SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Assessment 1 – Group Annotated Literature Review document (2 sources per group member) – 20%
For the Annotated Bibliography, 2 sources per individual student should be reviewed (200-400 words for the annotation).
Annotated Bibliography is an evaluation report on the source usefulness for the research on a selected topic. In other words, an Annotated Bibliography is a preparation for a research project or a brief literature review, when you evaluate sources and decide if you wish to use them later.
Selected sources found during the Annotated Bibliography development could be included in the Research Project, if judged as relevant. This is why it is a good idea to look for academically credible sources straight away, though a variety of sources could be used at this stage.
An annotated bibliography represents a list of sources considered for a research on a given topic (textbooks, academic journals, news published in online periodicals, corporate websites, video interviews, etc.). It should provide (1) a reference to the source in Harvard referencing style; (2) a brief description of the content and focus of a given work cited and (3) a consideration of the source’s usefulness for research: an evaluation whether to use or not to use this source in your study, and how this source may be useful. Each annotation should typically be 1 paragraph long (100-200 words), including only important and relevant information. It should be written in write in full sentences using academic vocabulary.
Indicative source types: methodological and theoretical literature
6
sources published any time with preference for publications less than 10 years old, applied research and business news should typically be less than 3 years old.
Examples of annotated bibliography entries
When you compose your annotated bibliography, you will need to consider each part of the bibliography. Sentence starters can help you to focus your thoughts on these questions.
- The citation information should be in the same format as it would be in the reference list (in Harvard style) – leave a line BELOW
- A short statement of the author’s perspective (Example of sentence starters: In this article, Johnson reviews . . .; This article examines . . .; The authors describe . . .: The author’s purpose is to challenge . . .)
- A short summary of the theory, research findings, or argument (Example of sentence starters: The main ideas expressed are . . .; Support for these claims is documented . . .; Smith has conducted a thorough investigation of . . .; The author’s research focuses on . . .)
- Comments on the usefulness and/or limitations of the text for your research (Example of sentence starters: The author provides a strong theoretical . . .; The writing style considers a range of audiences . . .; Theories are supported by well-known researchers in this field, such as . . .; There is a lack of supporting evidence . . .; The main limitation of the website …)
- An evaluative comment on the work, taking into account how this work will fit into your research on a topic (Example of sentence starters: This article is useful for my research topic . . .; Because the information is up-to-date and from a reliable source . . .; It is relevant to my study because . . .; In particular, this article will assist . . .)
Sample annotation paragraph (172 words):
The article examines the meaning of the word ‘care’ within a nursing context. The responsibility of nurses to provide care is legitimized in numerous documents, and the author goes on to identify key concepts related to nursing care.
In particular, these concepts include assisting, helping and giving a service; offering this service to people who need help with daily living activities and to others who are affected by health deviations or illness of some kind.
Moreover, the nurse’s caring role is legitimized by the patients. Finally, the article concludes by relating how these concepts are put into operation by using the steps of the nursing process—assessing, planning, implementing and evaluating the patient’s need for nursing
7
care. The main limitation of the article is that all of the research was exclusively conducted in large city hospitals.
Therefore, while the article is useful for an analysis of nursing care, the limitations of its research base will require some adaption to meet the needs of this assignment that requires a commentary on services in both city and country area hospitals.
Specific grading criteria for Assessment 1 (25% each):
- Harvard referencing
- Description of the study
- Evaluation of credibility, limitations, and usefulness for doing
the research on a specified topic
- Following the submission criteria (written/oral/audio/video;
compliance with the format rules; respecting the structure requirements and deadlines) - The word Doc in an example
Individual differences in responses to workplace stress: the
contribution of attachment theory
Melissa Johnstone, Judith A. Feeney
School of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Melissa Johnstone, School of
Psychology, The University of Queensland, St
Lucia QLD 4072, Australia.
E-mail: melissaj@psy.uq.edu.au
doi: 10.1111/jasp.12308
Abstract
Work stress is a major cause of physical and psychological distress, and both theory
and research highlight the importance of individual differences in coping efforts.
The present research clarifies the mechanisms linking attachment insecurities (anxi-
ety and avoidance) to maladaptive coping; specifically, we tested an integrative
model assessing stress appraisals as a mediator between attachment insecurities and
coping strategies, together with mediating and moderating effects of coping resour-
ces (perceived self-efficacy and social support). A community sample of 113 men
and 115 women completed an online survey which incorporated a standardized
vignette depicting workplace stress. The results supported stress appraisal as a medi-
ator between attachment anxiety and less adaptive coping, and established both
mediating and moderating effects of perceived coping resources. The effects
support
the relevance of attachment theory to the study of workplace stress.
The World Health Organization defines work stress as “the
response people may have when presented with work
demands and pressures that are not matched to their knowl-
edge and abilities and which challenge their ability to cope”
(Leka, Griffiths, & Cox, 2004, p. 3). Causes of work stress are
varied, and can include unreasonable performance demands,
lack of autonomy and control over work, unclear roles and
responsibilities, and job insecurity (Bakker & Demerouti,
2007; Leka et al., 2004). The links between work stress and
poorer psychological and physical health are well established
(Semmer, 2003), with work stress being linked to
anxiety
and depression, as well as to physical problems such as
migraines, injury, and sleep disturbances. Further, prolonged
stress may lead to more serious health problems, including
cardiovascular disease (Econtech, 2008). Research has also
demonstrated negative “spillover” effects of job stress onto
couple and family relationships (Ferguson, 2012). The costs
of work stress for the economies of western societies are con-
siderable. It is estimated that work stress costs Australia
$14.81 billion per year in absenteeism and presenteeism (in
which individuals report for work, but do not function opti-
mally) (Econtech, 2008). These costs are likely to increase in
the future as the labor market is affected by increasing job
insecurity, rapid change, and the intensification of work
demands (Landsbergis, Grzywacz, & LaMontagne, 2014).
The present study investigates the implications of attach-
ment insecurities (attachment anxiety and avoidance) for
responses to workplace stress, using a standardized vignette
designed to depict core elements in the experience of work-
place stress: change, challenge, and uncertainty. The study
extends previous research by testing a theoretical model that is
integrative in two respects: first, it combines attachment prin-
ciples with key concepts from the field of stress and coping;
and second, it examines stress appraisal as a mediator between
attachment insecurities and maladaptive coping, together with
the mediating and moderating roles of key coping resources
(perceived self-efficacy and social support). As such, the study
has the potential to identify variables that place some individu-
als at greater risk of negative responses to workplace stress, and
further, to inform interventions that may assist employers and
employees to manage stress more effectively.
The transactional model of stress and
coping
For some decades, the dominant theoretical perspective on
stress and coping has been the transactional (or process)
model, which emphasizes the crucial role of stress appraisals
(e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Moos & Billings, 1982). Dif-
ferent people find different events stressful; in order for an
event to be experienced as stressful, it must be appraised as
such. Appraisal, which involves both primary and secondary
elements, refers to an evaluation of the significance of a situa-
tion for one’s well-being, and establishes the meaning of an
VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2015, 45, pp. 412–424
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2015, 45, pp. 412–424
encounter. Primary appraisal is the individual’s initial rapid
assessment, evaluating a situation as either threatening, chal-
lenging, or benign. Research has identified several dimen-
sions of primary appraisal (e.g., threat, challenge, and
centrality), but the most crucial of these dimensions is threat,
which is defined as the degree of danger and negativity per-
ceived in the situation. Specifically, in a series of studies
investigating appraisals of a range of potential stressors, Pea-
cock and Wong (1990) demonstrated that the threat dimen-
sion of appraisal was most strongly associated with global
ratings of the stressfulness of situations.
Secondary appraisal then focuses on the individual’s per-
ceptions of options and resources for coping, which can
either dampen or increase initial perceptions of threat. Cop-
ing resources can be divided into two broad groups: Personal
resources are relatively stable personality and cognitive char-
acteristics that shape coping processes, while environmental
resources are relevant aspects of the physical and social envi-
ronment. In terms of personal resources, theory and research
indicate that coping is influenced by a range of dispositional
factors (e.g., self-efficacy, optimism) that are related to a
sense of control; further, a major environmental resource is
perceived support from the social network, which has been
linked to positive appraisal and constructive coping (Cicog-
nani, 2011; Holahan, Moos, & Bonin, 1997; Holahan, Moos,
Holahan, & Cronkite, 1999).
Collectively, primary and secondary appraisals then trigger
the selection of coping strategies (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985;
Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Hence, stress appraisals are cru-
cial because they influence coping behaviors. Individuals
who appraise a situation as overwhelming, and their resour-
ces as inadequate, are less likely to make constructive efforts
to address the situation (problem-focused coping), and more
likely to focus on the negative emotions associated with the
situation (emotion-focused coping). Although emotion-
focused coping can be useful when stressful situations are
beyond the individual’s control, problem-focused coping is
generally regarded as more adaptive (Abraham, Conner,
Jones, & O’Connor, 2008; Lazarus, 1999).
Attachment theory
Given individual differences in stress appraisals and their
implications for coping behavior, it is vital to understand the
sources of these differences in appraisals. Attachment theory
is uniquely suited to this research topic. The attachment sys-
tem is activated by signs of threat or stress, and across the life-
span, attachment-related differences in behavior (i.e.,
differences related to attachment style) are strongest in stress-
ful situations (Bowlby, 1984; Feeney, 1998; Simpson, Rholes,
& Phillips, 1996).
Although early research on individual differences in
attachment security adopted categorical models of attach-
ment style, recent applications to adults’ behavior have
favored a two-dimensional model, defined by attachment
avoidance (marked by avoidance of intimacy, unwillingness
to trust or depend on others, and reluctance to seek or pro-
vide help), and attachment anxiety (marked by fear of rejec-
tion, excessive reassurance seeking, and a desire for extreme
closeness). These differences in attachment security are
thought to be shaped by experiences with caregivers through-
out childhood and adolescence, particularly in the context of
stressful situations (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2013). Individuals
whose caregivers are available and responsive learn that it is
acceptable to express distress and seek help from others. In
contrast, those whose caregivers have been distant and reject-
ing learn that expressing distress in the face of stress is
unlikely to garner effective support, and may even alienate
caregivers; hence, they develop an avoidant approach marked
by compulsive self-reliance and down-playing of attachment
needs. Finally, individuals whose caregivers have responded
inconsistently to their needs and signals learn to make more
frequent and strident demands in stressful situations, in an
attempt to force caregivers to pay attention and provide sup-
port. Thus, they tend to show increased attention to, and
expression of, attachment needs.
Although attachment theory focuses largely on experiences
in close relationships, its relevance to workplace behavior has
been established both theoretically and empirically. Hazan
and Shaver (1987), who conducted the seminal studies of
attachment style and romantic love, subsequently argued that
adults’ workplace behavior has important conceptual similar-
ities to children’s exploratory behavior. Hence, just as secure
attachment facilitates children’s active exploration of the
physical and social environment, secure attachment also pro-
motes effective workplace behavior, marked by a sense of
confidence, by positive relationships with coworkers, and by
an appropriate balance between career strivings and involve-
ment in intimate relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1990).
Subsequently, a growing body of evidence has supported
these claims. In terms of workplace behavior, studies have
linked secure attachment to such variables as workplace
cohesion, satisfaction with work, and low levels of work
strain and burnout (e.g., Landen & Wang, 2010; Pines, 2004;
Schirmer & Lopez, 2001; Simmons, Gooty, Nelson, & Little,
2009; Vasquez, Durik, & Hyde, 2002). More broadly, research
focusing on such diverse stressors as high workload, chronic
pain, first-time parenthood and relationship conflict, have
linked attachment security to positive appraisals of stress and
adaptive coping strategies. As a result, secure attachment has
been described as a core protective factor from which coping
resources, such as self-efficacy and social support, are derived
(Mikulincer & Florian, 1998).
In terms of primary appraisal, studies have consistently
linked attachment anxiety to perceptions of potentially stress-
ful situations as highly threatening. Attachment
avoidance
Johnstone and Feeney 413
VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424
has also been associated with appraisals of stressors as threat-
ening, although the findings are not as strong or clear-cut as
for attachment anxiety—this may be because avoidant indi-
viduals often try to block or suppress feelings of vulnerability
(Fraley & Shaver, 1997).
Attachment dimensions are also associated with appraisals
of coping resources. Attachment theory highlights the link
between attachment anxiety and negative working models of
self; that is, anxious individuals tend to perceive the self as
unworthy, unlovable and inadequate. Consistent with this
formulation, attachment anxiety is related to low self-esteem
and to feelings of helplessness and powerlessness (Mikulincer
& Shaver, 2007). Conversely, attachment avoidance is linked
to negative working models of others; that is, to the tendency
to perceive others as unavailable and untrustworthy. In line
with this tenet, avoidance has been related to perceived lack
of social support. However, anxious individuals may also
appraise support negatively, often perceiving others’ support
efforts as inept and inadequate. Thus, both anxiety and
avoidance have been linked to general perceptions of others
as unavailable or unsupportive, and to negative evaluations
of the support provided by friends, partners, and family
members (Gosnell & Gable, 2013; Mikulincer & Shaver,
2007).
With regard to coping strategies, the most robust finding
has linked attachment anxiety with emotion-focused cop-
ing—that is, coping efforts that are directed to managing
emotional distress, rather than dealing with the stressor itself.
Some studies have also linked attachment avoidance with
emotion-focused coping, but this effect seems to apply pri-
marily when stressors are severe or persistent (Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2007, 2013). Findings also suggest that insecure adults
are less likely than secure adults to use problem-focused
strategies—that is, strategies that deal directly with the stres-
sor. Although this finding has not emerged in all studies, null
findings tend to occur in those studies in which participants
receive advice about constructive ways of tackling the situa-
tion (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, 2013).
In summary, leading researchers in the field of stress and
coping (e.g., Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Lazarus & Folkman,
1984) have argued that stress appraisals and coping resources
precede and influence coping. Hence, integrating attachment
theory with the transactional model of stress and coping
implies a mediation model, in which attachment insecurities
predict appraisals of threat (primary) and coping resources
(secondary), which in turn shape the selection of coping
strategies. However, it is important to consider whether the
key coping resources of self-efficacy and social support
should be conceptualized as mediators or as moderators (or
both) of attachment-related effects. With regard to modera-
tion, it is plausible that perceptions of poor coping resources
may exacerbate the tendency of insecure individuals to use
less effective coping strategies, and conversely, that percep-
tions of adequate coping resources may act as a buffer against
maladaptive coping.
The present study
This study was designed to test the proposed mediation
model of attachment, stress appraisals, and coping strategies
in the context of workplace stress, and to investigate possible
moderated (interactive) effects of attachment dimensions
and coping resources in predicting emotion-focused and
problem-focused coping. Drawing on attachment principles,
the research provides a theoretically grounded approach to
the study of workplace stress and coping, aiming to clarify
the inter-related effects of attachment dimensions, stress
appraisal, and coping resources. Methodological strengths
include the use of a structured vignette embedded in an
online survey, and recruitment of a broad community sample
marked by a balanced representation of both men and
women and both younger and older adults.
