Shouldering a silent burden: The toll of dirty tasks

Abstract

Dirty work involves tasks that are stigmatized owing to characteristics that the public finds disgusting, degrading, or objectionable. Conservation of resources theory suggests such experiences should induce strain and decreased work satisfaction; social identity theory suggests such work should lead to strong psychological investment in the work, among other outcomes. Integrating these two perspectives, this study hypothesizes and presents quantitative evidence from 499 animal-shelter workers, demonstrating how dirty-work engagement relates to higher levels of strain, job involvement, and reluctance to discuss work while negatively influencing work satisfaction. Additionally, this study takes a unique perspective on dirty work by focusing on dirty tasks within a dirty-work occupation. The data suggest meaningful differences between the outcomes of dirty-task frequency and dirty-task psychological salience, providing additional insight into the complexity of stigmatized occupations and ways in which future research and theory benefit as a result.

Occupational Stress & Compassion Fatigue: The effects on workers in animal-related occupations

“…Included throughout this thesis are comments and statements that the researcher found particularly poignant and important to emphasise to the audience of this work; these are presented in boxes at the beginning or end of each Chapter. The themes identified in Chapter 4 recur in other Chapters of this thesis as well as being generally present in existing knowledge (Arluke 1991, White and Shawhan 1996, Reeve, Spitzmuller et al 2004, Reeve, Rogelberg et al 2005, Rohlf and Bennett 2005, Rogelberg, DiGiacomo et al 2007, Baran, Allen et al 2009, Baran, Rogelberg et al 2012). …”

“…The method of participant recruitment and the way in which data were analysed and reported also varied. Three studies used quantitative methodology (Reeve, Rogelberg et al 2005, Rogelberg, Reeve et al 2007, Black, Winefield et al 2011, five were qualitative studies (Arluke 1991, Reeve, Spitzmuller et al 2004, Rogelberg, DiGiacomo et al 2007, Baran, Allen et al 2009, Davies and Lewis 2010, and four used a mixed-method approach (Rohlf and Bennett 2005, Foster and Maples 2011, Baran, Rogelberg et al 2012, Anderson et al 2013. Two studies were conducted in Australia (Rohlf andBennett 2005, Black, Winefield et al 2011), and one study in the United Kingdom (Davies and Lewis 2010), with the remaining studies conducted in the United States.…”

“…Euthanasia within these occupational contexts may be a daily occurrence and discussions typically focus on topics such as the number of animals killed, the rationale for killing, or the methods used (Arluke 1991 Compassion fatigue in animal-related professions is most often considered to be a direct result of the impact of euthanasia. However, evidence to date suggests that negative feelings are also induced by other common occupational stressors such as client financial constraints, employee workload, long-term care of patients with chronic diseases and, end of life care (Rollin 1987, Stamm 1999, Figley and Roop 2006, Black, Winefield et al 2011, Foster and Maples 2011, Baran, Rogelberg et al 2012. Compassion fatigue and the associated negative feelings can also be compounded by feelings of failing a patient, the client, or both (Arluke 1991, White and Shawhan 1996, Stamm 1999, Black, Winefield et al 2011, Foster and Maples 2011, Baran, Rogelberg et al 2012.…”

“…However, evidence to date suggests that negative feelings are also induced by other common occupational stressors such as client financial constraints, employee workload, long-term care of patients with chronic diseases and, end of life care (Rollin 1987, Stamm 1999, Figley and Roop 2006, Black, Winefield et al 2011, Foster and Maples 2011, Baran, Rogelberg et al 2012. Compassion fatigue and the associated negative feelings can also be compounded by feelings of failing a patient, the client, or both (Arluke 1991, White and Shawhan 1996, Stamm 1999, Black, Winefield et al 2011, Foster and Maples 2011, Baran, Rogelberg et al 2012. There is increasing dialogue on occupational stigma and the negative perception of various animal-related work tasks including broadly, the decision to euthanize, the use of animals in research and the global push towards the ideals of no-kill animal shelters (Rohlf and Bennett 2005, Davies and Lewis 2010, Black, Winefield et al 2011, Foster and Maples 2011, Baran, Rogelberg et al 2012, Anderson et al 2013).…”

“…There is increasing dialogue on occupational stigma and the negative perception of various animal-related work tasks including broadly, the decision to euthanize, the use of animals in research and the global push towards the ideals of no-kill animal shelters (Rohlf and Bennett 2005, Davies and Lewis 2010, Black, Winefield et al 2011, Foster and Maples 2011, Baran, Rogelberg et al 2012, Anderson et al 2013). This stigma may further compound the effects of occupational stress and compassion fatigue and lead to emotional dissonance and the potential for emotional contagion not only between those directly involved in these tasks but also to ancillary and support staff such as receptionists and other office workers (Rohlf and Bennett 2005, Davies and Lewis 2010, Black, Winefield et al 2011, Foster and Maples 2011, Baran, Rogelberg et al 2012, Anderson et al 2013 (Rohlf and Bennett 2005). In the authors' experience, most people who work in these areas do so because they love animals and feel an affinity with them.…”