Effort-Reward Imbalance Model

Summary

The Effort-Reward Imbalance Model is designed to measure occupational and job stress. In this model, stress is conceptualized as high work-related effort coupled with low control over job-related rewards. The model also considers the personality trait of excessive willingness to overexert oneself, which exacerbates the negative health consequences of occupational stress. The SOEP uses a shortened version of the ERI questionnaire comprising a total of 16 four- or five- level items. The ERI questionnaire has been used in the SOEP at regular five-year intervals since 2006.

Theoretical Background

The ERI model is a newly developed instrument used to measure job stress and its negative health consequences (Siegrist, 1996). Job stress is conceptualized as the relation between demands and efforts on the one hand and rewards on the other. This conceptualization is based on the assumption that job relations are subject to the general social norm of reciprocity. The general reciprocity norm states that social interaction (here the performance of job tasks) always takes place in expectation of appropriate compensation. If this expectation is not fulfilled over the long term—that is, if the reciprocity norm is violated—in many cases the interaction will be terminated. The termination of employment relationships is often not possible on short notice or without far-reaching consequences, which means that employment relationships often have to be maintained while violating the norm of reciprocity. The resulting imbalance between high perceived demands and low perceived rewards is referred to as a “gratification crisis.” Gratification crises lead to lower job satisfaction and high stress levels, and thus constitute a risk factor for numerous psycho-social and stress-related illnesses (Siegrist, 1996). Alongside these external factors in work stress, the ERI model also contains an intrinsic dimension, “overcommitment,” or the excessive willingness to overexert oneself. This is based on the hypothesis that people with an excessive willingness to overexert themselves suffer more severely from gratification crises than individuals with a lower willingness to overexert themselves.

Scale Development

In the previous version, the instrument only contained 23 items. With the goal of achieving a more broadly applicable instrument, it was shortened to 16 items and used for the first time in this form in the 2006 SOEP questionnaire. Overcomitment was not shortened in the SOEP version, since the scale is already the product of various validation studies.

References

Department of Medical Sociology, Duesseldorf University (2008). Effort-reward imbalance at work: Theory, measurement and evidence. Düsseldorf.

Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 27.

Items

Please indicate to what degree you agree with the following statements (Bitte geben Sie an, in welchem Maße Sie den folgenden Aussagen zustimmen):

Effort

1. I have constant time pressure due to a heavy workload. (Aufgrund des hohen Arbeitsaufkommens besteht häufig großer Zeitdruck.)

2. I have many interruptions and disturbances while performing my job. (Bei meiner Arbeit werde ich häufig unterbrochen und gestört.)

3. Over the past few years, my job has become more and more demanding. (Im Laufe der letzten beiden Jahre ist meine Arbeit immer mehr geworden.)

Scale: 1 (Yes / Ja) to 2 (No /Nein); 1 (Not at all / Gar nicht) to 4 (Very heavily / Sehr stark) is recoded to 1 to 5

Reward

1. I receive the respect I deserve from my superior. (Ich erhalte von meinen Vorgesetzten die Anerkennung, die ich verdiene.) (R)

2. My job promotion prospects are poor. (Die Aufstiegschancen in meinem Betrieb sind schlecht.) (R)

3. I have experienced or I expect to experience an undesirable change in my work situation. (Ich erfahre – oder erwarte – eine Verschlechterung meiner Arbeitssituation.) (R)

4. My job security is poor. (Mein eigener Arbeitsplatz ist gefährdet.) (R)

5. Considering all my efforts and achievements, I receive the respect and prestige I deserve at work. (Wenn ich an all die erbrachten Leistungen und Anstrengungen denke, halte ich die erfahrene Anerkennung für angemessen.) (R)

6. Considering all my efforts and achievements, my job promotion prospects are adequate. (Wenn ich an all die erbrachten Leistungen und Anstrengungen denke, halte ich meine persönlichen Chancen des beruflichen Fortkommens für angemessen.) (R)

7. Considering all my efforts and achievements, my salary / income is adequate. (Wenn ich an all die erbrachten Leistungen denke, halte ich mein Gehalt / meinen Lohn für angemessen.)(R)

Scale: 1 (Yes / Ja) to 2 (No /Nein); 1 (Not at all / Gar nicht) to 4 (Very heavily / Sehr stark) is recoded to 1 to 5

Overcommitment

1. At work, I easily get into time pressure. (Beim Arbeiten komme ich leicht in Zeitdruck.)

2. I often am already thinking about work-related problems when I wake up. (Es passiert mir oft, dass ich schon beim Aufwachen an Arbeitsprobleme denke.)