As noted earlier, the most robust findings from studies of
attachment and stress link attachment anxiety to perceptions
of stressors as threatening and overwhelming, and of the self
as inadequate and helpless. Hence, we expected attachment
anxiety to be associated with more emotion-focused coping
and less problem-focused coping (Hypothesis 1a). Although
the link between attachment avoidance and emotion-focused
coping is less robust, we also predicted that avoidance would
be related to more emotion-focused and less problem-
focused coping (Hypothesis 1b). Regarding attachment and
the mediators, we expected attachment anxiety to predict
threat appraisals (Hypothesis 2a) and low self-efficacy
(Hypothesis 2b), and both anxiety and avoidance to predict
perceptions of low social support (Hypothesis 2c).
Finally, regarding mediation per se, the associations
between attachment anxiety and coping strategies were
expected to be mediated by threat appraisals (Hypothesis 3a).
Further, perceived lack of self-efficacy reflects the negative
self-views that are central to attachment anxiety, and should
hamper involvement in task-oriented activities; hence, we
expected low self-efficacy to mediate the association between
attachment anxiety and less problem-focused coping
(Hypothesis 3b). Conversely, as negative perceptions of others
are the core feature of attachment avoidance, we expected
perceived lack of support from others to mediate the links of
avoidance with more emotion-focused and less problem-
focused coping (Hypothesis 3c). See Figure 1 for a summary
of the proposed mediation model.
As noted, coping resources were expected to play a media-
ting role in the association between attachment insecurities
and coping strategies. However, for completeness, we also
investigated possible moderated (interactive) effects of
attach
ment dimensions and coping resources in predicting
emotion-focused and problem-focused coping.
414 The contribution of attachment theory
VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424
Method
Participants
A community sample was recruited by 22 students
enrolled in a fourth-year psychology course at a large Aus-
tralian university. To obtain a more representative sample,
each student was asked to recruit a subsample of partici-
pants that varied widely in age, and contained similar
numbers of males and females. A total of 229 participants
(113 male, 115 female; 1 did not indicate gender) com-
pleted the online survey. Participants ranged in age from
17 to 58 years, with a mean age of 32 years (SD 5 11.16).
Approximately 50% of participants held a bachelor
degree; 27% had a high school certificate as their highest
educational qualification; 11% had a diploma or associate
degree; and 6% had an industry or trade certificate. In
terms of work status, 56% were in full-time employment
and an additional 11% and 15% were working on a part-
time or casual basis, respectively. Participants not cur-
rently working were either students (13%); homemakers
(2%); or unemployed (2%). The occupational groups of
professional (32%), manager (13.5%), sales worker
(10%), and clerical/administrative (8%) comprised the
largest categories of paid workers, with the remainder
involved in laboring, trade or technical, or community
work.
Stimulus material: vignette
As part of a larger study of attachment, stress and cop-
ing, participants were presented with the following
vignette depicting a workplace stressor (Karantzas,
2010).
Imagine that your boss has made the decision to re-
organize the workplace. Until now, you have been
doing work which is very familiar to you and which
you have mastered. In its place, you will have to take
on other tasks, which are as yet and prob-
ably not so easy for you to do. You will miss your pre-
vious work very much. You commence a trial period
during which you and your boss will assess your pro-
gress in this new role. The new tasks you have under-
taken are rather difficult for you and don’t satisfy you.
You are really missing your previous work.
Immediately following the vignette, participants answered a
single-item manipulation check designed to ensure that the
vignette was perceived as sufficiently stressful. Specifically,
they rated the extent to which the situation would be stressful
for them on a 10-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all stress-
ful) to 10 (extremely stressful). Responses indicated that, on
average, participants found the vignette quite stressful
(M 5 6.48, SD 5 1.93).
Questionnaire measures
Attachment
Attachment orientations were assessed by the Adult Attach-
ment Questionnaire (AAQ), a 17-item measure that asks
individuals to indicate how they relate to romantic partners
in general (Simpson et al., 1996). The AAQ measures two
dimensions of attachment: avoidance and anxiety (some-
times referred to as ambivalence). Attachment avoidance
(eight items) assesses the degree to which individuals exhibit
Figure 1 Proposed mediation model between the independent variables of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance, the mediators of threat,
self-efficacy and perceived social support, and the dependent variables of emotion-focused and problem-focused coping.
Johnstone and Feeney 415
VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424
avoidance or withdrawal from intimacy in relationships, and
the extent to which they have negative views of others. A
sample item is, “I don’t like people getting too close to me,”
with responses keyed so that higher scores indicate greater
avoidance. The nine items measuring anxiety tap the extent
to which individuals are excessively preoccupied with issues
of abandonment, loss, and partners’ level of commitment,
and possess negative self-views. Items include, “I often worry
that my partner(s) don’t really love me.” Each item was
answered on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 (totally dis-
agree) to 7 (totally agree).
A large number of studies have supported avoidance and
anxiety as the two major dimensions of attachment security,
and have also established the reliability and validity of the
AAQ scales (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, for a review). In
the present sample, reliability was high for both dimensions
(alpha 5 .82 for avoidance, and .79 for anxiety).
Threat
Four items from the threat scale of the Stress Appraisal Mea-
sure (Peacock & Wong, 1990) were used to assess participants’
perceptions of how threatening they would find the situation
described in the vignette. Sample items include, “How threat-
ening would you feel the situation was?” and “How anxious
would you feel in the situation?” with responses rated on a 5-
point Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal). Inter-
nal consistency of the items was high (alpha 5 .85).
Self-efficacy
The 8-item General Self-Efficacy Scale (Chen, Gully, & Eden,
2001) was used to measure overall self-efficacy. For instance,
participants were asked, “I believe I can succeed at most any
endeavour to which I set my mind.” Responses were
recorded on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5 (strongly agree). Scores were averaged across items, and
showed good internal reliability (alpha 5 .92).
Social support
Social support was measured through an adapted version of
the Social Provision Scale developed by Russell and Cutrona
(as described in Cutrona, 1984). The original measure assessed
the six relational provisions identified by Weiss (1974; also see
Russell, Cutrona, Rose, & Yurko, 1984), and included two
items for each provision. The opportunity for nurturance sub-
scale was not used in the current study because it differs con-
ceptually from the other five scales (social integration,
reassurance of worth, attachment, reliable alliance, and guid-
ance), in that it pertains to giving support rather than to
receiving it (Holahan & Holahan, 1987). Given the high inter-
nal consistency of previous versions of the measure, and the
need to keep the length of the overall survey manageable, we
used a single item for each provision. Sample items include,
“There are people I can depend on to help me if I really need
it” (reliable alliance), and “There are people who enjoy the
same social activities I do” (social integration). A 7-point Lik-
ert scale was used from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (completely
true). Items were averaged to create a global social support
score, which showed high reliability (alpha 5 .82).
Coping
A 24-item measure of coping was used to assess the extent to
which participants thought they would engage in emotion-
focused coping and problem-focused coping in response to
the situation described in the vignette. The items were drawn
from the Ways of Coping Checklist (Folkman & Lazarus,
1980). Given concerns about the length, structure, and reli-
ability of the original measure, the shorter version was devel-
oped within an ongoing research program investigating
attachment and coping (Karantzas, 2010).
Emotion-focused
coping was assessed with 16 items, for example, “I wished
that the situation would go away or somehow be over with.”
Six items measured problem-focused coping, including
“Came up with a couple of different solutions to the prob-
lem.” (The remaining two items were not used because the
content did not conform clearly to either emotion-focused
or problem-focused coping.) Items were rated on a 4-point
Likert scale from 1 (not used) to 4 (used a great deal). The
two scales had adequate reliability (alpha 5 .69 for emotion-
focused coping and .72 for problem-focused coping).
Results
The distributions of the variables were first examined; see Table
1 for means and standard deviations. All variables showed
adequate variability, but the social support scale was highly
negatively skewed. Data transformations were attempted but
were not successful in normalising the variable; hence the anal-
yses reported are based on the untransformed data.
Table 1 also presents the intercorrelations between varia-
bles, which offer preliminary support for the hypothesized
relationships. As expected, attachment anxiety was correlated
positively with threat appraisal and emotion-focused coping,
and negatively with self-efficacy, perceived social support and
problem-focused coping. Attachment avoidance showed a
similar pattern of correlates. However, tests of the signifi-
cance of the difference between the correlations for the two
attachment dimensions were consistent with attachment
theory. Specifically, attachment anxiety (conceptually linked
to negative model of self) showed stronger correlations
than attachment avoidance with appraisals of threat,
t (218) 5 1.86, p < .05, and low self-efficacy t (218) 5 1.87,
p < .05, while attachment avoidance (conceptually linked to
416 The contribution of attachment theory
VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424
model of others) was more strongly correlated than attach-
ment anxiety with negative perceptions of social support
t (218) 5 22.05, p < .05.
Tests of mediators between attachment and
coping strategies
The direct and indirect effects of attachment, threat and cop-
ing resources on emotion- and problem-focused coping were
tested using the recommended 95% bias-corrected bootstrap
procedure (Hayes & Preacher, 2014). This procedure pro-
vides information about the “causal steps” for mediation
outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986), but offers important
advantages. Specifically, the bootstrapping approach has
more power to find indirect effects, quantifies those indirect
effects, does not assume normal distributions, and can test
multiple indirect effects within the one model. The unstan-
dardized coefficients are reported in Table 2.
The findings showed direct paths (Path C) from attach-
ment to coping strategies. Specifically, controlling for other
variables in the model, both attachment scales predicted
more emotion-focused coping, and attachment anxiety also
predicted less problem-focused coping. These results largely
support Hypothesis 1, although the link between avoidance
and problem-focused coping became nonsignificant after
controlling for the other variables. Direct paths from attach-
ment to stress appraisal and coping resources (Path A) also
emerged: anxiety was linked positively to threat and nega-
tively to self-efficacy, whereas avoidance was linked negatively
to perceived social support. These results generally support
Hypothesis 2, although attachment anxiety was not a unique
predictor of social support.
The mediating role of threat, social support and self-
efficacy was tested for significance in accordance with the
bootstrapping procedures recommended by Hayes (2009). To
establish mediation, it is necessary to show a significant path
between the independent variable and mediator, and between
the mediator and the dependent variable; in addition, the
upper and lower confidence intervals for the indirect effect
(shown in the lower section of Table 2) should not include
zero. Using these criteria, the results showed four indirect
effects across the two dependent variables.
� Attachment anxiety had a significant indirect effect on
a) emotion-focused coping and b) problem-focused
coping, via threat appraisal. Specifically, consistent
with Hypothesis 3a, those higher in attachment anxiety
engaged in more emotion-focused coping and less
problem-focused coping, via higher perceived threat.
� Attachment anxiety had a significant indirect effect
on problem-focused coping through self-efficacy; in
line with Hypothesis 3b, higher anxiety predicted less
problem-focused coping through
low self-efficacy.
� Attachment avoidance predicted emotion-focused
(but not problem-focused) coping through social
support; that is, in partial support of Hypothesis 3c,
those high in avoidance perceived less support and
hence engaged in more emotion-focused coping.
Interactive effects of attachment and
coping resources
As noted earlier, we also tested moderated effects of attach-
ment dimensions and coping resources in predicting
emotion-focused and problem-focused coping. This research
question was investigated using two hierarchical (moderated)
regression analyses, one for each coping strategy. Scores on
the two attachment scales and the two coping resources
(mean-centered) were entered at Step 1, and the four interac-
tion terms (the product term of each attachment dimension
with each coping resource) were added at Step 2. The find-
ings from these analyses are presented in Table 3.
Consistent with the results already presented, both attach-
ment dimensions predicted more emotion-focused coping at
Step 1, F(4, 210) 5 12.12, p < .001, R2 5 .19. Further, a signif-
icant amount of variance in the dependent variable was
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelations Between Variables
Mean (SD)
Attachment
anxiety
Attachment
avoidance Threat Self-efficacy
Social
support
Emotion-focused
coping
Problem-focused
coping
Attachment anxiety 3.03 (1.06) 1 .33** .28** 2.31** 2.21** .37** 2.22**
Attachment
avoidance
3.30 (1.05) 1 .14* 2.17** 2.36** .30** 2.20**
Threat 3.17 (0.79) 1 2.24** .01 .22** .04
Self-efficacy 4.02 (0.65) 1 .31** 2.17* .41**
Social Support 6.23 (0.87) 1 2.24** .18**
Emotion-focused
coping
2.19 (0.37) 1 2.21**
Problem-focused
coping
2.91 (0.54) 1
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Johnstone and Feeney 417
VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424
accounted for by the full model, F(8, 206) 5 7.08, p < .001,
R
2
5 .22. Although the overall increase in explained variance
at Step 2 was not significant (Fch(4, 206) 5 1.85, p 5 .12,
R2ch 5 :03), the interaction between attachment avoidance
and social support reached significance. Follow-up simple
slopes analysis showed that although the positive association
between avoidance and emotion-focused coping was signifi-
cant at high levels of social support, b 5 .216, t 5 2.52,
p 5 .012, it was even stronger at low levels of social support,
b 5 .29, t 5 3.08, p 5 .002 (see Figure 2).
In predicting problem-focused coping, a significant
amount of variance was explained at Step 1, F(4,
212) 5 11.94, p < .001, R 2 5 .18. Self-efficacy was a signifi-
cant predictor, with higher self-efficacy predicting more
problem-focused coping. At Step 2, the full model was signif-
icant, F(8, 208) 5 7.04, p < .001, R2 5 .21. Although the over-
all increase in explained variance was not significant (Fch(4,
208) 5 1.93, p 5 .11, R2ch 5 :03), the interactions of attach-
ment anxiety with self-efficacy and with social support both
attained significance.
These interactions were again followed up with simple
slopes analyses (see Figures 3 and 4). Attachment anxiety was
a significant, negative predictor of problem-focused coping
when self-efficacy was low, b 5 2.23, t 5 22.52, p 5 .012,
but not when self-efficacy was high, b 5 2.01, t 5 .15,
p 5 .881; hence the use of problem-focused coping decreased
Table 2 Unstandardized Coefficients for Regression Analysis with Attachment Avoidance and Anxiety as Independent Variables; Threat, Social Sup-
port, and Self-efficacy as Mediators; and Coping Strategies as Dependent Variables
Emotion-focused coping Problem-focused coping
B SE (B) t p B SE (B) t p
Path A: Attachment to mediators
Threat
Attachment avoidance 0.04 0.05 0.76 .4486 0.04 0.05 0.80 .4262
Attachment anxiety 0.19 0.05 3.58 .0004 0.20 0.05 3.70 .0003
Social support
Attachment avoidance 20.26 0.06 24.63 .0000 20.23 0.05 24.33 .0000
Attachment anxiety 20.06 0.06 21.00 .3171 20.08 0.05 21.44 .1517
Self-efficacy
Attachment avoidance 20.06 0.04 21.36 .1738 20.05 0.04 21.16 .2455
Attachment anxiety 20.16 0.04 23.91 .0001 20.15 0.04 23.67 .0003
Path B: Mediators to coping
Threat 0.06 0.03 2.05 .0420 0.12 0.04 2.65 .0085
Social support 20.07 0.03 22.21 .0279 20.01 0.04 20.20 .8383
Self-efficacy 20.01 0.04 20.30 .7665 0.33 0.06 5.81 .0000
Path C: Attachment to coping (WITHOUT mediators)
Attachment avoidance 0.08 0.02 3.26 .0013 20.06 0.04 21.76 .0805
Attachment anxiety 0.11 0.02 4.92 .0000 20.08 0.04 22.32 .0213
Attachment to coping (WITH mediators)
Attachment avoidance 0.06 0.02 2.31 .0218 20.05 0.04 21.55 .1233
Attachment anxiety 0.10 0.02 4.01 .0001 20.06 0.04 21.59 .1136
Indirect effect(s) through: Effect SE(boot) LLCI ULCI Effect SE(boot) LLCI ULCI
Threat
Attachment avoidance 0.00 0.00 2.0044 .0123 0.01 0.01 2.0094 .0203
Attachment anxiety 0.01 0.01 .0009 .0252 0.02 0.01 .0037 .0508
Social support
Attachment avoidance 0.02 0.01 .0008 .0402 0.00 0.01 2.0214 .0258
Attachment anxiety 0.00 0.00 2.0039 .0119 0.00 0.00 2.0077 .0119
Self-efficacy
Attachment avoidance 0.00 0.00 2.0056 .0071 20.02 0.01 2.0475 .0100
Attachment anxiety 0.00 0.01 2.0128 .0156 20.05 0.02 2.0884 2.0207
418 The contribution of attachment theory
VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424
as attachment anxiety increased, for individuals reporting
low self-efficacy.
