International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences

© 2017 Available online at www.irjabs.com

ISSN 2251-838X / Vol, 11 (1): 31-40
Science Explorer Publications

Work Stress among Flight Attendants; The

Perspective of a Standard Sports Examination
Designing as a Prerequisite to Flight License
Hossein Hajiyousefi1*, Hassan Asadi2 and Afsar Jafari2
1. Sport Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2. Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran


Corresponding author email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT: Stress is an everyday reality in the aviation scenario. Stress is an insidious threat to
aviation safety because of the impairments in alertness and performance it creates. Anyone can be
affected by stress, but the extent to which we experience stress depends on our life-style. Exercise is
an appropriate strategy for physical fitness, prevention and coping with stress. This research
compares occupational stressors between athlete and non- athlete flight attendants in 2 Iranian’s
airlines. In this regard, by reviewing previous researches and interviewing with aviation experts, 33
occupational stressor variables based on speilberger job stress questionnaire (1984) were identified.
The validity of the questionnaire was approved by the 19 experts and the reliability was determined
by cronbach’s alpha coefficient (r=0.97). Questionnaires were distributed among the flight attendants
in 4 airports. Independent T test was used to compare occupational stressors between athlete and
non-athlete flight attendants. The results showed that there is significance difference in
organizational and managerial occupational stressors between athlete and non-athlete flight
attendants.
Keywords: Athlete, Aviation, Exercise, Flight crew, Iran, Job stress

INTRODUCTION
The Concept of stress and work stress
Since the early 1980s there has been a growing concern in the western world about the increase in and
causes of stress both at work and in life in general. The pace of change has accelerated dramatically since
1900. Science and technology have had a significant effect on this rate of change, starting with the advent of
the aircraft and electricity in 1900, radar and television in the 1930s, nuclear power in the 1950s, space travel in
the 1960s and 1970s, and information technology and the internet in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s (Jones et al.,
2001). Stress affects many people all over the world and it has devastating consequences if not properly
managed (Ivancevich et al., 2002). Stress has been defined in different ways over the years. Originally, it was
conceived of as pressure from the environment, then as strain within the person. The generally accepted
definition today is one of interaction between the situation and the individual. It is the psychological and
physical state that results when the resources of the individual are not sufficient to cope with the demands and
pressures of the situation. Thus, stress is more likely in some situations than others and in some individuals
than others. Stress can undermine the achievement of goals, both for individuals and for organizations (Michie,
2002). According to Dr. Hans Selye, stress is defined as "any event which may make demands upon the
organism, and set in motion a non-specific bodily response which leads to a variety of temporary or permanent
physiological or structural changes" (Selye, 1955). Richard S Lazarus simplified the above definition (commonly
accepted definition) and stated that "Stress is a condition or feeling experienced when a person perceives that
demands exceed the personal and social resources the individual is able to mobilize." (Lazarus, 1966). Job
stress can be defined as the harmful physical and emotional responses that occur when the requirements of
the job do not match the capabilities, resources, or needs of the worker. Job stress can lead to poor health and
even injury (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1998). Many researchers, like Spiel Berger
(1979), believe that work stress is one of the most important factors affecting productivity because of the direct
relationship between the individual's behavior and the stress he or she experiences (Barhem, 2004). Many
authors have noted the lack of consensus on even a definition of stress (e.g., Alluisi, 1982; Beehr et al., 1978;
Cofer et al., 1964; Hogan et al., 1982; Janis et al., 1968; McGrath, 1976; Schuler, 1980). One of the greatest
sources of stress in modern life is labor stress (Ahmadi et al., 2009). Recent studies have shown that the
financial cost of work stress has increased considerably worldwide (Spielberger et al., 1995; Levy, 1998), in the
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 11 (1), 31-40, 2017

USA (Matteson et al., 1987; Richardson et al., 1997; Arntz, 1998; Deneen, 1998; Aldred, 1998), UK and in
Japan (Krohe, 1999).
According to the most recent handbook of work stress, “job stress is an international problem” (Liu et
al., 2005). Work stress is a major concern in all developing and industrialized countries, affecting not only
employees whose health is at stake but also organizations and society as a whole (Le Blanc et al., 2008).
Anyone can become a victim of occupational stress. Generally, however, the most stressful jobs are those in
which there is responsibility for people. The possibility of physical danger either to oneself or to others
contributes to the stressfulness of a job (Bryce, 2001). Employees around the world have reported that they feel
increasingly stressed at work (Murphy et al., 2003). However, the majority of studies on job stress have been
undertaken in Western countries, especially in the UK and the USA, and also in Canada and Australia (Spector
et al., 2002). In contrast, such studies are lacking in developing countries (Chopra, 2009; Kortum et al., 2008).

