The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Locus of control as moderator: An explanation for additive versus interactive findings in the demand—discretion model of work stress?
Abstract
Research based on Karasek's (1979) model of work stress has produced conflicting results; although some evidence of the demand × discretion interactions predicted by the model has been reported, most studies have failed to demonstrate interactive effects in relation to mental health outcomes. The present article investigates locus of control (LOC) as a potential moderator of demand/discretion effects. In a sample of civil servants ( N = 590), regression analyses demonstrated a three‐way LOC × demand × discretion interaction ( p < ·01) for affective distress, but not for absence frequency. In longitudinal data from student teachers ( N = 147), a similar three‐way interaction was observed ( p < ·05). In this case, the result applied specifically to anxiety as an outcome, and not to social dysfunction. In each study, the form of the three‐way interaction was such that demand and discretion combined interactively to predict outcome for externals (‐1SD LOC), in a manner consistent with Karasek's predictions, whereas for internals (+ 1SD LOC) additive findings were obtained. The implications of these results are discussed with reference to the demand‐discretion model, and to the issues of stressor‐outcome specificity raised by Broadbent (1985).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward fairness and innovative work behaviour
Janssen, O. (2000) · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1348/096317900167038 · Cited by 2,816
Zapf, D., Dormann, C., & Frese, M. (1996) · Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/1076-8998.1.2.145 · Cited by 1,174
The Role of Acceptance and Job Control in Mental Health, Job Satisfaction, and Work Performance
Bond, F. W., & Bunce, D. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.1057 · Cited by 711
Stressors, Self‐Efficacy, Coping Resources, and Burnout among Secondary School Teachers in Spain
Betoret, F. D. (2006) · Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/01443410500342492 · Cited by 438
Parker, S. L., Jimmieson, N. L., & Amiot, C. E. (2010) · Journal of Vocational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.010 · Cited by 107
Metadata
- Authors
- Parkes, K. R.
- Venue
- British Journal of Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1991-08
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 291-312
- ISSN
- 0007-1269 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-8295
- OpenAlex
- W2039927921
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Locus of control as moderator: An explanation for additive versus interactive findings in the demand—discretion model of work stress? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1991.tb02401.x
- The paper
- Parkes, K. R. (1991). Locus of control as moderator: An explanation for additive versus interactive findings in the demand—discretion model of work stress? British Journal of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1991.tb02401.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.