Bachelor Thesis
Work-life Balance:
The influence of Job Stress, Extraversion, and Neuroticism on achieving Work-life Balance
Name: Sietje Johanna Willy (Josien) Flikweert Student number: 11318953
Date of submission: 19/06/2020 Program track: Management in the digital age
Institution: University of Amsterdam Supervisor: Joanna Sosnowska
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Sietje Johanna Willy Flikweert who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no other sources than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
The increase in job stress and burnouts among employees and the rising costs related to work-stress related absenteeism, has led to the importance of research towards job-related stress and work-life balance. Previous studies about job stressors focused primarily on work-life conflict and gave little insights on the impact of individual characteristics. The aim of this study was to examine if the personality traits extraversion and neuroticism had a moderating effect on the relationship between job stress and work-life balance satisfaction. In this quantitative study, data was used from 163 employees who completed our questionnaire about work-life balance, job stress, and personality traits. The results indicated that there was a negative relationship between job stress and work-life balance. However, this relationship was not moderated by either extraversion or neuroticism although extraversion showed to have a significant correlation with both job stress and work-life balance. Altogether, this research confirmed the importance to reduce job stress in order to obtain work-life balance satisfaction.
Index Statement of Originality ... 1 Abstract ... 2 Index ... 3 Introduction ... 4 Theoretical framework ... 6 Job stress ... 6 Work-life balance ... 8 Personality ... 10 Methods ... 13
Sample and procedure ... 13
Measures ... 14
Analytic plan ... 16
Results ... 16
Correlations ... 16
Assumptions for regression ... 18
Simple linear regression ... 20
Moderation ... 20
Discussion ... 21
Practical implications for the manager ... 25
Limitations and further research ... 26
Conclusion ... 27
References ... 29
Appendix A: Data Outputs ... 39
Introduction
Personal work-life balance has always been an important indicator of people’s well-being and their quality of life. However, in recent years the work-part seems to dominate this balance. Compared to a decade ago, employees experience more psychosocial pressure due to an increase in workload and less autonomy (TNO, 2019). This makes it more difficult for them to combine their work-life with their home-life. Because people feel easily stressed and tasks such as running a household and taking care of the children can take up a lot of time (Social and Cultural Planning Agency, 2018), it is important to achieve the right balance between work and home life.
Furthermore, job stress is often a reason for absenteeism. For example, Hooftman et al. (2019) reported that job stress was in 37% of the cases the reason why Dutch employees did not show up to work. Although the problems of high workload and work pressure are
recognized by many employers, most of them had no solutions to reduce this at that moment. On the other hand, more than half of the employees (57%) have indicated that they wanted help to tackle their workload and achieve a better balance between their home- and work-life (Arbobalans, TNO & CBS, 2019). Although coping with stress has negative consequences for the health of the employee, it has implications for the organization as well. This is shown by the costs of work-related stress absenteeism which have risen to 2.8 billion euros per year and will even rise in the future (TNO, 2019).
Most of the research about work-life balance has primarily focused on the opposite of this: work-life conflict. As Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) stated, people can experience work-life conflict when the time devoted to one role leads to difficulty in performing another role, e.g. time for family or leisure. Strains such as anxiety and tension can lead to the same outcomes. Other studies confirmed this concept by showing that job stressors such as work overload, role conflict, and role ambiguity lead to a poorer work-life balance (Skinner &
Pocock, 2008; Schwab & Iwanicki, (1982). Besides, other studies have indicated that stress and lack of enjoyment could lead to a decrease in an individual’s well-being (Pichler, 2009; Bell, Rajendran & Theiler, 2012). Therefore, it is important to pay attention to work-life balance because it has direct implications for people’s mental health.
For a long time, the notion that individuals respond differently to their environment has been ignored (Zellars, Perrewe & Hochwarter, 2000). This is also applicable to job stress; not every individual experience the same levels of stress in the same circumstances. Crooker, Smith & Tabak (2002) identified that different personalities act differently towards uncertain situations at work and that this had implications for work-life balance satisfaction.
Furthermore, multiple researchers found a relationship between personal characteristics and job stress. In some studies, the personality trait neuroticism came up as a predictor of job stress, which in some cases led to signs of a burn-out (Kokkinos, 2007; Wang, Repetti & Campos, 2011). Other studies about people’s general well-being confirmed that neuroticism had a negative effect on mental health (Costa & McCrea, 1987; Verduyn & Brans,
2012). Extraversion, another personality trait of the Big Five Model, showed to have a positive relationship with both personal work-life balance and mental health (Lamers, Westerhof, Kovács & Bohlmeijer, 2012).
This raises the question of whether the personality traits neuroticism and extraversion of the Big Five Model can be seen as moderators in the relationship between job stress and work-life balance satisfaction. Because the employee’s health and their well-being are growing in importance, the purpose of this research is to identify the impact of personality dimensions on the relationship between job stress and work-life balance satisfaction. This paper tries to answer the following research question:
The study contributes to the present literature about work-life balance satisfaction and how to achieve work-life balance satisfaction. Secondly, it advances the theoretical
understanding concerning how personality traits have an impact on how employees act and see things differently. Lastly, focusing on personal characteristics can help to identify individuals who are prone to stress/burnout.
The paper reviews some theories and research on job stress, personality traits, and work-life balance. Furthermore, the results of a questionnaire about job stress, personality traits, and work-life balance satisfaction will be included, and the results will be compared to the theories described in the theoretical framework. The results will lead to guidelines for managers on how to reduce job stress and optimize work-life balance, using the different personal characteristics of their employees.
