRcognitive resources; CR_ER
combination of cognitive and emotional resources; CR_ER_PR
combination of cognitive, emotional, and physical resources; CR_PR
combination of cognitiveand physical resources; ER emotional
resources; ER_PR combination of emotional andphysical resources;
None no resources were chosen; n.s. no significant difference
between jobresources in row and column; PR physical resources.a
Column row. b Row column. p .01.
323Choosing Job Resources: A Matter of Match?
This
doc
umen
t is c
opyr
ight
ed b
y th
e A
mer
ican
Psy
chol
ogic
al A
ssoc
iatio
n or
one
of i
ts a
llied
pub
lishe
rs.
This
arti
cle
is in
tend
ed so
lely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
-
DISCUSSION
The aim of the present study was to examine the extent to which
peopleare inclined to use nonmatching job resources as a substitute
for matching jobresources, and as a supplement to matching job
resources in different de-manding work situations. This study
thereby fills a gap in the currentliterature on the DISC model. In
addition, this study expanded an earlierstudy by van den Tooren and
de Jonge (2010) using an experimental designand a student sample,
which can be considered additional strengths of thepresent
study.
To uncover the choices people make regarding the investment of
match-ing and nonmatching job resources, several vignettes were
developed toexperimentally examine peoples inclination to use
single cognitive, emo-tional, and physical job resources,
combinations of these specific types of jobresources, and no job
resources at all in different hypothetical demandingwork situations
(i.e., cognitively, emotionally, and physically demandingjobs).
Data were analyzed by repeated measures MANOVAs, which
partlysupported Hypotheses 1 through 3. Specifically, in line with
Hypothesis 1,people who were presented cognitively demanding work
situations chosesingle cognitive job resources more often than a
combination of cognitive andemotional job resources, whereas a
combination of cognitive and emotionaljob resources was chosen more
often than single emotional job resources.However, contrary to our
expectations, together, these three options were notalways
preferred over single physical job resources, other resource
combi-nations, and no job resources at all.
As far as Hypothesis 2 is concerned, results contradicted our
predictions,as it was shown that people who were presented with
emotionally demandingwork situations chose single emotional job
resources equally often as acombination of cognitive and emotional
job resources. As expected, bothsingle emotional job resources and
a combination of cognitive and emotionaljob resources were chosen
more often than single cognitive job resources.Contrary to our
expectations, however, together, these three options were notalways
preferred over single physical job resources, other resource
combi-nations, and no job resources at all.
Finally, in line with Hypothesis 3, results revealed that if
people werepresented with physically demanding work situations,
they chose singlephysical job resources more often than
combinations of cognitive and phys-ical job resources and emotional
and physical job resources. However, incontrast to our predictions,
a combination of cognitive and physical jobresources was chosen
more often than a combination of emotional andphysical job
resources. In addition, though people chose a combination
ofcognitive and physical job resources more often than single
cognitive job
324 van den Tooren, de Jonge, and Dormann
This
doc
umen
t is c
opyr
ight
ed b
y th
e A
mer
ican
Psy
chol
ogic
al A
ssoc
iatio
n or
one
of i
ts a
llied
pub
lishe
rs.
This
arti
cle
is in
tend
ed so
lely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
-
resources and emotional job resources, a combination of
emotional andphysical job resources was chosen equally often as
single cognitive andemotional job resources. Finally, as predicted,
single cognitive and emotionaljob resources were chosen equally
often. Nonetheless, contrary to our ex-pectations, together, these
five options were not always preferred over otherresource
combinations and no job resources at all.
In line with functional homeostatic regulation theory, which
serves as atheoretical basis of the DISC model, the current
findings suggest that thechoice for matching job resources clearly
prevailed. Further, it was shownthat people also chose less
functional nonmatching job resources, whichsupports the vignette
study by van den Tooren and de Jonge (2010). Inaddition to this
earlier study, however, the current study also revealed
thatnonmatching job resources often seemed to be chosen as a
supplement tomatching job resources rather than as a substitute for
matching job resources.One remarkable finding was that there
particularly seemed to be a dominantrole for nonmatching cognitive
job resources, whereas nonmatching emo-tional job resources were
chosen less often than expected. One explanationfor this finding
may be that people usually operate (i.e., make decisions,
takeaction) from a set of cognitive schemas or frames of reference
(Vonk,1999). The specific values, beliefs, needs, and
understandings that stem fromthese frames of reference may make
people highly sensitive to detect andutilize particular affordances
in the work environment (Baron & Boudreau,1987; Gibson, 1979).
