Job demands and worker health: Three-dimensional reexamination of the relationship between person-environment fit and strain.

Abstract

The most influential study of the person-environment (P-E) fit approach to stress was conducted by J. R. P. French, R. D. Caplan, and R. V Harrison (1982). Unfortunately, this study operationalized fit using various transformations of difference scores, thereby introducing numerous substantive and methodological problems. In the present study, the authors reanalyze data from French et al, using a procedure described by J. R. Edwards (in press) that avoids problems with difference scores and captures the underlying three-dimensional relationship between E, P, and strain. Results resolve ambiguities in the French et al. findings and identify relationships between E, P, and strain that, although consistent with P-E fit theory, cannot be adequately represented by fit measures such as those used by French et al. Implications for P-E fit research are discussed.The person-environment (P-E) fit approach to stress (Caplan, Cobb, French, Harrison, & Pinneau, 1980; French, Caplan, & Harrison, 1982) has become widely accepted among organizational stress researchers (Eulberg, Weekley, & Bhagat, 1988). In essence, the P-E fit approach states that misfit between the person and the environment may produce psychological, physiological, and behavioral strains (e.g., dissatisfaction, elevated serum cholesterol, and smoking) that ultimately increase morbidity and mortality. These basic principles underlie numerous theories of stress in organizations, such as those proposed by McGrath (1976), Karasek (1979), Schuler (1980), Beehr and Bhagat (1985), and Edwards (1992).The most comprehensive study of P-E fit to date was conducted by French et al. (1982; see also Caplan et al., 1980). This study measured E and P variables on eight job dimensions, used five operationalizations of fit, and included 18 measures of psychological and physiological strain. The results of this study yielded three major conclusions. First, misfit was frequently associated with increased strain, particularly job-related affect and psychological disturbance. Second, the relationship between misfit and strain was often curvilinear, with a turning point where E and P were equal. Third, fit measures representing these curvilinear relationships often accounted for significant variance beyond that explained by E and P measures, typically doubling the proportion of variance explained in strain.Although the French et al. (1982) study is undoubtedly a landmark in the P-E fit literature, it operationalized fit using various transformations of the algebraic difference between E and P. As is widely known, difference scores suffer from numerous substantive and methodological problems (Cronbach & Furby, 1970;Edwards & Cooper, 1990;Johns, 1981;Wall & Payne, 1973;Werts & Linn, 1970). In fairness, we acknowledge that French et al. conducted their study before many of these problems had been identified and that methods that overcome these problems have only recently been developed (Edwards, in press). Nonetheless, these problems severely limit the conclusiveness of what remai...

Concurrent and longitudinal dyadic polynomial regression analyses of Big Five traits and relationship satisfaction: Does similarity matter?

“…However, recent evidence corroborates the notion that for some traits moderate similarity might yield the best effect on relationship satisfaction (Hudson & Fraley, 2014). Further, the results of difference scores and profile similarity differ commonly from results of polynomial regressions (Edwards, 1993;Edwards & Van Harrison, 1993). Second, most of these measures do not accurately measure the best fit, which includes whether a specific level of one partner with a specific level of the other partner predict the highest levels of satisfaction or, in other words, whether an optimal combination of both partner's variables yields the best outcome.…”

Person-Environment Fit: a critical review of the previous studies and a proposal for future research

“…The fact that researchers are looking at stress or strain rather than job satisfaction as an outcome does not excuse them, particularly if job satisfaction is one of the components of such stress or strain. Examples of studies guilty of this error are Livingstone et al (1997), Edwards (1996), Edwards & Harrison (1993), and Kaldenberg & Becker (1992). That researchers have operationalised P-E fit in this manner is arguably one of the most serious methodological problems of research relating to it.…”

Breach and Fulfillment of the Psychological Contract: A Comparison of Traditional and Expanded Views

“…For example, an employee who received excess pay may experience higher levels of satisfaction, but an employee who received excess task variety may be overwhelmed and distracted from other responsibilities. Third, it incorporates the absolute levels of promised and delivered inducements because employees who are promised and receive high levels of rewards may respond more positively than employees who are promised and receive low levels of rewards (Edwards & Harrison, 1993;Imparato, 1972;Lawler, 1981). Finally, it uses methods that capture the inherent three-dimensional relationship of promised and delivered inducements with outcomes, thereby avoiding problems with difference scores and capturing important complexities regarding the effects of psychological contract breach and fulfillment (Edwards, 1994;Edwards & Parry, 1993).…”