Further, when social support was high, attachment anxiety
negatively predicted problem-focused coping, b 5 2.23,
t 5 22.61, p 5 .010, such that respondents perceiving high
levels of support were more likely to use problem-focused
coping when attachment anxiety was low rather than high.
However, attachment anxiety was unrelated to problem-
focused coping when social support was low, b 5 2.13,
t 5 21.34, p 5 .180.
Discussion
This study investigated the mediating role of threat appraisals
in the association between attachment insecurities and cop-
ing strategies, together with the mediating and moderating
role of key coping resources (general self-efficacy and per-
ceived social support). The results highlight the pervasive
effects of attachment insecurities, which predicted all core
components of the transactional model of stress and coping:
stress appraisal, perceptions of coping resources, and reports
of coping strategies. The findings provide strong support for
the relevance of attachment theory to the study of workplace
stress. Importantly, the results support the proposition that
secure attachment not only promotes effective functioning
within couple and family relationships but also facilitates
adults’ successful negotiation of work-related stressors and
demands (Hazan & Shaver, 1990; Vasquez et al., 2002).
Consistent with the first hypothesis, both attachment
dimensions showed bivariate correlations with emotion-
focused (positive) and problem-focused coping (negative).
Table 3 Moderated Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Emotion-Focused Coping, and Problem-Focused Coping
Emotion-focused coping Problem-focused coping
b SE (b) B B SE (b) B
Step 1
Attachment avoidance 0.06 0.03 0.16 20.05 0.04 20.10
Attachment anxiety 0.10 0.02 0.29*** 20.04 0.04 20.07
Support 20.06 0.03 20.12 0.01 0.04 0.01
Self-efficacy 20.02 0.04 20.03 0.31 0.06 0.37***
Step 2
Attachment avoidance 0.06 0.03 0.17* 20.04 0.04 20.08
Attachment anxiety 0.10 0.03 0.29*** 20.03 0.04 20.07
Support 20.03 0.04 20.06 0.01 0.05 0.01
Self-efficacy 20.04 0.04 20.07 0.28 0.06 0.34***
Attachment avoidance x support 20.06 0.03 20.17* 0.03 0.04 0.06
Attachment avoidance x self-efficacy 0.03 0.04 0.06 20.02 0.06 20.03
Attachment anxiety x support 0.03 0.03 0.08 20.09 0.04 20.16*
Attachment anxiety x self-efficacy 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.13 0.06 0.17*
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
Figure 2 Mean scores on emotion-focused coping according to attach-
ment avoidance and social support. Figure 3 Mean scores on problem-focused coping according to attach-
ment anxiety and self-efficacy.
Johnstone and Feeney 419
VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424
Controlling for other variables in the model, the strongest
association was between attachment anxiety and more
emotion-focused coping. As noted earlier, emotion-
focused coping can be a constructive response in situa-
tions that are beyond the individual’s control. However,
in most stressful situations, reliance on emotion-focused
coping is not adaptive, as it fails to deal with the stressor.
Indeed, over-reliance on emotion-focused coping in the
context of workplace stress leads to poor physical and
emotional well-being (e.g., Regehr, LeBlanc, Barath,
Balch, & Birze, 2012).
In terms of stress appraisal, both attachment dimensions
showed positive bivariate associations with perceptions of the
threat (danger and negativity) associated with the workplace
stressor. However, the association was significantly stronger
for the anxiety dimension of attachment, which (consistent
with Hypothesis 2a) remained a highly significant predictor
of threat appraisal when other variables in the model were
statistically controlled. This finding fits with a growing num-
ber of studies linking adults’ attachment anxiety to percep-
tions of stressors as overwhelming and catastrophic, both in
the workplace (Schirmer & Lopez, 2001) and more generally
(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2013).
With regard to coping resources, bivariate correlations
again linked both attachment dimensions to reports of
low self-efficacy and social support. However, the correla-
tion with self-efficacy was stronger for the anxiety dimen-
sion, whereas the correlation with perceived social
support was stronger for the avoidance dimension. These
findings are consistent with attachment theory, which
emphasises negative working models of self as a core fea-
ture of attachment anxiety, and negative working models
of others as a core feature of attachment avoidance. When
other variables in the model were statistically controlled,
significant relations between attachment dimensions and
coping resources emerged for anxiety and self-efficacy
(supporting H2b), and for avoidance and social support
(in partial support of H2c).
Importantly, the bootstrapping analyses identified four
indirect effects of attachment on coping strategies. Consistent
with Hypothesis 3a, attachment anxiety predicted higher
appraisals of threat, which in turn predicted more emotion-
focused coping and less problem-focused coping. In addi-
tion, there were significant indirect paths from attachment
anxiety to less problem-focused coping via low self-efficacy
(H3b), and from avoidance to more emotion-focused coping
via perceptions of low social support (H3c). When the medi-
ators were included in the model, the paths from the attach-
ment measures to emotion-focused coping remained
significant, indicating only partial mediation. In contrast, the
path from attachment anxiety to less problem-focused cop-
ing was no longer significant, indicating full mediation via
high threat and low self-efficacy. These mediation findings
are important, as they point to mechanisms and processes
that underlie the associations between attachment insecur-
ities and less adaptive coping. As discussed later, these mech-
anisms suggest possible points of intervention for those
facing workplace stress.
There was also evidence, however, of interactive effects of
attachment and coping resources on coping strategies. These
effects highlight the need to consider combinations of risk
factors for less adaptive coping. For example, reports of
emotion-focused coping were particularly high for avoidant
individuals who perceived members of their social network
as unsupportive. Further, the combination of high anxiety
and low self-efficacy was associated with particularly low lev-
els of problem-focused coping. These findings suggest that
negative perceptions of coping resources may increase inse-
cure individuals’ tendency to rely on less adaptive forms of
coping, whereas positive perceptions of resources generally
buffer against this tendency (Seiffge-Krenke, 2011). However,
the final interaction (Figure 4) revealed that levels of
problem-focused coping were particularly high for low-
anxious individuals who perceived high support, but quite
low for anxious individuals who perceived high support. Per-
haps when highly anxious individuals face stressors, members
of the support network are relied on primarily for emotional
venting, rather than as a resource for problem-solving.
Implications of the findings
The current findings have implications for interventions
designed to reduce the effects of workplace stress. Given the
pervasive effects of attachment insecurities on aspects of
stress and coping, there should be clear benefits from assist-
ing insecure individuals to cope with potential stressors. In
line with this assertion, recent decades have witnessed a rapid
growth in interventions directly targeting adults’ negative
working models of attachment (Fonagy, Gergely, & Target,
2008; Slade, 2008). At the same time, it is important to
acknowledge that working models are most malleable during
Figure 4 Mean scores on problem-focused coping according to attach-
ment anxiety and social support.
420 The contribution of attachment theory
VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424
the formative years of childhood and adolescence; once con-
solidated, they are more resistant to change (Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2007). Hence, although changing working models
remains possible, it can be an intensive process that is beyond
the responsibility of the work environment. However, target-
ing variables that mediate or moderate attachment-related
effects offers a fruitful avenue for promoting positive change.
In terms of primary appraisal, helping anxious individuals
to appraise potential stressors as less threatening and over-
whelming should promote constructive coping behaviors.
Further, anxious individuals are particularly sensitive to
stressful situations that may be seen as signaling rejection or
criticism (Feeney, 1998), and are highly concerned about
evaluations by coworkers (Hazan & Shaver, 1990). If supervi-
sors are aware of these concerns and strive to promote a col-
legial environment, anxious individuals may perceive
workplace stressors—and the workplace environment more
generally—as less threatening.
Regarding secondary appraisal, the current study assessed
coping resources (social support and self-efficacy) in terms of
global perceptions, which are likely to reflect adults’ experi-
ences both within and beyond the workplace. However, both
these coping resources can be targeted in occupational set-
tings. For example, workers’ perceptions of their ability to
deal with major change or job uncertainty are crucial to cop-
ing with workplace stress (Houghton, Wu, Godwin, Neck, &
Manz, 2012). Although the present study assessed general
self-efficacy, this measure has been shown to predict specific
self-efficacy for a range of tasks and contexts (Chen et al.,
2001). We have seen that for anxious persons, low self-
efficacy inhibits problem-focused coping. In this context,
self-efficacy may be enhanced by providing clear information
about impending changes, and helping workers acquire skills
that can be applied directly to new tasks. By introducing
change in manageable stages and providing positive feedback
on task mastery, supervisors may ensure that potentially
stressful tasks do not overwhelm anxious individuals or exac-
erbate their sense of personal inadequacy.
In addition, both peers and supervisors can be valuable
sources of support in the workplace (Linnan, Fisher, & Hood,
2013; Mesmer-Magnus & Glew, 2012). In this regard, it is cru-
cial to note that attachment research has identified two inter-
related components to attachment-related differences in
reports of social support. First, secure individuals develop
stronger and more supportive networks than insecure individ-
uals, as a function of their more open and positive interperso-
nal style. Second, even when the amount and type of available
support are controlled, secure individuals appraise that sup-
port more positively (Gosnell & Gable, 2013; Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2007). Hence, a key contribution of attachment theory
is to highlight the role not only of actual supportive interac-
tions but also of the perceptual biases that drive insecure indi-
viduals to be critical of the support that is offered.
In fostering a sense of support in the workplace, support
provision may need to be salient and consistent to be
appraised as adequate by those who are less secure. In partic-
ular, since avoidant adults are often reluctant to seek and uti-
lize support, supervisors and colleagues should be tactful in
their support efforts, and may need to show continued inter-
est despite initial rejections of support (Halpern, Maunder,
Schwartz, & Gurevich, 2012). Further, support efforts may be
more effective when they focus on issues reflecting avoidant
persons’ goals and concerns, such as enhancing achievement,
rather than on distress per se. This notion is consistent with
recent conceptualizations of secure base support, which focus
on personal growth and exploration (Feeney, Collins, van
Vleet, & Tomlinson, 2013).
Enhancing workers’ sense of security, support and self-
efficacy may seem difficult tasks. However, another contribu-
tion of the integrative model tested in this study is to high-
light the inter-related effects of attachment dimensions and
coping resources throughout the coping process; thus even
relatively small changes in these variables may be beneficial.
We have seen that coping resources act as both mediators
and moderators of attachment-related effects; further,
researchers have noted that perceptions of coping resources
feed back into appraisals of stress (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984). Hence, for example, boosting anxious individuals’
sense of self-efficacy should not only reduce the level of threat
attributed to workplace stressors but also buffer against the
tendency to avoid tackling these stressors.
Limitations, strengths, and future directions
In considering the present findings, it is important to
acknowledge the limitations of the research. A major limita-
tion concerns the cross-sectional design, which precludes
definitive conclusions about causal associations. However, it
should be noted that both attachment theory and empirical
findings support the conceptualisation of attachment inse-
curity as a relatively stable individual-difference variable that
shapes responses to diverse situations, particularly those per-
ceived as stressful (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2013). Another
potential limitation of the study is the reliance on self-
reports. For example, the measure of social support assessed
subjective perceptions of available support, rather than objec-
tive characteristics of the support network. On the other
hand, there is considerable consensus that subjective percep-
tions of support are better predictors of health and well-
being than are objective indicators (Hobfoll, 1996). Another
limitation with regard to measurement was the skewed distri-
bution for social support. However, the associated truncation
of range is likely to under-estimate (rather than over-state)
the strength of associations with other variables.
The study also had noteworthy strengths. These include
the strong theoretical framework, which integrated
Johnstone and Feeney 421
VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424
attachment principles with the transactional model of stress
and coping; as noted earlier, attachment theory is well suited
to this endeavour, given its focus on individual differences in
response to stress and challenge. Further, use of the struc-
tured vignette ensured that all participants were responding
to the same stressor, which was designed to reflect key ele-
ments in the experience of workplace stress (change, chal-
lenge, and uncertainty). Finally, the sampling procedure was
effective in providing a broad community sample in which
different ages, genders, and occupational groups were well
represented.
In evaluating the specific contribution of attachment
theory, it is worth noting that Semmer and Meier (2009) dis-
cussed potential overlap among constructs employed in the
study of stress (e.g., threat, neuroticism or negative affectivity
and emotion-focused coping), and argued the need to clarify
patterns of association. In the present study, neither item
content nor high intercorrelations suggested redundancy
among the focal variables. Further, although attachment
measures tap relatively enduring individual differences, they
are not redundant with alternative constructs such as neurot-
icism or negative affectivity. Neuroticism shows a more
robust link with attachment anxiety than with avoidance
(e.g., Fraley, Heffernan, Vicary, & Brumbaugh, 2011;
Wijngaards-de Meij et al., 2007); even so, this association is
modest in size. Finally, although constructs such as neuroti-
cism and negative affectivity may contribute to the associa-
tions of attachment anxiety with such diverse outcomes as
caregiving, relationship satisfaction, and symptom-reporting,
both cross-sectional and longitudinal research support the
unique predictive utility of attachment measures (Mikulincer
& Shaver, 2007). The finding that each indirect effect in this
study was specific to a particular attachment dimension fur-
ther supports the utility of these scales.
In terms of directions for future research, a clear impera-
tive is the use of longitudinal and/or intervention studies,
which would provide more compelling evidence of the pro-
posed causal associations. Another important initiative
would be the development of new measures of coping,
designed to capture the differing styles of emotional regula-
tion that characterise anxious and avoidant individuals. The
category of “emotion-focused coping” is very broad and
encompasses diverse strategies, some of which seem more
characteristic of attachment anxiety (e.g., wishful thinking),
and some of which seem more applicable to attachment
avoidance (e.g., trying to keep one’s feelings to oneself). Con-
struction of new measures designed specifically to assess
these different approaches to coping is likely to assist profes-
sionals to develop more targeted interventions for anxious
and avoidant individuals.
