1. The effect of employment status upon stress
and burnoutlevels
by Shamel Rajapakse

2. Abstract
A data collection and analysis activity was carried out by a class of university students in order
to complete course requirements of the module research methods. As required by the study
students recruited and analyzed data regarding participants through the questionnaire method of
survey. Administration of questionnaires and data collection was supervised by the instructor of
the module. Based on data collected through this study, this analysis examines how stress level
differs between employed and unemployed individuals. Employment categories taken under
consideration as employment are full time employed, part time employed, self-employed and
student. Retired and unemployed categories are collectively considered as unemployment. A
total of 99 participants were recruited for this study. A demographics details questionnaire, a
stress and burnout questionnaire and a burnout prevention questionnaire were administered to
each participant. The results revealed an increase in stress and burnout scores in the employed
category of participants when compared to the unemployed category. However, effect size
between the two variables was poor.
Key words: stress, burnout, employment status, unemployment, student stress, work load, job-
stress
Introduction
In an overly competitive and time-driven world, terms such as “stress” and “burnout” are not
uncommon. Stress is understood as having a negative psychological impact and even able to
physical diseases such as cardiovascular diseases and cancer (Cohen, Janicki-Deverts and Miller
2007). Multiple studies have been conducted in recent research in order to establish links
between stress levels and employment related situations (Tennant 2001, Shields 2006, Prottas
and Thompson 2006, Anisman et al. 2005). Implications of employment statuses such as
unemployment, full time employment, self-employment, studentship have been taken under
study regarding work load and one’s ability to cope with external pressures (Tennant 2001,
Leiter, Maslach and Schaufeli 2001, Castillo and Misra 2004, Bartley 1994, Kim and Moen
2002). Psychological stress is defined by Cohen, Gordon and Kessler as a condition that occurs
“when an individual perceives that environmental demands tax or exceed his or her adaptive
capacity” (1995). Leiter, Maslach and Schaufeli define burnout as “a prolonged response to

3. chronic emotional and interpersonal stressors on the job, and is defined by the three dimensions
of exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy” (2001). As burnout is considered to be a result of
stressors experienced during employment, it is intriguing to measure how stress levels vary from
employed individuals to unemployed. Furthermore, organizational and workplace demands are
viewed as a common cause of stress in an individual’s life, relatively matched only by demands
in the family domain (Tennant 2001). Stress and burnout caused by employment leading to job
burnout can be influenced by factors such as personality traits, organizational settings and
demographic conditions (Leiter, Maslach and Schaufeli 2001). Academic demands have also
been found to cause stress in the student population, as revealed by studies conducted on college
students (Castillo and Misra 2004). According to research conducted by Castillo and Misra,
“psychological, emotional, behavioral and cognitive” are categories of stressors that affect the
psychological wellbeing of college students (2004). In addition to stress experienced in
employed conditions such as work and academics, it is important to note that research has found
evidence to show the possibility of psychological stress in unemployed and retired individuals as
well (Kim and Moen 2002, Creed and Macintyre 2001). Therefore it is clear that psychological
stress and burnout are conditions that apply to a wide range of employment situations. However,
a comparative study between the differences of stress and burnout levels in unemployed and
employed situations has not been done by any of the above mentioned studies. Furthermore, it is
important to note that the above studies have been conducted in the Western world, and therefore
remain questionable regarding their relevance to Asian cultures such as Sri Lanka. In this present
study conducted in Sri Lanka, 99 participants are recruited to be measured regarding
demographic details and stress and burnout. The relationship between employment,
unemployment and stress levels is taken under study. The research hypothesis (H1) of this study
is that employment (inclusive of full time employment, part time employment, self employment
and studentship) causes significantly increased stress in individuals when compared to
unemployed and retired individuals’ stress levels. The null hypothesis (H2) of this study is that
employment status has no significant effect upon stress levels of individuals.

