of interaction effects are possible whereby specific job resources (control, support,
feedback, role clarity, etc.) may buffer the impact of different types of demands (Bakker
and Demerouti, 2007). Not only may the effects of job resources reduce the negative
impact of high demands, but the model also proposes that resources may aid motivation
when demands are high. Studies by the model’s originators have found many significant
interaction effects, though a large cross-national study has been unable to replicate these
(Brough et al., 2013).
Unlike the JDC and the ERI model, the JD-R has so far primarily been tested on
psychological outcomes such as burnout and work engagement (e.g. Hakanen et al.,
2008), for which it was designed, rather than health outcomes. It has, however, been
useful in predicting work–home interference (Bakker et al., 2011) and organizational
outcomes such as turnover intention and low organizational commitment (Hu,
Schaufeli and Toon, 2011).
Effort–reward imbalance model
The effort–reward imbalance (ERI) model (Siegrist, 1996) assumes that people
involved in social exchanges (such as the employer–employee relationship) expect
reciprocity, i.e. mutual give and take. If these expectations are not met they experience
the situation as stressful. Thus, the model proposes that an imbalance between the
efforts that employees believe that they put into their work and the rewards they
receive results in negative outcomes for health and well-being (see Figure 4.3). Efforts
follow from work demands including time pressure, responsibilities or physical
STRESS AND HEALTH IN CONTEXT 77
Imbalance maintained
→ if no alternative choice available
→ if accepted for strategic reasons
→ if motivational pattern present (overcommitment)
Demands/obligations
Effort
Motivation
(‘overcommitment’)
- Wage, salary
- Esteem
- Promotion/security
Reward
Motivation
(‘overcommitment’)
FIGURE 4.3Effort–reward imbalance model.
Source: Reproduced with permission from Johannes Siegrist.