Theoretical framework Job stress
The international business world is expanding at an increasing pace. Because of globalization and digitalization, there are fewer trade barriers and fewer transportation costs. As a result, many firms feel the pressure to expand abroad (Hill & Hult, 2008). However, to stay ahead of competitors, it is necessary to work hard and as efficiently as possible. This continuing pressure to innovate and expand can lead to an increase in workload and less autonomy, which are both indicators for job stress. However, this is not only a problem for international businesses: small businesses are also struggling with this challenge of finding a balance between working hard and creating a healthy work environment (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2018).
Job stressors and job strains. According to Spector (1998), stress related to work can be divided into two major parts: job stressors and job strains. Job stressors can be seen as an organizational factor that provokes a negative emotional response such as anger, frustration, or anxiety. Job strains are the reputed results of the exposure to stressors, which can include physical illness and psychological distress (Chen & Spector, 1991). Multiple studies have agreed on the variables which act as organizational stressors: distinguishing between job-related stressors and extra-organizational stressors. Cooper & Marshall (1978) have identified the following categories: stressors intrinsic to the job (poor work conditions, work overload, keeping up with rapid technological change), role in the organization (role ambiguity, role conflict, too much or too little responsibility) and career development (lack of promotion-opportunities). Furthermore, they also identified a category that looked at relationships with superiors and colleagues. Overall, they found that when employees had a positive
understanding of their superiors and colleagues, they had a positive feeling about the organization as a whole. Lastly, various problems that happen to people outside their work environment can also lead to an increase in job stress (Dua, 1994). Examples for this are family problems, financial difficulties, and the lack of social support.
The mentioned job stressors can all lead to job strains. Strains can be classified into three subcategories: poor physical health (increased pulse rate, high blood pressure, high cholesterol levels), poor mental health (low motivation, lowered self-esteem, escapist drinking) and organizational symptoms (low productivity, absenteeism, high staff turnover) (Cooper & Marshall, 1978).
Impact of digitalization. Although these stressors are still relevant nowadays, due to digitalization there is a new factor that influences job stress: the use of communication
makes it more feasible to stay connected to work. As a result, employees are sometimes expected to be available after office hours to answer phone calls or emails. This has led to many employees still working in their evenings and weekends, even when they are formally “off the job”. Furthermore, smartphones can easily interrupt or distract an individual at any moment (Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007). Because of this, the line between home life and work becomes blurred, creating more stress because of the work-life conflict. This can also lead to low motivation, more stress, and poorer personal relationships.
Work-life balance
Conceptualizations. One example of a job stressor that can lead to a strain is work-life conflict (Adams & Jex, 1999). Work-work-life balance (WLB), on the other hand, is a concept that focuses on the quality of work-life and its relation to the quality of life (Guest, 2002). However, there are several opinions about what exactly can be understood by this concept. Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) defined work-life balance as finding equal time or satisfaction across multiple roles. When there is not enough time to perform multiple roles (e.g. time for family or time for work), they see this as work-life conflict. Their study focused primarily on time balance, involvement balance and satisfaction balance. Other researchers have focused more on the satisfaction balance. Kirchmeyer (2000) saw work-life balance as “achieving satisfying experiences in all life domains”, in which resources such as time, energy, and commitment should be divided equally. Besides these definitions, there are also studies that indicated that equality of time and satisfaction loses its relevance when the salience of certain roles change because of various life changes (e.g. a promotion, a divorce, pregnancy)
(Kalliath & Brough, 2008). In addition, having a certain degree of autonomy about how to control the multiple roles can also be seen as a concept related to achieving WLB (Fleetwood, 2007). To conclude, despite some differences, all definitions stated a clear focus on the
individuals’ consideration of how to divide time and energy between the home- and work-life, relative to their circumstances (Reiter, 2007).
Work-life balance from a managerial perspective. Additionally, when employees
are satisfied with their WLB, this has multiple benefits for both the employer and the
organization. Firstly, work-life balance satisfaction has shown to have a positive relationship with employee engagement. This indirectly influences the organization, because this leads to higher organizational performance and a decrease in job stress and burn-out complaints (Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014; Parkes & Langford, 2008). Secondly, work-life balance is also positively associated with both job satisfaction and life satisfaction (Haar, Russo, Suñe & Ollier-Malaterre, 2014). In addition, WLB satisfaction is also related to more productivity and fewer turnovers and absenteeism (Bell et al., 2008). Finally, besides the positive outcomes for the work environment, work-life satisfaction also has a positive outcome for non-work
activities, e.g. having a good relationship with friends and family (Abendroth & Den Dulk, 2011).
The initiative widely used by firms to help their employees find the balance of work- and home life is workplace flexibility. Hill, Erickson, Holmes & Ferris (2010) stated in their research that work-at-home in combination with schedule flexibility resulted in less work-life conflict and had a positive effect on productivity. Besides, workplace flexibility also has the beneficial effect that it helps to reduce workload stress.
Work-life conflict and subjective well-being. Lastly, as mentioned before, work-life balance is a broad concept that includes the combination of the emotional, behavioral, and time demands of paid employment with family, hobbies, and other personal activities (Bell et
their job to perform their other role as a parent, spouse, or friend. Furthermore, if they are too stressed to make time for personal relaxation, it can result in less enjoyment in general (Pichler, 2009). Because work-life conflict and role conflict influence work-life balance, the first hypothesis is:
H1: Job stress has a negative effect on personal work-life balance satisfaction.
Personality
The Big Five. Crooker et al. (2002) identified that different personalities act
differently towards uncertain situations at work, which in turn has an impact on the work-life balance satisfaction.A way of describing personality is by using the Big Five personality traits. This model states that most characteristics can be described through the following five personality dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and Openness to experience (Goldberg, 1990).This research is focused on the Extraversion dimensions and the Neuroticism dimensions because previous studies showed that both personality traits have a strong correlation with subjective well-being and happiness (Lamers et al., 2012, Verduyn & Brans, 2012).
