Recently, researchers have turned their attention to the phenomenon of stress contagion that has been labeled crossover, namely, the reaction of individuals to the job stress experienced by those with whom they interact regularly. An influential article by Niall Bolger and colleagues distinguished between two situations in which stress is contagious: spillover, when stress experienced in one domain of life results in stress in the other domain for the same individual; and crossover, when stress experienced in the workplace by the individual leads to stress being experienced by the individual’s spouse at home. Whereas spillover occurs from home to work and from work to home for the same individual, crossover is conceptualized as a process occurring from one individual at the workplace to his or her spouse at home. This indicates that crossover can affect the dyad and the work group.
Crossover research is based on the propositions of the spillover model, recognizing the fluid boundaries between work and family life and noting that spillover is a necessary but not sufficient condition for crossover. The crossover model adds another level of analysis to previous approaches by considering the interindividual level and the dyad as an additional focus of research.
With the accumulated findings of crossover research, it is reasonable to posit that variables reflecting job and family demands are antecedents of the crossover process. Crossover research focuses on the individual’s job and family demands that trigger this process.
A Theoretical Perspective
A recent crossover model developed by Mina Westman integrates crossover research into a job stress model and anchors it in role theory, as outlined by Robert Kahn and colleagues. The usefulness of role theory as a basis for crossover research is that it underscores the interrelations between a focal person and his or her role senders in the work and family settings. Westman’s model classifies a selected array of stresses and strains as antecedent influences of the crossover process. Furthermore, it posits personal attributes and interpersonal variables as possible moderators. The core assumption of the model is that one’s stress has an impact on others in different settings, indicating a complex causal relationship between stress and strain in the individual arena and between stress and strain of the dyads. This model distinguishes between six dimensions of the crossover process: role stress, life events, strain, personal attributes, coping, and the interaction process.
Westman and Amiram Vinokur specified three main mechanisms that can account for the crossover process:
- Direct crossover through empathic reactions. Accordingly, there is a direct transmission of stress and strain from one partner to the other as a result of empathic reactions. The basis for this view is the finding that crossover effects appear between closely related partners who share the greater part of their lives together. It has been suggested that the effect of the undesirable events one experiences on the significant-other’s distress may be the result of empathy expressed as feeling the other’s pain as one’s own. Thus, when one spouse is depressed, this feeling crosses over to the other spouse because he or she empathizes with the partner.
- Common stressors affecting both partners. The simultaneous effects of the common stressors on increasing both partners’ strain result in a positive correlation between partners’ strain, which may be erroneously interpreted as a genuine crossover effect. For this reason, Westman and Vinokur suggested viewing the effect of common stressors as a case of spurious crossover; that is, the common stressors merely represent the effect of a third variable (e.g., economic hardship) that independently but simultaneously increases the strain of each spouse.
- Indirect crossover of strain. The crossover is mediated by personal attributes and the interaction between the partners. The explanation of crossover as an indirect process focuses on specific coping strategies and interpersonal transactions, such as social support, social undermining, and communication style. Most crossover research has focused on social undermining as an interpersonal factor. Social undermining consists of behaviors directed toward the target person that express negative affect and convey negative evaluation or criticism. Thus, one’s distress may increase social undermining from one spouse to another, and this undermining behavior increases the depression of the other spouse.
The three mechanisms of crossover can operate independently of one another and are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, it is quite possible that some of the proposed mechanisms operate jointly.
Studies have focused on different variables in the crossover process. Some have focused on the crossover of job stress from the individual to the spouse; some have examined the process whereby job stress of the individual affects the strain of the spouse; and others have studied how the psychological strain of one partner affects the strain of the other. Crossover research has focused mostly on five major strains: physical health, burnout, depression, work-family conflict, anxiety, and dissatisfaction.
Westman has suggested broadening the definition of crossover into contagion of positive as well as negative events. If the crossover process operates via empathy, one would expect to find not only negative crossover, but positive crossover as well. Thus, empathy could just as easily involve the sharing of another’s positive emotions and the conditions that bring them about. Positive experiences and feelings are not merely the absence of stress; they are qualitatively different experiences. Thus, positive events and emotions may also cross over to the partner and have a positive impact on his or her well-being.
Practical Implications
The findings of some crossover studies are based on a conceptual model with explicit pathways and therefore offer an important direction for the design of future interventions for couples experiencing stress and strain. From the organizational perspective, the ripple effect of stress and strain has far-reaching implications. Some of the findings demonstrate that a distressed wife is likely to generate a process of social undermining that will have an adverse effect on the husband and then later, through the husband, on his team. Findings suggest that efforts to reduce the stress and strain of employees should also target their spouses. It would be advisable for management to provide assistance programs to individuals working in stressful conditions and their spouses.
See also:
- Burnout
- Stress at work
- Two-career relationships
References:
- Barnett, R, C., Raudenbush, S. W., Brennan, R. T., Pleck, J. H. and Marshall, N. L. 1995. “Changes in Job and Marital Experience and Change in Psychological Distress: A Longitudinal Study of Dual-earner Couples.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69:839-850.
- Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. and Wethington, E. 1989. “The Contagion of Stress across Multiple Roles.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 51:175-183.
- Jones, F. and Fletcher, B. 1996. “Taking Work Home: A Study of Daily Fluctuations in Work Stressors, Effects on Mood and Impact on Marital Partners.” Journal of Occupational Psychology 69:89-106.
- Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D. and Rosenthal, R. A. 1964. Organizational Stress. New York: Wiley.
- Westman, M. 2001. “Stress and Strain Crossover.” Human Relations 54:557-591.
- Westman, M. and Vinokur, A. 1998. “Unraveling the Relationship of Distress Levels within Couples: Common Stressors, Empathic Reactions, or Crossover via Social Interactions?” Human Relations 51:137-156.