Affordances are properties of the work environmentthat can exert an
influence on the person only if s/he possesses the comple-mentary
characteristic to make use of or tune into a certain affordance.
Forinstance, as helping and caring and giving and receiving are
valuedactivities among health care workers, these workers could
become alert toinformation in the work environment suggesting
emotional support. Due totheir focus on affordances for emotional
support, health care workers may bestrongly inclined to use
emotional job resources to deal with different typesof high job
demands. In fact, in the vignette study conducted by van denTooren
and de Jonge (2010) among service workers who were mainlyemployed
in health care, there was a dominant role for emotional
jobresources. Similar to service workers who may be particularly
alert to sourcesof emotional support, in the current study,
respondents academic educationat a university of technology may
have made them alert to sources ofknowledge and expertise. In other
words, respondents may have operatedfrom a frame of reference that
led them to approach each of the vignettes ina rational manner
(i.e., showing a preference for cognitive job resources).
Inaddition, some respondents may once have learned that it is
socially unde-sirable to show their emotions. As a result, these
respondents may have beenless inclined to approach the vignettes in
an emotional manner (i.e., showinga preference for emotional job
resources).
325Choosing Job Resources: A Matter of Match?
This
doc
umen
t is c
opyr
ight
ed b
y th
e A
mer
ican
Psy
chol
ogic
al A
ssoc
iatio
n or
one
of i
ts a
llied
pub
lishe
rs.
This
arti
cle
is in
tend
ed so
lely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
-
From a practical point of view, we may conclude that people
generallychose matching job resources, and that it is therefore
worth the effort to makematching job resources available to workers
after a risk diagnosis of specificjob demands. However, people also
seem to attach value to less functionalnonmatching job resources,
which they often choose in combination withmatching job resources.
The type of nonmatching job resources that are mostlikely to be
chosen might be strongly related to peoples frame of
reference,which will, in turn, often be related to the occupational
profession in whichthey work. For instance, whereas health care
workers may be especially alertto nonmatching emotional job
resources, information technology workersmay be more inclined to
use nonmatching cognitive job resources (cf. van deVen, Vlerick,
& de Jonge, 2008). Of course, sensitivity to these
particulartypes of nonmatching job resources may differ from person
to person, but ingeneral, this might be the pattern observed.
Study Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
The results of this study should be interpreted in terms of its
limitations.First, the vignettes that were presented to
participants might have caused apriming effect, so that respondents
were particularly likely to focus theirattention on corresponding
types of job resources. However, if there had beena strong priming
effect, we would have found almost perfect matches in alltypes of
demanding situations, but we have not.
Second, as participants were asked to report on the use of job
resourcesin hypothetical demanding work situations, it is not
impossible that, inreality, they might have responded differently
than they thought (and indi-cated) they would do. However, though
assessments obtained from hypo-thetical situations at work may be
less externally valid than assessments takenin the field,
portraying a demanding job familiar to respondents has thepotential
to induce similar effects as those obtained in real life work
settings(cf. Blodgett, Hill, & Tax, 1997; Levesque &
McDougall, 2000). Of course,most respondents were not familiar with
the kind of demanding situationsportrayed to them in terms of hands
on experience, but the professionspresented to them are generally
so well known and understandable that theyshould have been able to
imagine themselves being the central figure (i.e.,worker) in the
vignettes.
Third, participants were not asked to indicate which concrete
job re-source(s) they had in mind when choosing a specific job
resource or com-bination of job resources. For instance, when
participants selected the optionphysical job resources, they might
had been thinking of a trolley or ahelping hand from colleagues. In
this case, the classification physical job
326 van den Tooren, de Jonge, and Dormann
This
doc
umen
t is c
opyr
ight
ed b
y th
e A
mer
ican
Psy
chol
ogic
al A
ssoc
iatio
n or
one
of i
ts a
llied
pub
lishe
rs.
This
arti
cle
is in
tend
ed so
lely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
-
resources is correct. However, if participants had been thinking
of ashoulder to cry on, they should have selected the option
emotional jobresources instead. Though participants were explained
the concept of jobresources and were given examples of cognitive,
emotional, and physicaljob resources, we did not actually check
whether they correctly classified theconcrete job resources they
had in mind as cognitive, emotional, or physicaljob resources. If
participants made classification mistakes, this might havebiased
our results.