Extraversion, neuroticism and, subjective well-being. There are many studies about neuroticism and extraversion which look at these personality traits in comparison with mental health. People who score high on the extraversion scale often experience intense positive emotions for a long time. In contrast, people who score high on the neuroticism scale experience often negative emotions for a long time (Verduyn & Brans, 2012). However, another study about happiness and mental health stated that extraversion and neuroticism are not each other’s opposites when it comes to experiencing happiness. Neither there was proof that more of one characteristic means less of the other (Costa & McCrae, 1980). This
confirms that people can experience both high levels of neuroticism and high levels of extraversion.
Extraversion. A high level of extraversion is associated with being talkative, active,
assertive, social, and gregarious (Goldberg, 1990). This personality trait is also related to being cheerful, optimistic, and energetic (Zellars et al., 2000). On the contrary, introverts (individuals who score low on extraversion) are seen as quiet, shy, reserved, and silent. Watson & Clark (1997) stated that extraverts, compared to introverts, view themselves as more positively engaged in situations in life. They also argued that there are six features related to extraversion. These features are (1) being venturesome (feelings of excitement, desire for change), (2) affiliation (feelings of warmth), (3) positive affective (feelings of joy and enthusiasm), (4) energy (feeling active and energetic), (5) ascendance (feeling
dominant) and (6) ambition (discipline, valuing achievement). Pavot, Diener & Fuijita (1990) stated that for extraverts the engagement in social activities helps to increase their positive emotions. Furthermore, people who experience positive emotions tend to report fewer strains related to work, compared to pessimistic individuals. The researchers found that optimists talked more about potential problems with their supervisors, colleagues, family, and friends, which had a positive outcome (Chen, Popovich & Kogan, 1997). Because they communicated more, they perceived fewer role stressors and were more easily able to overcome stressful activities due to positive support. Furthermore, a high level of extraversion is also associated with more positive thoughts about the future which leads to less emotional exhaustion
(Bakker, Van Der Zee, Lewig & Dollard, 2006; Eastburg, Williamson, Gorsuch Ridley, 1994; Piedmont, 1993). Concluding, because extraverted people experience more positiveness and are better in communicating about potential stressors, the second hypothesis is:
H2: People with a high level of extraversion experience less job stress and more work-life balance satisfaction, compared to people with a low level of extraversion.
Neuroticism. High levels of neuroticism are associated with being anxious, depressed,
angry, emotional, worried, and insecure (Goldberg, 1990). Other traits related to neuroticism are low self-esteem, fearfulness, social anxiety, and helplessness. In general, people who score high on this trait, show negative relationships with almost all forms of career self-efficacy (Hartman & Betz, 2007). Because people that score high on neuroticism experience high levels of anxiety and lower levels of self-esteem, they are less prone toward setting ambitious life goals (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). However, when they need to set goals for themselves, they tend to set them extremely high. Consequently, this results in negative feelings and disappointment about themselves, which are strengthened by their lack of motivation to go through with it (Bakker et al., 2006).
Neuroticism is also negatively associated with coping mechanisms: individuals are more likely to use avoiding or distracting mechanisms which makes it hard to control
themselves and to set priorities (Costa & McCrea, 1987). Furthermore, they are also prone to worry and have more doubts, compared to people who score low on neuroticism. Because they have the tendency to expect the worst from a situation and become easily frustrated, they perceive more job stressors and strain. This leads to higher levels of emotional exhaustion (Zellars et al., 2000) and negative emotionality (Elliot & Thrash, 2002). These consequences are in line with a review of the relationship between personality and work-related fatigue. This review indicated that high scorers on neuroticism had a heightened perception of fatigue symptoms, including emotional exhaustion (De Vries & Van Heck, 2002).
All in all, the reason why people with high levels of neuroticism are expected to experience more job stress and a less great work-life balance satisfaction is because of their
emotional instability, the dispositionto worry, and negative relationships with career-efficacy. Hence, the third hypothesis is:
H3: People with a high level of neuroticism experience more job stress and less work-life balance satisfaction, compared to people with a low level of neuroticism.
- H3
- H1
-
+ H2
Model 1: Neuroticism and extraversion as moderators on the relationship between job stress
and work-life balance satisfaction.
Methods Sample and procedure
In this research about the influence of job stress on work-life balance satisfaction and how this is moderated by extraversion and neuroticism, a cross-sectional design is used. The data for this research is obtained by questionnaires, which were developed in the platform Qualtrics. The respondents were found through personal contacts, such as family members or friends. This sampling method can be seen as convenience sampling. An important criterium
Job stress Work-life balance
Neuroticism
for finding participants was that they had to be employed at the moment of participating in the questionnaire; it did not matter if this was full-time or part-time.
In order to obtain a larger sample, the respondents were collected together with four other students. They also looked at personality in relationship to WLB but studied different predictor variables. Therefore, the data in this questionnaire contained more variables and scales than that were used in this particular study. Furthermore, the demographics age, gender, and education were also included in the questionnaire.
In total, 250 people were approached. The data collection took place over a period of six days. The number of received questionnaires was 180. Because everyone was supposed to reach out to 50 people, the response rate can be calculated as 72%. From this, only responses who completed the entire questionnaire were included in the analysis, which resulted in deleting 11 responses. Furthermore, six responses were deleted because the respondents answered that they worked zero hours a week. Because having a job was the only requirement for participating in this questionnaire, such responses were excluded from the analysis.
Besides, one person did not include his age, so the number “-99” was filled in as a sign of the missing value. Concluding, 16 responses were removed in total. Of the remaining dataset (N = 163) 49.1% was male and 50.9% was female (Mage = 26.84, SD = 9.17). The tenure had a
mean of 24.86 months (SD = 49.66 months). The average working hours per week were 31.14 (SD = 14.34). Furthermore, the biggest part of them obtained a bachelor’s degree (44.5%). Lastly, 89.6% of them had no children.