Summary and conclusions
While work stress is a major cause of physical and psychologi-
cal distress for many individuals, the results of this study sup-
port the role of individual differences in attachment security
in shaping responses to workplace stress. Attachment insecur-
ities are associated with the appraisal of stressors as more
threatening, and with negative perceptions of one’s internal
and external coping resources. In turn, these negative apprais-
als and perceptions are linked to less adaptive coping strat-
egies. Given the pervasive effects of attachment insecurities,
together with the personal and social costs of workplace
stress, the findings highlight the likely benefits of actively sup-
porting individuals who are facing workplace stress. Further,
although informational support is important in the context
of job change and uncertainty, it is equally important to pro-
vide the emotional support that may help counter insecure
individuals’ negative biases in evaluations of self and others.
References
Abraham, C., Conner, M., Jones, F., &
O’Connor, D. (2008). Health psychology
topics in applied psychology. London:
Hodder Education.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The
job demands-resources model: State of
the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
22, 309–328.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986).
The moderator–mediator variable dis-
tinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51,
1173–1182.
Bowlby, J. (1984). Attachment and loss:
Vol.1. Attachment (2nd ed.). Harmonds-
worth, England: Penguin.
Chen, C., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001).
Validation of a new general self-efficacy
scale. Organizational Research Methods,
4, 62–83.
Cicognani, E. (2011). Coping strategies
with minor stressors in adolescence:
Relationships with social support, self-
efficacy, and psychological well-being.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41,
559–578.
Cutrona, C. E. (1984). Social support and
stress in the transition to parenthood.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93,
378–390.
Econtech. (2008). The cost of workplace
stress in Australia. Commissioned by
Medibank Private. Canberra, ACT.
Feeney, B. C., Collins, N. L., van Vleet,
M., & Tomlinson, J. M. (2013). Moti-
vations for providing a secure base:
Links with attachment orientation
and secure base support behavior.
Attachment and Human Development,
15, 261–280.
Feeney, J. A. (1998). Adult attachment and
relationship-centered anxiety: Responses
to physical and emotional distancing. In
J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),
Attachment theory and close relationships
(pp. 189–218). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
422 The contribution of attachment theory
VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424
Ferguson, M. (2012). You cannot leave it at
the office: Spillover and crossover of
coworker incivility. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 33, 571–588.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An
analysis of coping in a middle-aged com-
munity sample. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 21, 219–239.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it
changes it must be a process: Study of
emotion and coping during three stages
of a college examination. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 48, 150.
Fonagy, P., Gergely, G., & Target, M.
(2008). Psychoanalytic constructs and
attachment theory and research. In J.
Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook
of attachment: Theory, research, and clini-
cal applications (2nd ed., pp. 783–810).
New York, NY:
Guil
ford Press.
Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A.
M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The
experiences in close relationships—Rela-
tionship structures questionnaire: A
method for assessing attachment orienta-
tions across relationships. Psychological
Assessment, 23, 615–625.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult
attachment and the suppression of
unwanted thoughts. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 73, 1080–1091.
Gosnell, C. L., & Gable, S. L. (2013).
Attachment and capitalizing on positive
events. Attachment & Human Develop-
ment, 15, 281–302.
Halpern, J., Maunder, R. G., Schwartz, B., &
Gurevich, M. (2012). Attachment inse-
curity, responses to critical incident dis-
tress, and current emotional symptoms
in ambulance workers. Stress and Health:
Journal of the International Society for the
Investigation of Stress, 28, 51–60.
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and
Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in
the new millennium. Communication
Monographs, 76, 408–420.
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statis-
tical mediation analysis with a multicate-
gorical independent variable. British
Journal of Mathematical and Statistical
Psychology, 67, 451–470.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic
love conceptualized as an attachment
process. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 511.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and
work: An attachment-theoretical per-
spective. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 270.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1996). Social support: Will
you be there when I need you? In N.
Vanzetti & S. Duck (Eds.), A lifetime of
relationships (pp. 47–74). Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. H., & Bonin, L.
(1997). Social support, coping, and psy-
chological adjustment: A resource model.
In G. R. Pierce, B. Lakey, I. G. Sarason, &
B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Sourcebook of social
support and personality (pp. 169–186).
New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. H., Holahan, C.
K., & Cronkite, R. C. (1999). Resource
loss, resource gain, and depressive symp-
toms: A 10-year model. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 77,
620–629.
Holahan, C. K., & Holahan, C. J. (1987).
Self-efficacy, social support, and depres-
sion in aging: A longitudinal analysis.
Journal of Gerontology, 42, 65–68.
Houghton, J. D., Wu, J., Godwin, J. L.,
Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (2012). Effec-
tive stress management: A model of
emotional intelligence, self-leadership,
and student stress coping. Journal of
Management Education, 36, 220–238.
Karantzas, G. C. (2010). A re-examination
of coping from an attachment theory
perspective. Paper presented at the Inter-
national Association for Relationship
Research Biennial Conference, Herziliya,
Israel.
Landen, S. M., & Wang, C.-C. D. (2010).
Adult attachment, work cohesion, cop-
ing, and psychological well-being of fire-
fighters. Counselling Psychology
Quarterly, 23, 143–162.
Landsbergis, P. A., Grzywacz, J. G., &
LaMontagne, A. D. (2014). Work
organization, job insecurity, and
occupational health disparities. Amer-
ican Journal of Industrial Medicine, 57,
495–515.
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A
new synthesis. New York, NY: Springer
Publishing Company.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress,
appraisal, and coping. New York, NY:
Springer Publishing Company.
Leka, S., Griffiths, A., & Cox, T. (2004).
Work, organization and stress: Systematic
problem approaches for employers, manag-
ers and trade union representatives. Pro-
tecting Workers’ Health Series No. 3.
Geneva, Switzerland, World Health
Organization.
Linnan, L., Fisher, E. B., & Hood, S. (2013).
The power and potential of peer support
in workplace interventions. American
Journal of Health Promotion, 28,
TAHP2–10.
Mesmer-Magnus, J., & Glew, D. J. (2012).
Workplace predictors of family-facilitative
coworker support. Journal of Workplace
Behavioral Health, 27, 289–310.
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1998). The
relationship between adult attachment
styles and emotional and cognitive reac-
tions to stressful events. In J. A. Simpson
& W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory
and close relationships (pp. 143–165).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007).
Attachment in adulthood: Structure,
dynamics, and change. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2013). An
attachment perspective on resilience to
stress and trauma. In M. Kent, M. C.
Davis & J. W. Reich (Eds.), The resilience
handbook: Approaches to stress and
trauma (pp. 156–168). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Moos, R. H., & Billings, A. G. (1982). Con-
ceptualizing and measuring coping
resources and processes. In L. Goldberger
& S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress:
Theoretical and clinical aspects (pp. 212–
230). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Peacock, E. J., & Wong, P. T. P. (1990). The
stress appraisal measure (SAM): A multi-
dimensional approach to cognitive
appraisal. Stress Medicine, 6, 227–236.
Pines, A. M. (2004). Adult attachment
styles and their relationship to burnout:
A preliminary, cross-cultural investiga-
tion. Work & Stress, 18, 66–80.
Regehr, C., LeBlanc, V. R., Barath, I., Balch,
J., & Birze, A. (2012). Predictors of physi-
ological stress and psychological distress
in police communicators. Police Practice
and Research, 14, 451–463.
Russell, D., Cutrona, C. E., Rose, J., & Yurko,
K. (1984). Social and emotional loneli-
Johnstone and Feeney 423
VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424
ness: An examination of Weiss’s typology
of loneliness. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 46, 1313–1321.
Schirmer, L. L., & Lopez, F. G. (2001). Prob-
ing the social support and work strain
relationship among adult workers: Con-
tributions of adult attachment orienta-
tions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59,
17–33.
Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2011). Coping with rela-
tionship stressors: A decade review. Jour-
nal of Research on Adolescence, 21,
196–210.
Semmer, N. K. (2003). Individual differen-
ces, work stress and health. In M. J.
Schabracq, J. A. M. Winnubst, & C. L.
Cooper (Eds.), The handbook of work
and health psychology (2nd ed., pp. 83–
120). Chichester, West Sussex, England:
Wiley.
Semmer, N. K., & Meier, L. L. (2009). Indi-
vidual differences, work stress, and health.
In C. L. Cooper, J. C. Quick, & M. J.
Schabracq (Eds.), International handbook
of work and health psychology (3rd ed., pp.
99–121). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2013).
Adult attachment and emotion regu-
lation. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook
of emotion regulation (2nd ed., pp.
237–250). New York, NY: The Guil-
ford Press.
Simmons, B. L., Gooty, J., Nelson, D. L., &
Little, L. M. (2009). Secure attachment:
Implications for hope, trust, burnout,
and performance. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 30, 233–247.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D.
(1996). Conflict in close relationships:
An attachment perspective. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 71,
899–914.
Slade, A. (2008). The implications of
attachment theory and research for adult
psychotherapy: Research and clinical per-
spectives. In J. C. P. R. Shaver (Ed.),
Handbook of attachment: Theory,
research, and clinical applications (2nd
ed., pp. 762–782). New York, NY: Guil-
ford Press.
Vasquez, K., Durik, A. M., & Hyde, J. S.
(2002). Family and work: Implica-
tions of adult attachment styles. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
28, 874–886.
Weiss, R. S. (1974). The provisions of social
relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing
unto others (pp. 17–26). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wijngaards-de Meij, L., Stroebe, M.,
Schut, H., Stroebe, W., van den Bout,
J., van der Heijden, P., et al. (2007).
Neuroticism and attachment insecur-
ity as predictors of bereavement out-
come. Journal of Research in
Personality, 41, 498–505.
424 The contribution of attachment theory
VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424
Understanding regulatory
focuse
s
The role of employees’ regulatory focus in
stress coping styles, and turnover intent to a
five-star hotel
Hyo Sun Jung and Hye Hyun Yoon
Department of Culinary and Service Management,
College of Hotel and Tourism Management, Kyung Hee University, Seoul,
Republic of Korea
Abstract
Purpose – The aim of the study was to examine whether five-star hotel employees’ promotion focus
significantly influences their task-coping style, and whether their prevention focus has a significa
nt
effect on their emotion- and avoidance-coping styles. This study also investigates the moderating
impact of employees’ tenure on the relationships between stress-coping styles and turnover intent.
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 342 five-star hotel employees in South Korea participated in
the study using a self-administered questionnaire. Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling
were used to examine the hypothesized relationships between the constructs.
Findings – Hotel employees’ turnover intent decreases when they are motivated by strategies
corresponding to their regulatory focus. This study found that hotel employees’ promotion focus had a
significant positive effect on their task-coping style, whereas prevention focus had a significant
negative effect on the emotion- and avoidance-coping style. In addition, employees’ task-coping styl
e
negatively affected their intent to leave the organization, while their emotion-coping and
avoidance-coping styles positively affected turnover intent. Finally, moderating effects were related to
tenure in the causal relationships among stress-coping styles and turnover intent. Thus, one can infer
that the emotion-coping style has a greater effect on turnover intent in employees with a relatively short
tenure than in those with a long tenure.
Practical implications – This study verified that hotel employees’ regulatory focus plays an
important role in employee behavior within organizations just as individual characteristics such as
personality or values do. Thus, a substantial application plan for employees’ regulatory focus was
proposed for the organizational dimension. In addition, diverse plans were presented for employees’
flexible coping with stress, based on differing turnover intent, depending on employees’ stress-coping
styles. Through this, a plan for reducing employee turnover intent was pursued.
Originality/value – This study associated employees’ stress-coping styles, which had been dealt with in
the human resources management area, with their regulatory focus and showed that different stress-coping
styles might be derived using such regulatory focus; the resulting turnover intent might also be different. The
study results can provide a theoretical basis for understanding relationships among regulatory focus,
stress-copying styles and turnover intent as such research is relatively lacking. Finally, this study is
meaningful in that it applied the regulatory focus theory centered on customer behaviors to employees and
verified the moderating effect of employees’ tenure between stress-coping styles and turnover intent.
Keywords Promotion focus, Regulatory focus, Prevention focus, Stress-coping styles,
Turnover intent, Five-star hotel
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm
Regulatory
focus in stress
coping styles
283
Received 13 July 2013
Revised 26 November 2013
27 January 2014
2 March 2014
Accepted 29 March 2014
International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality
Management
Vol. 27 No. 2, 2015
pp. 283-
307
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0959-6119
DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-07-2013-0
288
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2013-0288
1. Introduction
Motivation is a key theme in organizational behavior (Lee et al., 2010) that refers to
internal or external power supporting and maintaining an individual’s behavior (Steer
and Porter, 1991). A person’s regulatory focus is a specific strategic and motivational
orientation adopted during goal pursuit (Higgins, 1997; Pham and Chang, 2010). Higgins
(2000) used the term regulatory focus to explain motivation in the process of pursuing
one’s goals. Two types of independent self-regulatory focuses can be distinguished
(Higgins, 1997, 2000):
(1) Promotion focus, which emphasizes approach-orientated styles.
(2) Prevention focus, which emphasizes avoidance-oriented styles.
The promotion focus and prevention focus can be situationally induced by priming or
problem framing (Markovits et al., 2008). According to Shah et al. (1998), those with a
promotion focus emphasize passion and achievement and focus on positive results,
whereas those with a prevention focus emphasize stability and responsibility and focus
on negative results. Therefore, those with a strong promotion focus are motivated by
incentives related to goal achievement, while those with a strong prevention focus are
motivated by incentives related to safety goals. Those with a promotion focus
concentrate more on what they can obtain than on what they cannot, and those with a
prevention focus more sensitively respond to what is lost than what is not (Idson et al.,
2000). Therefore, when prevention focus-oriented people make decisions, their most
important goal is “safety”, as they have a strong tendency to avoid risk (Crowe and
Higgins, 1997).
Meanwhile, although faced with the same stressful environment, individuals might
respond differently (Chan, 2003). They might deal with stress using task-coping positive
methods or negative methods of emotion- and avoidance-coping styles depending on
their characteristics (Leandro and Castillo, 2010). Researchers have asserted that
differences in employees’ regulatory focus result in different methods of coping with job
stress because organizational employees prefer to cope with stress using their own
individual styles (Pearlin and Schooler, 1978). How flexibly and actively employees
respond to stressful situations determines whether their organization’s productivity
increases or decreases. In addition, employees’ turnover intent can increase or decrease
depending on the style with which they tackle stress in a stressful situation (Callan et al.,
1994; Nicholls et al., 2012).
However, major issues in research on regulatory focus have concerned marketing
methods based on customers’ regulatory focus in terms of their behaviors
(Brenninkmeijer et al., 2010; Chou and Lien, 2012; Jing and Lee, 2006; Pham and Chang,
2010; Pham and Trudel, 2008; Som and Lee, 2012; Tamar and Higgins, 2006; Trudel
et al., 2012; Wan et al., 2011), while research on the causal relationships between
employees’ regulatory focus and their behaviors within an organization is scarce
(Gorman et al., 2012; Markovits et al., 2008). Markovits et al. (2008) noted that public
employees’ promotion focus greatly influenced their emotional devotion, and their
prevention focus had a relatively significant influence on continuous devotion – a
concept similar to turnover intent. Gorman et al. (2012) observed that promotion focus
had a greater effect on job performance and satisfaction than prevention focus through
a meta-analysis of employees’ regulatory focus, verifying that employees’ promotion
focus triggered more positive job behaviors than their prevention focus.