Finally, this study is based on a relatively small sample of
undergradu-ates, which poses questions about the studys
generalizability to workingpopulations. However, because comparable
patterns have been reported for alarger sample of service workers
(van den Tooren & de Jonge, 2010), ourstudent sample seems
warranted. Moreover, it seems reasonable to assumethat, like
undergraduates, workers would neither have had any experiencewith
the imaginary demanding work situations. And if they had, it
wouldprobably have been one particular scenario. From this point of
view, under-graduates might be more open to different scenarios,
which could enhancethe studys generalizability.
To overcome some of the potential limitations of our study, it
is recom-mended that future studies focus on real-life demanding
work situations.Experienced workers may then be asked to list the
concrete job resourcesthey use in these particular work situations
(e.g., a trolley or information fromhandbooks). Afterward, these
demands and resources can be classified by ateam of
researchers/experts as either cognitive, emotional, or physical
jobdemands and job resources. As the amount of demands and
resources maydiffer over time and across occupations and jobs,
quantitative measures likethe (perceived) severity of job demands
and the (perceived) availability of jobresources may also be part
of future studies. In any case, it is recommendedthat future
studies be conducted in large, multioccupation samples.
In addition, it is recommended that, in future studies, the
theoretical basisof the DISC model (i.e., functional homeostatic
regulation theory) will befurther examined in terms of both its
validity and its boundary conditions.With respect to the latter, it
may be interesting to empirically investigate therole of workers
frame of reference, for instance, by means of a number
ofexperiments in which participants frame of reference is
manipulated. Inaddition, future research may further examine the
role of personal charac-teristics such as coping style or
regulatory focus. For both characteristics, ithas been hypothesized
that they affect the extent to which people employ jobresources
(van den Tooren, de Jonge, Vlerick, Daniels, & Van de Ven,
2011;van den Tooren & de Jonge, 2011). Eventually, this type of
studies mayfurther enhance our understanding of the choices people
make regarding theinvestment of matching and nonmatching job
resources in different demand-ing work situations. Through these
new insights, we might become better
327Choosing Job Resources: A Matter of Match?
This
doc
umen
t is c
opyr
ight
ed b
y th
e A
mer
ican
Psy
chol
ogic
al A
ssoc
iatio
n or
one
of i
ts a
llied
pub
lishe
rs.
This
arti
cle
is in
tend
ed so
lely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
-
able to improve the explanatory power of job stress theories and
to tailor jobredesign interventions in an optimal way.
REFERENCES
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job
Demands-Resources model: State of the art.Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 22, 309328. doi:10.1108/02683940710733115
Baron, R. M., & Boudreau, L. A. (1987). An ecological
perspective on integrating personalityand social psychology.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,
12221228.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1222
Blodgett, J. G., Hill, D. J., & Tax, S. S. (1997). The
effects of distributive, procedural andinteractional justice on
postcomplaint behavior. Journal of Retailing, 73, 185210.
doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(97)90003-8
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A
useful conceptual framework forpersonality, social, clinical, and
health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92,
111135.doi:10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.111
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the
self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University
Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174794
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2000). On the structure of
behavioral self-regulation. In M.Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, &
M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 4184).San
Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50032-9
Cohen, S., & McKay, G. (1984). Social support, stress and
the buffering hypothesis: Atheoretical analysis. In A. Baum, S. E.
Taylor, & J. E. Singer (Eds.), Handbook ofpsychology and health
(pp. 253267). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support,
and the moderating hypothesis.Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310357.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310
Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (1990). Type of social
support and specific stress: Toward atheory of optimal matching. In
B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.),
Socialsupport: An interactional view (pp. 319366). New York, NY:
Wiley.
Daniels, K., & de Jonge, J. (2010). Match making and match
breaking: The nature of matchwithin and around job design. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,83, 116.
doi:10.1348/096317909X485144
de Jonge, J., & Dormann, C. (2003). The DISC Model:
Demand-Induced Strain Compensationmechanisms in job stress. In M.
F. Dollard, H. R. Winefield, & A. H. Winefield
(Eds.),Occupational stress in the service professions (pp. 4374).
London, UK: Taylor &Francis. doi:10.1201/9780203422809.ch2
de Jonge, J., & Dormann, C. (2006). Stressors, resources,
and strains at work: A longitudinaltest of the Triple Match
Principle. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,
13591374.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1359
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli,
W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86, 499512.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
Edwards, J. R. (1998). Cybernetic theory of stress, coping, and
well-being: Review andextension to work and family. In C. L.
Cooper, C. L., Theories of organizational stress(pp. 122152).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., & DeLongis, A.
(1986). Appraisal, coping, healthstatus, and psychological
symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,571579.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.571
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in
positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive
emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218226.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual
perception. Boston, MA: HoughtonMifflin.
