When employees understate their stress: defensive biasing in work stress surveys

• Date: 16 April 2024
• Pages: 102-122
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-06-2023-0072
• Published date: 16 April 2024
• Subject Matter: Health & social care,Healthcare management,HR & organizational behaviour,Human resource policy,Employee welfare
• Author: Berit Greulich,Cornelius J. König,Ramona Mohr

When employees understate their

stress: defensive biasing in work

stress surveys

Berit Greulich, Cornelius J. K€

onig and Ramona Mohr

Department of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Saarland University,

Saarbr€

ucken, Germany

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this study is to investigate the phenomenon of defensive biasing in work stress

surveys, which occurs when employees trivialize potential stressors and strains due to fear of negative

consequences from their supervisors or management. This study aims to better understand the factors that

influence this behavior and to develop a scale to measure it.

Design/methodology/approach –The study used an online survey of 200 employees to investigate the

factors influencing defensive biasing behavior. The researchers developed a scale for defensive biasing with

the help of subject matter experts and derived possible factors from the literature. Participants were presented

with a hypothetical scenario in which they imagined a work stress survey in their organization and were asked

to answer related items. The data were analyzed using regression analysis.

Findings –The study found that defensive biasing behavior was significantly predicted by perceived

anonymity and neuroticism. Participants who felt less anonymous and had higher levels of neuroticism were

more likely to engage in defensive biasing. Job insecurity and trust in supervisors were not found to be

significant predictors of defensive biasing.

Originality/value –This study contributes to the literature on work stress surveys by developing a scale for

defensive biasing and investigating the factors that influence this behavior. The study highlights the

importance of making the survey process more transparent to reduce defensive biasing and obtain trustworthy

results.

Keywords Work-related stress, Employee survey, Defensive biasing, Perceived anonymity, Neuroticism

Paper type Research paper

Response bias, a tendency where individuals respond in particular ways that may not reflect

their genuine attitudes, beliefs or behaviors, can significantly affect the validity of survey

results, potentially leading to inaccurate conclusions (Navarro-Gonz

alez et al., 2016;Paulhus,

1991;Rammstedt et al., 2010). This bias is particularly critical in work stress assessment,

typically measured by self-report. According to a study on response behavior in work stress

surveys (Greulich et al., 2021), some employees may downplay their stressful work conditions

to avoid potential negative repercussions from superiors. This self-protection strategy,

termed “defensive biasing,”may lead to the underreporting of work stress. To gain a deeper

understanding of defensive biasing, which has so far only been qualitatively examined in one

study (Greulich et al., 2021), we have developed a scale for quantitative examination.

Moreover, we propose theoretical arguments regarding factors influencing defensive biasing,

incorporating the social identity model of deindividuation effects (Reicher et al., 1995). This

study thereby aims to enrich the understanding of motivational processes underlying

response behavior in work stress surveys.

Theoretical background

Changes in working life regarding the use of complex technology, globalization and high

competitive pressure lead to a high workload for many employees, and these stressful

IJWHM

17,2

102

This research was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) (No: KO4244/4-1).

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1753-8351.htm

Received 3 June 2023

Revised 11 December 2023

15 February 2024

Accepted 19 February 2024

InternationalJournal of Workplace

Health Management

Vol. 17 No. 2, 2024

pp. 102-122

© Emerald Publishing Limited

1753-8351

DOI 10.1108/IJWHM-06-2023-0072

working conditions result in psychological strain at the workplace that affects both

psychological well-being and physical health (Niedhammer et al., 2021). Outcomes of a high

workload include job dissatisfaction, turnover intentions and counterproductive work

behavior (e.g. Fida et al., 2015). In the long run, psychological strain at work might result in

physical and mental illnesses such as migraine, cardiovascular diseases, sleeping disorders,

depression and burnout (e.g. Taouk et al., 2020).

Sickness caused by work stressors is associated with considerable suffering for the person

concerned, but also with economic problems for the organization due to sick leave and costs

for society (Han et al., 2019). To mitigate these negative consequences, organizations need to

know the (potential) sources of work stress. Suitable interventions could then be taken to

minimize sources of stress and thus maintain the well-being and health of the employee. This

makes it important for organizations to assess working conditions that result in health

problems for their employees. In addition to concerns about organizational and employee

well-being, legislation also drives the implementation of work stress surveys. The German

Occupational Safety and Health Act specifically requires an assessment of work-related

stress, underscoring the legal impetus for such survey.

Measuring work stress

Various models play a crucial role in understanding the mechanisms of work-related stress in

the field of occupational health, with regards to stressors, resources and strain. Karasek’s

(1979) job demand control (JDC) model emphasizes the correlation between job demands and

control in defining employee well-being. Its enriched version also integrates social support.

Building on the previous discussion, Siegrist’s (1996) effort-reward imbalance (ERI) model

presents a crucial perspective by highlighting the disparity between employees’efforts and

the corresponding rewards. This imbalance causes significant stress related to work and can

lead to negative health consequences. Additionally, Demerouti et al.’s (2001) job demand

resource (JDR) model classifies job attributes into resources and demands, offering a

comprehensive framework for understanding the nature of work. It underscores that an

imbalance between these elements can lead to negative outcomes such as job dissatisfaction

and health issues.

The primary method fo r evaluating work str essors, resources a nd strain is self-re port

surveys, where participants rate the intensity of specific work stressors, resources andstrain

(e.g. Kristensen et al.,2005;Schulte et al.,2021;Semmer et al., 1999). This method is efficient,

allowing for substantial data collection with minimal time and resource investment.

Furthermore, employees, being intimately familiar with their job demands, serve as expert

informants.Moreover, subjectiveperceptions of work situationsare often more suited forstrain

reactions comparedto objective indicators (Perrew

e and Zellars, 1999;Spectorand Jex, 1998).

Nevertheless, self-report surveys suffer from some disadvantages because they might be

biased due to factors such as negative affectivity, acquiescence and situational contexts.

Evidence for these biases can be found in various research fields that use self-reports

(e.g. Debus et al., 2015;Morgeson and Campion, 1997;Schmit et al., 1995). Among these

various biases, social desirability proves to be particularly noteworthy since it compels

respondents to manipulate their answers to gain more favor or appear more acceptable

(van de Mortel, 2008). Results of Greulich et al. (2021) regarding the response behavior in work

stress surveys show that participants in work stress surveys engage in manipulative

answering behaviors, which can be considered a novel form of response bias and might be

classified as a subtype of social desirability bias. Participants reported that they deliberately

understate or trivialize their ratings of stressors or strain when they fear negative

consequences from their supervisors to protect themselves against material and immaterial

loss (e.g. ostracism or job loss; Greulich et al., 2021).

Employees

understating

their stress

103