IJCHM
27,2
284
Despite its importance, research that has considered organic causality among
employees’ regulatory focus, stress-coping styles and turnover intent remains very rare.
Furthermore, Zhao and Namasivayam (2012) are the only researchers to conduct a
relevant study about hotels, which are representative of firms that provide
customer-oriented services. Hotel employees are exposed to excessive working hours,
tough job demands and a lack of job control (Chiang et al., 2010; O’Neill and Davis, 2011).
In addition, hotels prioritize customers’ emotions rather than employees’ emotions,
thereby forcing employees to show the expressed emotion in the process of having
contact with customers (Jain and Jain, 2005). In particular, customer dissatisfaction is
directly linked to customers’ evaluation of employees. Therefore, hotel employees must
respond consistently with a positive attitude, even to customers’ unfair demands. Hotel
employees may experience dissonance, and thus stress, in their emotions in the work
environment, as opposed to the emotion they are required to express (Lam and Chen,
2012). This can be explained as an effort toward emotional expression demanded from
the organization and as emotional labor (Morris and Feldman, 1996), which is a control,
in the process of employees performing services for customers. Owing to the emotional
coercion associated with this endeavor, hotel employees make an effort to hide or change
their own emotions in the service situation, thereby leading to burnout and stress (Kim,
2008). Because hotel jobs require employees to express positive emotions regardless of
their own emotions, they often experience stress.
Therefore, their turnover intent is relatively higher than in other businesses (Jung
et al., 2012). This leads to the question of whether hotel employees’ approach to coping
with stress and their turnover intent differ according to their regulatory focus – a
personal trait of hotel employees frequently exposed to a stressful situation due to their
job characteristics. Accordingly, through this study, the researcher intended to resolve
this question and discuss efficient styles of coping with stress suitable for hotel
employees’ regulatory focus, thereby aiming to decrease their turnover intent.
Meanwhile, employees’ tenure has a close relationship with their behavior within the
organization (Karatepe and Karatepe, 2010; Elahi and Apoorva, 2012); thus, it is likely
have a differential influence, even on the style of coping with stress in the working
situation and turnover intent.
Specific suggestions that can be derived through this study include the following.
First, hotel employees face many stressful situations in the process of performing their
jobs, and finding appropriate stress-coping styles corresponding to their regulatory
focus is necessary. Accordingly, this study predicts that the different regulatory focus of
hotel employees will result in different styles of coping with stressful situations and that
such regulatory focus influences employees’ organizational attitudes. Thus, this study
first examined appropriate stress-coping styles according to employees’ regulatory
focus in terms of a business’s internal marketing and attempted to use the results as
fundamental material to develop diverse education and training programs. Second, the
study examined whether hotel employees’ stress-coping styles resulted in their differing
turnover intent and helped decrease turnover intent among employees with high
turnover intent through the use of efficient stress-coping styles. Furthermore, the study
aimed to clarify the moderating effect between stress-coping style and turnover intent
according to employees’ tenure. The next section presents the theoretical background
and rationales for the research hypothesis regarding the interaction of employees’
regulatory focus, stress-coping styles and turnover intent. This is followed by the
285
Regulatory
focus in stress
coping styles
empirical studies and results. Finally, we discuss the findings in light of their theoretical
and practical implications.
2. Literature review and conceptual model
2.1 Regulatory focus, stress-coping styles and turnover intent
Regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997) is a theory about how people pursue goals. Regulatory
focus includes promotion focus (positive outcomes) and prevention focus (negative
outcomes) (Higgins et al., 1994; Vaughn et al., 2008). People adjust their motivations
through these two focuses (Higgins, 1997). The promotion focus and prevention focus
are also distinct in the types of strategies that regulatory systems activate in the pursuit
of goals (Pham and Avnet, 2004; Trudel et al., 2012). Promotion focus is sensitive to the
presence or absence of positive outcomes (e.g. ideals, wishes, dreams and aspirations);
thus, the strategic disposition of people with promotion focus is to approach a goal in a
state of enthusiasm (Gino and Margolis, 2011). Meanwhile, prevention focus is generally
avoidance motivated and has a safety or vigilance orientation consistent with an
individual’s required tasks (e.g. duties, responsibilities and obligations) (Arnold and
Reynolds, 2009). Given this negative outcome focus, the strategic disposition of people
with prevention focus is a state of guard (Pham and Chang, 2010).
Stress coping refers to constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to
manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or
exceeding the resources of the employee (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Although the
issue of whether individuals’ capabilities to cope with stress are related to their
temperamental traits or their styles are affected by specific conditions is still under
debate, when there is some reason to cope with stress in environmental terms,
individuals are expected to be able to exert coping abilities. In other words, coping with
stress is perceived as a response, a behavioral concept (Aldwin and Revension, 1987).
Stress-coping styles are divided into three aspects: task coping, emotion coping, and
avoidance coping. Task coping means that employees take active and positive measures
to change a stressful situation by making decisions or taking certain direct actions to
resolve the problem (Higgins and Endler, 1995). This means stress-coping styles in the
form of attempting to resolve a problem employees experienced or making efforts to
figure out the cause of a problem (Folkman and Lazarus, 1980). Accordingly, task coping
is behavior oriented and is employees’ direct coping style for solving stress (Gupta and
Derevensky, 2001). Emotion coping is directed toward regulating the emotions of the
employee under stress (Latack and Havlovic, 1992). This means that when employees
are faced with a stressful situation, they vent their anger to others and intend not to
recognize the problem itself. Avoidance coping can be described as cognitive and
behavioral efforts directed toward minimizing, denying or ignoring a stressful situation
(Holahan et al., 2005). These are stress-coping styles in the form of refreshing themselves
through other activities or just hoping that the stressful situation will disappear. In
general, research suggests that task-oriented coping styles tend to lead to more positive
outcomes (satisfaction and commitment) than emotion- and avoidance-coping styles
(Frydenberg and Lewis, 2004).
Turnover intent is an employee’s intention to quit his or her current job or leave his
or her organization (Meyer and Allen, 1984). It is an advance notice prior to actual
resignation and, in a broader sense, an individual’s movement across the boundary of
membership of a social system (Price, 1977). Macy and Mirivis (1976) noted that a
IJCHM
27,2
286
change of occupation was a permanent transfer beyond the boundary of an
organization; they differentiated it from temporary dismissal or promotion or transfer
within an organization. As a variable of employees’ behavioral performance, turnover
intent has been used in a majority of studies as a concept to replace turnover behaviors
because turnover intent played the role of an antecedent factor, effectively predicting
actual turnover behaviors (Brown and Peterson, 1993). In addition, turnover intent can
be explained on the basis of individual differences, stress- and change-related attitudes,
and contextual variables, such as interpersonal relationships and culture (Holtom et al.,
2008; Kumar and Singh, 2012).
2.2 Relationship between regulatory focus and stress-coping styles
2.2.1 Promotion focus and stress-coping styles. The research on relationships between
employees’ regulatory promotion focus and stress-coping styles is limited. In a similar
study that examined the relationship between employees’ promotion focus and
stress-coping styles, Shah et al. (1998) found that strong promotion focus are highly
motivated to continue to perform their job. Also, Brenninkmeijer et al. (2010) noted that
high promotion focus of employees had greater influence on relationship between job
resources and their positive behaviors (such as engagement, satisfaction and
commitment) due to their achievement-oriented and challenging attitudes in a job
situation. Of course, this is the limited outcome to the job resource model, thereby being
guessed to be likely difficult to expect direct association with this study. Crowe and
Higgins (1997) stated that a person who is strong in promotion focus desires to establish
a more definite alternative plan after experiencing failure in job situation or being
engaged in difficult work. Brockner and Higgins (2001) found that a person who is
strong in promotion focus positively focuses on the job even in a stressful situation
because of continuous strategic attempts to make it consistent with his/her own goal or
standard. Tamir (2005) asserted that promotion focus was closely associated with
positive emotions related to pleasure and, therefore, in a stressful situation employees
with promotion focus were likely to cope with a stressful situation in a developmental
way. Also, while Laurie (2012) noted that employees with high promotion focus had a
high possibility of coping with a stressful situation in job-oriented ways, Zhao and
Namasivayam (2012) observed that, due to their desire for achievement, employees with
promotion focus wisely cope with stressful conflict situations between their workplace
and home through positive behavior and cognitive strategies. Sassenberg and Scholl
(2013) mentioned that this is accredited to having propensity of performing their own
task autonomously, as the promotion focus is higher in a will to perform challenging
work in value than the prevent focus in a will. This leads to the possibility that a person
with strong promotion focus likely has high intention of controlling initiative by oneself
even in a stressful situation.
2.2.2 Prevention focus and stress-coping styles. Higgins and Tykocinski (1992) noted
that those with strong prevention focus tend to avoid failure, and Brockner and Higgins
(2001) observed that regulatory focus had a close relationship with employees’ emotions
and behavior in a job situation and in particular, prevention focus had significant
relationship with emotions. Tamir (2005) demonstrated that prevention focus is
associated with an emotional state of relief–anxiety; those with a prevention focus are
likely to engage in emotional and avoidance behavior due to their emotional disposition
of anxiety. Brenninkmeijer et al. (2010) suggested that conservative and preventive
287
Regulatory
focus in stress
coping styles
attitudes of employees with high preventive focus more greatly influenced relationship
between their job demand and emotional exhaustion, which may cause their emotional
and avoidance attitudes in a stress coping situation. This is presumed because when
employees have high prevention focus they wish to avoid unwanted or unsatisfactory
conditions; they have a high tendency to be passive and evade risks in a certain situation
and, therefore, also respond negatively to a stressful situation. However, this is also the
limited outcome to a job demand model. Also, Benjamin and Flynn (2006) mentioned
that people with the strong prevention focus do prefer a transactional leader and that
this is accredited to preferring a superior to supplement their own demerit because
of their strong avoidant tendency. Sassenberg and Scholl (2013) noted that a person with
the strong prevention focus prefers complementary situation in job, thereby having the
possibility of likely showing avoidant tendency rather than taking the initiative to find
the solution, given the occurrence of stress. This study suggests that there is a high
possibility that the prevention focus evasively copes with stress of occurring in job
situation. Additionally, the researcher in the present study will make inferences from
some studies that examine differences in employees’ stress-coping styles, according to
their conscientiousness and neuroticism. To infer a relationship between regulatory
focus and stress-coping styles, Vianen et al. (2012) noted that neuroticism is closely
related to prevention focus, while conscientiousness is closely associated with
promotion focus. In a study of similar perspectives, Brebner (2001) observed that
conscientiousness was closely related with task coping, while neuroticism was with
emotion coping. Furlani (2005) and Matthews et al. (2006) demonstrated that those with
strong conscientiousness prefer problem-solving coping styles, while those with high
neuroticism favor emotion-coping styles. Burgess et al. (2010) said that certain
personality traits – openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness – are associated
with problem-solving coping styles, such as active planning and reframing. Kim and
Agrusa (2011) said that neuroticism is highly correlated with the emotion-coping style.
Based on these results, the present study hypothesizes that hotel employees’
promotion focus positively influences their task-coping style (a positive stress coping)
but that prevention focus positively affects emotion-coping and avoidance-coping styles
(negative stress coping). These arguments lead to the following hypotheses:
H1. Employees’ promotion focus is positively related with task-coping style.
H2. Employees’ prevention focus is positively related with emotion-coping style (a)
and avoidance-coping style (b).
2.3 Relationship between stress-coping styles and turnover intent
Studies of employees’ organizational behaviors in accordance with their stress-coping
styles in a stressful situation mostly examine their psychological anxiety or exhaustion
as dependent variables, and few studies have used turnover intent as an ultimate
dependent variable. Most previous studies on stress-coping styles have mentioned
problem-solving styles to cope with stress and they are in contrast with
avoidance-coping measures among measurement scales used in the present study;
avoidance-coping style measures mean stress coping measures not making efforts to
resolve a problem in a stressful situation and just evading them.
In this context, Folkman and Lazarus (1980) asserted that only problem-solving
efforts in an attempt to control problems themselves reduce stress, thereby decreasing
IJCHM
27,2
288
turnover intent, Lee and Ashforth (1996) noted that the problem-coping style is very
closely related to job exhaustion. Callan et al. (1994) observed that employees’
emotion-coping style causes negative behaviors resulting from anxiety and depression,
and Shevaune (2003) said that the emotion-coping style lowers job satisfaction and
increases voluntary turnover intent. Carmona et al. (2006) asserted that the direct and
temporary stress-coping style increases exhaustion, influencing turnover intent,
whereas Liu and Chou (2006) observed that stress-coping styles increase exhaustion
and, therefore, turnover intent. Boyd et al. (2009) observed that the emotion-coping style
increases emotional exhaustion, thereby decreasing satisfaction and increasing
turnover intent. They stressed the negative effects of the emotion-coping style, noting
that the problem-coping style reduces emotional exhaustion, thereby significantly
affecting job satisfaction and turnover intent. Parker and Martin (2009, 2011) found that
the emotion-coping style induces low job satisfaction and a low level of participation in
an organization; in a study of the effects of restaurant employees’ job stress on their
turnover intent, Kim (2010) verified significant moderating effects of stress-coping
styles, noting that a group with appropriate stress-coping styles reduced turnover intent
caused by job stress. Also, Chang et al. (2006) demonstrated that mental stress becomes
a cause of coping with stress with the avoidant method in a working situation and this
leads to employees’ negative behavior. Welbourne et al. (2007) suggested the association
with turnover intent while mentioning that a stress-coping style in avoidant method
reduces job satisfaction. Golbasi et al. (2008) mentioned that an avoidant and inactive
coping in a stressful situation shows a negative relationship with the job satisfaction.
Nicholls et al. (2012) observed that athletes’ avoidance-coping style negatively affects
satisfaction, but their task-coping style positively influences satisfaction, suggesting
that turnover intent differs according to stress-coping styles. To sum up, it is deemed
that the task-coping style, a positive coping style, decreases turnover intent, and
emotion- and avoidance-coping styles have a relatively strong influence on negative
employees’ attitudes, thereby increasing turnover intent. These arguments lead to the
following hypothesis:
H3. Employees’ task-coping style (negatively) (a), emotion-coping style (positively)
(b) and avoidance-coping style (positively) (c) are related with turnover intent.