The Stress and work stress in aviation

Just over 100 years ago in 1903, the Wright Brothers pioneered modern powered flight and laid the
foundation for what has become one of the world’s largest industries: air transportation. The global travel
industry, dominated by air travel, has expanded rapidly over the past 30 years with total passenger numbers
approaching 2 billion year. Psychologists have been continuously associated with developments in aviation
from World War II where their expertise was used to help in pilot selection. After the war, and with the rapid
developments in commercial aviation, psychology was also applied in designing the layout of the flight deck of
aircraft, improving communication between pilots and air traffic controllers, advising on staff rosters to ensure
that crew are not unduly affected by fatigue, devising the safest and most efficient means of escape from
aircraft in the event of an accident, and in crew selection, among many others (Bor, 2007). In the recent years
effects of stress on adaptation and human performance have received considerable attention in the medical
literature but relatively little is known about psychological stress in the commercial airline pilots.
Notwithstanding mystique about the aviators’ intrepid coolness, rationality and fortitude; yet pilots are human in
the context of mood, emotion, and predisposition, in after words the “affect” (Leo jeeva et al., 2008).
Stress is an everyday reality in the aviation scenario (Leo jeeva et al., 2008). Stress is an insidious
threat to aviation safety because of the impairments in alertness and performance it creates. The aviation
environment is a high risk environment and rich in potential stressors such as temperature, acceleration, noise
and communication, decompression sickness, vibration, hypoxia, exhaust fumes and motion sickness.
Obviously, all these environmental stressors which affecting aviation pilots both civil and military have a
negative effect on the safety of flight (Ahmadi et al., 2006). Stress can cause aviators to commit thinking errors
and to take mental shortcuts that could be potentially fatal (Aeromedical Training for Flight Personnel, 2000).
Previous studies have shown that stress is a main factor in determining aviation security. Very high levels of
stress will lead to job performance reduction in pilots and it is a main symptom for pilot error (Astoora, 1998;
Boser, 1998; Chong, 2001). Below is a list of some stressful occupations and the occupational stress rating
associated with them: air traffic controller (8.0), policeman (8.0), pilot (7.7), doctor (6.8), nurse (6.5), fireman
(6.3), paramedic (6.3), and teacher (6.2) (Bryce, 2001).

Human factors
In aviation, accidents almost always occur in a sequence of mistakes made, like a domino effect.
Stress is the finger that many times pushes the first domino into the rest causing the effect. In order to maintain
safety in aviation, at least one of these dominos must be removed to avoid a dreadful accident. This is where all
of human factor studies and hard work can come into play. Depending on what particular job a person is
performing in aviation, they must take steps to avoid undue stress. Stress can be avoided by taking steps to
relieve other possible factors. Physical factors such as getting plenty of rest, eating a balanced diet and
drinking plenty of water while exercising regularly will help the body resist fatigue and stress. Mental factors are
equally as important. Knowing one’s job well and being confident in the execution of job duties will equally
reduce stress. The equilibrium of physical and mental factors does not completely destroy the stress factor, but
it will make it manageable and thus safer for everyone (Aviation Knowledge, 2012).
Human factors are a broad field that examines the interaction between people, machines, and the
environment for the purpose of improving performance and reducing errors. As aircraft became more reliable
and less prone to mechanical failure, the percentage of accidents related to human factors increased. Some
aspect of human factors now accounts for over 80 percent of all accidents (Federal Aviation Administration).
Research has shown that 70 percent of the accidents in aviation are attributed to less than optimum human
performance (Civil Aviation Authority, 2002; Cebola et al., 2009; Strauch, 2004). Research has been conducted
in specific contexts, most of it has been undertaken to explain the relationship between stress and accidents
(Green, 1985).

32
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 11 (1), 31-40, 2017

Stress in flight attendant’s job

For pilots and other crewmembers, even under ordinary conditions, the flight environment includes
stressors such as noise, vibration, decreased barometric pressure, and accelerative forces. Fatigue and altered
sleep-wake cycles also may be factors, especially for crewmembers on flights that span several times zones
(Aviation Knowledge, 2012). Although the flying public regularly observes flight attendants performing activities
associated with routine passenger service, the critical public safety role of flight attendants and the concomitant
demands often go unrecognized. These demands include unobtrusive and highly disciplined responses to
medical and other emergencies, vigilance for activities within the cabin environment that may accidentally or
deliberately threaten the safety of passengers or the flight crew, assurance of passenger compliance with
Federal aviation regulations, and responses to passenger “air rage.” In the few published investigations of flight
attendants’ working conditions, more overt stressors, such as critical flight incidents and physical job stressors
(noise, vibration, limited working space), are most often highlighted. For example, anxiety, flight phobias, and
post-traumatic stress have been reported among aircrew members (including flight attendants) after flight
incidents.1,2 Even in the absence of such incidents, up to one third (37%) of flight attendants often feel anxious
before take-off (MacDonald et al., 2003). Suvanto et al. (1989) reported that cognitive as well as physical job
demands are a source of stress among flight attendants, noting demands for foreign language skills, the need
to make decisions rapidly, and the importance of general education and professional experience in work
execution. A study conducted in Norway showed that only half of the flight attendants surveyed were satisfied
with supervision and social support, and dissatisfaction was especially high concerning the sharing of
information related to specific operational procedures and technical matters (Skogstad et al.1995). Aviation
personnel can experience stress due to the task or job they are undertaking at that moment, or due to the
general organizational environment. Stress can be felt when carrying out certain tasks that are particularly
challenging or difficult (Crew Resource Management, 2012). Stress and fatigue in flight operations adversely
affect mission execution and aviation safety. Consequently, aircrew members must be familiar with the effects
of stress and fatigue on the body and how their behavior and lifestyles may reduce or, alternatively, increase
the amount of stress and fatigue that they experience (Aeromedical Training for Flight Personnel, 2000).
Therefore, researching on job stress to improve flight safety is a critical path to increase the competitiveness of
airlines (Lin, 2012).