Measures
The independent and dependent variables in this study are relatively job stress and work-life balance. Job stress was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never and 5 =
extremely satisfied). Both personality dimensions were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree).
Job stress. Job stress was measured with 9 items (e.g., “Does work make you so stressed that you wish you had a different job?” and “Do you get so stressed at work that you forget to do important tasks?” based on the scale of De Bruin & Taylor (2005). The internal reliability of this scale was really strong (a = .91).
Work-life balance. Work-life balance was measured with 5 items (e.g., “My ability to balance the needs of my job with those of my personal or family life” and “How well my work life and my personal or family life fit together” based on the scale of Valcour (2007). The internal reliability of this test is strong (a = .89).
Extraversion and neuroticism. For these personality traits, the 60-item HEXACO-test was used. This HEXACO-test is similar to the Big-Five HEXACO-test because the Big Five Extraversion can be easily compared with the X (eXtraversion) factor and Big Five Neuroticism is broadly the same as the opposite part of the E factor (Emotionality) of the HEXACO personality
dimensions (Ashton, Lee & De Vries, 2014).
The parts which focus in particular on Extraversion and Emotionality / Neuroticism consist both of 10 items. Examples of items used in this test are: “I feel reasonably satisfied with myself overall” (Extraversion) and “I sometimes can’t help worrying about little things” (Neuroticism). The Extraversion-scale showed internal reliability of (a = .81) and the
Emotionality-scale had internal reliability of (a = .77), which are both sufficient.
Control variables. To rule out alternative explanations, two control variables were included. The first control variable considered is gender. One study in which interviews were held with men and women in their mid-life, indicated that women are still seen as the person responsible for the caring and emotional work in the family-life. Therefore, men and women
have different experiences regarding WLB (Emslie & Hunt, 2009). In SPSS, the gender variables have been recoded into 0 = male, 1 = female.
The second control variable is age because another study showed that the people in their older age group (55-70 years old) were more likely to be satisfied with their WLB (Richert-Kaźmierska & Stankiewicz, 2016). In the questionnaires, age was measured on a continuous scale, where the number described age in years. Because age is a one-item scale, it is not needed to check for reliability.
Analytic plan
For testing H1, the relationship between job stress and work-life balance, a linear regression was used. Job stress is the independent variable and work-life balance is the dependent variable. To test H2: the moderating effect of extraversion on the relationship between job stress and WLB, the PROCESS v3.2 macro of Hayes (2020) model 1 was used. Wherein, job stress is the independent variable, WLB the dependent variable, and
extraversion the moderating variable. For the last hypothesis, H3: the moderating effect of neuroticism on the relationship between job stress and WLB, the PROCESS v3.2 macro of Hayes (2020) model 1 was also used. In this case, job stress is the independent variable, WLB the dependent variable, and emotionality (neuroticism) the moderating variable.
Results Correlations
The collected data has been analyzed by using IBM SPSS Statistics 25. The means, standard deviations, and correlations from all variables including the control variables are described in Table 1. The table shows that work-life balance had a strong significant correlation with job stress (r = -.533, p = < .001). This means that when the job stress
increase, the work-life balance satisfaction will decrease. Extraversion showed a moderately significant correlation with both life balance and job stress. However, in case of work-life balance, this relationship was positive (r = .248, p = < .001) and for job stress it was negative (r = -.330, p = < .001). So, this means that when people score higher on extraversion, they show more work-life balance satisfaction and less job stress. This is in line with the previous correlation between WLB and job stress. Emotionality had a moderate negative significant correlation with extraversion, which indicated that people who score high on the emotionality scale, are less extraverted (and vice versa) (r = -.301, p = < .001). Furthermore, by looking at the control variables, gender showed to have correlations with both extraversion and emotionality. The correlation with extraversion was a moderate negative correlation (r = -.298, p = < .001) and the correlation with emotionality showed to be a strongly positive correlation (r = .507, p = < .001). To differentiate between genders, the crosstab-tables showed that male employees scored higher on extraversion and that female employees scored higher on emotionality. Concluding, it does matter if you are a male or female for the
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations
Variables M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. Work-life balance 3.51 .751 2. Job stress 2.01 .749 -.533** 3. Extraversion 3.51 .662 .248** -.330** 4. Emotionality 3.03 .668 -.051 .126 -.301** 5. Age a 26.84 9.167 -.091 .097 .215 -.139 . 6. Gender b .51 .501 .020 .064 -.298** .507** -.155*
Notes. N = 163. a Age was measured in years. b Male = 0, female = 1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Assumptions for regression
To test the H1: Job stress has a negative effect on personal-work life balance satisfaction, a simple linear regression will be used. In the regression, job stress will be the
independent variable, and work-life balance the dependent variable. However, to ensure that this test would be appropriate, the following assumptions were checked: linearity, normality, homoscedasticity, outliers, and multicollinearity. Firstly, the linearity of the main variables was checked by means of a scatterplot. This scatterplot (see Appendix A.1) showed a
(negative) linear relationship. Although there were some outliers in the scatterplot, the overall relationship was clearly defined. Secondly, the normality was checked by a normal P-P plot, which showed that the residuals are approximately normally distributed. Also, there were Frequency-Plots made for all variables individually. These showed that most respondents scored low on the job stress scale, which is probably the reason why the linearity-scatterplot
did not follow the Bell curve of a normal distribution. Because of this, job stress was checked for any standardized residuals greater than two, which resulted in seven extreme values. However, by removing them, the normal distribution curve did not improve much. Therefore, I decided not to remove them and to treat this variable and the corresponding results with caution.
