572 Occupational Health Psychology
organizations, patterns of overcommitment to work (i.e.,
workaholism) may have adverse effects on the individual as
well as on the workplace and the family (Lowman, 1993).
Porter (1996) shows how workaholism is a form of addictive
behavior that distorts interpersonal relationships and inter-
feres with organizational operations. Thus, workaholism,
anger and emotion, and gender are three examples in a broad
spectrum of important individual differences in the domain
of OHP.
The Work-Family Interface
People live in multiple life arenas and work environment
demands are not the only ones that impact their health.
Numerous work-family interface factors such as shift work,
”extime, leave policy, day care, elder care, overtime, and
dual career issues are highly relevant to the occupational
health of people at work. While it may make conceptual
sense to partition these various elements of a person•s life
into different roles, it is dif“cult to avoid spillover ef fects or
interactions (Lobel, 1991; Whittington, Paulus, & Quick, in
press). An important area in a person•s nonwork life is the
family, and the work-family interface has been found to be
important in understanding a person•s health at work as well
as at home (Piotrkowski, 1979). As workforces become more
diverse and as a greater number of women enter the work-
force, work-family interaction increases. This may be espe-
cially true for two-career family systems. Hence, gender
mixes with the work-family interface and may create con”ict
and adverse health-related outcomes for family members
(Frone, Russell, & Barnes, 1996). While the negative effects
of con”ict are more common, work-family interface can ac-
tually have positive effects as well (Frone, in press).
Goodness-of-Fit
In OHP, healthy work environments must also give consider-
ation to the issue of goodness-of-“t among the three basic de-
sign dimensions of the work environment, the individual, and
the work-family interface. The concept of goodness-of-“t is
an extension of the person-environment “t theory (Edwards,
1996). This approach suggests that badness-of-“t is the prob-
lem, not that there is always an inherent problem in the work
environment, the person, or the family system. Therefore,
dysfunction results from a lack of goodness-of-“t (i.e.,
badness-of-“t), or compatibility, between the various design
elements. While the research may suggest, in general, that
more control at work is healthier, that less anger in an individ-
ual is healthier, and that fewer work-family con”icts are bet-
ter, there is variance along each of these design dimensions.
Thus, there are individuals who prefer more control than
others do and some jobs in which a certain amount of com-
petitive anger may fuel productive outcomes. Hence, the best
of circumstances occurs when the individual “ts well with the
work environment and when there is a “ t between both the in-
dividual and the work environment with the family system.PREVENTIVE HEALTH MANAGEMENTThe Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1974 established
that employees in the United States should have a safe and
healthy work environment. Similar legislation has been en-
acted in The Netherlands, Sweden, and the European Union
(Kompier, 1996). This legislation resulted from the view that
the work environment presents risk factors to the safety and
health of workers. Certainly the statistics on the number of
individuals who are treated for occupational injuries yearly
or who die from injuries that occurred on the job support this
view (Sauter & Hurrell, 1999). However, it is now recog-
nized that the work environment can also enhance the health
and safety of individuals (Sauter et al., 1990). Since work is a
central aspect of many people•s lives (Cox, 1997), it is not
surprising that the workplace has grown to be viewed as a
focal place for health promotion (Gebhardt & Crump, 1990),
as well as for injury and illness prevention.
OHP emerged as a discipline that viewed the work envi-
ronment not only as a risk factor but also as a health en-
hancer, and it takes a public health perspective (Rosenstock,
1997; Sauter & Hurrell, 1999). OHP•s primary concern is de-
veloping and maintaining the health and well-being of em-
ployees and their families. Thus, the primary focus is on the
prevention of injuries and illnesses and the enhancement of
health, rather than the treatment of injuries and illnesses, by
creating safe and healthy working environments (Quick,
Camara, et al., 1997; Sauter, Hurrell, Fox, Tetrick, & Barling,
1999). These ideas come from concepts in preventive medi-
cine and public health, originally developed and applied to
stem the onset and spread of disease epidemics (Wallace,
Last, & Doebbeling, 1998).
The public health model classi“es interventions into three
categories: primary interventions, secondary interventions,
and tertiary interventions (Schmidt, 1994). Primary interven-
tions follow a population prevention strategy (Rose, 1992)
and are applied to all people, including those who may not be
at risk. They are frequently used in health promotion and
health education campaigns where the message is sent to
everyone despite their current risk status. In the “eld of OHP,
an example of a primary intervention is providing all man-
agers training in improving their relationships with their