Coping with stress and work stress through exercise

Anyone can be affected by stress, but the extent to which we experience stress depends on our life-
style and is, therefore, largely self-imposed (Bryce, 2001). Person’s Lifestyle is including different factors such
as exercise, nutrition, leisure, attitude and way of dealing with stress, that regular exercise and healthy eating
habits are the uttermost among of them (Kortis, 2000). Evidence suggests that positive or healthy changes in
these behaviors can change the individual's response to stressors (Spring et al., 1986) and may reduce stress
(Crews et al., 1987). Exercise is an appropriate strategy for physical fitness, prevention and coping with stress.
Aerobic exercises increase person’s ability versus stress. This type of exercises induced to slower heart rate
and rapid recuperation from stress injuries. Professional sports also increase person’s ability versus stress. The
people, who exercise regularly, are fit and resist versus stressors easier than others (Gholipour, 2009). It is
more likely that athletes will be involved in other positive and healthy behavioral paradigms. Because they will
attempt for correct diet, adequate rest and relaxation, and Stress management in their life, and physical and
mental well-being will be among the most important of their personal priorities (Almasi et al., 2010). Athlete
people often have a strong spirit and are less involved in physical and mental fatigue. Light exercises not only
can greatly reduce stress, but also prevent from stress. Walking, running and swimming resulting in stress
reduction (Zari’i matin, 2000).
There is no doubt that physical exercise, if carried out regularly and in a non-competitive way, is
beneficial for all the body functions improving both physical and psychological well-being (Costa, 1995).
Changes in lifestyle become mandatory for optimum comfort and fitness levels in an aircrew. The primary
factors affecting aircrew fitness include predominantly personal measures such as food habits, clothing,
physical activity, tobacco, alcohol, sleep and rest, stress dissipation, social interaction etc. The work
environment and various administrative measures can equally influence aircrew fitness (Patnaik, 1995).
Persons in good physical and mental health have been repeatedly shown by research to better cope with life’s
challenges. This is achieved through diet, exercise, relaxation, recreation, an appreciation for the arts and
nature, and compliance with medication and follow-up (Bryce, 2001). Exercise is an effective treatment for
stress. Laboratory studies indicate that exercise alters the way the body handles stress and it improves one’s
sense of well-being (Bryce, 2001). There are many techniques available to decrease the level of stress once
this is present. Among some of the more important techniques are: breathing, meditation, exercising, and
massaging. Exercising has become a good therapy for stress and for physical fitness nowadays. One common

33
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 11 (1), 31-40, 2017

way of exercising is walking. Many opportunities are available for walking. A walk around the block; a walk with
friends, etc. (Rojas et al., 2001).

Literature review
This section focused on investigation of many studies and theories related to work stress in aviation,
especially in flight attendants, and importance of exercise in stress and job stress reduction.
Accordingly, research showed that job stressors are negatively related to the engagement in active
leisure activities such as sport (Van Hooff et al., 2007). Brown et al. (1991) stated that the type of aerobic
exercises is beneficial to reduce acute and chronic stress effects (James, 2003). Chong (2001), also in a
research concluded that pilots who are physically active and do exercise, feel less stress than their sedentary
coworkers. According to a survey conducted by Brandon et al. (1991), found that aerobic exercise is an
important factor in reducing the effects of stress. Also, based on Brandon findings, aerobic exercises have
important role in stress reduction (Heidari tabar, 1994). Vertovesk (2009) in a research concluded that alike
numerous professional categories, pilots and flight instructors have emphasized the need for constant anti-
stress education and mind and body training, It should be introduced as a system of anti-stress exercises to be
practiced both individually and in adequate groups. Such a system should be viewed as a specific form of
teamwork and team-building carried out through regular trainings. That system should be developed in
collaboration with psychologists and physicians.

The need for this study

There are five main reasons for this study: first, human factors are the main reason of aviation
accidents in worldwide. Second, there is a need to understand how these aviation employees can develop
effective coping strategies (Tourigny et al., 2010). Third, inattentiveness to exercise importance by aviation
organizations. Forth, the exercise’s effect in stress and work stress reduction and subsequently, increase in
flights safety. And finally, on literature review, there was no any research about differences in work stress of
athlete and non-athlete flight attendants.
Moreover, there are two main reasons for choosing Iran as territory of this study. First, Iran is among of
countries that have experienced multiple aviation disasters so far and their number has increased in recent
years (Waez et al., 2007). Second, most of the officials in aviation organizations, especially in Iranian’s airlines,
do not aware from exercise importance, and importance of sport management do not perceived correctly. And
research is one way to remembering the importance of sport management in aviation industry.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Research method
The procedure of present study is based on five steps. In the first step, the occupational stressors in
flight attendants were identified based on a review of related research studies and the face-to-face, semi-
structured interviewing with flight attendants and aviation experts. In the second step, spiel Berger
questionnaire (1984) was selected as a base questionnaire model after reviewing many questionnaires about
work stress, then identified factors were added to the questionnaire and unrelated factors (1 item), were
eliminated. In the third step, modified questionnaire for content validity evaluating was distributed among
aviation experts, psychological and sport management professors (19 persons). In the fourth step, the modified
questionnaires were distributed among all of the flight attendants (80 persons) in taban and ata airlines in 4
airports and they filled the questionnaires in dispatching sector before departure. All the flight attendants were
informed about the aim of the study and gave their informed consent.