Next, again by a scatterplot, the homoscedasticity was checked. As a result, it was concluded that the residuals are approximately constant. Furthermore, all variables used in this research (including moderators and control variables) were checked for outliers by using boxplots. Although the variable ‘age’ showed to have multiple outliers in the boxplot (see Graph 1); there was no reason to assume that people gave a wrong answer to this question. Besides, since age is a control variable, there is a possibility that it would result in a Type I error by removing them. The outliers for the other variables were not extreme. Lastly,
multicollinearity was checked by checking the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) of all predictor variables. The VIF was < 5 for all predictor variables, so there was no sign of
multicollinearity. To conclude, this means that except for some extra caution towards job stress, the simple regression model can be used without necessary adaptations.
Simple linear regression
Because the assumptions for regression were met, a simple linear regression could be used to test hypothesis 1. Here, model 1 of the linear regression included the control variables age and gender. Job stress was added to the second model. The results of the regression analysis showed an increase of 28.0% in the variance that was explained by this model (R2
model
2= .288). This means that by adding job stress to the control variables, 28.8% of the variance in work-life balance can be explained. The adjusted R2 model indicated that 27.5% of this variance had significant value for explaining work-life balance satisfaction (p = < .001).
In addition, the standardized b coefficient showed that job stress had the strongest negative effect on WLB, which was also significant (b = -.535, t = -7.886, p = < .001). Furthermore, the data showed a significant F in the ANOVA table, which led to the
conclusion that job stress had a significant effect on all results (F = 21.347, p = < .001). All in all, this means that model 2 had to be chosen over model 1 and that H1 was supported.
Moderation
To test both Hypothesis 2: People with a high level of extraversion experience less
job stress and more work-life balance satisfaction, compared to people with a low level of extraversion and Hypothesis 3: People with a high level of neuroticism experience more job stress and less work-life balance satisfaction, compared to people with a low level of
neuroticism, PROCESS v.3.2 macro model 1 of Hayes (2020) was used. The results of this
model are showed in Tables 2 and 3 respectively. However, the results did not support H2 (b = .06 , se = .09, t = .64, p = .52, 95% CI [-.12, .24]) neither H3 (b = .03, se = .10, t = .25,
p = .80, 95% CI [-.16, .21]). In conclusion, there was no significant difference in job stress
and work-life balance between people who differed in their extraversion and neuroticism levels.
Table 2
Results for the interaction effect between extraversion and job stress on WLB
Variables B SE B T p Constant 4.49 .75 6.02 .00 Job stress -.69 .32 -2.18 .03 Extraversion .02 .21 .10 .92 Job stress X Extraversion .06 .09 .64 .52 Gender .13 .11 1.21 .23 Age -.01 .01 -.86 .39
Notes. N = 163. Dependent variable = Work-life balance (WLB) 𝑅 2 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙= .30
Table 3
Results for the interaction effect between emotionality and job stress on WLB
Variables B SE B T p Constant 4.83 .66 7.29 .00 Job stress -.61 .31 -2.03 .04 Emotionality -.08 .22 -.36 .72 Job stress X Emotionality .025 .10 .26 .80 Gender .11 .12 .84 .40 Age -.00 .01 -.45 .65
Notes. N = 163.Dependent variable = Work-life balance (WLB) 𝑅 2 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙= .29
Discussion
This study analyzed the relationship between job stress and work-life balance satisfaction. The personality traits neuroticism and extraversion were used as moderators in the relationship between job stress and WLB. The corresponding research question was: Do
The results lend support for the first hypothesis: Job stress has a negative effect on personal-work life balance satisfaction. Thus, this means that when people experience more
stress because of their work, their work-life balance satisfaction will decrease. The results are consistent with the study of Cooper and Marshall (1978), who indicated that job stress can lead to job strains such as poor physical health, poor mental health, and low productivity. In addition, too much stress can lead to a lack of time and energy to do other home-related tasks or to take a moment to relax (Pichler, 2009). As a consequence, people experience less satisfaction with life which has a negative impact on their well-being.
However, this research differs from the previously discussed studies in the way that convenience sampling was used. Because this research was conducted by students, it is possible that mainly other students were attracted as participants. Furthermore, it is probable that students experience less job stress because they work part-time and see their job as an opportunity to combine the needs for work, income, education, and social contacts (Peterson, 1993). Besides, part-time jobs or student-jobs are really flexible and offer the possibility to adapt schedules to the employee’s preferences such as available hours and amount of work (Rosendaal, 2003). This is also in line with Hill et al. (2010) who stated that great flexibility in a work schedule could be a solution to reduce job stress and improve work-life balance. Nevertheless, we did not ask our respondents if they were students, so there is no actual proof for this assumption. Therefore, it can still be concluded that job stress and work-life balance are negatively related.
The second hypothesis, people with a high level of extraversion experience less job stress and more work-life balance satisfaction, compared to people with a low level of extraversion, was not supported. Additionally, the third hypothesis, people with a high level of neuroticism experience more job stress and less work-life balance satisfaction, compared to people with a low level of neuroticism, did not lead to any support either. The lack of
support of both hypotheses H2 and H3 were quite unexpected because this indicates that both personality traits extraversion and neuroticism have no effect on the relationship between job stress and work-life balance satisfaction. This is not in line with the literature, which suggests that personality has an impact on how people experience WLB and job stress (Crooker et al., 2000) and can explain the additional variance in job burnouts (Zellers et al., 2000).
Furthermore, Bakker et al. (2006) found out that both neuroticism and extraversion appeared to be the most consistent predictors of burnout, compared to the other Big Five personality traits.
