IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v20y1985i5p499-509.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Socialization and interpersonal environment in nurses' affective reactions to work

Author

Listed:
  • Decker, Frederic H.

Abstract

The dominant explanation of nurses' affective experience in work is the conflict between the beliefs and expectations developed during the formal training process (education) and the role definitions in the hospital work setting. Specifically, it is generally proposed that baccalaureate trained nurses experience this person-role conflict more than associate or diploma trained nurse because baccalaureate training instills more beliefs/expectations that conflict with the hospital nursing role. However, research has not sufficiently compared the effect of 'socialization' variables like education with other variables found to affect the work experience. This study uses path analysis to explore the relative effects of education, length of experience and the measured interpersonal work environment across types of person-role conflicts, on overall job satisfaction and on propensity to leave. The results show that the interpersonal factors are the paramount determinants of the measured person-role conflicts and, as well, have a greater effect than education and experience on job satisfaction. Also, education and length of experience have greater direct than indirect effects on propensity to leave, indicating that their effects are not via causality of job-related stress. Implications for programs designed to improve the nurse's work experience and effects are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Decker, Frederic H., 1985. "Socialization and interpersonal environment in nurses' affective reactions to work," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 499-509, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:20:y:1985:i:5:p:499-509
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(85)90366-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:20:y:1985:i:5:p:499-509. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.