Talk:Occupational stress/Archives/2013

New editor

Hello I would like to edit this page by adding some information that is verifiable and essential for this article. Please review my sanbox and give me any criticism on the content.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aaleksanian/sandbox Thank you Aaleksanian (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember that Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay! Wikipedia articles should NOT be based on WP:primary sources, but on reliable, published secondary sources (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (such as undergraduate textbooks). WP:MEDRS describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 08:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Most Stressful Jobs

I removed the section on the most stressful jobs for several reasons. First, Wiki discourages the use of primary sources, which this is. A better source would be a review of studies that note which jobs are most stressful. Second, the source is not particularly credible--the research is apparently not peer reviewed and details of methodology are not provided. It is not clear what jobs were compared, how they were chosen, who did the ratings, how reliable the ratings were, what materials raters had to work with, etc. It looks like the ratings were done at the job level. If that was the case, why does the list change over time? Why is president of the U.S. the most stressful job one year, and not on the list another year? Surely, the nature of the job doesn't change year-to-year. Third, the way this is done does not take into account context. For example, working with people is a stress factor, but there is a vast difference from job to job in how one works with people. For example, a police officer and a college professor both work with people, but the extent to which interactions are stressful is quite different. Fourth, there is no text to explain why this table is here and what it is supposed to mean--just a table stuck at the end of the article. Finally, it is not clear about what this list contributes to the article. It strikes me as more appropriate to a magazine or blog, and not an encyclopedia. Psyc12 (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Gender and Stress

The gender and stress section needs work. It is entirely based on one low level undergraduate textbook that is not well referenced. It claims that "women consistently report higher levels of job stress than men do" but provides no evidence in support. At the end of the same paragraph Goldenhar is cited, but they only studied women, so no comparison could be made to men. A better source is the Desmarais & Alksnis Gender Issues chapter in the 2005 Handbook of Work Stress. It notes how primary studies and meta-analyses have differed in conclusions, with some suggesting no differences in rates or effects, and others suggesting women experience more or the effects are larger. They note that one review (Jick and Mitz) concluded that women report more emotional strains in response to stressful conditions, while men report more physical strains. As currently written, this section does not accurately describe the current state of the research literature. Psyc12 (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Opening sentence & Definition of Occupational Stress

Replaced the recent sweeping deletion made on this article's critical opening paragraph and definition. Editor had replaced without any discussion here on this talk page. I agree the definition could be improved, perhaps by outlining the problems so many researchers have always had when trying to define what stress is, but blindly deleting other editors years of work, is not how it should be done psyc12 on this article page. Let's discuss here first, the problems of defining work stress. As you may be aware, there are many, many different definitions. Look forward to a civil discussion.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay. So again, no discussion here on this page from you psyc12. I won't revert. I won't edit war with you on this separate and very important article psyc12. Re-read my points already made please and reasons why I reverted back to the original definition created by other editors. You should have proposed a change to the opening sentences, instead of blindly deleting the original and quite good definition, there for years. Are you going to discuss these points psyc12? Do you agree with the points I have made above? If not, which points and why?

Will you revert your change please, rather than engage in edit warring. All editors on this article should be involved with such critical changes not just you psyc12. To do that, reverting to the original definition is the most civil and common sense solution and starting point. Then, if needed, and through editor discussion and consensus, a new paragraph and definition may then replace the current one, which does seems more than adequate at present.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I have taken the time just now, and out of respect for the many other editors since 2008, who have been involved on this important article, and who had already established long term 'consensus' on the critical, opening paragraph and set of definitions. Psyc12, you come in and deleted this consensus built over many years and then reverted it back again to YOUR way, even after I explained why you can't just do that in Wikipedia articles. Either way, I will 'restore' the consensus and ask you again; to engage in calm, civil discussion on this talk page please, prior to any inflammatory actions. Thank you. If not, I will seek dispute resolution on this specific article early, rather than engage in edit warring with you.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitions of Occupational stress, and new sections introduced

I broke up the opening paragraph with a new section titled "definitions of work stress," and included the 2013 World Health Organization definition which I think is pretty good, current and from the World's leading health Organization.