On the other hand, even though the absence of significant values in the PROCESS-macro model of Hayes (2020), there are significant correlations that indicates a potential relationship between the variables. That is, extraversion showed to have a negative correlation with job stress and a positive correlation with work-life balance. Although both correlations were only moderately significant, it can possibly indicate that extraversion has an influence on the relationship between WLB and job stress. The literature suggests that people who score high on extraversion tend to be more optimistic and self-confident, which is positive for their overall life satisfaction and subjective well-being (Kaur, 2013). Furthermore, because of their social and talkative attitude, they easily engage in personal interactions with their colleagues (Costa & McCrae, 1992). This makes it easier for them to tell their colleagues or employer when they feel overwhelmed by something at work, which helps them to reduce stress. So, although only correlations were found between both job stress and WLB, this emphasizes the possibility of extraversion to decrease job stress and increase work-life balance satisfaction. In contrast, people who score high on neuroticism tend to experience strong emotions such as guilt, fear, and frustration (McCrea & Costa, 1986). Because of this and the tendency to worry, they perceive more job stressors and thus experience more stress (Chen & Spector,
ambitious but realistic goals, they have the tendency to be really hard on themselves (Bakker et al., 2006, Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012).
However, the results of the questionnaires showed a different picture: emotionality, as a rotated version of neuroticism, had no significant correlation with WLB, neither with job stress. This cannot be explained in light of the difference between the Big Five personality traits Extraversion and Neuroticism and the HEXACO Extraversion and Emotionality
Factors: Ashton et al., (2014) calculated the correlations between the Big Five and HEXACO variables and concluded that they can be considered approximately as equal. One thing that can explain the lack of support of H3 is the current corona-crisis. For people who are very stress-sensitive, it can be a relief that they can stay at home and do not have to socialize with their colleagues. Furthermore, they experience more freedom and flexibility to work at their own speed. Eventually, this can explain why people who score high on neuroticism, tend to experience less job stress and more work-life balance satisfaction than expected in this period. Important to note here is that the corona-crisis was not included as a control variable in this study, so this should be tested in future research.
Lastly, there were no significant values found between the control variables and job stress or WLB. Only the control variable gender did have a correlation with both extraversion and emotionality: male employees tend to score higher on extraversion and female employees tend to score higher on emotionality. The emotionality-part can be explained because women tend to have more traits such as empathic concern harm-avoidance and help-seeking (Yoo, Lee, & Ashton, 2004).
Concluding, although the findings indicate that there is a significant relationship between job stress and work-life balance satisfaction, the other hypothesized relationships about the influence of extraversion and neuroticism were not supported. This means that the research question cannot be answered affirmatively.
However, because multiple other studies reported a relationship between neuroticism and job strains and burn-outs, it is too early to suggest that the relationship between
neuroticism and WLB and job stress does not exist. Besides, this study did find significant correlations between extraversion and WLB and job stress. This possibly indicates that personality does have an impact on the relationship between WLB and job stress.
Practical implications for the manager
The implication of this study is that it confirms the importance of taking care of employees’ stress. As previously mentioned in the literature, too much stress is not only dangerous for the employee’s health and happiness, it is also negative for the organization as a whole. People who are stressed are more likely to suffer from health problems. This in turn can lead to absenteeism at work, which is quite expensive for the organization. Consequently, it is really important for a manager to help his employees to tackle their workload and to find a good balance between their home- and work life. However, as already mentioned in the Introduction, many employers find it difficult to come up with a suitable solution to reduce work-related stress (Arbobalans et al., 2019).
A possible solution for this is to provide workplace flexibility and flexibility in schedule for all employees (Hill et al., 2010). Golden, Henly & Lambert (2014) pointed out that these forms of flexibility had a positive effect on employee’s work-life balance and their well-being. It is important to state that every employee has a different home situation, acts differently towards stress, and has a different personality. So, the best way to implement flexible working policies is by talking to the employees individually, ask for their opinion, and give them the opportunity to speak about preferences and needs. For example, more extraverted people get their energy from the peoples around them, so they would have a
people can prefer working at home, because of the distractions of other people walking around. The same can be true for people who score high on neuroticism: by staying at home they do not have to worry about other people’s opinions, and they can work at their own pace.
Concluding, these conversations can provide the manager with insight that employees see and experience things differently because of their different personalities. Furthermore, it could also help to identify which individuals are prone to stress or burnout to be able to provide them with extra help or guidelines. Future research should focus on how to
implement this effectively by checking which sort of people work best with different forms of flexibility.
Limitations and further research
This study has five limitations that are relevant to future research. The first limitation concerns the way of sampling. The questionnaire that was used for this research was
distributed to 250 people, which should provide a realistic representation of the working population. However, because the data for this research were collected by convenience sampling, the chances are high that the people who participated in this study are highly educated and have different jobs than people with lower education, resulting in non-generalizable results for the whole working population.
Second, the scale that was used to measure job stress was really broad and did not focus on the multiple job stressors that were discussed in the literature (e.g. Cooper &
Marshall, 1978). For further research, it would be recommended to include multiple stressors such as role conflict, role ambiguity, and career development.
Furthermore, because some of the students in this thesis-group were not Dutch, it is fair to expect that multiple international people answered this questionnaire. This can lead to different outcomes because international research showed that the Netherlands as a country
scored really high in a survey on job stress and burn-outs in comparison with other EU-countries (RIVM, 2013). In addition, work-life balance satisfaction varies per country, due to differences in domestic income, global income, and healthcare (Noda, 2019). Therefore, to improve the external validity of the relationship between job stress and WLB, stricter guidelines must be used concerning the collection of respondents. Thus, for example, only Dutch employees who are varied in terms of age, gender, and education level.
A fourth limitation is socially desirable responses. This can especially be the case for neuroticism, because people may not like to see themselves as negative/emotionally unstable. A solution for this would be an even larger and more diverse sample.
Finally, a problem related to the previous one is that the questionnaire was a self-report study. This makes that people select an answer by themselves, which can lead to unrepresentable answers for the actual situation. To improve the internal reliability, an observer or researcher could analyze the respondents and help them to give an answer.