Measuring instrument
The questionnaire was in 9-point likert-type scales ranging from 1= very low to 9= very severe stress
and include 20 items about managerial occupational stressors (henceforth MOS) and 13 items about
organizational occupational stressors (henceforth OOS) and 6 items about demographic characteristics
included questions on age, gender, marital status, work experience, the career and the rate of sports activities
per week and on each occasion.
Experts have different definition about exercise. But criterion level is training at least 3 times per week
and 20 minutes or more, on each session (Sheikholeslam et al., 2004; Mohseny, 2000; Marcus et al., 1992;
Nigg et al., 1993). With regard to aforementioned definition, in this research, athlete is the person that
exercises 3 times per week and at least 20 minutes or more, on each occasion.
Moreover, cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to examine the reliability of the questionnaire
(r=0.97). Subscales of OOS including: 1) human resource development, 2) rewards, 3) participation, 4)
minimum use from personnel, 5) type of supervision, 6) organizational structure, 7) workflow. Moreover,
Subscales of MOS including: 1) role ambiguity, 2) role conflict, 3) quantitative workload, 4) qualitative workload,
34
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 11 (1), 31-40, 2017

5) the career development and promotion, 6) responsibility for personnel performance, 7) time pressure, and 8)
technology-related jobs.

Statistical analysis
Calculations were performed using the SPSS software, Version 20. Descriptive statistics were
calculated for all variables. Levene test and then, independent T- test were used to compare OOS and MOS
between athlete and non-athlete flight attendants. Moreover, Mean and standard deviation were used to rank
subscales of the OOS and MOS in athlete and non-athlete flight attendants, separately.

RESULTS

The main objective of this study was to investigate whether there are any significant differences in OOS
and MOS between athlete and non-athlete flight attendants. After one month, from 80 questionnaires were
distributed among pilots, 65 questionnaires were returned to researcher. Respondents ranged in age from 21-
35 years of age (mean=26.88, SD=3.36). The sample was 15 (23.1%) male and 50 (76.9%) female.
Respondents ranged in work experience from 2-8 years (mean=3.92, SD=1.37). The sample was 57 (87.7%)
single and 8 (12.3%) married and 30 (46.2%) athlete and 35 (53.8%) non-athlete.

The OOS in flight attendants

H0: There is no statistically significant difference in OOS between athlete and non-athlete flight attendants.
With according to independent T-test, the null hypothesis was rejected (P=0.000). The results showed
that there are statistically significant difference in OOS between athlete and non-athlete flight attendants and
with regard to mean scores, work stress of non-athlete flight attendants (5.91) was higher than work stress of
athlete flight attendants (3.63).
According to mean and SD scores in subscales of OOS, stressors were ranked in athlete flight
attendants with regard to degree of importance. The results are shown in table 1. Compared with OOS mean
score in athlete flight attendants (3.63), 3 factors, including: 1) rewards (5.03), 2) type of supervision (3.88) and
3) workflow (3.73), were most important OOS among athlete flight attendants.

Table 1: The ranking of OOS in athlete flight attendants

Row Subscales N Mean SD
1 Rewards 30 5.03 2.04
2 Type of supervision 30 3.88 1.52
3 Workflow 30 3.73 1.94
4 Human resource development 30 3.57 2.31
5 Minimum use from personnel 30 3.27 1.95
6 Organizational structure 30 3.23 2.69
7 Participation 30 2.67 1.37

Moreover, in accordance with mean and SD scores in subscales of OOS, stressors were ranked in
non-athlete flight attendants with regard to degree of importance. The results are shown in table 2. In
comparison to OOS mean score in non- athlete flight attendants (5.91), 4 factors, including: 1) type of
supervision (6.57), 2) rewards (6.52), 3) participation (6.34) and 4) minimum use from personnel (5.91), were
most important OOS among non- athlete flight attendants.

Table 2: The ranking of OOS in non- athlete flight attendants

Row Subscales N Mean SD
1 Type of supervision 35 6.57 1.57
2 Rewards 35 6.52 2.07
3 Participation 35 6.34 2.13
4 Minimum use from personnel 35 5.91 1.58
5 Workflow 35 5.66 2.23
6 Human resource development 35 5.51 2.42
7 Organizational structure 35 4.83 2.81

The MOS in flight attendants

H0: There is no statistically significant difference in MOS between athlete and non-athlete flight attendants.
The null hypothesis was rejected by the data collected for the study (P=0.000). The results showed that
there are statistically significant difference in MOS between athlete and non-athlete flight attendants and with
regard to mean scores, work stress of non-athlete flight attendants (5.98) was higher than work stress of athlete
flight attendants (3.78).

35
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 11 (1), 31-40, 2017

According to mean and SD scores in subscales of MOS, stressors were ranked in athlete flight attendants with
regard to degree of importance. The results are shown in table 3. In comparison to MOS mean score in athlete
flight attendants (3.78), 3 factors, including: 1) qualitative workload (4.93), 2) quantitative workload (3.97), and
3) technology-related job (3.90), were most important MOS among athlete flight attendants.