Deleted a 1998 definition also because of what Hart, P.M. & Cooper, C.L. (2001). Occupational Stress: Toward a More Integrated Framework. In N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H.K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds), Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology (vol 2: Personnel Psychology). London: Sage. (ISBN: 0 7619 6489 4), both say about no accepted Definitions of Occupational stress: DEFINITIONS OF OCCUPATIONAL STRESS. page 94 "The starting point in this chapter should be to provide a clear, coherent and precise definition of occupational stress. Unfortunately, this is not straightforward. Despite the key words ‘occupational stress,’ ‘work stress,’ and ‘job stress’ being used in 2,768 scientific articles published during the 1990s, the scientific community has still not reached an agreed position on the meaning and definition of occupational stress. There has been considerable debate, for example, about whether occupational stress should be defined in terms of the person, the environment, or both. This lack of coherence has led to a degree of fragmentation in the occupational stress literature..."

I then introduced stressors and strains approach in a new section. We can add other models of stress after that. (I also used Wiki Books Concept Of Stress to back that reasoning up. Please discuss?Mrm7171 (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussing sudden blanketing of well sourced paragraph by editor iss246

You just blanketed an entire, well written, well sourced paragraph without any discussion on talk page iss246. The paragraph is based on Cary cooper's work. It is also what organizational psychologists understand of work stress. It is going to follow on with contemporary understanding of work stress and the various models of work stress. Discuss here if interested but don't 'blanket delete' my work again. I know what I am talking about when it comes to occupational stress. If you do too, maybe you can add something constructive. However my work on this article reflects current research in this area not research from the 1980s and 1990's based on the stressors and strains approach. If you are looking for an edit war, it's not going to happen on this article iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

The serious issue of meat puppetry and the further circumstantial evidence I have now collected, based on the extensive and objective edit history, belongs right here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, under re-investigations. Not here, on this talk page.

Your blanket deletions of my reliably sourced paragraph, with no reliable sources or policies to base those multiple blanket reverts on belongs right here on this discussion page, unless it continues, and then your edit warring goes to an administrator. As you have seen, I won't engage in edit warring with you iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Was it Joe McCarthy who said, “I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five meatpuppets"? Bring me up on charges or stop the accusations. Iss246 (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Any reliable sources or policies or any 'substance' to base those multiple blanket reverts of my reliably sourced paragraph on iss246. See here: "Calling the Stressors and Strain Assumptions into Question" cited in Hart, P.M. & Cooper, C.L. (2001).Occupational Stress: Toward a More Integrated Framework. In N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H.K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds), Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology (vol 2: Personnel Psychology)?Mrm7171 (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I will leave this a bit longer. I take it psyc12/iss246 you have no reliable sources, or policies or any 'substance' to base those multiple blanket reverts of my reliably sourced paragraph I will not engage in edit warring. The reliable source, my paragraph is based on, by experts in the field, is clearly shown above. Please refrain also from personalizing this article. I will re-introduce my paragraph in due course as no content, or policy based discussion is being presented by psyc12/iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meat puppetry and unprovoked edit warring

(Psy12/iss246) are you sure you want to go down that path, instead of following Wikipedia policy on reliable sources and work on refining not deleting the whole paragraph? Wikipedia considers your opinions, at best, to be considered as one single opinion, given how you psyc12, and the other 6 or more, Society for Occupational Health Psychology members, who all signed up for separate Wikipedia accounts, all on the same day, after being solicited by iss246. I am uncomfortable, but okay, if necessary, with you both being considered 'one single editor,' and moving forward on that basis, that is 'one independent opinion,' but if you are going to 'tag team' on this article with the 'checkered past' of meat puppetry looming, what choice do you give me? There is no basis for opposing my paragraph and you indeed have not provided any grounds or policy to blanket delete the whole reliably sourced paragraph, clearly provided above. You are also edit warring. Please consider, before this goes any further.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have not engaged in edit warring by reverting your blanket deletions of my entire, reliably sourced paragraph.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, I will fill you in. However, before filling you in, I say this. I am not engaged in meat- or sockpuppetry. And Psyc12 and I are different people. Neither of us controls the other person. The other people you have named don't appear to be contributing to Wikipedia. The name-calling is juvenile. It is time to stop.

