1 / 14

Johannson et al (1978)

Johannson et al (1978). Social, psychological and neuroendocrine stress reactions in highly mechanised work. Design. Participants. This is a QUASI experiment Two groups of workers:

kipp
Download Presentation

Johannson et al (1978)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Johannson et al (1978) Social, psychological and neuroendocrine stress reactions in highly mechanised work

  2. Design

  3. Participants • This is a QUASI experiment • Two groups of workers: • a HIGH RISK group of 14 “finishers” in a Swedish sawmill. Their job was to finish off the wood at the last stage of processing timber. The work was machine-paced, isolated, very repetitive yet highly skilled, and the finishers’ productivity determined the wage rates for the entire factory • Previous research indicates that these workers had a high frequency of disorders such as sleep disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, headaches and nervous tension.

  4. Low risk • The 14 “finishers” were compared with a low-risk group of 10 repairmen, maintenance workers etc, whose work was more varied, largely self-paced, and allowed more socialising with other workers. • Both groups were of similar age, were shift workers paid by piece rate based on group performance. All worked indoors, and exposed to noise for most of the time

  5. High risk jobs • Were repetitive and constrained • Workers had little control over pace our routine • Workers were isolated • Workers had more responsibility (If a worker fell behind production would be held up for everyone else.)

  6. Measures

  7. Measures • Levels of stress-related hormones (adrenaline and noradrenaline) in the urine were measured on work days and rest days. Five samples a day – on arrival at work and at four other times. Samples were taken at home at the same times on rest days. • Self-report of mood and alertness (see next slide) • Self-report of caffeine and nicotine consumption during the period before the urine test. Subjects were told about their work rate consumption and told to replicate it at home. • Records were kept of stress-related illness and absenteeism.

  8. Self report • Used a line as below: • None at all Maximal • Maximal = the highest intensity of the variable that he had ever experienced. • Variables were sleepiness, well-being, rush, efficiency, irritation and calmness. • Distance in millimetres from the ‘none at all’ point to the mark the subject made was measured.

  9. Results

  10. Hormone excretion • High risk group started off with levels twice as high as control group. Difference between last readings were significant

  11. Self-report • High risk group reported more tension and more negative mood than the control group. • Even the control group showed figures for ‘rush’ and ‘irritation’ at work which were twice as high as their figures at home. • Lack of control of work pace was associated with feelings of rush and irritation.

  12. Conclusions

  13. Machine paced, repetitive and attention demanding work contributes to a high level of physiological activation. • This will produce ‘mobilisation’ of reserve resources. • Such persistent demands on limited resources may threaten health and wellbeing. • The authors suggest that their results will generalise to other mass-production industries.

  14. Evaluation • Limited sample, single sawmill, two days of observation. • Effect of noise as a stressor may confound the results.

More Related