Table 3: The ranking of MOS in athlete flight attendants

Row Subscales N Mean SD

1 Qualitative workload 30 4.93 2.54

2 Quantitative workload 30 3.97 1.84

3 Technology-related job 30 3.90 1.92

4 Role ambiguity 30 3.73 2.33

5 Time pressure 30 3.72 1.79

6 The career development and promotion 30 3.69 1.49

7 Responsibility for personnel performance 30 3.37 1.69

8 Role conflict 30 2.88 1.83

Moreover, in accordance with mean and SD scores in subscales of MOS, stressors were ranked in
non-athlete flight attendants with regard to degree of importance. The results are shown in table 4. In
comparison to MOS mean score in non-athlete flight attendants (5.98), 4 factors, including: 1) technology-
related job (6.74), 2) quantitative workload (6.24), 3) the career development and promotion (6.05), and 4) time
pressure (6.01), were most important MOS among non-athlete flight attendants.

Table 4: The ranking of MOS in non-athlete flight attendants

Row Subscales N Mean SD

1 Technology-related job 35 6.74 2.27

2 Quantitative workload 35 6.24 1.53

3 The career development and promotion 35 6.05 1.22

4 Time pressure 35 6.01 1.55

5 Responsibility for personnel performance 35 5.83 2.48

6 Role conflict 35 5.80 2.02

7 Role ambiguity 35 5.71 2.72

8 Qualitative workload 35 5.44 2.23

DISCUSSION

The main objective of conducting this study was to investigate whether there is any significant
difference in OOS and MOS between athlete and non-athlete flight attendants. The outcomes of this study
revealed the most important work stressors among flight attendants and uncovered how much each of them
was important and valuable. The alternative hypotheses of this research including:
H1: There is statistically significant difference in OOS between athlete and non-athlete flight attendants.
In investigation of findings in the H1, the main themes arising were consistent with previous studies,
suggesting that exercise has important role in prevention and reducing stress and job stress among different
people (Van hooff et al., 2007; Brown et al., 1991; Chong, 2001; Brandon et al., 1991; Heidari tabar, 1994). It
may be as a result of exercise effects on physiological, psychological, and mental aspect of participators. In

36
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 11 (1), 31-40, 2017

literature review, there was no any research in regard to differences between athlete and non-athlete flight
crew, thus it is impossible to compare this study results with previous researches.
H2: There is statistically significant difference in MOS between athlete and non-athlete flight attendants.
In investigation of findings in the H2, the main themes arising were consistent with previous studies,
suggesting that exercise has important role in prevention and reducing stress and job stress among different
people (Van hooff et al., 2007; Brown et al., 1991; Chong, 2001; Brandon et al., 1991; Heidari tabar, 1994).

The explanation of OOS in flight attendants

In relation to OOS, 3 factors in athlete flight attendants including: 1) rewards (5.03), 2) type of
supervision (3.88), and 3) workflow (3.73) and 4 factors in non-athlete flight attendants including: 1) type of
supervision (6.57), 2) rewards (6.52), 3) participation (6.34), and 4) minimum use from personnel (5.91) as a
stressor were identified; that in aforementioned subscales, rewards and type of supervision in both of the
athlete and non-athlete flight attendants were common.

The OOS in athlete flight attendants

Whereas, mean score in subscale of the rewards (5.03) was higher than other subscales, so the
minimum use from rewards is most important OOS in athlete flight attendants. Items in subscale of rewards that
are stressors including: 1) lack of appreciation from merit performance (5.59), 2) insufficient salary (4.90), 3)
low motivation to work in coworkers (4.53), and respectively.
Type of supervision (3.88) is second important OOS in athlete flight attendants. Items in subscale of
the type of supervision that are stressors including: 1) continuous monitoring by inspectors, supervisors & …
(4.33), 2) lack of adequate support by supervisor (4.03), 3) weak and ineffective supervision (3.93), and 4)
difficulty in coping with the supervisor (3.23), respectively. The lack of adequate support by supervisor is
consistent with MacDonald and his colleagues findings (MacDonald et al., 2003) that was regard to job stress
among female flight attendants employed at two commercial airlines in the United States.
And finally, workflow (3.73) is one of the most important OOS in athlete flight attendants. Items in
subscale of workflow that are stressors including: 1) the frequent interruptions at work (4.25) such as flight
delays due to changing plane at last minute, equipment problems, adverse weather situations & …, and 2)
excessive bureaucracy (3.07).

The OOS in non-athlete flight attendants

Whereas, mean score in subscale of type of supervision (6.57) was higher than other subscales, so the
type of supervision is most important OOS in non-athlete flight attendants. Items in subscale of the type of
supervision that are stressors including: 1) continuous monitoring by inspectors, supervisors & … (7.35), 2) lack
of adequate support by supervisor (7.11), 3) weak and ineffective supervision (6.03), and 4) difficulty in coping
with the supervisor (5.89), respectively. The lack of adequate support by supervisor is consistent with
MacDonald and his colleagues’ findings (MacDonald et al., 2003).
Next, rewards (6.52), is second most important OOS in non-athlete flight attendants. Items in subscale
of rewards that are stressors including: 1) lack of appreciation from merit performance (7.06), 2) insufficient
salary (6.60), and 3) low motivation to work in partnership (5.91), respectively.
Next, participation (6.34) is the third important OOS in non-athlete flight attendants, which means,
active participation by flight attendants in organizational affairs and especially, their participation in organization
annual decisions, plans of flight and etc. Job control refers to the extent to which an individual has discretion in
making decisions pertaining to the work. Decision latitude is an important psychosocial factor in the workplace
that can prevent job strain because it increases work predictability. Employees who have responsibilities on the
job and yet who lack the opportunity to participate in important decisions affecting their jobs can experience
higher job strain (Day et al., 2009). In other words, responsibilities should be matched with an appropriate level
of decision latitude (Tourigny et al., 2010).
And finally, minimum use from personnel (5.91) is one of the most important OOS in non-athlete flight
attendants, meanings that, this job usually don’t utilize efforts and all of the skills and competences of flight
attendants; or it doesn’t need, and on the other hand, activities that are periodical may be hard and boring
because of high and low level of work, respectively.