Let's turn to the models that currently predominate job stress research. These are the models to which I referred earlier. They are the demand-control model, the demand-control-support (sometimes called iso-strain) model, and the effort-reward imbalance model. There is also a more atheoretic risk factor approach. I used initials earlier because I was in a hurry to get out of my office, and go home. There is a newer job demands-resources model (JD-R; it attempts to subsume the DC and DCS models) but we don't have as much experience with it. I think a section devoted to stressor-strain models could work if you would like to create a new section or elaborate the existing stressors-and-strain section. I recommend a paragraph for each model in view of the fact that we are writing for an encyclopedia, with a sentence at the end of each paragraph describing one key shortcoming of the model. Of course my recommendation is just that, a recommendation. I think some readers would like to learn about the leading models of job stress, particularly if the text describing the models is clearly written. Iss246 (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Iss246, Wikipedia:Meat puppetry is what you engaged in by soliciting all of those 7 members from the Society for Occupational Health Psychology and it is considered very seriously by Wikipedia. And you are not teaching me anything new my friend, when it comes to occupational stress. The field of work stress, is 'dominated' by organizational psychology as I am sure you are aware. You quoting a few random stress models to me on this page in a patronizing tone is ridiculous. Psyc12 at least understands occ stress by mentioning the “engineering” approach. This is where stress is viewed as a 'stimulus' or characteristic of the environment in the form of level of demand, which in part, is where the job demands resources models come in.

Stressors, iss246, are more recently referred to as 'risk factors' by the way. Check the HSE.gov.uk site and talk to a few chartered occupational psychologists who are actually 'out in the field' conducting audits and identifying psych hazards for organizations to comply with occ health & safety legislation. There are also many more models of occupational stress than the few you listed above. Further, you have provided no contrary reliable sources to Cary Cooper's reliable source I provided challenging the tired old stressors and strains approach. And based on your blatant meat puppetry, the opinion of psyc12 and you should at best, be treated as 'one independent' editor on this separate article not 2, especially given your attempt already to 'blanket delete' my entire, well sourced paragraph with no contrary reliable sources to support your action.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I've got five things to say.

First, let's be clear. I'm not your friend.

Second, you contradicted yourself. You wrote that "Psyc12 at least understands occ stress by mentioning the 'engineering' approach," implicitly impeaching me. The engineering approach is a model that I don't emphasize. Obviously Psyc12 and I are different people who share some views but don't share others.

Yes, different people, but that is not the point iss246.

Third, and most important, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. You wrote "You [meaning me, Iss246] quoting a few random stress models." Because you think the DC, DCS, and ERI models are "a few random stress models," it is clear that you have a poor grasp of the material. You can pretend otherwise but your grasp of the subject matter is weak.

Fourth. Yes, I blanket deleted an entry. An ill-informed entry.

Not ill informed. Reliably sourced. See here: "Calling the Stressors and Strain Assumptions into Question" cited in Hart, P.M. & Cooper, C.L. (2001).Occupational Stress: Toward a More Integrated Framework. In N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H.K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds), Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology (vol 2: Personnel Psychology) You seem to be the one who is very much ill-informed iss246. You blanket delete with no reference to any reliable sources.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Fifth, you have resort to puppet allegations because the intellectual structure on which you stand is as sturdy as tin and kite-paper. To hide your weaknesses you call other people names. I've observed you engage in attacks on other Wikipedia editors who see the flaws in your judgment. It is an age-old trick performed by people who don't know as much about the subject matter as the targets of their attacks. Iss246 (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, I suggest you read this Iss246, Wikipedia:Meat puppetry is what you engaged in by soliciting all of those 7 members from the Society for Occupational Health Psychology and it is considered very seriously by Wikipedia.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

iss246, you really do need to leave the area of work stress to chartered occupational psychologists and organizational psychologists in other parts of the world, that is, the expert practitioners in the field of occ stress. This is not the 'OHP' article. The field of work stress is the domain of industrial, organizational and work psychology. But I'm sure you already know that. I think you have 'muddled up your models' from the textbook you are looking at? Or something? You must be looking at the 1980s section?... when using terms like stressor and strain. Nowadays we call stressors risk factors as I said earlier iss246. It seems you are also not sure what the 'engineering approach' is? even though I think my explanation was pretty succinct. I'm sure psyc12 would agree it was succinct.