Conclusion
This paper contributes to the standing literature about the relationship between job stress, work-life balance, and the influence on this by extraversion and neuroticism. Although previous research primarily focused on the reasons behind the work-life conflict, this paper takes a more optimistic approach on how to achieve the opposite: work-life balance. The results of our questionnaire showed that reducing job stress has a positive effect on achieving this balance. However, it appeared that the personality traits neuroticism and extraversion did not have an influence on this relationship. In short, to take care of the employee’s wellbeing and to reduce the costs of work stress-related absenteeism, it is important to provide the employees with opportunities to implement some flexibility in their workplace and schedule.
Further research is needed about how to optimize this for employees’ different personalities and needs.
References
Abendroth, A. K., & den Dulk, L. (2011). Support for the work-life balance in Europe: the impact of state, workplace and family support on work-life balance satisfaction. Work,
Employment and Society, 25(2), 234–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017011398892
Adams, G. A., & Jex, S. M. (1999). Relationships between time management, control, work– family conflict, and strain. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4(1), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.4.1.72
Arbobalans, TNO, & CBS. (2019, January 31). Arbobalans 2018: Psychosociale
arbeidsbelasting en burn-out klachten blijven toenemen. Retrieved March 28, 2020, from https://www.tno.nl/nl/over-tno/nieuws/2019/1/arbobalans-2018-psychosociale-arbeidsbelasting-en-burn-out-klachten-blijven-toenemen/
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 340-345.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & de Vries, R. E. (2014). The HEXACO Honesty-Humility,
Agreeableness, and Emotionality Factors. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
18(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314523838
B., M., & Pandita, D. (2014). A Study on the Drivers of Employee Engagement Impacting Employee Performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 133, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.174
Bakker, A. B., Van Der Zee, K. I., Lewig, K. A., & Dollard, M. F. (2006). The Relationship Between the Big Five Personality Factors and Burnout: A Study Among Volunteer Counselors. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(1), 31–50.
https://doi.org/10.3200/socp.146.1.31-50
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
Bell, A. S., Rajendran, D., & Theiler, S. (2012). Job stress, wellbeing, work-life balance and work-life conflict among Australian academics. E-Journal of Applied Psychology,
8(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.7790/ejap.v8i1.320
Boswell, W. R., & Olson-Buchanan, J. B. (2007). The Use of Communication Technologies After Hours: The Role of Work Attitudes and Work-Life Conflict. Journal of
Management, 33(4), 592–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307302552
De Bruin, G. P. (2006). The dimensionality of the general work stress scale: A hierarchical exploratory factor analysis. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 32(4), 68-75.
CBS, TNO, Hooftman, W. E., Mars, G. M. J., Janssen, B., De Vroome, E. M. M., & Pleijers , A. J. S. (2019). Nationale Enquête Arbeidsomstandigheden 2018. Methodologie en
globale resultaten. Retrieved from
https://repository.tudelft.nl/view/tno/uuid:de39e474-d807-4840-91d2-226f434b8a29
Chen, P. Y., Popovich, P. M., & Kogan, M. (1999). Let’s talk: Patterns and correlates of social support among temporary employees. Journal of Occupational Health
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1991). Negative affectivity as the underlying cause of
correlations between stressors and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 398– 407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.3.398
Cooper, C. L. (1998). Theories of Organizational Stress. Oxford, Verenigd Koninkrijk: Oxford University Press.
Cooper, C. L., & Marshall, J. (1978). Understanding Executive Stress. Retrieved from https://www.springer.com/la/book/9781349030309
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38(4), 668–678. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.4.668
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1987). Neuroticism, Somatic Complaints, and Disease: Is the Bark Worse than the Bite? Journal of Personality, 55(2), 299–316.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1987.tb00438.x
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5–13.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5
Crooker, K. J., Smith, F. L., & Tabak, F. (2002). Creating Work-Life Balance: A Model of Pluralism across Life Domains. Human Resource Development Review, 1(4), 387– 419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484302238434
De Vries, J., & Van Heck, G. L. (2002). Fatigue: relationships with basic personality and temperament dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(8), 1311–1324.
Dua, J. K. (1994). Job Stressors and Their Effects on Physical Health, Emotional Health and Job Satisfaction in a University. Journal of Educational Administration, 32(1), 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239410051853
Eastburg, M. C., Williamson, M., Gorsuch, R., & Ridley, C. (1994). Social Support, Personality, and Burnout in Nurses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(14), 1233–1250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb00556.x
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality:
Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82(5), 804–818. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.804
Emslie, C., & Hunt, K. (2009). ‘Live to Work’ or ‘Work to Live’? A Qualitative Study of Gender and Work-life Balance among Men and Women in Mid-life. Gender, Work &
Organization, 16(1), 151–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00434.x
European Agency for Satefy and Health at Work. (2018). Healthy workers, thriving
companies - a practical guide to wellbeing at work. Retrieved from
https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/healthy-workers-thriving-companies-practical-guide-wellbeing-work/view
Fleetwood, S. (2007). Why work–life balance now? The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 18(3), 387–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190601167441
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216
Golden, L., Henly, J., & Lambert, S. (2012). Work Schedule Flexibility for Workers: A Path to Employee Happiness? SSRN Electronic Journal, 4(2), 107–135.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2129520
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of Conflict between Work and Family Roles. The Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88.
https://doi.org/10.2307/258214
Guest, D. E. (2002). Perspectives on the Study of Work-life Balance. Social Science
Information, 41(2), 255–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018402041002005
Haar, J. M., Russo, M., Suñe, A., & Ollier-Malaterre, A. (2014). Outcomes of work–life balance on job satisfaction, life satisfaction and mental health: A study across seven cultures. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(3), 361–373.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.08.010
Hartman, R. O., & Betz, N. E. (2007). The Five-Factor Model and Career Self-Efficacy.
