Results
General Hypothesis(H1): There is no significant difference between high and low groups on emotional intelligence dimensions with regard to dimensions of occupational stress
Table 1 show the Mean, SD, and the t-value for high and low groups on self-awareness in relation to occupational stress dimensions.
Dimensions Groups N Mean SD t
Role overload
Low 35 17.20 4.45 .193
High 35 16.97 5.41
Role ambiguity
Low 35 10.00 2.85 .479
High 35 9.65 3.12
Role conflict
Low 35 12.82 3.07 .035
High 35 12.80 3.60
Unreasonable political &group pressure
Low 35 10.80 2.70 -.116
High 35 10.89 3.45
Responsibility for persons
Low 35 9.94 2.36 .214
High 35 9.82 2.09
Under participation
Low 35 10.91 2.47 .306
High 35 10.74 2.20
Powerlessness
Low 35 8.37 2.23 .519
High 35 8.08 2.36
Poor peer relations
Low 35 10.82 2.59 .287
High 35 10.65 2.40
Intrinsic impoverishment
Low 35 10.91 3.48 .189
High 35 10.77 2.79
Low status
Low 35 7.00 2.68 1.218
High 35 6.28 2.19
Strenuous working conditions
Low 35 10.25 3.03 -.625
High 35 10.71 3.08
Un profitability
Low 35 5.42 1.73 .068
High 35 5.40 1.80
Above table shows the occupational stress dimensions, high and low groups of self awareness, N, Mean, SD and the t values. The t value for the high and low groups of self awareness with regard to role over load dimension of occupational stress is 0.193. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of self awareness with regard to role overload dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of self awareness with regard to role ambiguity dimension of occupational stress is 0.479. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of self awareness with regard to role ambiguity dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of self awareness with regard to role conflict dimension of occupational stress is .0.035. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of self awareness with regard to role conflict dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of self awareness with regard to Unreasonable group and political pressure dimension of occupational stress is -0.116. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of self awareness with regard to unreasonable group and political pressure dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of self awareness with regard to responsibility for person’s dimension of occupational stress is 0.214. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of self awareness with regard to responsibility for person’s dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of self awareness with regard to under participation dimension of occupational stress is 0.306. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of self awareness with regard to under participation dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of self awareness with regard to powerlessness dimension of occupational stress is 0.519. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of self awareness with regard to powerlessness dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of self awareness with regard to poor peer relations dimension of occupational stress is 0.287. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of self awareness with regard to poor peer relations dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of self awareness with regard to intrinsic impoverishment dimension of occupational stress is 0.189 This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of self awareness with regard to intrinsic impoverishment dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of self awareness with regard to low status dimension of occupational stress is 1.21. This shows there are no significant difference between high and low groups of self awareness with regard to low status dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of self awareness with regard to Strenuous working conditions dimension of occupational stress is –0.625. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of self awareness with regard to strenuous working conditions dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of self awareness with regard to unprofitability dimension of occupational stress is 0.068. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of self awareness with regard to unprofitability dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
Table 2 shows the Mean, SD and the t-value for high and low groups on self regulation in relation to occupational stress dimensions.
Dimensions groups N Mean S D t
Role overload Low 35 17.25 4.13 .289
high 35 16.91 5.65 .289
Role ambiguity Low 35 10.14 2.73 .882
high 35 9.51 3.21 .882
Role conflict Low 35 13.25 3.52 1.100
high 35 12.37 3.20 1.100
Unreasonable political &group pressure Low 35 11.34 3.18 1.366
high 35 10.34 2.94 1.366
Responsibility for persons Low 35 9.54 2.17 -1.300
high 35 10.22 2.23 -1.300
Under participation Low 35 11.00 2.63 .613
high 35 10.65 1.99 .613
Powerlessness Low 35 8.31 2.28 .311
high 35 8.14 2.32 .311
Poor peer relations Low 35 10.42 2.53 -1.060
high 35 11.05 2.42 -1.060
Intrinsic impoverishment Low 35 11.11 3.53 .721
high 35 10.57 2.70 .721
Low status Low 35 7.28 2.83 1.931
high 35 6.08 1.90 1.931
Strenuous working conditions Low 35 10.68 2.77 .547
high 35 10.2 3.32 .547
Un profitability Low 35 5.42 1.71 .068
high 35 5.40 1.81 .068
The above table shows the occupational stress dimensions, high and low groups of self regulation, N, Mean, SD and the t values. The t value for the high and low groups of self regulation with regard to role over load dimension of occupational stress is 0.289. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of self regulation with regard to role overload dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of self regulation with regard to role ambiguity dimension of occupational stress is 0.882. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of self regulation with regard to role ambiguity dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of self regulation with regard to role conflict dimension of occupational stress is 1.100. This shows there are no significant differences between high and low groups of self regulation with regard to role conflict dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of self regulation with regard to Unreasonable group and political pressure dimension of occupational stress is 1.36. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of self regulation with regard to unreasonable group and political pressure dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of self regulation with regard to responsibility for person’s dimension of occupational stress is -1.30. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of self regulation with regard to responsibility for person’s dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of self regulation with regard to under participation dimension of occupational stress is 0.613. This shows there are no significant difference between high and low groups of self regulation with regard to under participation dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of self regulation with regard to powerlessness dimension of occupational stress is 0.311. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of self regulation with regard to powerlessness dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of self regulation with regard to poor peer relations dimension of occupational stress is -1.060. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of self regulation with regard to poor peer relations dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of self regulation with regard to intrinsic impoverishment dimension of occupational stress is 0.721 This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of self regulation with regard to intrinsic impoverishment dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of self regulation with regard to low status dimension of occupational stress is 1.931. This shows there are no significant difference between high and low groups of self regulation with regard to low status dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of self regulation with regard to strenuous working conditions dimension of occupational stress is 0.547. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of self regulation with regard to strenuous working conditions dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of self regulation with regard to unprofitability dimension of occupational stress is 0.068. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of self regulation with regard to unprofitability dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
Table 3 shows the Mean, SD and the t-value for high and low groups on motivation in relation to occupational stress dimensions.