328 van den Tooren, de Jonge, and Dormann
This
doc
umen
t is c
opyr
ight
ed b
y th
e A
mer
ican
Psy
chol
ogic
al A
ssoc
iatio
n or
one
of i
ts a
llied
pub
lishe
rs.
This
arti
cle
is in
tend
ed so
lely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
-
Gray, J. R. (2004). Integration of emotion and cognitive
control. Current Directions inPsychological Science, 13, 4648.
doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00272.x
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and
the nested-self in the stressprocess: Advancing conservation of
resources theory. Applied Psychology: An Interna-tional Review, 50,
337421. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00062
Hobfoll, S. E., & Lerman, M. (1989). Predicting receipt of
social support: A longitudinal studyof parents reactions to their
childs illness. Health Psychology, 8, 6177.
doi:10.1037/0278-6133.8.1.61
Hockey, G. R. J. (2000). Work environments and performance. In
N. Chmiel (Ed.), Introduc-tion to work and organizational
psychology: A European perspective (pp. 206230).Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Hughes, R., & Huby, M. (2002). The application of vignettes
in social and nursing research.Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37,
382386. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02100.x
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and
mental strain: Implications forjob design. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 24, 285308. doi:10.2307/2392498
Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work. Stress,
productivity, and the reconstructionof working life. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.Lazarus, R. S. (1993). From psychological
stress to the emotions: A history of changing
outlooks. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 122.
doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.000245
Lazarus, R. S. (2006). Emotions and interpersonal relationships:
Toward a person-centeredconceptualization of emotions and coping.
Journal of Personality, 74, 946.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00368.x
Levesque, T. J., & McDougall, G. H. (2000). Service problems
and recovery strategies: Anexperiment. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, 17, 2037.
doi:10.1111/j.1936-4490.2000.tb00204.x
Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). The upheavals of thought. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge UniversityPress.
Quinn, R. W., Spreitzer, G. M., & Lam, C. F. (2012).
Building a sustainable model of humanenergy in organizations:
Exploring the critical role of resources. The Academy of
Man-agement Annals, 6, 337396. doi:10.1080/19416520.2012.676762
Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of
high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal ofOccupational Health
Psychology, 1, 2741. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.1.1.27
Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A
theoretical analysis. New York, NY:Appleton-Century-Crofts.
van de Ven, B., Vlerick, P., & de Jonge, J. (2008). The
interplay of job demands, job resourcesand cognitive outcomes in
informatics. Stress and Health: Journal of the InternationalSociety
for the Investigation of Stress, 24, 375382.
doi:10.1002/smi.1192
van den Tooren, M., & de Jonge, J. (2010). The role of
matching job resources in differentdemanding work situations: A
vignette study. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-tional
Psychology, 83, 3954. doi:10.1348/096317909X462257
van den Tooren, M., & de Jonge, J. (2011). Job resources and
regulatory focus as moderatorsof short-term stressor-strain
relations: A daily diary study. Journal of Personnel Psychol-ogy,
10, 97106. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000042
van den Tooren, M., de Jonge, J., & Dormann, C. (2011). The
demand-induced straincompensation model: Background, key
principles, theoretical underpinnings, and ex-tended empirical
evidence. In A. Caetano, S. A. Silva, & M. J. Chambel (Eds.),
Newchallenges for a healthy workplace in human services (pp. 1359).
Mering, Germany:Rainer Hampp Verlag.
van den Tooren, M., de Jonge, J., Vlerick, P., Daniels, K.,
& van de Ven, B. (2011). Jobresources and matching active
coping styles as moderators of the longitudinal relationbetween job
demands and job strain. International Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 18,373383. doi:10.1007/s12529-011-9148-7
Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The
role of social support in the processof work stress: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 314334.
doi:10.1006/jvbe.1998.1661
329Choosing Job Resources: A Matter of Match?
This
doc
umen
t is c
opyr
ight
ed b
y th
e A
mer
ican
Psy
chol
ogic
al A
ssoc
iatio
n or
one
of i
ts a
llied
pub
lishe
rs.
This
arti
cle
is in
tend
ed so
lely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
-
Vonk, R. (1999). Schemas. In R. Vonk (Ed.), Cognitieve sociale
psychologie: De psychologievan het dagelijks denken en doen
[Cognitive Social Psychology: The Psychology of dailythinking and
acting] (pp. 143194). Utrecht, The Netherlands: Lemma.
Westman, M., Hobfoll, S. E., Chen, S., Davidson, O. B., &
Laski, S. (2005). Organizationalstress through the lens of
conservation of resources (COR) theory. In P. Perrew & D.