3. When I get home, it is easy to switch off from thinking about work. (Wenn ich nach Hause komme, fällt mir das Abschalten von der Arbeit sehr leicht.) (R)

4. Those closest to me say I sacrifice too much for my career. (Diejenigen, die mir am nächsten stehen sagen, dass ich mich für meinen Beruf zu sehr aufopfere.)

5. Work seldom lets go of me; it stays in my head all evening. (Die Arbeit lässt mich selten los, das geht mir abends im Kopf rum.)

6. If I put off something that needs to be done that day, I can’t sleep at night. (Wenn ich etwas verschiebe, was ich eigentlich heute tun müsste, kann ich nachts nicht schlafen.)

Scale: 1 (Yes / Ja) to 2 (No /Nein); 1 (Not at all / Gar nicht) to 4 (Very heavily / Sehr stark) is recoded to 1 to 5

Coding

Please note that effort and reward are measured by two questions in the SOEP that have to be recoded to a five-point Likert scale. The first of these questions asks whether the content of the items applies to the respondent. Depending on the answer to this first question, the level of emotional burden is then evaluated in a second four-step question. An affirmative answer to the reward item “I get the recognition I deserve from my superiors” is encoded with the highest value (5), while a negative answer is encoded depending on the burden: No reward but no burden is encoded with the value 4. No reward and a high burden is encoded with 1 on the five-point Likert scale. The same procedure applies for effort items. When recoding, attention to the five-point scale is required because of the inverse direction of some reward items. A negative answer to an inverse reward item—for example, “The opportunities for advancement in my company are bad”—is coded with the highest value (5) for reward. An affirmative answer to this inverse reward item must be encoded with 1, 2, 3, or 4 depending on how burdened the person feels. For example: An affirmative answer to “advancement in company is bad” and a high rating for burden equals 1 for reward on the five-point Likert scale. The Effort-Reward Ratio (ERR) is calcultated by the formula ERR= e/(r*c), where “e” stands for total effort, “r” stands for total reward, and “c” is a correction factor for the ratio of the number of items used. In this case, “c” equals 3/7 because effort is measured with 3 items and reward is measured with 7 items. Thus, the total effort score ranges from 3 to 15, as three effort items with a five-point Likert scale are used in SOEP. High values correspond to high perceived effort, low values to low effort. The total score for reward is constructed analogously and ranges between 7 and 35 for seven reward items. Low values mean low reward. A ERR value close to 0 means low perceived effort at high perceived reward. A ERR value greater than 1 indicates the opposite. In this case, there is an effort-reward imbalance.