Anyway I don't think your friend psyc12 from the OHP society said he advocated that approach either, did he? I said "at least psyc12 understood what it is... "whereas you iss246...well..I won't state the bleeding obvious? All you seem to do is 'blanket delete' editors paragraphs with no reliable sources provided as to why that is my point here, keeping on topic. Cary Cooper who wrote that article you blanket deleted, is an organizational psychologist and organizational psychology professor and world expert in work stress. And how do you know all of those other members that you contacted from your OHP society in June, are not still active on Wikipedia still?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Either psyc12 or iss246 suddenly 'appear when they are needed' to back each other up whenever, wherever, never in opposition or in open disagreement with each other. Now on this article coming in and 'Tag teaming' and reverting my entire paragraph which is based on my reliable sources cited from experts in the field of occupational stress. The 'same pattern' since June 2013, when iss246 personally contacted the other 7 or more members of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology psyc12, 86.68.226.209, Jannainnaija, The.bittersweet.taste.of.life, 131.247.116.61, OHP Trainee, 65.129.69.250 and others to back up your point of view in discussions.

And the meat puppetry hasn't stopped! In fact, here is psyc12 again backing you up, always there with the same point of view, tag teaming unsubstantiated reverts. Then saying to me, as an independent editor, "sorry, 2 against 1" Surely consensus on this discussion page should not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors? And as I asked iss246, you have said numerous times "that none of your other friends you asked to join up, and open new Wikipedia accounts, all within 24 hours of each other to support your side of the discussion, are actively editing any more? But How do you know, they may again all re-appear tomorrow??Mrm7171 (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a good thing to have a point of view and support it (if you can), but when you Mrm7171 start talking smack (e.g., puppetry allegations that went nowhere in the court of Wikipedia, that Psych12 and I share identical views let alone are the same people,that I asked Janninmaja to contribute to Wikipedia--btw where is Janninmaa's vast trove of edits?), I lose any respect I had for you Mrm7171. When you Mrm7171 talk smack, it is a diversion from the problem that many of your edits lack substance. That is what some people who lack substance do. They talk smack. Iss246 (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

|}

Challenges to Stressor - Strain Approach

The Hart paper criticizes the Lazarus et al. transactional stress theory for not including a role for personality. He did not criticize the stressor - strain approach, and in fact his paper uses that framework. It is incorrect to suggest that there is some serious debate going on about stressor - strain, which is just a convention for separating the environment from people's responses, instead of mixing them up as was done in the early days of occupational stress research. The Hart paper might be worth mentioning in an article about Lazarus' theory in a section on its critics, or perhaps an article on life satisfaction, but not here. Psyc12 (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. Hart and Cooper are not disputing the idea of classifying variables into stressors and strains, or that stressors can lead to strains. They are taking the field to task for using a rigid engineering model of stressors mechanistically leading to strains, and they say things are more complex. They also want to integrate negative and positive experiences. To put this section here without defining what it is they are criticizing, is likely to be confusing and misleading. Furthermore, their arguments are far too complex and esoteric for a wiki article. Psyc12 (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing here psyc12. Before we go any further, this is a separate article entirely. Purely on the topic of occupational stress. Completely free from any politics. Entirely inclusive of Organizational psychology. I will not engage in edit warring. I will request dispute resolution very early if we cannot establish civility and respect editing this article. A quick example given we are talking about Cooper & Harts article here, and of organizational psychology's influence in the area of occupational stress. Between 1990 and 2001 there were 70 articles published using the key words of ‘occupational stress,’‘work stress,’ or ‘job stress’ in the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (JOOP) and 49 articles published in the journal of Occupational health psychology.