Dimensions Groups N Mean SD t
Role overload
Low 35 17.02 5.00 -.096
High 35 17.14 4.91
Role ambiguity
Low 35 10.02 2.49 .559
High 35 9.62 3.42
Role conflict
Low 35 13.22 3.44 1.028
high 35 12.40 3.29
Unreasonable political &group pressure low 35 10.91 3.08 .193
high 35 10.77 3.12
Responsibility for persons low 35 10.34 2.49 1.751
high 35 9.42 1.81
Under participation low 35 10.82 2.64 .000
high 35 10.82 2.00
Powerlessness low 35 8.20 2.48 -0.104
high 35 8.25 2.11
Poor peer relations low 35 10.20 2.27 -1.862
high 35 11.28 2.59
Intrinsic impoverishment low 35 10.17 2.58 -1.820
high 35 11.51 3.56
Low status low 35 7.17 2.66 1.827
high 35 6.11 2.15
Strenuous working conditions low 35 10.91 2.98 1.181
high 35 10.05 3.08
Un profitability low 35 5.51 1.96 .474
high 35 5.31 1.54 .
The t value for the high and low groups of motivation with regard to role over load dimension of occupational stress is -0.096. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of motivation with regard to role overload dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of motivation with regard to role ambiguity dimension of occupational stress is 0.559. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of motivation with regard to role ambiguity dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of motivation with regard to role over conflict dimension of occupational stress is .1.028. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of motivation with regard to role conflict dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of motivation with regard to Unreasonable group and political pressure dimension of occupational stress is 0.193. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of motivation with regard to unreasonable group and political pressure dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of motivation with regard to responsibility for persons dimension of occupational stress is 1.751. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of motivation with regard to responsibility for persons dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of motivation with regard to under participation dimension of occupational stress is .000. This shows there are no significant difference between high and low groups of motivation with regard to under participation dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of motivation with regard to powerlessness dimension of occupational stress is .0.-.104. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of motivation with regard to powerlessness dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of motivation with regard to poor peer relations dimension of occupational stress is -1.86. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of motivation with regard to poor peer relations dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of motivation with regard to intrinsic impoverishment dimension of occupational stress is -1.820.This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of motivation with regard to intrinsic impoverishment dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of motivation with regard to low status dimension of occupational stress is 1.827. This shows there are no significant difference between high and low groups of motivation with regard to low status dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of motivation with regard to Strenuous working conditions dimension of occupational stress is 1.18. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of motivation with regard to strenuous working conditions dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of motivation with regard to unprofitability dimension of occupational stress is 0.637. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of motivation with regard to unprofitability dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
Table 4 shows the Mean, SD and the t-value for high and low groups on social awareness in relation to occupational stress dimensions.
Dimensions Groups N Mean SD t
Role overload
Low 35 17.08 4.39 .000
High 35 17.08 5.46
Role ambiguity
Low 35 9.91 2.63 .239
High 35 9.74 3.31
Role conflict
Low 35 12.82 2.97 .
