No abstract

Formal meta-analytic methods were used to examine studies of two primary correlates of work role ambiguity, (a) job satisfaction (global and intrinsic) and (b) job performance (self- and independently evaluated). 88 studies were examined, 39 of which were included in the meta-analyses. Results suggest role ambiguity is significantly and negatively related to both satisfaction and performance but very weakly to the latter. Also, true variance in correlations exists across studies, suggesting that the effects of role ambiguity vary depending upon other variables. Results are consistent with previous research and suggest that role ambiguity is a valid construct in organizational research and is usually associated with lower job satisfaction. The primary sources used in the meta-analysis are included.

This study evaluated the potential positive effects of stressors on job performance by examining the shape of the relation between stressors and job performance. The 281 respondents were a demographically and organizationally heterogeneous group from the Detroit area, who were employed during the study. They were given four structured in-home interviews, approximately 6 weeks apart, over a period of 18 weeks. Interviews were also conducted with a significant other, nonminated by each respondent from work life. Stressors examined were role ambiguity, role conflict, and job insecurity. Strains, also examined as potential stressors, were job dissatisfaction, anxiety, depression, and anger. Technical and social aspects of respondents' job performance were measured separately, as were absenteeism and tardiness. All zero-order Pearson correlations were either statistically significant and in predicted directions or essentially zero. All relationships were monotonic, suggesting that, for these stressors, their optimal amounts are generally zero. Results are discussed in terms of arousal and activation, information-processing, and expectancy theory.

A longitudinal panel study examined the effects of actual use of diazepam (Valium) on subjective reports of life quality, affect, performance, stress, social support, control, coping and other variables related to mental health. Standardized interviews were conducted with 675 persons from the Detroit Metropolitan Area. Based on prescription records, diazepam users and nonusers were selected to represent a variety of sociodemographic characteristics rather than to be a completely random sample. Significant others in work and in personal life were also interviewed. Four interviews took place, one approximately every 6 weeks. Testing for social effects was conducted by within- and across-person analyses of 367 respondents who reported taking the medication at some time during the study and by comparisons with 308 respondents who did not report taking Valium. Users of Valium tended to take less Valium than prescribed. They also reported consuming less alcohol when using Valium than at other times and less than non-Valium users. Although there was a modest, positive cross-sectional relation between Valium use and distress, numerous multivariate analyses controlling for levels of stress and health indicated no notable effects of Valium use on any of the social or psychological indicators, including anxiety. Several interpretations of the results are examined including the possibility that the effects of Valium use were short-lived rather than long-term and that Valium may have been taken in anticipation of anxiety rather than after its occurrence.

No abstract