I don't want to get into a piss ant debate here either, over org psych's influence in the field of occ stress either. This is not an OHP article. I'm sure you already know there is simply no question about org psyc's massive influence in the field of occ stress. I plan to do a lot of work on this article and have already started. Happy to work constructively on it with you psyc12. You seem to have a lot of experience. But as i say I will follow through with dispute resolution quickly, if my work is blanket deleted again. Just trying to set some parameters here from the outset. It is too important an article, to bugger around with any nonsense.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. I will only delete something if I find it incorrect or too unclear to fix. If you think I am wrong, and I certainly could be, by all means put it into DR and lets get some other editors to weigh in. Unless we can come to an agreement on your new paragraph, I think you should do that with your new section to get some other views. Most of the time I will explain my edit in the history comment rather than on the talk page, and most of the time that should be sufficient.

I agree that organizational psychologists have had a tremendous impact on the study of occupational stress. That was never in dispute. Psyc12 (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

So, after reading your comments carefully. I don't entirely agree. The section clearly sets up the stage in this article for discussions over contemporary occ stress models right up to today. We don't need to go over the top. But each needs to be given the credit its due. I kind of see your point but my paragraph should stay. The field has moved past stressors/strains. Still integrates these concepts, sure. We need to view this from an organizational stress management approach too. Your thoughts?Mrm7171 (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

When I first read your paragraph, I deleted it because I could not understand what issues you were raising. Following the prior paragraph, it confused me. Now that I've had a chance to read the sources, I understand the issue, but it is not well described in the paragraph because it doesn't define the stressor-strain theory Hart is criticizing. You could create a section on theories that talks about the traditional mechanistic engineering view, and then more dynamic and complex views, but I wouldn't frame it as objections to stressor-strain, because that will likely be confusing, given the second section is stressor-strain. I would frame it just as theoretical approaches. Psyc12 (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Iss246, you have not discussed here, and again 'blanket deleted' my whole paragraph. You are engaging in unprovoked edit warring iss246. My citing of the number of studies published in JOOP were really for your benefit iss246, as I know psyc12 already appreciates organizational psychs past and present influence, if not sheer dominance, in the occ stress field internationally. Both in the research and those practitioners working with organizations around the world. Just not sure iss246 has 'faced' that reality as yet? Nonetheless, while the paragraph I took time constructing, is perhaps not perfect, it is certainly not bad either and uses reliable sources. That is what the reliable sources say. It was a new paragraph and based on Wikipedia policy it should be reinstated iss246 and worked on further if need be, particularly based on psyc12's comments which I understand. However Cary Cooper & Hart even use a similar title to mine in the reliable source cited. I therefore ask iss246 to revert the 'blanket deletion' of my paragraph please, rather than edit war iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, the Hart paper is more concerned with the Lazarus model than the dominant stressor-strain models in occupational stress research. The stressor-strain model is better embodied in the DC, DCS, and ERI models as well as the less theoretical risk factor model. What you wrote is not apt, as I have indicated in my comments upon entering my edits. You can create a new section devoted to the different models of occupational stress, including stress-strain models, and insert a sentence on a weakness in each model. Iss246 (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate that's your 'opinion' iss246, but Wikipedia is not about editor's opinions, my paragraph is based on what the reliable sources say. See here: The title to the section in reliable source used. "Calling the Stressors and Strain Assumptions into Question" "Although these four assumptions permeate much of the occupational stress literature, they have been called into question by a growing body of empirical evidence in the work psychology (e.g., Hart, 1999)..." cited in Hart, P.M. & Cooper, C.L. (2001).Occupational Stress: Toward a More Integrated Framework. In N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H.K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds), Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology (vol 2: Personnel Psychology). London: Sage. Your 'blanket deletion' based only on your opinion not reliable sources needs to be reverted iss246 you are edit warring on this article.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, it is true that the content of an article cannot be our opinions, but editorial judgment of what to include and not include, and where things best fit, and how best to frame them is based on editor opinion, as pointed out recently by Richard Keatinge. This is where editor consensus comes in. There are now two of us who are giving you feedback that where and how you placed this is confusing, and that it would better fit in a section on occupational stress models. I won't be insulted if you don't agree with me and get more editor opinions about this. If you want to create a section on theories, another good source is Cary Cooper's Theories of Organizational Stress. Psyc12 (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