Items and Scale Statistics

year	variable	count	mean	sd	itemrestcorr	alpha
2006	eri1	12315	2.43	1.31	0.61	0.74
2006	eri2	12313	2.19	1.29	0.51	0.74
2006	eri3	12232	2.39	1.31	0.57	0.74
2011	eri1	11594	2.36	1.30	0.61	0.74
2011	eri2	11581	2.23	1.28	0.53	0.74
2011	eri3	11444	2.35	1.31	0.57	0.74
2012	eri1	5130	2.34	1.31	0.57	0.71
2012	eri2	5131	2.07	1.26	0.48	0.71
2012	eri3	4976	2.29	1.28	0.55	0.71
2016	eri1	592	2.21	1.29	0.63	0.77
2016	eri2	592	2.20	1.28	0.55	0.77
2016	eri3	586	2.36	1.29	0.62	0.77
2006	eri4	11594	4.31	1.07	0.58	0.79
2006	eri5	11809	3.83	1.19	0.51	0.79
2006	eri6	12195	4.25	1.29	0.50	0.79
2006	eri7	12179	4.48	1.15	0.40	0.79
2006	eri8	11720	4.30	1.07	0.61	0.79
2006	eri9	11592	4.24	1.10	0.61	0.79
2006	eri10	11872	3.77	1.31	0.46	0.79
2011	eri4	10868	4.30	1.09	0.63	0.80
2011	eri5	10900	3.92	1.16	0.53	0.80
2011	eri6	11524	4.47	1.12	0.46	0.80
2011	eri7	11499	4.70	0.90	0.33	0.80
2011	eri8	11156	4.28	1.09	0.66	0.80
2011	eri9	10910	4.28	1.09	0.64	0.80
2011	eri10	11273	3.90	1.31	0.50	0.80
2012	eri4	4713	4.38	1.04	0.62	0.78
2012	eri5	4775	4.04	1.11	0.50	0.78
2012	eri6	5042	4.52	1.06	0.45	0.78
2012	eri7	5033	4.73	0.89	0.33	0.78
2012	eri8	4757	4.35	1.04	0.64	0.78
2012	eri9	4623	4.30	1.06	0.62	0.78
2012	eri10	4884	3.80	1.32	0.42	0.78
2016	eri4	543	4.36	1.05	0.65	0.80
2016	eri5	555	4.01	1.05	0.52	0.80
2016	eri6	585	4.58	1.01	0.47	0.80
2016	eri7	589	4.72	0.87	0.36	0.80
2016	eri8	550	4.35	1.03	0.66	0.80
2016	eri9	533	4.28	1.06	0.68	0.80
2016	eri10	567	3.93	1.24	0.43	0.80
2006	plb0112	12348	2.40	0.88	0.45	0.79
2006	plb0113	12346	2.16	0.95	0.67	0.79
2006	plb0114R	12328	2.29	0.94	0.41	0.79
2006	plb0115	12299	2.26	0.94	0.50	0.79
2006	plb0116	12347	2.18	0.92	0.72	0.79
2006	plb0117	12340	1.97	0.88	0.47	0.79
2011	plb0112	11624	2.33	0.89	0.45	0.79
2011	plb0113	11621	2.12	0.96	0.68	0.79
2011	plb0114R	11601	2.27	0.96	0.43	0.79
2011	plb0115	11571	2.23	0.96	0.52	0.79
2011	plb0116	11609	2.13	0.92	0.74	0.79
2011	plb0117	11615	1.93	0.88	0.49	0.79
2012	plb0112	5149	2.47	0.95	0.42	0.77
2012	plb0113	5149	2.05	0.98	0.64	0.77
2012	plb0114R	5138	2.18	0.99	0.41	0.77
2012	plb0115	5117	2.14	0.98	0.51	0.77
2012	plb0116	5140	2.06	0.94	0.70	0.77
2012	plb0117	5134	1.84	0.90	0.43	0.77
2016	plb0112	15107	2.37	0.92	0.42	0.77
2016	plb0113	15106	2.00	0.95	0.65	0.77
2016	plb0114R	15087	2.16	0.99	0.42	0.77
2016	plb0115	14975	2.10	0.97	0.50	0.77
2016	plb0116	15105	2.00	0.92	0.71	0.77
2016	plb0117	15084	1.80	0.87	0.44	0.77

Note

It should be noted that effort and reward are measured by two questions that have to be recoded to a five-point Likert scale in the SOEP data. Consequently, ERI1 to ERI10 refers to the following variable labels: ERI1 (plb0118/19), ERI2 (plb0120/21), ERI3 (plb0122/23), ERI4 (plb0130/31), ERI5 (plb0124/25), ERI6 (plb0126/27), ERI7 (plb0128/29), ERI8 (plb0132/33), ERI9 (plb0134/35), ERI10 (plb0136/37).