The explanation of MOS

In relation to MOS, 3 factors in athlete flight attendants including: 1) qualitative workload (4.93), 2)
quantitative workload (3.97), and 3) technology-related job (3.90) and 4 factors in non-athlete flight attendants
including: 1) technology-related job (6.74), 2) quantitative workload (6.24), 3) the career development and
promotion (6.05), and 4) time pressure (6.01) as a stressor identified; that in aforementioned subscales,

37
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 11 (1), 31-40, 2017

quantitative workload and technology-related job in both of the athlete and non-athlete flight attendants were
common.

The MOS in athlete flight attendants

Whereas, mean score in subscale of qualitative workload (4.93) was higher than other subscales, so
the qualitative workload is most important MOS in athlete flight attendants. “The encountering with crisis
situations in-flight” (5.57), including, adverse weather situations, mechanical emergencies in-flight, & …, as an
item in subscale of the qualitative workload is among factors that causes MOS. There is a high correlation
between adverse weather and accident rates (Aeromedical Training for Flight Personnel, 2000).
Next, quantitative workload (3.97) is the second important MOS in athlete flight attendants. Items in
subscale of the quantitative workload that are stressors including: 1) not having time of unemployment to
investigate the affairs of daily livings (4.53), 2) not having enough time to break at work (4.27), 3) overtime
working (4.13), and 4) employee-workload low ratio (4.10), respectively.
And finally, the technology related-jobs (3.90) is one of the important MOS in athlete flight attendants.

The MOS in non-athlete flight attendants

Whereas, mean score in subscale of the technology related-jobs (6.74) was higher than other
subscales, so the technology related-jobs is most important MOS in non-athlete flight attendants.
Second, quantitative workload (6.24), is one of the most important MOS in non-athlete flight attendants.
Items in subscale of the quantitative workload that are stressors including: 1) imposed additional responsibilities
(6.57), 2) not having enough time to break at work (6.43), 3) overtime working (6.31), 4) not having time of
unemployment to investigate the affairs of daily livings (6.20), respectively.
Next, career development and promotion (6.05), is third important MOS in non-athlete flight attendants.
Items in subscale of the career development and promotion that are stressors include of: 1) job insecurity
(7.94), and 2) lack of career advancement opportunities (6.80), respectively.
And finally, time pressure (6.01), is one of the important MOS in non-athlete flight attendants. Items in
subscale of the time pressure that are stressors including: 1) the need for rapid decision-making in crucial times
(6.14), and 2) the deadline and urgent affairs (6.13). There is probably no industry in the commercial
environment that does not impose some form of deadline and consequently time pressure on its employees.
Aircraft flight operations are no exception. It was highlighted in the previous section that one of the potential
stressors in aviation is time pressure. This might be actual pressure where clearly specified deadlines are
imposed by an external source (e.g. ops management ) and passed on to flight crew, or perceived pressure,
where pilots feel that there are time pressures, even when no definitive deadlines have been set in stone. In
addition, time pressure may be self-imposed, where flight crew have personal reasons for timely action (e.g.
departing on the last sector after a long day before duty time limits expire and the crew can't get home). This is
often referred to as "get home- itis". As with stress, it is generally thought that some time pressure is stimulating
and may actually improve task performance. However, it is almost certainly true that excessive time pressure
(actual or perceived, external or self-imposed), is likely to mean that due care and attention when carrying out
tasks diminishes and more errors will be made. Ultimately, these errors can lead to aircraft incidents and
accidents (Crew Resource Management, 2012).

Conclusions and limitations and future direction

This study presents preliminary research on job stress in aviation and important role of exercise from
the Iranian’s airlines perspective. It not only represents the first study of this kind in Iran, but could be the first
such study in the worldwide. From our examination, a number of job stressors were identified. Whilst this paper
attempted to draw upon the literature to understand differences between athlete and non-athlete flight
attendants, this paper calls for more research to “bridge the gap” between aviators job stress and exercise
literature which have so far been considered relatively distinct and separate areas of enquiry. Whilst our
examination offers the first tentative steps towards such an academic synthesis, future studies should conceive
aviation’s job stress and exercise as partnership arrangements.
According to the findings of the current research, the following suggestions have to be put forward: first,
Officials in the aviation industry are asked to pay special attention to identified occupational stressors in flight
attendants to planning for reduction of job stress in them that finally, leading to increase in flight safety. Next,
although the aviation population undergoes frequent and thorough medical examination (Aeromedical Training
For Flight Personnel, 2000), It is hoped that sports standard examination designs by sports specialists and
applied as one of the prerequisite of qualification to receive and continuation of flight licenses. Third, It is hoped
that by these type of researches, recollect the importance of exercise in aviation and sport management in
aviation industry. This research can be commencement for new insight to important role of exercise in
prevention and reducing stress and job stress in flight attendants, and can be as a base research for future
38
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 11 (1), 31-40, 2017