Journal of Career Assessment, 15(2), 145–161.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072706298011
Hill, C. W. L., & Hult, T. G. M. (2018). International Business (12th edition). New York, Verenigde Staten: McGraw-Hill Education.
Hill, E. J., Erickson, J. J., Holmes, E. K., & Ferris, M. (2010). Workplace flexibility, work hours, and work-life conflict: Finding an extra day or two. Journal of Family
Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). On the value of aiming high: The causes and consequences of ambition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 758–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028084
Kalliath, T., & Brough, P. (2008). Work-Life Balance: A review of the meaning of the balance construct. Journal of Management & Organization, 14(3), 323–327. https://doi.org/10.5172/jmo.837.14.3.323
Kaur, J. (2013). Work-life balance: Its correlation with satisfaction with life and personality dimensions amongst college teachers. International Journal of Marketing, Financial Services & Management Research, 2(8), 24-35.
Kirchmeyer, C. (2000). Work-life initiatives: Greed or benevolence regarding workers'
time? In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior, Vol. 7. Time in organizational behavior (p. 79–93). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Kokkinos, C. M. (2007). Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school teachers.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 229–243.
https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905x90344
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric Properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 329–358.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8
Marino, C., Vieno, A., Lenzi, M., Fernie, B. A., Nikčević, A. V., & Spada, M. M. (2016). Personality Traits and Metacognitions as Predictors of Positive Mental Health in College Students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 517–524.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1986). Personality, coping, and coping effectiveness in an adult sample. Journal of Personality, 54(2), 385–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00401.x
Noda, H. (2019). Work–Life Balance and Life Satisfaction in OECD Countries: A Cross-Sectional Analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(4), 1325–1348.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00131-9
NOS. (2017, December 21). Vrouwen doen minder aan het huishouden, maar mannen niet meer. Retrieved March 15, 2020, from https://nos.nl/artikel/2208622-vrouwen-doen-minder-aan-het-huishouden-maar-mannen-niet-meer.html
Parkes, L. P., & Langford, P. H. (2008). Work–life bal ance or work–life alignment? A test of the importance of work-life balance for employee engagement and intention to stay in organisations. Journal of Management & Organization, 14(3), 267–284.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s1833367200003278
Pavot, W., Diener, E. D., & Fujita, F. (1990). Extraversion and happiness. Personality and individual differences, 11(12), 1299-1306.
Peterson, J. (1993). Part-time employment and women: A comment on Sundström. Journal of Economic Issues, 27(3), 909-914.
Pichler, F. (2008). Determinants of Work-life Balance: Shortcomings in the Contemporary Measurement of WLB in Large-scale Surveys. Social Indicators Research, 92(3), 449–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9297-5
Piedmont, R. L. (1993). A Longitudinal Analysis of Burnout in the Health Care Setting: The Role of Personal Dispositions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 61(3), 457–473. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6103_3
Reiter, N. (2007). Work Life Balance: What DO You Mean? The Ethical Ideology
Underpinning Appropriate Application. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
43(2), 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886306295639
Richert-Kaźmierska, A., & Stankiewicz, K. (2016). Work–life balance: Does age matter?
Work, 55(3), 679–688. https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-162435
RIVM. (2013). Overspannenheid en burn-out → Regionaal &
Internationaal→Internationaal. Retrieved from
https://www.volksgezondheidenzorg.info/onderwerp/overspannenheid-en-burn-out/regionaal-internationaal/internationaal
Rosendaal, B. W. (2003). Dealing with part‐time work. Personnel Review, 32(4), 474–491. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480310477542
Schwab, R. L., & Iwanicki, E. F. (1982). Perceived Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, and Teacher Burnout. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(1), 60–74.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x82018001005
Skinner, N., & Pocock, B. (2008). Work--life conflict: Is work time or work overload more important? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 46(3), 303–315.
Social and Cultural Planning Agency. (2018). Alle ballen in de lucht: Tijdsbesteding in
Nederland en de samenhang met kwaliteit van leven. Retrieved from
https://www.scp.nl/zoeken?trefwoord=alle+ballen+in+de+lucht&search-submit=
Spector, P. E. (1998). A control theory of the job stress process. Theories of organizational
stress, 153-169.
TNO. (2019, November 11). Verzuimkosten door werkstress lopen op tot 2,8 miljard. Retrieved March 28, 2020, from
https://www.tno.nl/nl/over-tno/nieuws/2019/11/verzuimkosten-door-werkstress-lopen-op-tot-2-8-miljard/
TNO Monitor arbeid. (2019). NEA Benchmarktool - TNO Monitor arbeid. Retrieved June 3, 2020, from
https://www.monitorarbeid.tno.nl/cijfers/nea?s=nea&tv=mentale-belasting&qv=afl_burnout320&st=0
Verduyn, P., & Brans, K. (2012). The relationship between extraversion, neuroticism and aspects of trait affect. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(6), 664–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.017
Valcour, M. (2007). Work-based resources as moderators of the relationship between work hours and satisfaction with work-family balance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(6), 1512–1523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1512
Wang, S. W., Repetti, R. L., & Campos, B. (2011). Job stress and family social behavior: The moderating role of neuroticism. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(4), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025100
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and Its Positive Emotional Core. Handbook
of Personality Psychology, 767–793.
https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012134645-4/50030-5
Zellars, K. L., Perrewe, P. L., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2000). Burnout in Health Care: The Role of the Five Factors of Personality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(8), 1570– 1598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02456.x
Appendix A: Data Outputs
Assumptions for linear regression
(1) Step 1: Checks for linearity
(2A) Individual Frequency Plots Job Stress
Check for standardized residuals (Job stress)
Extraversion
Emotionality
(4) Step 4: Checks for outliers Gender
Job Stress
(5) Step 5: Check for multicollinearity Job stress
(6) Reliability-checks
Appendix B: Questionnaire
