The demand-control/support model of job strain, neuroticism, and conscientiousness as predictors of job outcomes in juvenile correctional officers

The Demand-Control/Support Model of Job Strain was evaluated with juvenile correctional officers. This model focuses on the role that workers' appraisal of job demands and decision making autonomy (Karasek, 1979; Karasek & Theorell, 1990) and social support (Johnson & Hall, 1988) play in the experience of work stress, and on the relation of these characteristics to job satisfaction, vocational performance, and health. The job of correctional officer appears to conform well to a “high strain” job as conceptualized by Karasek and Theorell (1990). In the present study, subscales of Moos's Work Environment Scale were used to operationally define the major environmental predictor variables in the model. Measures of the “Big Five” personality traits of neuroticism and conscientiousness were also obtained on officers using the 60-item NEO Five-Factor Inventory-Form S (Costa & McCrae, 1992). These two personality dimensions were assessed as potential predictors based on previous findings linking them to job outcomes. Vocational performance was operationally defined via supervisor performance ratings of officers and number of disciplinary actions received. Officer physical health was defined in terms of number of sick leave hours used. Officer job satisfaction was assessed via a single-item measure asking officers how satisfied they were with their job. Two series of structural equation models were evaluated to assess the effects of neuroticism, conscientiousness, and the situational variables derived from the Demand-Control/Support Model on job outcomes. Job satisfaction was conceptualized as a mediating variable between the aforementioned predictors and job outcomes. Results supported the buffer and strain hypotheses of the Demand-Control Model. However, the buffer and iso-strain hypotheses of the Demand-Control/Support Model were not substantiated. Although social support significantly predicted job outcomes when included with other environmental variables, it failed to remain a significant predictor when neuroticism and conscientiousness were added to the model. The best fitting model for predicting job outcomes included environmental and personality variables, of which environmental variables accounted for more variance. Findings are discussed in terms of their theoretical implications, areas in need of future research, and implications for workplace interventions.