Please note – This lesson is best viewed in desktop mode – click the three dots on your browser and tick ‘desktop mode’ if viewing on a small screen device
For the frequently asked essay question on PS04, “Discuss one model of workplace stress. [20],” here is a top scoring model answer.
Lets-
- first review the model answer;
- then look at the markscheme requirements; and
- then learn why the answer earns perfect 20 marks with examiner commentary.
The Model Answer
Karasek’s Job Demands-Control (J D-C) model suggests workplace stress results from the interaction between job demands and control. Job demands include workload, time pressure and mental effort. Control, called decision latitude, means autonomy over tasks and work organisation. The model creates four job types from these factors-
- Low-strain jobs have low demands and high control.
- Passive jobs have low demands and low control.
- Active jobs have high demands and high control.
- High-strain jobs have high demands and low control.
This high-strain combination is predicted to be most stressful. Karasek argued it’s this specific interaction that causes stress, not just high demands alone. The model therefore provides a clear framework for understanding how workplace factors combine to create stress.
A strength of this model is the strong research support from Marmot et al.’s Whitehall II study. This longitudinal study followed 7000 civil servants over five years. It found lower-grade workers had 1.5 times more heart disease than higher grades. The key factor was low decision latitude, independent of other risks like smoking. This directly supports Karasek’s emphasis on control as crucial for stress. Therefore, this high-quality evidence validates the model’s core principle about control.
Another strength is the model’s practical usefulness for reducing workplace stress. By identifying control as key, it suggests clear interventions like increasing worker autonomy. Karasek himself showed in 1990 that enhancing job control reduced stress-related health problems. This means organisations can apply the model directly to improve working conditions. The model moves beyond theory to offer real solutions. Therefore, it has significant value for creating healthier workplaces.
A weakness is the model’s oversimplification by ignoring individual differences. It assumes all workers react similarly to high-strain conditions. However, personality factors like hardiness provide a concrete counterpoint. Hardy individuals may see high demands as challenging rather than stressful, even with low control. This shows the demand-control interaction isn’t universal. Since the model doesn’t account for such individual differences, its predictions are limited for individual cases.
Another weakness is that research fails to consistently support the predicted interaction effect. Karasek’s model specifically states stress is worst when high demands meet low control. Yet Jones and Bright note many studies find no such statistical interaction. Evidence often shows control is the main factor, with demands less important. This challenges the model’s main assumption about how these factors combine. Thus, the model may be incomplete as it focuses on an interaction not strongly supported by evidence.
Markscheme Requirements
To score full 20, the following criteria have to be met-
- Knowledge of one model of workplace stress is accurate and generally well detailed.
- Discussion is effective.
- The answer is clear, organised and focused.
- Specialist terminology is mostly used effectively
Understanding how the Answer Scores Full 20 Marks
| Answer | Examiner Commentary |
| Karasek’s Job Demands-Control (J D-C) model suggests workplace stress results from the interaction between job demands and control. Job demands include workload, time pressure and mental effort. Control, called decision latitude, means autonomy over tasks and work organisation. The model creates four job types from these factors. Low-strain jobs have low demands and high control. Passive jobs have low demands and low control. Active jobs have high demands and high control. High-strain jobs have high demands and low control. This high-strain combination is predicted to be most stressful. Karasek argued it’s this specific interaction that causes stress, not just high demands alone. The model therefore provides a clear framework for understanding how workplace factors combine to create stress. | This AO1 section is a model answer. The knowledge is accurate and well-detailed, correctly identifying all key components: the model’s name, the two core factors (with definitions and examples), and the four resulting job types. It accurately focuses on the main prediction about high-strain jobs and the interactive nature of the model. The answer is organised logically and sequentially; and uses specialist terminology like “decision latitude” and the job type names effectively. |
| A strength is the strong research support from Marmot et al.’s Whitehall II study. This longitudinal study followed 7000 civil servants over five years. It found lower-grade workers had 1.5 times more heart disease than higher grades. The key factor was low decision latitude, independent of other risks like smoking. This directly supports Karasek’s emphasis on control as crucial for stress. Therefore, this high-quality evidence validates the model’s core principle about control. | This point shows effective discussion through strong research evidence. The student selects appropriate, high-quality evidence from the source material and uses it to directly support the model’s focus on control. The explanation clearly links the empirical findings to the model’s theoretical principles, showing how the evidence validates Karasek’s approach. |
| Another strength is the model’s practical usefulness for reducing workplace stress. By identifying control as key, it suggests clear interventions like increasing worker autonomy. Karasek himself showed in 1990 that enhancing job control reduced stress-related health problems. This means organisations can apply the model directly to improve working conditions. The model moves beyond theory to offer real solutions. Consequently, it has significant value for creating healthier workplaces. | This shows effective discussion of practical applications. The student demonstrates the model’s real-world value by explaining how it leads to concrete interventions. The use of Karasek’s own applied research provides solid evidence for this strength. The evaluation successfully argues that the model has significant value beyond theoretical explanation. |
| A weakness is the model’s oversimplification by ignoring individual differences. It assumes all workers react similarly to high-strain conditions. However, personality factors like hardiness provide a concrete counterpoint. Hardy individuals may see high demands as challenging rather than stressful, even with low control. This shows the demand-control interaction isn’t universal. Since the model doesn’t account for such variations, its predictions are limited for individual cases. | This demonstrates effective critical discussion through identification of a key limitation. The student provides a concrete counterpoint using the concept of hardiness to challenge the model’s universal predictions. The evaluation successfully argues that the model’s oversimplification limits its predictive power for individual cases of employees, showing balanced and thoughtful criticism. |
| Furthermore, research fails to consistently support the predicted interaction effect. Karasek’s model specifically states stress is worst when high demands meet low control. Yet Jones and Bright note many studies find no such statistical interaction. Evidence often shows control is the main factor, with demands less important. This challenges the model’s fundamental premise about how these factors combine. Thus, the model may be incomplete as it emphasizes an interaction not strongly supported by evidence. | This shows effective critical discussion by challenging the model’s main assumption. The student uses specific research evidence to question the fundamental interaction concept itself. The discussion is particularly effective because it cites contradictory evidence that suggests control alone may be the dominant factor, thereby questioning the very basis of Karasek’s interactive approach. |
search terms – oxford ial psychology, oxford a levels psychology, oxford aqa a level psychology, oxford aqa a levels psychology, oxford a level psychology, 9685, international a level psychology, international psychology, revision, past paper solution, karasek model of workplace stress, stress, a2, application to workplace, psychology applied to work, year 13, year 2, unit 4, ao1, ao3, description, evaluation, 20-marker, essay, paper 1, ps04, pso4