4. Methodology
Survey design
The method of questionnaire in survey was selected for this study. The study was designed as a
combined effort by the students who were required to conduct the study and the module
instructor. A demographics questionnaire was designed by the students which included 14 close
ended multiple-choice categorical questions and 1 open ended question. The demographical
categories assessed by the questionnaire consisted of gender, age, highest level of education
completed, current level of employment, current income level, number of hours spent working
(in job) or in formal education (lectures) per week, relationship status, most frequent mode of
transport, average number of hours of sleep per day, ethnicity, religion, reported life satisfaction,
reported stress level and perceived physical appearance. The open ended question inquired about
three changes, if any, the participant desired to implement in life. The Stress and Burnout
Questionnaire and Burnout Prevention Assessment were provided by the instructor. The stress
and burnout questionnaire contained 24 statements that required a score of 0, 1 or 2 to be given
according to applicability to participant in the past 3-6 months. The 25th statement contained
somatic symptoms of stress which required the participants to provide the sum of symptoms
experienced frequently. The total score achievable from this questionnaire amounted to 50, and
each participant’s score was recorded at the close of the questionnaire by the researchers. The
burnout prevention assessment included 23 questions measuring participant responses in a range
of 0-5, 0-3 or 0-4 according to a range of categorical responses. The responses were aimed at
measuring how often the participant experienced symptoms of stress and burnout. The total score
of the burnout prevention assessment was 100. The score achieved by each participant was
recorded at the end of the questionnaire by the researchers. A score of over 60 implied that ample
measures are in place to prevent burnout, while a score of over 40 indicated sufficient measures
to be in place as well as the need to secure additional methods of burnout prevention. A score
under 30 indicated the need to prioritize implementation of methods in order to prevent burnout.
Data collected through the questionnaires was entered into a single worksheet and analyzed as a
whole by the use of descriptive statistical measures. Each student researcher was then allowed to
select a research hypothesis and conduct a research paper upon the selected hypothesis. The mid

5. value for stress and burnout is considered as 25, as the total score amounts to 50. The mid value
for burnout prevention is considered as 50, as the total score is 100.
Participants
Participant recruitment was conducted through students. Each student recruited three participants
for the study. Participants consent was acquired through informative consent forms that
explained the nature and proceedings of the study. Participants were required to be present at a
given location in the university premises where the study was conducted simultaneously to all
participants by student researchers. The questionnaires were administered to participants by the
students under the supervision of the module instructor. The complete number of participants in
the study amounted to 99. Participants were aged between 18 years to 55 years and above, and
included 53 females and 46 males. Accordingly the sample consisted of 46.50% male
participants and 53.60% female participants. Educational levels of participants varied from
Ordinary Level Examinations or equivalent to post graduate level. Participants’ income levels
varied from below LKR 15,000 per month to above LKR 100,000 per month. An overview of
demographic details of the participants in provided in the results section (figure 1).
Results
The demographic details questionnaire revealed the following general information regarding the
demographic representations of the sample (figure 1).
Figure 1. Demographic details of participants
Demographical category
Number of participants and
percentage
Gender
Male
Female
46 (46.50%)
53 (53.40%)
Age
18-24 yrs
25-34 yrs
64 (64.65%)
13 (13.10%)

6. 35-44 yrs
45-54 yrs
55 and above
4 (4.05%)
8 (8.09%)
10 (10.10%)
Highest level of education
O/L or equivalent
A/L or equivalent
Diploma or professional training
University degree
Postgraduate qualification
10 (10.10%)
45 (45.50%)
23 (23.23%)
17 (17.17%)
4 (4.05%)
Current employment status
Employed full time
Self employed/working part time
Neither student nor employed
Student
Retired
20 (20.20%)
18 (18.20%)
15 (15.20%)
47 (47.18%)
4 (4.05%)
Current income level
Below LKR 15,000
Between LKR 15,000-30,000
Between LKR 30,000-50,000
Between LKR 50,000-100,000
Above LKR 100,000
*Participants who did not respond
29 (29.30%)
9 (9.09%)
14 (14.15%)
7 (7.08%)
8 (8.09%)
31 (31.31%)
Number of hours spent working per week
Less than 10 hours
Between 10-20 hours
Between 20-30 hours
Between 30-40 hours
Between 40-50 hours
More than 50 hours
*Participants who did not respond
19 (19.20%)
24 (24.26%)
13 (13.13%)
13 (13.13%)
16 (16.17%)
7 (7.08%)
7 (7.08%)
Relationship status

