demands. Rewards stem from the nature of the social contract and include money
(adequate salary), esteem (respect and support) and career opportunities (including
security) (Siegrist, 2002, 2005). However, Siegrist (2005) suggests that the kind of
person who is likely to suffer particularly from feeling that their work is associated
with high costs and low gains is the individual who suffers from ‘overcommitment’,
that is, they may overestimate the demands upon them or underestimate their ability
to cope. Siegrist (2005) suggests that people remain in situations where efforts are high
and rewards are low where there are no alternative job choices available or where they
may have a strategic reason to do so (for example, because of long-term anticipated
benefits) or where they are overcommitted to work.
Like the JDC model, the ERI has its own standardized questionnaire (Siegrist, 1996).
While it has been less frequently tested than the JDC, the evidence is generally
supportive. For example, the potential impact of lack of reciprocity (i.e. jobs that
combine high effort and low rewards) has been highlighted in research conducted by
van Vegchel et al. (2001). In this study, the risk of health symptoms was between six
and nine times higher for employees who reported high efforts and low rewards than
those with low efforts and high rewards. There is also evidence that an imbalance
between efforts and rewards is associated with heart disease (Kivimaki et al., 2002;
Aboa-Éboulé et al., 2011).
Siegrist (2005) suggests that the model may be useful for designing worksite
interventions. For example, improving leadership skills of supervisors and increasing
their awareness of the need for recognition and constructive feedback may help increase
perceptions of rewards among employees. He also suggests that structural interventions
designed to increase non-monetary incentives, e.g. flexible working time, job security
and increasing contractual fairness, may also reduce imbalance.
While the ERI model focuses primarily on the workplace, van dem Knesebeck and
Siegrist (2003) suggest that the model may be relevant in other social contexts. For
example, they found that elderly men and women who reported non-reciprocal social
exchange in social relationships (e.g. in marital, parental and other social roles) were
twice as likely to experience depressive symptoms.
Some researchers have combined the JDC and ERI to predict psychological
and physical health outcomes (e.g. Bosma et al., 1998; van Vegchel, De Jonge and
Landsbergis, 2005). Studies have typically indicated that variables from the ERI, i.e.
effort–reward imbalance (and in some cases overcommitment), together with low job
control (from the JDC model), predict negative health outcomes.
Overall, research based on all these models has told us a great deal about the range
of factors that are stressful at work and how they impact on our health. They also
suggest ways in which work can be structured and organized to reduce stress. A
limitation of all these models is that they focus on work stressors in isolation, failing
to take into account how work and other roles are interlinked. Stressors in home and
family life cannot be clearly separated from those in work life.
STRESSORS IN WORK AND HOME LIFE
How does work life or university life affect you during your leisure time? If you are
stressed during the day do you worry in the evening and feel low, or do you switch
off and make sure you do something pleasant to compensate for the hard day you have
78 STRESS AND HEALTH