2.4 Moderating effects of
employees’ tenure
There are not so many studies which clarified the moderating effect of tenure in the
effects of employees’ stress coping measures on their turnover intent. To mention some
studies, Goldenberg and Waddell (1990) noted that the methods for professors of
nursing studies to cope with stress differed according to their tenure; those who worked
for longer than three years coped with stress in a much more positive way than those
who worked for less than three years. Bennett et al. (1997) also observed that employees
with a long tenure exhibited problem-solving coping styles, while employees with a
short tenure were likely to utilize avoidance-coping styles. Karatepe and Karatepe (2010)
found that the hotel employees who worked for a long time had excellent capabilities to
cope with stress and burnout in their organization. Marjan and Nasrin (2010) also
asserted that the longer an employee’s tenure, the more he or she was likely to cope with
stress in a positive way. In addition, Elahi and Apoorva (2012) showed that an increase
in employees’ tenure led to an increase in their interpersonal skills and self-confidence in
their job, and they came to cope with their job in a problem-solving way. As studies not
289
Regulatory
focus in stress
coping styles
dealing with stress-coping styles, Jung et al. (2012) asserted that the influence hotel
employees’ exhaustion had on their turnover intent was relatively much higher in those
with a short tenure because they did not cope with stress in an efficient way. To infer
from the above studies, employees with a short tenure were lacking in their styles to
cope with stress or exhaustion or adaptability and as a result had greater turnover
intent. Based on the above results, this study hypothesized that the effect of employees’
stress-coping styles on their turnover intent will be different according to their tenure.
Accordingly, this study divided employees into those whose tenure was longer than 10
years and those whose tenure was shorter than 10 years to verify its moderating effect.
The following hypothesis was established (see Figure 1).
H4. The links among employees’ stress-coping styles and turnover intent in
short-tenure (� 10 years) and long-tenure (� 10 years) groups are different.
3. Research methodology
3.1 Procedure and participants
The data used for this study were collected from employees in five-star (deluxe) hotels in
Seoul, South Korea, in 2012. Among 12 five-star chain-hotels located in Seoul, ten hotels
whose human resources management (HRM) department provided organic
collaboration were selected. Once the HRM managers gave permission, employees were
provided with a voluntary survey and were asked by the researcher to complete the
self-administered questionnaires. The completed questionnaires were sealed in
envelopes to protect employee anonymity and were collected by the researcher one week
later. Fifty questionnaires were distributed to each of the ten hotels (a total of 500
questionnaires). Among the 50 copies, 25 copies were distributed to front-of-house
(FOH) employees and the other 25 copies to back of house (BOH) employees. After
eliminating incomplete questionnaires, a total of 342 questionnaires were obtained over
a one-month period (response rate of 68.40 per cent), samples with even a single missing
value were deleted. The characteristics of the participant are presented in Table I.
Sixty-nine per cent of respondents were older than 40 years of age and slightly more
Figure 1.
A proposed model of
regulatory focus,
stress coping styles
and turnover intent
IJCHM
27,2
290
than three quarters of the respondents were male. Most participants had a community
college or university degree (91.5 per cent). Their primary job positions were BOH
(culinary department) (50.6 per cent), FOH (service department) (26.3 per cent) and
others (management department) (23.1 per cent). The majority were full-time workers
(80.7 per cent). They had been working at their current hotel for five years or fewer (44.2
per cent).
3.2 Instrument development
A pilot test involving 50 five-star hotel employees was conducted to ensure the
reliability of the scales. Some terms that had become indigestible as going through the
translation process were modified on the basis of the results of the pilot test. The reason
was that the same sentence may be understood differently according to cultural
differences and some errors may occur in the process of transforming an English
questionnaire into a Korean questionnaire (Adler, 1983; Brislin, 1980). Pilot testing was
performed through interviews with 25 FOH employees and 25 BOH employees. Several
modifications were subsequently made based on the results. The survey instrument was
divided into four parts:
(1) regulatory focus;
(2) stress-coping styles;
(3) turnover intent; and
(4) participants’ demographic information and job-related information.
Table I.
Profile of the sample
(n � 342)
Characteristic N (%)
Age
21 to 30 years 106 31.0
31 to 40 years 117 34.2
Older than 40 years 119 34.8
Gender
Male 265 77.5
Female 77 22.5
Education
High school 29 8.5
Community college degree (2 years) 180 52.6
University degree (4 years) 133 38.9
Position
BOH 173 50.6
FOH 90 26.3
Others 79 23.1
Tenure
5 years and below 151 44.2
6-9 years 34 9.9
10-14 years 33 9.6
15 years and above 124 36.3
291
Regulatory
focus in stress
coping styles
To measure employees’ regulatory focus, this study adapted the ten-item scales by
Brenninkmeijer et al. (2010). We examined two dimensions of employees’ regulatory
focus (Brenninkmeijer et al., 2010; Lockwood et al., 2002): promotion focus (five items)
and prevention focus (five items). Regulatory focus items were “In general, I am focused
on achieving positive outcomes in my life” (promotion focus), and “I often worry that I
will fail to accomplish my academic goal” (prevention focus).” Each regulatory focus
item was measured with ten items using a 7-point scale: “How much do you agree or
disagree with these statements?” (1: strongly disagree to 7: strongly agree).
Stress-coping styles were measured using nine items on a 7-point scale (1: strongly
disagree to 7: strongly agree) based on the work of Endler and Parker (1994) and
Matthews and Campbell (1998). We examined three dimensions of stress-coping styles
(Matthews and Campbell, 1998): task coping, emotion coping and avoidance coping.
Stress-coping style items were:
• “I worked out a strategy for successful performance” (task coping).
• “I became preoccupied with my problem” (emotion coping).
• “I stayed detached or distanced from the situation” (avoidance coping).
Respondent turnover intent was also measured on a 7-point scale (1: strongly disagree to
7: strongly agree), as developed by Cammann et al. (1979), Seashore et al. (1982) and Jung
et al. (2012). The turnover intent items included:
• “I have given some serious thought to looking for a job in another company”; and
• “I will quit my job at my current organization in 1 year or less.”
Part 4 contained questions about participants’ demographic information (e.g. age,
gender and education) and job-related information (e.g. position and tenure).
3.3 Analysis
The collected data were analyzed using the AMOS program. Descriptive statistics were
performed to profile the sample’s demographic and job-related questions. Data were
analyzed using the two-step approach recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988).
First, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood was performed to
estimate the measurement model, which determined whether the manifest variables
reflected the hypothesized latent variables. Second, a structural equation modeling
(SEM) was used to test the validity of the proposed model and hypotheses.
4. Results
4.1 Measurement model
As shown in Table II, confirmatory measurement models demonstrated the soundness
of the measurement properties (�2� 563.51; df � 215; p � 0.001; �2/df � 2.62; GFI �
0.88; NFI � 0.91; CFI � 0.94; IFI � 0.94; RMSEA � 0.06). Also, convergent validity was
observed as all confirmatory factor loadings exceeded 0.70 and were significant at the
alpha level of 0.001 (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Internal consistency in each
construct was acceptable with composite reliability estimates, ranging from 0.72 to 0.89
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Cronbach’s alpha estimates ranged from 0.84 to 0.95 and
were considered acceptable (Nunnally, 1978). In addition, all average variance extracted
(AVE) estimates exceeded the recommended 0.50 threshold (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
IJCHM
27,2
292
Discriminant validity was evident as the variance extracted estimates, ranging from
0.65 to 0.83 (promotion focus � 0.73; prevention focus � 0.65; task coping � 0.65;
emotion coping � 0.72; avoidance coping � 0.67; turnover intent � 0.83), exceeded all
squared correlations for each pair of constructs, ranging from 0.01 to 0.09 (See Table III).
This study additionally verified multicollinearity as no correlation coefficients exceeded
0.5 (0.04-0.31). The result (Table III) revealed no problem with collinearity, as tolerance
was far greater than 0.1, and variance inflation factor was far less than 10. Also, to
address a potential common method bias, we checked for possible common method
variance using Harman’s single-factor test (Harman, 1967; Podsakoff et al., 2003). An
exploratory factor analysis of the 26 items revealed seven factors with eigenvalues
greater than 1.00. No single factor explained a majority of the variance, thus providing
Table II.
Reliabilities and CFA
properties
Construct Standardized loadings t-value CCRa (Cronbach’s alpha) AVEb
Promotion focus 0.89 0.73
MF1 0.85 Fixed (0.93)
MF2 0.88 21.28***
MF3 0.89 21.97***
MF4 0.78 17.61***
MF5 0.86 20.60***
Prevention focus 0.82 0.65
VF1 0.76 Fixed (0.90)
VF2 0.82 15.48***
VF3 0.82 15.45***
VF4 0.84 15.89***
VF5 0.78 14.69***
Task coping 0.84 0.65
TC1 0.87 Fixed (0.84)
TC2 0.83 13.61***
TC3 0.71 15.56***
Emotion coping 0.72 0.72
EC1 0.86 Fixed (0.87)
EC2 0.96 20.97***
EC3 0.71 15.33***
Avoidance coping 0.78 0.67
AC1 0.82 Fixed (0.86)
AC2 0.88 15.59***
AC3 0.77 15.07***
Turnover intent 0.86 0.83
TI1 0.83 Fixed (0.95)
TI2 0.96 24.59***
TI3 0.96 24.78***
TI4 0.90 22.21***
Notes: a CCR � composite construct reliability; b AVE � average variance extracted; �2 � 563.51
(df � 215) p � 0.001; �2/df � 2.62; GFI � 0.88; NFI � 0.91; TLI � 0.93; CFI � 0.94; IFI � 0.94;
RMSEA � 0.06; *** p � 0.001
293
Regulatory
focus in stress
coping styles
evidence that common method bias was not a threat. In addition, our scale items
revealed eight factors that explained 83.761 per cent of the variance in our study’s
constructs, with the first factor explaining 23.404 per cent and the last factor explaining
6.280 per cent of the total variance.
4.2 Structural equation modeling
SEM was conducted to test the validity of the proposed model and the hypotheses
(Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Hu and Bentler (1999) recommended that comparative fit index
(CFI), Tucker–Lewis index root (TLI), mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), or
relative noncentrality index (RNI) should be used as the suitability index when the
number of sample cases is greater than 250 and that the datum points should be greater
than 0.95 in CFI and less than 0.06 in RMSEA, with Types 1 and 2 errors taken into
account. Figure 2 presents the estimated model, illustrating the direction and magnitude
of the impact of the standardized path coefficients. The chi-square statistic indicated
that the model did not fit the data well (�2 � 573.64; df � 218; p � 0.001; �2/df � 2.63).
Figure 2.
SEM with parameter
estimates
Table III.
Means, standard
deviations and
correlation analysis
Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean � SDa
Promotion focus 1 5.25 � 1.13
Prevention focus 0.15*** 1 4.38 � 1.17
Task coping 0.26*** �0.11*** 1 5.38 � 0.85
Emotion coping �0.16*** 0.23*** �0.09 1 4.04 � 1.46
Avoidance coping �0.05 0.15*** 0.23*** 0.30*** 1 4.98 � 1.11
Turnover intent �0.24*** 0.04 �0.10 0.31*** 0.24*** 1 3.53 � 1.65
Notes: a SD � standard deviation, all items were measured on a 7-point likert scale from 1-strongly
disagree to 7-strongly agree; all correlations are significant at p � 0.01; multicollinearity: tolerance
(promotion focus � 0.85; prevention focus � 0.87; task coping � 0.83; emotion coping � 0.84; avoidance
coping � 0.82), variance inflation factor (promotion focus � 1.16; prevention focus � 1.14; task
coping � 1.19; emotion coping � 1.20; avoidance coping � 1.21); *** all correlations are significant at
p � 0.01
IJCHM
27,2
294
Given the sensitivity of the chi-square statistics to sample size (Bentler and Bonett,
1980), other fit indices were also examined. Other goodness-of-fit (GFI) indices proved
that the structural model reasonably fit the data (GFI � 0.88; AGFI � 0.85; NFI � 0.91;
CFI � 0.94; RMSEA � 0.06). The model’s fit, as indicated by these indices, was deemed
satisfactory; thus, it provided a good basis for testing the hypothesized paths (Table IV).
H1, which hypothesized a positive significant relationship between employees’
promotion focus and task coping, was supported. Promotion focus significantly affected
the task-coping style, a positive stress-coping style (� � 0.28; t-value � 4.65; p � 0.001);
those with achievement-oriented promotion focus are considered to overcome stress by
utilizing active and realistic measures by making positive changes in their jobs. H2,
which predicted a positive significant relationship among employees’ prevention focus,
emotion coping and avoidance coping, was also supported. Prevention focus
significantly influenced the emotion-coping style (� � 0.23; t-value � 3.88; p � 0.001)
and the avoidance-coping style (� � 0.12; t-value � 1.97; p � 0.001), negative
stress-coping styles. Employees with strong prevention focus tend to escape from stress
by using emotional or avoidance styles; therefore, prevention focus is considered to have
significant influence on the emotion-coping style or avoidance-coping style, which are
negative stress-coping styles. Based on these results, we verified complete differences in
employees’ stress-coping styles according to the regulatory focus. In H3, we predicted
the influence of employees’ coping styles on turnover intent. In more detail, task coping
(� � �0.18; t � �3.25; p � 0.001), emotion coping (� � 0.26; t � 4.33; p � 0.001) and
avoidance coping (� � 0.22; t � 3.84; p � 0.001) significantly affected employees’
turnover intent, thereby supporting H3. We found that, among employees’ stress-coping
styles, the task-coping style decreased turnover intent, whereas the emotion-coping or
avoidance-coping styles increased it.
In addition, as a result of considering the direct effect of regulatory focus and
turnover intent, even if not mentioned in the results, the promotion focus (� � �0.15;
t � �2.072; p � 0.01) had a negative influence upon turnover intent. The prevention
focus (� � �0.04; t � �0.68; p � 0.05) was not found to have a significant influence on
Table IV.
Structural parameter
estimates
Hypothesized path �-value t-value Results
H1 Promotion focus ¡ Task coping 0.28 4.65*** Supported
H2a Prevention focus ¡ Emotion coping 0.23 3.88*** Supported
H2b Prevention focus ¡ Avoidance coping 0.12 1.97* Supported
H3a Task coping ¡ Turnover intent �0.19 �3.32*** Supported
H3b Emotion coping ¡ Turnover intent 0.23 4.32*** Supported
H3c Avoidance coping ¡ Turnover intent 0.22 3.84*** Supported
Goodness-of-fit statistics �2(221) � 592.68 (p � 0.001)
�2/df � 2.68
GFI � 0.88
AGFI � 0.85
NFI � 0.90
CFI � 0.94
RMSEA � 0.07
Notes: * p � 0.05, *** p � 0.001; GFI � goodness-of-fit index; NFI � normed fit index; CFI �
comparative fit index; RMSEA � root mean square error of approximation
295
Regulatory
focus in stress
coping styles
turnover intention, which further suggests that efficient development in employees’
promotion focus possibly leads to preventing the turnover of excellent human resources.
Brenninkmeijer et al. (2010) found that employees with strong promotion focus
sensitively respond in the relationship between job resources and motivational
attitudes, and as a result, promotion focus more greatly acts in job resources, decreasing
turnover intent more than prevention focus.