(Psyc12/iss246)Wikipedia is about reliable sources and what they say. You have presented no reliable sources on the topic that Cary Cooper raised in the article cited, only some abstract reference to another editor on a separate Wikipidia article. You need to present reliable sources that state otherwise. At least, that is my understanding of how Wikipedia works?Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sourcesMrm7171 (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

My paragraph is based on what the reliable sources say. See here: The title to the section in reliable source used. "Calling the Stressors and Strain Assumptions into Question" cited in Hart, P.M. & Cooper, C.L. (2001).Occupational Stress: Toward a More Integrated Framework. In N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H.K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds), Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology (vol 2: Personnel Psychology). That is, Cary Cooper, psyc12.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The Hart paper is about the complexity behind the strain approach. It is not a challenge to the strain approach. The "edit war" seemingly was not about the paper itself but about its oppinionated presentation in the article. I think that it is ok to mention the paper, but the interpretation of the paper should be left to the reader. --DL5MDA (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi DL5MDA. Can you explain your statement here please: "That stress cannot be located in any single variable is not commonly assumed with the stressors and strains approach. The complexity is known since long time." I'm really not sure what you are talking about exactly?Mrm7171 (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The way DL5MDA has used the Hart references is clear and makes sense. Psyc12 (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Your changes were not related to DL5MDA's deletions. Will restore DL5MDA's opening sentence. Stressor and strains approach?

Mrm7171. I have no idea what you are talking about that my changes were not related. I just corrected DL5MDA's sentence to be consistent with the Hart and Cooper reference--they used the word stress. Your new section needs to be deleted until you can properly reference it. The Hurrell reference you included has nothing to do with Hart's criticisms of the stressor-strain approach--it is about coping. If you want to say that several authors have criticized the stressor-strain approach, you need a reference that specifically says so. Psyc12 (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171. Your third paragraph is unclear and the Hurrell paper does not say what you are claiming it says. The criticism you refer to concerns descriptive studies that merely show that stressors relate to strains. Hart and Cooper are making the point that we need to look at additional factors to better understand the complex stress process. In Cooper and Dewe's Stress a Brief History they note the important contribution of the early descriptive stressor-strain work, and then summarize other streams of research that followed. Psyc12 (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, if you are going to write, "A number of work stress researchers ..." you should have in parentheses immediately after the word "researchers" two or three examples of papers that hold the view you describe. And not just papers you read about but papers you actually read.

I have not yet read the Hurrell paper you, Mrm7171, cite. But I will either ask Joe Hurrell for a reprint or download the paper from PsycInfo. I want to read it because you Mrm7171 and Psyc12 have a difference of opinion. Iss246 (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I downloaded Joe Hurrell's paper from PsycInfo and read it. Mrm7171 makes too much of this 2-page paper. Hurrell, and Larry Murphy whom Hurrell cites, prefer a public health approach to the problem of work stress. Both have a public health orientation, which is consistent with their long tenure at NIOSH. The brief paper, however, is more concerned with occupational coping research. For example, Hurrell wrote that "it is simplistic to assume that certain patterns of coping response will invariably be adaptive" (p. 28) when discussing research findings bearing on problem- and emotion-focused coping. The paragraph in question in the occupational stress entry should be deleted or rewritten in the interest of accuracy. Iss246 (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Included Hurrell's article, without much thought. Abstract reference made to why stressor/strain approach just does not 'cut it' anymore when we are talking occ stress modelling. Will include a few reliable sources to back up the fact that there is growing support for a move away from stressors to risk factors as you both know. More so, by practitioners, agreed. But also in the research. I think you and psyc12 are missing the point that we are talking work stress in this article. Organizational stress management is therefore just important a focus and stressors being framed as psychosocial risk factors. Also coping is not as pronounced as in the area of occ stress as in clinical or health psych for instance. I'm okay with re-working the article, but don't agree with blanket deleting. Thoughts?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional quick thought? Given iss246, you keep mentioning that you 'know' certain researchers, and given that Hart and Cooper and a few more prominent org psychs which I know of, have put forward these criticisms of the stressors/strain approach in various papers, I'm hoping your opposition here is not again based on any politics within the research field or dislike/dismissal of the org psych profession/field? Just a question? I just want to gradually get this article up to a high standard, bit by bit. As you both see, it is pretty ordinary at the moment. Mrm7171 (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I have four points I want to make in response your above remarks. (I think we were editing at the same time, and something I wrote got tangled up. Sorry.)