7. Single
In a relationship
Married/Engaged
Divorced
Other
46 (46.50%)
20 (20.20%)
30 (30.30%)
1 (1.01%)
2 (2.02%)
Most frequent mode of transport
Private transport, but not self-driven
Private transport, self-driven
Motorbike
Taxi/Three-wheeler/Cab
Public transport
Bicycle
On foot
13 (13.13%)
14 (14.15%)
7 (7.08%)
33 (33.33%)
30 (30.30%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Average amount of sleep per day
Less than 6 hours
6-8 hours
8-10 hours
More than 10 hours
25 (25.26%)
65 (65.66%)
9 (9.10%)
0 (0%)
Ethnicity
Burgher
Muslim
Sinhalese
Tamil
Other
3 (3.03%)
42 (42.42%)
40 (40.50%)
12 (12.12%)
2 (2.02%)
Religion
Buddhism
Christianity
Hinduism
Islamism
Atheism
Do not identify with any religion
29 (29.30%)
17 (17.18%)
8 (8.09%)
42 (42.40%)
1 (1.01%)
2 (2.02%)

8. Reported life satisfaction
Somewhat satisfied
Very satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
*Participants who did not respond
39 (39. 40%)
53 (53.50%)
4 (4.05%)
0 (0%)
3 (3.03%)
Reported stress
Almost daily
Several times a week
About once a week
Once or twice a month
Only when faced with a new or demanding
situation
Rarely
Almost never
7 (7.08%)
15 (15.20%)
11 (11.00%)
6 (6.10%)
42 (42.50%)
12 (12.00%)
2 (2.00%)
Perceived physical appearance
Very happy with physical appearance
Overall happy, would change few minor
things
Want to change several things about physical
appearance
Extremely dissatisfied with physical
appearance
38
56
4
1
In relation to employment statuses of the sample, 20 participants (20.2%) of the sample belonged
to the full time employed category. 18 participants (18.2%) belonged to the self-employed/part
time employed category. 15 participants (15.16%) belonged to the unemployed category. 47
participants (47.48%) were students. 4 participants (4.05%) were retired. The average burnout
prevention score for full time employed participants was M=57.5. Self employed participants
received an average score of M=17.17. Average stress and burnout score of unemployed
participants was M=17.13. Stress and burnout average of students amounted to M=17.02.

9. Average stress and burnout score of retired participants was M=9.25. In the calculation of
statistical significance, employment status is regarded as the independent variable and stress and
burnout score is the dependable variable.
The highest stress and burnout score was found in the self employed/part time employed
category. The second highest stress and burnout score belonged to full time employed
participants. Students, retired participants and unemployed participants held third fourth and fifth
ranking stress and burnout scores. An overview of stress levels related to each employment
status is displayed in the graph below (figure 2).
Accordingly, the collective score of the stress and burnout questionnaire for full time employed
participants was 290. Self employed/part time employed participants scored 309 collectively.
Unemployed participants scored 15. Students scored 257, and retired participants scored 37.
Therefore it is evident that full time employment, part time employment/self employment and
studentship caused higher test scores in the sample when compared with stress and burnout
scores caused by unemployment and retirement. The range of variability among stress and
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Stressandburnoutscores
Employment status
Figure 2. Collective stress and burnout scores of each
employment category

10. burnout scores of each employment status was: full time employed participants 32, self
employed/working part time 27, unemployed 23, student 34 and retired 10.
In order to analyze the effect of employment status upon stress levels, the data is divided into
two main categories of employed and unemployed. Employed scores include full time employed,
self-employed/part time employed and student categories of demographic data. Unemployed
includes unemployed and retired categories of demographic data. 80 participants belonged to the
employed category, while 19 belonged to the unemployed category. The mean of the stress and
burnout scores of employed category was M=16.5. In the unemployed category, M=15.5. The
standard deviation of the collection of stress and burnout scores on the employed category
(including full time employed, self employed, part-time employed and student categories) was
ơ=8.28. The standard deviation of the scores of the unemployed category (including retired) was
ơ=6.96. The standard deviation value for the overall score of both employed and unemployed
categories was ơ=8.01. A comparison of stress and burnout scores of the above mentioned two
categories is summarized in the graph below (figure 3).
The effect size of the difference between stress and burnout scores of the two categories was
computed to be d=0.1312. As effect size was below 0.3, the effect size is considered poor.
Discussion
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Employed Unemployed
stressandburnoutscores
employment category
Figure 3. comparison ofstress and burnout scores between employed
and unemployed categories