4.3 The moderating effect of employees’ tenure
To test the moderating effects of employee tenure on stress-coping styles, and turnover
intent, based on a multigroup approach, �2 differences with two degrees of freedom were
used to compare the two models (unconstrained and constrained) for each of the path
coefficients, consecutively. The results of the moderating effects of tenure are shown in
Table V. The unconstrained model for tenure showed a good fit to the data
(�2 � 1,074.08; df � 442; p � 0.001; �2/df � 2.43; GFI � 0.80; NFI � 0.84; TLI � 0.88;
CFI � 0.90; IFI � 0.90; RMSEA � 0.06). As for the link between employees’
stress-coping styles and turnover intent, statistically significant group differences were
detected based on the �2 differences between the two models (emotion coping ¡
turnover intent; � �2(df � 1) � 16.49, p � 0.05). The results showed that the effects of
employees’ emotion-coping style on turnover intent were significantly stronger in the
short-tenure group (� � 0.40; p � 0.001) than in the long-tenure group (� � 0.01; p �
0.05). In emotion-coping style employees, those with fewer than 10 years of work
experience had higher turnover intent than those with more than 10 years of work
experience. To sum up, it can be inferred that the emotion-coping style has a greater
effect on turnover intent in employees with relatively a short tenure than in those with a
long tenure. H4 was partially accepted as well.
5. Discussion and conclusion
5.1 Conclusion
In this study, we examined the regulatory focus of five-star hotel employees in relation
to stress-coping styles and turnover intent. We found that the promotion focus of hotel
employees had a significant, positive effect on their task-coping style. These findings
support the results of previous work (Vianen et al., 2012; Zhao and Namasivayam, 2012),
suggesting that those with a promotion focus, who are achievement- and challenge
oriented, overcome stress with positive task-coping styles. The prevention focus also
had a significant, positive effect on the emotion-coping style and avoidance-coping style.
This was consistent with the result that employees with high prevention focus tend to
avoid a new task by using emotion- and avoidance-coping styles in a stressful situation
(Brenninkmeijer et al., 2010; Tamir, 2005). Those with a prevention focus, who are
conservative, are expected to respond to stress through emotion-coping styles or
negative styles of avoidance, such as drinking and forgetting. Those with a promotion
focus are expected to be sensitive to achievement, improvement and enhancement and to
be oriented toward strategies to approach their goals with an attitude of accepting
challenges; such strategies are also applied to their stress-coping styles (Higgins, 2000).
On the other hand, those with a prevention focus are not challenge oriented, but engage
in avoidance behaviors to try to escape anxiety; therefore, they cope with stress in an
emotional and avoiding way.
IJCHM
27,2
296
Table V.
Moderating effects of
employees’ tenure
L
es
s
th
an
10
ye
ar
s
(N
�
18
5)
O
ve
r
10
ye
ar
s
(N
�
15
7)
U
nc
on
st
ra
in
ed
m
od
el
ch
i-s
qu
ar
e
(d
f
�
44
2)
C
on
st
ra
in
ed
m
od
el
�
2
(d
f
�
44
3)
�
�
2
(d
f
�
1)
St
an
da
rd
iz
ed
co
ef
fi
ci
en
ts
t-
va
lu
e
St
an
da
rd
iz
ed
co
ef
fi
ci
en
ts
t-
va
lu
e
T
as
k
co
pi
ng
¡
T
ur
no
ve
r
in
te
nt
�
0.
14
�
2.
02
*
�
0.
37
�
4.
09
**
*
1,
07
4.
08
1,
07
6.
91
2.
83
n
s
E
m
ot
io
n
co
pi
ng
¡
T
ur
no
ve
r
in
te
nt
0.
40
5.
56
**
*
0.
01
0.
18
n
s
1,
07
4.
08
1,
09
0.
57
16
.4
9*
A
vo
id
an
ce
co
pi
ng
¡
T
ur
no
ve
r
in
te
nt
0.
12
1.
63
n
s
0.
28
3.
37
**
*
1,
07
4.
08
1,
07
5.
60
1.
52
n
s
N
o
te
s:
�
2
�
1,
07
4.
08
(d
f
�
44
2)
p
�
0.
00
1;
�
2
/d
f
�
2.
43
;G
F
I
�
0.
80
;N
F
I
�
0.
84
;T
L
I
�
0.
88
;C
F
I
�
0.
90
;I
F
I
�
0.
90
;R
M
S
E
A
�
0.
06
;
*
p
�
0.
05
;
**
*
p
�
0.
00
1,
n
s :
no
t
si
gn
ifi
ca
nt
297
Regulatory
focus in stress
coping styles
As for the link between stress-coping styles and turnover intent, the influence of
stress-coping styles on turnover intent was significant. In more detail, the result was
consistent with those of other studies in that employees’ stress-coping styles in the form
of task-oriented problem-solving decreased their turnover intent (Folkman and Lazarus,
1980; Nicholls et al., 2012). However, their emotion- and avoidance-coping styles
increased their turnover intent (Boyd et al., 2009; Shevaune, 2003). One can infer that
task-coping styles are active strategies for resolving problems and reducing turnover
intent, whereas emotion- and avoidance-coping styles heighten turnover intent by
increasing emotional exhaustion. One key result obtained in this study is that those with
a promotion focus used task-coping styles that decreased their turnover intent. Another
aspect is that a prevention focus increased employees’ turnover intent by influencing
their emotion- and avoidance-coping styles. This is a meaningful result because it
verified Higgins’ (2000) theory that promotion focus concerns humans’ positive results
and prevention focus concerns their negative results through its application to hotel
employees.
In addition, in stressful situations, employees’ emotion-coping style resulted in a
greater increase in turnover intent among those with fewer than 10 years of work
experience than those with more than 10 years. This was partially consistent with the
results of Goldenberg and Waddell (1990), Bennett et al. (1997) and Elahi and Apoorva
(2012), who found that, compared to employees with a long tenure, those with a short
tenure coped with stressful situations emotionally and, as a result, their turnover intent
increased.
5.2 Theoretical implications
This study examined the regulatory focus of employees working in five-star hotels to
verify the different effects of employees’ regulatory focus on stress-coping styles and
turnover intent. Theoretical implications of this study can be considered largely in the
context of three aspects.
First, the characteristic propensity of the hotel industry was reflected by performing
research targeting hotel employees. Studies to date have largely examined causal
relationships between employees’ regulatory focus and their stress-coping style in
organizations in the service industry. However, this study examined employees’
regulatory focus, stress-coping styles and turnover intent, which have not been
investigated in the existing research on the hotel industry, using the regulatory focus
theory that recently came into the spotlight. At this point, based on the theory that
employee turnover decreases when employees are motivated by strategies
corresponding to their regulatory focus, this study examined whether hotel employees’
promotion focus significantly influenced their task-coping style (positive stress-coping
style) and whether their prevention focus had a significant effect on their emotion- and
avoidance-coping styles (negative stress-coping styles). This study contributes to
activating research on hotel employees’ regulatory focus. In particular, hotel
employees – as members of the service industry – are likely to be exposed to stress; they
often come into direct contact with customers because the occupational group
performing emotional labor in this work situation is the hotel (Lee et al., 2012).
Accordingly, compared to other industries, hotel employees are excessively forced to
deal with expressed emotions (Lam and Chen, 2012). Thus, employees’ regulatory focus
IJCHM
27,2
298
and an efficient coping style for stress in hotel employees’ job situations play an
important role in reducing their turnover intent.
Second, regulatory focus was used as an important variable available for reducing
employees’ stress and turnover intent. Most of the research has considered the difference
based on character or value system as an individual characteristic. However, this study
is significant for having performed research by using a characteristic variable dubbed
regulatory focus. In particular, as the regulatory focus is a motivational variable that
influences people’s emotions, thoughts and behavior, it functions as an important
psychological mechanism that causes and perpetuates employees’ behavior within an
organization. Through this study, this regulatory focus was considered to be the
important variable in considering employees’ coping style and employees’ turnover
intent. Also, applying an expanded regulatory focus theory, which has been so far
focused on the consumer behavior dimension, to the context of employees within an
organization was significant.
Third, the study considered causality between regulatory focus and
stress-coping style and turnover intent. A noteworthy body of research involving
regulatory focus has questioned whether a correlation between coping style and
turnover intent exists. However, nothing in research has considered causality
among three variables on the basis of employees’ psychological condition. The
present study associated employees’ stress-coping styles with their regulatory focus
and showed that different stress-coping styles might be derived using such
regulatory focus and the resulting turnover intent might also be different.
Therefore, the study results can provide a theoretical basis for understanding
relationships among regulatory focus, stress-copying styles and turnover intent as
such research is relatively lacking.
Finally, this study is also meaningful in that it applied the regulatory focus theory
centered on customer behaviors to employees and verified the moderating effect of
tenure between coping styles and turnover intent.
5.3 Practical implications
Most people dislike stress. They have their own coping styles given the occurrence of stress
in a working situation. Which style do most people use to cope with stress? One person may
have the choice of accepting risk to cope with a situation dubbed stress, while another may
have a safer choice. The regulatory focus can be the representative motive theory to explain
the behaviors of employees within organizations. Will there be a difference in coping method
in a stressful situation based on employees’ regulatory focus? Also, will employees’ turnover
intent vary depending on the style of coping with stress? This study has significant
implications for practice. In short, based on the premise that individuals’ different regulatory
focus leads to differing stress-coping styles and resulting differences in turnover intent, it is
necessary to discriminatively apply employee assistance programs or job programs to each
individual.
In conclusion, an individual enhances his/her motives and behaviors in pursuit of
a strategy to conform more with his/her regulatory focus (Brenninkmeijer et al.,
2010; Lockwood et al., 2002). The promotion focus is very similar to the positive
emotion dubbed pleasure (Tamir, 2005); a pleasurable atmosphere encourages
achievement and improvement to reduce turnover intent. On the other hand, for
299
Regulatory
focus in stress
coping styles
those with a strong prevention focus, it is necessary to introduce training programs
to prepare them in advance so that they do not feel anxious and to induce them to
cope with stress actively. To this end, if the prevention focus is significant, the
tendency to be afraid of and avoid the dangerous situation becomes evident. Thus,
promotion of an emotion-related program is considered likely to contribute to
positive job attitudes so that employees can work in a comfortable atmosphere with
emotional stability. In addition, as the Myers–Briggs type indicator and Big Five
model are used for employees’ training and education or development, seeking
measures to assess and use the regulatory focus that affects their behavior
is important. Furthermore, given that employees with a high prevention focus
negatively cope with stressful situations, hotels should devise a continuous
participation program designed to help employees develop positive attitudes
regarding their work situation through stress control that is offered by professional
counselors.
This study also verified that stress-coping styles have different influences on
turnover intent. Employees’ task-coping style, characterized by the reasonable
resolution of and response to problems through tasks, negatively affected turnover
intent, whereas the emotion- and avoidance-coping style positively influenced
turnover intent. Thus, when faced with a stressful situation, those with a
task-coping style oriented toward problem-solving adapt more swiftly to the
situation than those who emotionally avoid the problem or emotionally respond to it;
accordingly, the former’s possibility of engaging in negative behaviors decreases.
These results suggest that active task oriented stress-coping styles can reduce
turnover intent and induce job satisfaction. Thus, hotels should seek to conduct
appropriate stress-coping training at the organizational level, provide styles their
employees can use to cope with and overcome stress effectively and adopt styles to
reduce negative behavior and turnover intent. To achieve these goals, managers
should provide continuous exchange or feedback so that their subordinates can cope
with stressful situations in a positive way. More specifically, they should
understand that stress is not a negative thing and, if efficiently managed, it can act
as an important factor in reducing job transfer. Virtual education using video or
other the Internet media can be provided to enhance employees’ efficiency in coping
with stress. In addition, it is important to manage stress to manage performance.
Employees who manage stress efficiently can be selected as role models, and
sufficient incentives or rewards can be provided to them so that other employees are
motivated. Furthermore, for strategic stress management, supporting employees’
cultural or leisure life by, for example, activating sports clubs or introducing
mentoring or coaching programs is necessary. In particular, there is a need to offer
opportunities for employees to directly select a mentor or coaching object, not a
uniform mentoring or coaching program.
According to the results of the present study, employees whose tenure was shorter
than 10 years had higher turnover intent than those with longer tenure. Based on such a
result, hotels should offer training in stress coping and emotion management to those
with tenure shorter than 10 years, as well as practical advice so that they can devote
themselves to their organization and perform their duties in such a way that they find
gratification in their employment.
IJCHM
27,2
300
5.4 Limitations and future research
Despite its important implications, this study has several limitations that need to be
addressed. First, the sample consisted of hospitality industry employees working at
five-star hotels. In addition, the sampling rate of employees at FOH departments
who directly contact customers among hotel employees was relatively small. Also,
the sample of this study is located in the East Asia (in South Korea), which likely
reflected the characteristic propensity in the oriental culture that tries to pursue
avoidant behavior rather than being dangerous and challenging in the case of
synchronizing it with the prevention focus (Oh and Ha, 2010). Therefore, the
generalizability of the results might be limited to employees in particular categories.
A future study that comparatively analyzes hotels and companies in other areas of
the hospitality industry would be meaningful. Second, regulatory focus might result
in differences due to cultural differences (Lockwood et al., 2005; Uskul et al., 2009);
therefore, it is necessary to take these differences into consideration according to the
respondents’ various cultural spheres. Third, the sample size of female employees
was too small, making it difficult to generalize the results. Fourth, because of the
self-report survey used in this study, limitations might exist due to common method
bias or the lack of objectivity. Fifth, because of the lack of prior studies examining
regulatory focus and stress-coping styles, this study inferred association between
personality characteristics and regulatory focus, thereby complementing its
hypotheses on stress-coping styles. Therefore, future research examining
associations between personality characteristics and regulatory focus and looking
at different stress-coping styles is suggested. Sixth, considering the significant
relationship with regulatory focus, stress-coping strategy and turnover intention
according to emotional labor level of being perceived by employees is considered to
be a likely significant attempt as a follow-up research. This study only examined
employees’ regulatory focus, stress-coping styles and personal turnover intent;
future research should deeply examine associations between the variables and
organizations’ actual management performance.
References
Adler, N.J. (1983), “A typology of management studies involving culture”, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 29-47.
Aldwin, C.M. and Revension, T.A. (1987), “Does coping help? A reexamination of the relation
between coping and mental health”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53
No. 2, pp. 337-348.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Arnold, M.J. and Reynolds, K.E. (2009), “Affect and retail shopping behavior: understanding the
role of mood regulation and regulatory focus”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 85 No. 3,
pp. 308-320.
Bagozzi, R. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structure equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Benjamin, L. and Flynn, F.J. (2006), “Leadership style and regulatory mode: value from fit?”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 216-230.
301
Regulatory
focus in stress
coping styles
Bennett, H., Boshoff, A. and Rigby, C. (1997), “The relationship between tenure stress and coping
strategies of South African immigrants to New Zealand”, South African Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 160-165.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1980), “Significance test and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588-606.
Boyd, N.G., Lewin, J.E. and Sager, J.K. (2009), “A model of stress and coping and their influence on
individual and organizational outcomes”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 75 No. 2,
pp. 197-211.
Brebner, J. (2001), “Personality and stress coping”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 31
No. 3, pp. 317-327.