1. Yes, I know Hurrell, Murphy, Chen, and Spector pretty well. I have only met Cooper a couple of times. At meetings. I don't know the Australian researcher Hart. The countryman(woman) of Hart's whom I've met most often is Dollard, and I like her work very much. When researchers are based on different continents one does not get to meet them often. I've read their work. So I know them in that way.

2. I think you have the right idea. It is important to read the article, and not limit yourself to the abstract. Why deny yourself access to important details that contextualize (and occasionally contradict) the bits of information in the abstract.

I meant 'abstract' in the sense of an abstract point Hurrel was making in that paper in reference he made to other research. I have read it too. psycinfo is a good resource. My point was Hurrell's paper I used as the reliable source, was not explicitly making the point other researchers have made regarding the limitations of the stressor/strain approach. I will provide more explicit reliable sources.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

3. I am not in opposition to other Wikipedia editors insofar as they, as I, want clearly written and accurate Wikipedia entries for topics such as occupational stress and OHP. I am in opposition to making it seem like OHP is a province of i/o Ψ; I am very clear about that.

I am not even going to comment on OHP here iss246. OHP is irrelevant. This article is about the broad field of occupational stress. Both research and practice. I do not wish to 'exclude' major research from any journal, either, in this article, which is/was my point in our joint endeavors, thus far, where I believe selection of papers used as RS, has been quite biased and 'selective' and has excluded many reliable sources on topics raised.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

We are at loggerheads at this juncture, on the status of OHP in Wikipedia. Iss246 (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. But here in this 'entirely separate article' about the field of occupational stress, we need to adhere to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. We just need to keep any discussion of the 'OHP' article away from this separate article's talk page. It is not relevant. I will transfer my point of view and your objection to that point of view, back over to that separate article as well. This separate article will 'thankfully' not require focus only on a very narrow set of studies, or list only a couple of specific journals in the body of the article, to the exclusion of all of the major international journals. If the letters 'OHP' are mentioned again, on this talk page, the discussion will need to be 'closed off,' as it will be 'off topic". Please comment on my points made below in the new section.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

4. I am concerned that the other day you treated my raising the issue of the DC and ERI models in connection to the stress and strain section as my raising "random theories." Expressing such a view suggests that you may not be well steeped in the research on occupational stress. I say this not to denigrate your knowledge. You probably, as I, are always looking to acquire new knowledge. I underline here that the DC and ERI models are quite prominent, and have played an important role in research linking psychosocial working conditions to depression and cardiovascular disease risk. Iss246 (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Not my intention. Not random theories/models at all. I have a pretty thorough knowledge of the stress models. Your idea of presenting each of the main ones up until today, is a good one. Agreed, descriptions also should be brief and well written. However this article is about work stress only. From the practitioner point of view, stressors are seen as psychosocial risk factors and within the larger organizational/occ stress framework. Please comment on the next paragraph and the points I've made.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have a short paragraph devoted to the DC model and another short paragraph devoted to the ERI model. Considerably more research has been generated by the DC model but that does not mean the DC paragraph has to be longer than the ERI paragraph. In addition, the DC model has generated some permutations in the form of the DCS (isostrain) and the JD-R models. At the moment, I am not inclined to work on those paragraphs because writing two clear and accurate paragraphs for Wikipedia, even short paragraphs, from scratch is time-consuming. And I am not a fast writer although I think I am a clear writer because I compulsively edit. My way of working on Wikipedia is to write one or two sentences a day, edit those sentences a day later, and add a sentence after I edited the accumulated sentences. Then edit the accumulated sentences the next day (there is now one more sentence). Then add a sentence. Edit. Add. Iterated over time. As you Mrm7171 already know from what you have done on Wikipedia, the work is time-consuming, particularly if you want what you write to be clear. Iss246 (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Off topicMrm7171 (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)