researches. Moreover analyzing the situations and developing an active plan to minimize the stressors in flight
attendants and airlines employees could be an effective solution.
These results can be also be used to inform the content and design of future studies of job stress
among flight crew. By conducting studies such as this, aviation officials can be better informed as to how and
why exercise can be used to achieve a range of optimum job stress. This paper illustrates, through a practical
and contemporary context, how sport organizational and the airlines might work together.
We also caution the reader about certain limitations: first, difficulty of contribution to a number of the
airlines because of, spy matters, competiveness environment & etc. Next, the research was a new case study
and hence, previous literature was as a limitation. Third, deadline to filling the questionnaire by flight attendants
because of time pressure for departure and also, possibility of horridness and bias in questionnaire filling.
Next, the size and the composition of the participants may not be representative of the whole population of
flight attendants in Iran. In view of the small simple size, further study on large sample is suggested.

REFERENCES

Aeromedical training for flight personnel. 2000. Washington, DC, No. 3-04.301(1-301). Chapter 3
Ahmadi, KH. & Kolivand, A. 2006. Stress and job satisfaction among air force military pilots. Journal of Social Sciences. 2(4):121-124.
Ahmadi, M., Fathi Ashtiani A., & Habibi, M. 2009. Psychological health in military pilots' families. Jouurnal of Behavioral Sciences (JBS);
2(4):305-308.
Aldred, C. 1998. Workplace stress claims rising. UK Union Reports. Business Insurance, 32 (38): 19.
Alluisi, E. A. 1982. Stress and stressors, commonplace and otherwise. In E. A. Alluisi & E. A. Fleishman (Eds.), Human performance and
productivity: Stress and performance effectiveness. (Vol. 3, pp. 1-10). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Almasi, N., Khabiri, M., Farahani, A., & Hemayat talab, R. 2010. The relationship between lifestyle and marital satisfaction in athletes and
non-athletes. Journal of Faculty of Physical Education, university of Tehran. Vol.5. p.73-87
Arntz, J. B. 1998. A workplace epidemic: The "I hate my job" syndrome. Business Journal Serving Greater Milwaukee, 16 (15): 12.
Astoora, J. B. 1998. Stress or stress, New desease of civilization. Translated by: pari rokh dadestan. Roshd publication. Tehran.
Aviation Knowledge. 2012. Stress in aviation. Available in: Http//aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:stress-in-aviatin
Barhem, B. 2004. A new model for work stress patterns. Asian Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, 53–77. P53
Beehr, T. A., & Newman, J. E. 1978. Job stress, employee health, and organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model and literature
review. Personnel Psychology, 31, 665-699.
Bor, R. 2007. Psychological factors in airline passenger and crew behavior: A clinical overview. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease; 5,
207–216. Available at www.sciencedirect.com
Boser, R. J. 1998. Pilots pay accident rates. Retrieved July 25, 2003, from www.Airlinesafety.com
Brandon, J. E., & Loftin, J. M. 1991. Relationship of fitness to depression, state and trait anxiety, internal health locus of control, and self-
control. Percept Mot skills, Vol. 73(2), pp: 563-8.
Cebola, N., & Kilner, A. 2009. When are you too tired to be safe? Exploring the construction of a fatigue index in atm. Retrieved April 25,
2011, from
http://www.eurocontrol.int/eec/gallery/content/public/document/other/conference/2009/safety_r_and_d_Munich/day_2/Andy-Kilner-
(EUROCONTROL)-Paper.pdf.
Chong, D. R. 2001. Dealing with the stress. Washington DC, Airline pilots Association. Retrieved June 20, 2007, from www.alpa.org
Chopra, P. 2009. Mental health and the workplace: Issues for developing countries. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Civil Aviation Authority. (CAA) 2002. Fundamental human factors concepts. Gatwick Airport South, West Sussex: Safety Regulation Group.
Retrieved April 25, 2011, from www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP719.pdf.
Cofer, C. N., & Appley, M. H. 1964. Motivation: Theory and research. New York: Wiley
Costa, G. 1995. Occupational stress and stress prevention in air traffic control. Internatioinal Labour Office Geneva .
Crew resource management, aviation safety, stress. 2012. available at: www.crewresourcemanagement.net/5/31.html.
Crews, D. J., & Landers, D. M. 1987. A meta-analytic review of aerobic fitness and reactivity to psychosociai stressors. Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise, 19: S114- S120.
Day, A. L., Sibley, A., Scott, N., Tallon, J. M., & Ackroyd-Stolraz, S. 2009. Workplace risks and stressors as predictors of burnout: The
moderating impact of job control and team efficacy. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 26, pp. 7-22.
Deneen, S. 1998. Stress-related problems cut into workplace productivity. Orlando Business Journal, 15 (12): 32.
Federal Aviation Administration. Chapter 1. Human factors.
Gholi pour, A. 2009. Organizational behavior management: Individual behaivior. Samt Publication. 2. P. 298
Green, R. G. 1985. Stress and accidents. Aviat Space Environ Med; 56 (6): 38-41.
Heidari tabar, H. 1994. The comparison of depression level in individual and team sport. Unpublished Master of Science Thesis,
Department of physical education, University of Tehran
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. C. 1982. Subjective correlates of stress and human performance. In E. A. Alluisi & E. A. Fleishman (Eds.), Human
performance and productivity: Stress and performance effectiveness. (Vol. 3, pp. 141-163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ivancevich, J. M., & Matteson, M. T. 2002. Organizational behavior and management (6th edn.). New York: McGraw-Hill
James, T. R. 2003. Psychology techniques of stress. Management Psycl. 25, 59, 60. Cp Istance Learning.
Janis, I. L., & Leventhal, H. 1968. Human reactions to stress. In E. F. Borgatta & W. W. Lambert (Eds.). Handbook of personality theory and
research (pp. 1041-1085). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Jones, F.I., & Bright, J. 2001. Stress: Myth, theory and research. Harlow, UK: Prentice Hall.
Kortis, A. J. 2000. Health psychological. Translated by: Faramarz sohrabi. 2001. tolooe danesh publication. Tehran. 1
Kortum, E., Leka, S., & Cox, T. 2008. Understanding the perception of occupational psychosocial risk factors in developing countries:
Setting priorities for action, in J. Houdmont & S. Leka (Eds). Occupational Health Psychology, European Perspectives on
Research, Education and Practice, Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, Vol. 3, pp. 191-228.
Krohe, Jr. J. 1999. Workplace stress. Across the Board, 36 (2): 36.
Lazarus, R.S. 1966. Psychological stress and the coping process. McGraw-Hill.