Brenninkmeijer, V., Demerouti, E., Blanc, P.M. and Emmerik, I.J.H. (2010), “Regulatory focus at
work: the moderating role of regulatory focus in the job demands-resources model”, Career
Development International, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 708-728.
Brislin, R.W. (1980), “Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials”, in
Triandis, H.C. and Berry, J.W. (Eds), Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology, Allyn and
Bacon, MA, Vol. 2, pp. 137-164.
Brockner, J. and Higgins, E.T. (2001), “Regulatory focus theory: implications for the study of emotions
at work”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 35-66.
Brown, S.P. and Peterson, R.A. (1993), “Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job
satisfaction: meta-analysis and assessment of causal effects”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 63-77.
Burgess, L., Irvine, F. and Wallymahmed, A. (2010), “Personality, stress and coping in
intensive care nurses: a descriptive exploratory study”, Nursing in Critical Care, Vol. 15
No. 3, pp. 129-140.
Callan, V.J., Terry, D.J. and Schweitzer, R. (1994), “Coping resources, coping strategies and
adjustment to organizational change: direct or buffering effects?”, Work and Stress, Vol. 8
No. 1, pp. 372-383.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D. and Klesh, J. (1979), The Michigan Organizational Assessment
Questionnaire, Unpublished Manuscript, University of Michigan, Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Carmona, C., Buunk, A.P., Peiró, J.M., Rodríguez, I. and Bravo, M.J. (2006), “Do social comparison
and coping styles play a role in the development of burnout? Cross-sectional and
longitudinal findings”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 79
No. 1, pp. 85-99.
Chan, D.W. (2003), “Hardiness and its role in the stress-burnout relationship among
prospective Chinese teachers in Hong Kong”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 19
No. 4, pp. 381-395.
Chang, E.M., Daly, J.W., Hancock, K.M., Bidewell, J., Johnson, A., Lambert, V.A. and Lambert, C.E.
(2006), “The relationships among workplace stressors, coping methods, demographic
characteristics, and health in Australian nurses”, Journal of Professional Nursing, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 30-38.
Chiang, F.F.T., Birtch, T.A. and Kwan, H.K. (2010), “The moderating roles of job control and
work-life balance practices on employee stress in the hotel and catering industry”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 25-32.
Chou, H.Y. and Lien, N.H. (2012), “The effects of incentive types and appeal regulatory
framing in travel advertising”, The Service Industrial Journal, Vol. 32 No. 6,
pp. 883-897.
IJCHM
27,2
302
Crowe, W. and Higgins, E.T. (1997), “Regulatory focus and strategic inclination: promotion and
prevention in decision marketing”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 117-132.
Elahi, Y.A. and Apoorva, M. (2012), “A detail study on length of service and role stress of banking
sector in Lucknow region”, Research Journal of Management Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 5,
pp. 15-18.
Endler, N.S. and Parker, J.D.A. (1994), “Assessment of multidimensional coping: task, emotion,
and avoidance strategies”, Psychological Assessment, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 50-60.
Folkman, S. and Lazarus, R.S. (1980), “An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community
sample”, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 219-239.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Frydenberg, E. and Lewis, R. (2004), “Adolescents least able to cope: how do they respond to their
stresses?”, British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 25-37.
Furlani, F. (2005), “Stress and personality: how personality factors correlate with coping styles”,
European Psychiatry, Vol. 20 No. 1, p. S196.
Gino, F. and Margolis, J.D. (2011), “Bringing ethics into focus: how regulatory focus and risk
preferences influence (Un) ethical behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 115 No. 2, pp. 145-156.
Golbasi, Z., Kelleci, M. and Dogan, S. (2008), “Relationships between coping strategies, individual
characteristics and job satisfaction in a sample of hospital nurses: cross-sectional
questionnaire survey”, International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 45 No. 12,
pp. 1800-1806.
Goldenberg, D. and Waddell, J. (1990), “Occupational stress and coping strategies among
female baccalaureate nursing faculty”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 15 No. 5,
pp. 531-543.
Gorman, C.A., Meriac, J.P., Overstreet, B.L., Apodaca, S., McIntyre, A.L., Park, P. and
Godbey, J.N. (2012), “A meta-analysis of the regulatory focus nomological network:
work-related antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 80
No. 1, pp. 160-172.
Gupta, R. and Derevensky, J.L. (2001), “An examination of the differential coping styles of
adolescents with gambling problems”, Report to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term
Care, pp. 1-74.
Harman, H.H. (1967), Modern Factor Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Higgins, E.T. (1997), “Beyond pleasure and pain”, American Psychologist, Vol. 52 No. 12,
pp. 1280-1300.
Higgins, E.T. (2000), “Marketing a good decision: value from fit”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55
No. 11, pp. 1217-1230.
Higgins, E.T., Roney, C., Crowe, E. and Hymes, C. (1994), “Ideal versus ought predilections for
approach and avoidance: distinct self-regulatory systems”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 276-286.
Higgins, E.T. and Tykocinski, O. (1992), “Self-discrepancies and biographical memory:
personality and cognition at the level of psychological situation”, Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 527-535.
Higgins, J.E. and Endler, N. (1995), “Coping, life stress, and psychological and somatic distress”,
European Journal of Personality, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 253-270.
303
Regulatory
focus in stress
coping styles
Holahan, C.J., Holahan, C.K., Moos, R.H., Brennan, P.L. and Schutte, K.K. (2005), “Stress
generation, avoidance coping, and depressive symptoms: a 10-year model”, Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 658-666.
Holtom, B.C., Mitchell, T.R., Lee, T.W. and Eberly, M.B. (2008), “Turnover and retention research:
a glance at the past, a closer review of the present and a venture into the future”, The
Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 231-274.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6,
pp. 1-55.
Idson, L.C., Liberman, N. and Higgins, E.T. (2000), “Distinguishing gains from non-losses and
losses from non-gains: a regulatory focus perspective of hedonic intensity”, Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 36 Nos 7/81, pp. 252-274.
Jain, R. and Jain, S. (2005), “Towards relational exchange in services marketing: insights from
hospitality industry”, Journal of Services Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 139-150.
Jing, W. and Lee, A.Y. (2006), “The role of regulatory focus in preference construction”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 28-38.
Jung, H.S., Kim, Y.J. and Yoon, H.H. (2012), “Effects of culinary employees’ role stress on burnout
and turnover intention in hotel industry”, The Service Industrial Journal, Vol. 32 No. 13,
pp. 2145-2165.
Karatepe, O.M. and Karatepe, T. (2010), “Role stress, emotional exhaustion, and turnover
intentions: does organizational tenure in hotels matter?”, Journal of Human Resources in
Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Kim, H.J. (2008), “Hotel service providers’ emotional labor: the antecedents and effects on
burnout”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 151-161.
Kim, H.J. and Agrusa, J. (2011), “Hospitality service employees’ coping styles: the role of emotional
intelligence, two basic personality traits, and socio-demographic factors”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 588-598.
Kim, Y.H. (2010), “The effects of foodservice employee’s job stressors on job satisfaction and
turnover intention: focused on social support and coping strategies”, The Korean Journal of
Culinary Research, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 206-219.
Kumar, M. and Singh, S. (2012), “Roles of perceived exchange quality and organisational
identification in predicting turnover intention”, IIMB Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 5-15.
Lam, W. and Chen, Z. (2012), “When I put on my service mask: determinants and outcomes of
emotional labor among hotel service providers according to affective event theory”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 3-11.
Latack, J.C. and Havlovic, S.J. (1992), “Coping with job stress: a conceptual evaluation framework
for coping measures”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13, pp. 479-508.
Laurie, K. (2012), “A work simulation study examining regulatory focus as a moderator of the
work control-stress relationship: implications for health and well-being”, Honours Thesis,
School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984), Stress, Appraisal and Coping, Springer, New York, NY.
Leandro, P.G. and Castillo, M.D. (2010), “Coping with stress and its relationship with personality
dimensions, anxiety, and depression”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 1562-1573.
Lee, G.H., Kim, T.G., Shin, S.H. and Oh, I.K. (2012), “The managed heart: the structural analysis of
the stressor–strain relationship and customer orientation among emotional labor workers
IJCHM
27,2
304
in Korean hotels”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 1067-1082.
Lee, J.Q., McInerney, D.M., Liem, G.A.D. and Ortiga, Y.P. (2010), “The relationship between future
goals and achievement goal orientations: an intrinsic– extrinsic motivation perspective”,
Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 267-279.
Lee, R.T. and Ashforth, B.E. (1996), “A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the
three-dimensions of burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 123-133.
Liu, P.C. and Chou, H.W. (2006), “The effects of Personal Characteristics, stress coping styles, job
self-efficacy on IT professionals’ burnout”, Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on
Knowledge Economy and Electronic Commerce, pp. 109-125.
Lockwood, P., Jordan, C.H. and Kunda, Z. (2002), “Motivation by positive or negative role models:
regulatory focus determines who will best inspire US”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 4, pp. 854-864.
Lockwood, P., Marshall, T.C. and Sadler, P. (2005), “Promoting success or preventing failure:
cultural differences in motivation by positive and negative role models”, Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 379-392.
Macy, B.A. and Mirivis, P.H. (1976), “A methodology assessment of quality of work life and
organizational effectiveness in behavioral-economic terms”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 212-226.
Marjan, L. and Nasrin, A. (2010), “Nursing and coping with stress”, International Journal of
Collaborative Research on Internal Medicine & Public Health, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 168-181.
Markovits, Y., Ullrich, J., Dick, R.V. and Davis, A.J. (2008), “Regulatory foci and organizational
commitment”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 485-489.
Matthews, G. and Campbell, S.E. (1998), “Task-induced stress and individual differences in
coping”, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting,
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, pp. 821-825.
Matthews, G., Emo, A.K., Funke, G., Zeidner, M., Roberts, R.D. and Costa, P.T. Jr. (2006),
“Emotional intelligence, personality, and task-induced stress”, Emotion, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 96-107.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1984), “Testing the side-bet theory of organizational commitment: some
methodological considerations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 372-378.
Morris, J.A. and Feldman, D.C. (1996), “The dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of
emotional labor”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 986-1010.
Nicholls, A.R., Polman, R.C.J. and Levy, A.R. (2012), “A path analysis of stress appraisals,
emotions, coping, and performance satisfaction among athletes”, Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 263-270.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oh, S.H. and Ha, J.H. (2010), “The effects of regulatory focus, work motivation, self-efficacy, on
psychological well-being and work performance in employees’ of public enterprise”, The
Korean Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 515-532.
O’Neill, J.W. and Davis, K. (2011), “Work stress and well-being in the hotel industry”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 385-390.
Parker, P.D. and Martin, A.J. (2009), “Coping and buoyancy in the workplace: understanding their
effects on teachers’ work-related well-being and engagement”, Teaching and Teacher
Education, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 68-75.
305
Regulatory
focus in stress
coping styles
Parker, P.D. and Martin, A.J. (2011), “Clergy motivation and occupational well-being: exploring a
quadripolar model and its role in predicting burnout and engagement”, Journal of Religion
and Health, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 656-674.
Pearlin, L. and Schooler, C. (1978), “The structure of coping”, Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, Vol. 19 No. 1, 2-21.
Pham, M.T. and Avnet, T. (2004), “Ideals and oughts and the reliance on affect versus substance
in persuasion”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, 626-640.
Pham, M.T. and Chang, H.H. (2010), “Regulatory focus, regulatory fit and the search and
consideration of choice alternatives”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Pham, M.T. and Trudel, R. (2008), “Advances in regulatory focus and regulatory fit theory: effects
on consumer search, consumer satisfaction, and self-control”, Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 229-232.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioural research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Price, J.L. (1977), The Study of Turnover, Iowa State University Press, Ames.
Sassenberg, K. and Scholl, A. (2013), “If I can do it my way the influence of regulatory focus on
job-related values and job attraction”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 1,
pp. 58-70.
Seashore, S.E., Lawler, E.E., Mirvis, P.H. and Cammann, C. (1982), Observing and Measuring
Organizational Change: A Guide to Field Practice, John Wiley and Sons Publishers, New
York, NY.
Shah, J., Higgins, E.T. and Friedman, R.S. (1998), “Performance incentives and means: how
regulatory focus influences goal attainment”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 285-293.
Shevaune, M. (2003), “Stress, coping and turnover: a comparative study between nurses working
in a hospital intensive care and emergency department”, Honours Thesis, School of
Business, The University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Som, A. and Lee, Y.H. (2012), “The joint effects of choice assortment and regulatory focus on
choice behavior”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 202-209.
Steer, R.J. and Porter, L.W. (1991), Motivation and Work-behavior, 5th ed., MacGraw-Hill, London.
Tamar, A. and Higgins, E.T. (2006), “How regulatory fit affects value in consumer choice and
opinions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Tamir, M. (2005), “Don’t worry, be happy? Neuroticism, trait-consistent affect regulation, and
performance”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 449-461.
Trudel, R., Murray, K.B. and Cotte, J. (2012), “Beyond expectations: the effect of regulatory focus
on consumer satisfaction”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 93-97.
Uskul, A., K. Sherman, D.K. and Fitzgibbon, J. (2009), “The cultural congruency effect: culture,
regulatory focus and the effectiveness of gain- vs. loss-framed health messages”, Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 535-541.
Vaughn, L.A., Baumann, J. and Klemann, C. (2008), “Openness to Experience and regulatory focus:
evidence of motivation from fit”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 42 No. 4,
pp. 886-894.
IJCHM
27,2
306
Vianen, A.E.M., Klehe, U.C., Koen, J. and Dries, N. (2012), “Career adapt-abilities scale –
Netherlands form: psychometric properties and relationships to ability, personality,
and regulatory focus”. Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 716-724.
Wan, L.C., Chan, E.K.Y. and Su, L. (2011), “When will customers care about service failures that
happened to strangers? The role of personal similarity and regulatory focus and its
implication on service evaluation”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 213-220.
Welbourne, J.L., Eggerth, D., Hartley, T.A., Andrew, M.E. and Sanchez, F. (2007), “Coping
strategies in the workplace: relationships with attributional style and job satisfaction”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 312-325.
Zhao, X. and Namasivayam, K. (2012), “The relationship of chronic regulatory focus to
work-family conflict and job satisfaction”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 458-467.
Corresponding author
Hye Hyun Yoon can be contacted at: hhyun@khu.ac.kr
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
307
Regulatory
focus in stress
coping styles
mailto:hhyun@khu.ac.kr
mailto:permissions@emeraldinsight.com
- Understanding regulatory focuses
1. Introduction
2. Literature review and conceptual model
2.1 Regulatory focus, stress-coping styles and turnover intent
2.2 Relationship between regulatory focus and stress-coping styles
2.2.1 Promotion focus and stress-coping styles
2.2.2 Prevention focus and stress-coping styles
2.3 Relationship between stress-coping styles and turnover intent
2.4 Moderating effects of employees’ tenure
3. Research methodology
3.1 Procedure and participants
3.2 Instrument development
3.3 Analysis
4. Results
4.1 Measurement model
4.2 Structural equation modeling
4.3 The moderating effect of employees’ tenure
5. Discussion and conclusion
5.1 Conclusion
5.2 Theoretical implications
5.3 Practical implications
5.4 Limitations and future research
References