11. Results indicated that a relationship does exist between employment status and stress and
burnout scores. Stress and burnout scores of full time employed, self employed/part time
employed and student categories yielded higher than stress and burnout scores of unemployed
and retired categories. However, as the effect size of the result was poor, the generalizability of
the results to a larger population remains questionable. It must also be noted that the student
category constructed the majority of the sample (47.47%). It is questionable as to whether
studentship can be considered as a valid form of employment, as the pressures concerning work
stress and job burnout may not be equally applicable to students. Therefore the inclusion of
students in the employed category creates complications in the interpretation of the results.
Similarly, only four participants of the sample belonged to the retired category. Therefore the
stress and burnout scores of the retired category may have faced a statistical disadvantage, as an
increased number of retired participants may have altered the results of the study. The
categorization of unemployed individuals and retired individuals into one category as
unemployed may also be inaccurate, as stress levels of an unemployed individual may be
significantly different to stress levels of a retired individual (Bartley 1994, Kim and Moen 2002).
The participants of the research were selected through random sampling and therefore favor the
generalizability of the results. A near equal representation of genders is also evident in the
sample (46.50% male participants and 53.40% female participants). However, the participants of
the research were recruited by students from an urban university, and therefore belonged to an
urbanized culture. Therefore the extraneous variable of urban effect upon stress may have
influenced the results of the study (Fiorito et al. 1991, Deuschle et al. 2011). The sample size of
99 may also have been inadequate to measure the difference in stress levels of employed and
unemployed categories, and reduced variation within the sample, such as too few retired
participants and too many student participants. Therefore increased variety and quantity in the
research sample may benefit future replications of this study.
Several flaws and limitations were also found in the survey design. The demographic details
questionnaire contained several double barrel response categories that may have confused the
participant in answering and the researcher in interpreting data from the questionnaire. Such
categorical options included self employed and part time employed being stated as one response,
as well as married and engaged belonging to the same response option. The inability to

12. differentiate between these responses may have influenced the validity of the results in this
study. Additionally, 32 participants did not provide any response regarding current income level.
Therefore no premise can be drawn regarding the financial demographics of the sample.
Furthermore, as stress and burnout may be negatively denotative to individual perception, a
possibility remains that the titles of the questionnaires as well as questions regarding self-
reported stress levels may have evoked social desirability in participants, and led to an inaccurate
self-report of individual stress levels, as well as surreal reports of burnout prevention measures.
The burnout prevention assessment scores have not been displayed nor discussed in this paper, as
burnout prevention is not taken into consideration in the current hypothesis.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the results of the study displayed a higher score of stress and burnout in employed
participants in comparison to unemployed participants. However, as the mean values of the two
categories differed only by 1.0 (16.5-15.5), and as the effect size was calculated to be d=0.1312,
the generalizability of the results remains poor. Furthermore, the inability to distinguish between
self-employed participants and part time employed participants creates difficulty in data analysis,
as stress levels may differ from self-employment to part time employment. The increase of
student participants may also have led to misconceptions regarding actual stress levels of
employed and unemployed individuals. Therefore it is to be inferred that a poor correlation does
exist between employment status and increase of stress and burnout levels.