High 35 12.80 3.77 .035
Unreasonable political &group pressure
Low 35 10.60 2.97
High 35 11.08 3.21 -.657
Responsibility for persons
Low 35 9.51 2.39
High 35 10.25 1.99 -1.412
Under participation
Low 35 11.25 2.13
High 35 10.40 2.46 1.556
Powerlessness
Low 35 8.14 2.26
High 35 8.31 2.34 -.311
Poor peer relations
Low 35 10.68 2.39
High 35 10.80 2.59 -.191
Intrinsic impoverishment
Low 35 10.80 3.05
High 35 10.88 3.26 -.113
Low status
Low 35 6.88 2.57
High 35 6.40 2.35 .824
Strenuous working conditions
Low 35 10.97 2.85
High 35 10.00 3.19 1.343
Un profitability
Low 35 5.42 2.00
High 35 5.40 1.49 .068
The above table shows the occupational stress dimensions, high and low groups of social awareness, N, Mean, SD and the t values. The t value for the high and low groups of social awareness with regard to role over load dimension of occupational stress is 0.00. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of social awareness with regard to role overload dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of social awareness with regard to role ambiguity dimension of occupational stress is 0.239. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of social awareness with regard to role ambiguity dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of social awareness with regard to role over conflict dimension of occupational stress is .0.035. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of social awareness with regard to role conflict dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of social awareness with regard to Unreasonable group and political pressure dimension of occupational stress is -0.657. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of social awareness with regard to unreasonable group and political pressure dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of social awareness with regard to responsibility for persons dimension of occupational stress is -1.412. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of social awareness with regard to responsibility for person’s dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of social awareness with regard to under participation dimension of occupational stress is 1.556. This shows there are no significant difference between high and low groups of social awareness with regard to under participation dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of social awareness with regard to powerlessness dimension of occupational stress is -0.311. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of social awareness with regard to powerlessness dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of social awareness with regard to poor peer relations dimension of occupational stress is -0.191. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of social awareness with regard to poor peer relations dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of social awareness with regard to intrinsic impoverishment dimension of occupational stress is -0.113. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of social awareness with regard to intrinsic impoverishment dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of social awareness with regard to low status dimension of occupational stress is 0.824. This shows there are no significant difference between high and low groups of social awareness with regard to low status dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of social awareness with regard to strenuous working conditions dimension of occupational stress is 1.343. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of social awareness with regard to strenuous working conditions dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of social awareness with regard to unprofitability dimension of occupational stress is 0.068. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of social awareness with regard to unprofitability dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
Table 5 shows the Mean, SD and the t-value for high and low groups on social skills in relation to occupational stress dimensions.
Dimensions Groups N Mean SD t
Role overload
Low 35 16.97 4.57 -0.193
high 35 17.20 5.31
Role ambiguity
Low 35 9.74 2.83 -0.239
high 35 9.91 3.15
Role conflict
Low 35 12.51 3.31 -0.742
high 35 13.11 3.44
Unreasonable political &group pressure
Low 35 10.60 2.87 -.657
high 35 11.08 3.30
Responsibility for persons
Low 35 9.80 2.41 -.321
high 35 9.97 2.03
Under participation
Low 35 11.22 2.31 1.449
high 35 10.42 2.30
Powerlessness
Low 35 8.08 2.10 -.519
high 35 8.37 2.48
Poor peer relations
Low 35 10.62 2.53 -.383
high 35 10.85 2.46
Intrinsic impoverishment
Low 35 11.17 3.21 .875
high 35 10.51 3.07
Low status
Low 35 6.22 2.40 -1.418
high 35 7.05 2.48
Strenuous working conditions
Low 35 10.34 2.75 -.390
high 35 10.62 3.34
Un profitability
Low 35 5.45 1.72 .203
high 35 5.37 1.81
The above table shows the occupational stress dimensions, high and low groups of social skills, N, Mean, SD and the t values.
The t value for the high and low groups of social skills with regard to role over load dimension of occupational stress is -.193. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of social skill with regard to role overload dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of social skills with regard to role ambiguity dimension of occupational stress is -0.239. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of social skill with regard to role ambiguity dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of social skills with regard to role over conflict dimension of occupational stress is -0.742. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of social skill with regard to role conflict dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of social skills with regard to Unreasonable group and political pressure dimension of occupational stress is 0-.657. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of social skill with regard to unreasonable group and political pressure dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of social skills with regard to responsibility for person’s dimension of occupational stress is -0.321. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of social skill with regard to responsibility for person’s dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of social skills with regard to under participation dimension of occupational stress is 1.449. This shows there are no significant difference between high and low groups of social skill with regard to under participation dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of social skills with regard to powerlessness dimension of occupational stress is -0.519. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of social skill with regard to powerlessness dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of social skills with regard to poor peer relations dimension of occupational stress is -.383. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of social skill with regard to poor peer relations dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of social skills with regard to intrinsic impoverishment dimension of occupational stress is 0.875 This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of social skill with regard to intrinsic impoverishment dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of social skills with regard to low status dimension of occupational stress is -1.418. This shows there are no significant difference between high and low groups of social skill with regard to low status dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of social skills with regard to Strenuous working conditions dimension of occupational stress is –0.390. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of social skill with regard to strenuous working conditions dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the high and low groups of social skills with regard to unprofitability dimension of occupational stress is o.203. This shows that there are no significant differences between high and low groups of social skill with regard to unprofitability dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
General Hypotheses H2: There is no significant difference between married and unmarried samples on occupational stress
Table 6 shows the Mean, SD and t values for married and unmarried samples on Occupational Stress.