C.Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well-being
(Vol. 4, pp. 167220).Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Zajonc, R. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no
inferences. American Psychol-ogist, 35, 151175.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151
Zapf, D. (2002). Emotion work and psychological well-being. A
review of the literature andsome conceptual considerations. Human
Resource Management Review, 12,
237268.doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00048-7
AppendixExamples of a Cognitive, an Emotional, and a Physical
Vignette Followed
by the Eight Response Options (Figures A1, A2, and A3)
COGNITIVE VIGNETTE
You work as an accountant in an audit office. Your main tasks
are checkingannual accounts, offering administrative support, and
giving tax and financialadvice to private individuals and
companies. An entrepreneur who wants toexport his product to Norway
has asked you to advice him. How should hedeal with the export and
what may be the financial consequences? Should heopen an office in
Norway? And what about the sales tax when he supplies aNorwegian
company? Though you have some experience with these subjects,it
turns out to be a complex task that requires a lot of thinking. The
client andyou have agreed that you will advise him within two days.
You are weighingthe pros and cons, but you are unable to come up
with a concrete advice.What kind(s) of job resources would you use
in this situation?
Figure A1. Overview of the 8 response options presented to the
participants in the vignette study.In this example, a participant
chose cognitive job resources to deal with the situation
describedin the cognitive vignette.
(Appendix continues)
330 van den Tooren, de Jonge, and Dormann
This
doc
umen
t is c
opyr
ight
ed b
y th
e A
mer
ican
Psy
chol
ogic
al A
ssoc
iatio
n or
one
of i
ts a
llied
pub
lishe
rs.
This
arti
cle
is in
tend
ed so
lely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
-
EMOTIONAL VIGNETTE
You work as a family guardian for the youth welfare foundation.
It is yourtask to guide and support families that are faced with
child rearing problems.Most of the time, children can stay at home,
but sometimesby judicialdecisionit is decided to place a child in
care. Yesterday, you have madesuch a decision. It concerns a
single-parent family. The mother, who tries toraise her 7-year-old
daughter by herself, has an intellectual disability. Thoughyou are
of the opinion that the mother loves her daughter and would
neverhurt her, she has difficulty raising her. The mother leads a
very unstructuredlife and tends to change her daynight rhythm and
that of her daughter.Moreover, meals are often missed and personal
hygiene is poor. Yourguidance and that of other aid organizations
seems no longer adequate.Today, you have informed the mother about
your decision to place herdaughter in care. This message is a great
blow to her and she is completelyupset. Her daughter is everything
to her. You feel sorry for the mother, butyou have to stay
professional. What kind(s) of job resources would you usein this
situation?
(Appendix continues)
Figure A2. Overview of the eight response options presented to
the participants in the vignettestudy. In this example, a
participant chose emotional job resources to deal with the
situationdescribed in the emotional vignette.
331Choosing Job Resources: A Matter of Match?
This
doc
umen
t is c
opyr
ight
ed b
y th
e A
mer
ican
Psy
chol
ogic
al A
ssoc
iatio
n or
one
of i
ts a
llied
pub
lishe
rs.
This
arti
cle
is in
tend
ed so
lely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.
-
PHYSICAL VIGNETTE
You work as a cashier in a supermarket. It is two days till
Christmas. Manypeople are already off from work and go out
shopping. The evening has justbegun and you have already spent an
entire afternoon behind the cash desk.Due to the Christmas rush,
the supermarket will be open till 10 p.m. and thisevening, you will
be working till closing time. You have to sit in the sameposture
for hours, and because there is limited space behind the cash
desk,you have hardly any room to move. Moreover, the scanning of
products andthe handling of payments constantly require the same
movement. Your back,neck, and shoulders start giving you trouble.
However, you still have a coupleof hours to go, and tomorrow you
will have to work as well. What kind(s) ofjob resources would you
use in this situation?
Received February 27, 2012Revision received June 7, 2012
Accepted June 12, 2012
Figure A3. Overview of the eight response options presented to
the participants in the vignettestudy. In this example, a
participant chose physical job resources to deal with the
situationdescribed in the physical vignette.
332 van den Tooren, de Jonge, and Dormann
This
doc
umen
t is c
opyr
ight
ed b
y th
e A
mer
ican
Psy
chol
ogic
al A
ssoc
iatio
n or
one
of i
ts a
llied
pub
lishe
rs.
This
arti
cle
is in
tend
ed so
lely
for t
he p
erso
nal u
se o
f the
indi
vidu
al u
ser a
nd is
not
to b
e di
ssem
inat
ed b
road
ly.