13. References
Anisman, H., Mantler, J., Matejicek, A. and Matheson, K. (2005) ‘Coping with employment
uncertainty: A comparison of employed and unemployed workers’. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology [online] 10(3), 200-209. available from
<http://web4.uwindsor.ca/users/f/fsirois/GradAppl.nsf/0/6c9e6979bbb25cac85256e1d006734ca/
$FILE/Mantler_etal_2005.pdf> [25 June 2015]
Bartley, M. (1994) ‘Unemployment and ill health: understanding the relationship’. Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health [online] 48, 333-337. available from
<http://jech.bmj.com/content/48/4/333.full.pdf> [27 June 2015]
Castillo, L. G. and Misra, R. (2004) ‘Academic Stress Among College Students: Comparison of
American and International Students’. International Journal of Stress Management [online]
11(2), 132-148. available from
<http://www.johnbowne.org/ourpages/auto/2015/3/30/50025967/academic%20stress%20among
%20college%20students.pdf> [27 June 2015]
Cohen, S., Gordon, L. U. and Kessler, R. C. (1995) ‘Strategies for measuring stress in studies of
psychiatric and physical disorder’. cited in Cohen, S., Gordon, L. U. and Kessler, R. C. (n.d.)
Measuring stress. New York: Oxford University Press
Cohen, S., Janicki-Deverts, D. and Miller, G. E. (2007) ‘Psychological Stress and Disease’.
Journal of the American Medical Association [online] 298(14), 1685-1687. available from <
http://sites.northwestern.edu/foundationsofhealth/files/2013/03/07-JAMA-Psychological-stress-
disease.pdf> [27 June 2015]
Creed, P. A. and Macintyre, S. R. (2001) ‘The Relative Effects of Deprivation of the Latent and
Manifest Benefits of Employment on the Well-Being of Unemployed People’. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology [online] 6(4), 324-331. available from <
ftp://190.25.233.21/DOCUMENTOS/Latitude/PDF/JOHP/2001(4)(324-331).pdf > [27 June
2015]

14. Deuschle, M., Haddad, L., Kirsch, P., Lederbogen, F., Meyer-Lindenberg, A., Pruessner, J. C.,
Rietschel, M., Schuch, P., Streit, F., Tost, H. and Wȕst, S. (2011) ‘City living and urban
upbringing affect neural social stress processing in humans’. Nature [online] 474, 498-501.
available from <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7352/abs/nature10190.html> [28
June 2015]
Fioroto, E., Losito, B. D., Miles, M. A., Simons, R. F., Ulrich, R. S. and Zelson, M. (1991)
‘Stress Recovery During Exposure to Natural and Urban Environments’. Journal of
Environmental Psychology [online] 11, 201-230. available from
<http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roger_Ulrich4/publication/222484914_Stress_recovery_du
ring_exposure_to_natural_and_urban_environments/links/00b4953a3feb8bad67000000.pdf> [28
June 2015]
Kim, J. E. and Moen, P. (2002) ‘Retirement Transitions, Gender, and Psychological Well-Being:
A Life-Course, Ecological Model’. Journal of Gerontology [online] 57(3), 212-222. available
from <http://psychsocgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/3/P212.full.pdf> [27 June
2015]
Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C. and Schaufeli, W. B. (2001) ‘Job Burnout’. Annual Review of
Psychology [online] 52, 397-422. available from
<file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/maslach_01_jobburnout.pdf> [27 June 2015]
Prottas, D. J. and Thompson, C. A. (2006) ‘Stress, Satisfaction, and the Work-Family Interface:
A Comparison of Self-Employed Business Owners, Independents, and Organizational
Employees’. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology [online] 11(4), 366-378. available
from
<http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Cynthia_Thompson7/publication/6737391_Stress_satisfact
ion_and_the_work-family_interface_a_comparison_of_self-
employed_business_owners_independents_and_organizational_employees/links/53ebaa1c0cf250
c8947a90a9.pdf> [25 June 2015]
Shields, M. (2006) ‘Stress and depression in the employed population’. Heath Reports [online]
17(4), 11-29. available from

15. <http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Margot_Shields2/publication/6685427_Stress_and_depress
ion_in_the_employed_population/links/540b14ae0cf2d8daaabfbacc.pdf> [25 June 2015]
Tennant, C. (2001) ‘Work-related stress and depressive disorders’. Journal of Psychosomatic
Research [online] 51, 697-704. available from
<http://www.uic.edu/sph/glakes/occupational/reading_lists/73102/pdfs/tennant.pdf> [27 June
2015]