Dimension Group N Mean SD T
Role overload
Married 35 15.45 5.04 -2.915
unmarried 35 18.71 4.26
Role ambiguity
Married 35 9.11 3.40 -2.053
unmarried 35 10.54 2.31
Role conflict
Married 35 11.34 3.23 -4.035
unmarried 35 14.28 2.85
Unreasonable political &group pressure
Married 35 10.34 3.40 -1.366
unmarried 35 11.34 2.67
Responsibility for persons
Married 35 10.08 2.16 .752
unmarried 35 9.68 2.28
Under participation
Married 35 10.97 2.14 .511
unmarried 35 10.68 2.51
Powerlessness
Married 35 7.60 2.39 -2.370
unmarried 35 8.85 2.03
Poor peer relations
Married 35 10.68 2.20 -.191
unmarried 35 10.80 2,76
Intrinsic impoverishment
Married 35 10.57 2.80 -.721
unmarried 35 11.11 3.46
Low status
Married 35 6.37 2.28 -.922
unmarried 35 6.91 2.62
Strenuous working conditions
married 35 9.77 2.78 -2.006
Unmarried 35 11.20 3.16
Un profitability
Married 35 5.40 1.70 -.068
Unmarried 35 5.42 1.83
The above table 6 shows the 12 occupational stress dimensions, two groups-married and unmarried- , N, Mean ,SD and the t values.
The t value for the role over load dimension is -2.91. This implies there is a significant difference between married and unmarried in role over load dimension. thus the hypothesis rejected.
The t value for the role over ambiguity dimension is -2.05. This implies there is a significant difference between married and unmarried in role over ambiguity dimension. Thus the hypothesis rejected
The t value for the role over conflict dimension is -4.03. This implies there is a significant difference between married and unmarried in role over conflict dimension. Thus the hypothesis rejected.
The t value for the unreasonable group and political pressure is -1.36. This implies there is no significant difference between married and unmarried samples in unreasonable group & political pressure dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted
The t value for the responsibility for persons is .752. This implies there is no significant difference between married and unmarried samples in responsibility for person’s dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the underparticipation is 0.511. This implies there is no significant difference between married and unmarried samples in underparticipation dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the powerlessness load dimension is -2.37. This implies there is a significant difference between married and unmarried in role powerlessness dimension. Thus the hypothesis rejected.
The t value for the poor peer relations is -2.37. This implies there is no significant difference between married and unmarried samples in poor peer relations dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the intrinsic impoverishment is -0.721. This implies there is no significant difference between married and unmarried samples in intrinsic impoverishment dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the low status is -0.922. This implies there is no significant difference between married and unmarried samples in low status dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for the strenuous working conditions dimension is -2.00. This implies there is a significant difference between married and unmarried in role strenuous working conditions dimension. Thus the hypothesis rejected
.
The t value for the unprofitability is -.068. This implies there is no significant difference between married and unmarried samples in unprofitability dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
General Hypothsis(H3): There is no significant difference between married and unmarried samples on emotional intelligence.
Table 7 shows the Mean, SD, and t values for married and unmarried samples on Emotional Intelligence.
Dimension Groups N Mean SD T
Self Awareness Married 35
35 43.485 7.26 1.27
unmarried 41.20 7.71
Self regulation Married 35 44.51 6.03 1.11
unmarried 35 42.94 5.71
Motivation Married 35 44.05 5.69 1.29
unmarried 35 42.02 7.32
Social Awareness Married 35 44.71 6.77 -.140
unmarried 35 44.971 8.53
Social skills Married 35 42.828 6.22 .152
unmarried 35 42.571 7.80
The above table shows the 5 dimensions of emotional intelligence, the two groups-married and unmarried- N, Standard Deviation and the t value. The t value for self awareness dimension is 1.27, which implies no significant difference between married and unmarried samples on this dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for self regulation is dimension is 1.11, which implies no significant difference between married and unmarried samples on this dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for motivation dimension is 1.29, which implies no significant difference between married and unmarried samples on this dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for social awareness dimension is -.140, which implies no significant difference between married and unmarried samples on this dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.
The t value for social skills dimension is .152, which implies no significant difference between married and unmarried samples on this dimension. Thus the hypothesis is accepted.