39
Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 11 (1), 31-40, 2017

Le Blanc, P., De Jange, J., & Shaufeli, W. 2008. Job stress and occupational health. In N. Chmiel (Ed), An introduction to work and
organizational psychology: A European perspective (2nd edn., pp. 119-147). USA: Blackwell Publishing.
Leo Jeeva, S. P., & Chandramohan, V. 2008. Stressors and stress coping strategies among civil pilots: A pilot study. Ind J Aerospace Med;
52(2): 60-64
Levy, J. D. 1998. A little stress is part of every workplace. Orlando Business Journal, 14 (45) [sic]: 40.
Lin, J. H. 2012. Develop a commercial aircraft pilot job stress model through an experience ability perspective: Considering the work
experience. International Journal of Services and Operations Management. Vol 11. P 49-69
Liu, C., & Spector, P. E. 2005. International and cross-cultural issues. in J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway & M. R. Frone (Eds), Handbook of Work
Stress, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 487-515.
MacDonald, L. A., Deddens, J. A., Grajewski, B. A., Whelan, E. A., & Hurrell, J. J. 2003. Job stress among female flight attendants. J
Occup Environ Med. Vol 45:703-714.
Marcus, B.H., Selby, V.C., Niaura, R.S. & Rossi, J.S. 1992. Self-efficacy and the stage of exercise behavior change. Res Q Exerc Sport;
63(1): 60-6.
Matteson, M. T., & Ivancivich, J. M. 1987. Controlling work stress. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, p. 241.
McGrath, J. E. 1976. Stress and behavior in organizations. In Dunnette, M. D. (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology
(pp. 1351 -1395). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Michie, S. 2002. Causes and management of stress at work. Occup Environ Med; 59:67–72. Retrieved October 22, 2012 from
oem.bmj.com - Published by group.bmj.com
Mohseny, M. 2000. Knowledge, attitude and practice social-cultural behavior in Iran. PP 190-1 [Persian].
Murphy, L. R., & Sauter, S. L. 2003. The usa perspective: Current issues and trends in the management of work stress, Australian
Psychologist, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 151-7.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 1998. Stress at work. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication. No. 99–101. P.6
Nigg, C.R., & Courneya, K. S. 1993. The stage of exercise behavior. J Sport Med Phys Fit. 33: 83-8.
P. Bryce, C. 2001. Insights into the concept of stress. Pan American Health Organization Washington, D.C.
Patnaik, F. L. S. 1995. Lifestyle requirements for better aircrew fitness. Indian journal of aerospace medicine. 1994 to 2004. Volume 39,
special issue 2, No. 1
Richardson, P., & Larsen, J. 1997. Repetitive strain injuries in the information age workplace. Human Resource Management, winter, 36
(4): 377–384.
Rojas, V. M., & Kleiner, B. H. 2001. The art and science of effective stress management. Management Research News. Vol 24. N ¾. P.86
Schuler, R. S. 1980. Definition and conceptualization of stress in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 184-
215.
Selye, H. 1955. Stress and disease. Science.
Sheikholeslam, R., Mohamad, A., Mohammad, K., & Vaseghi, S. 2004. Non-communicable disease risk factors in Iran. Asia Pac J Clin
Nutr; 13 (supple 2): 100.
Skogstad, A., Dyregrov, A., & Hellespy, OH. 1995. Cockpit-cabin crew interaction: Satisfaction with communication and information
exchange. Aviat Space Environ Med; 66:841–848.
Spector, P.E., Cooper, C.L., & Aguilar-Vafaie, M. E. 2002. A comparative study of perceived job stressor sources and job strain in american
and iranian managers. Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 446-57.
Spielberger, C. 1979. Understanding stress and anxiety. London: Harber and Row Publishers, p. 4.
Spielberger, C. D., & Reheiser, E. C. 1995. Measuring occupational stress: The job stress survey. In R. Crandall & P. L. Perrewé, (Eds.).
Occupational stress. N.p.: Taylor and Francis.
Spring, B. J., Lieberman, H. R., Swope, G., & Garfield, G. S. 1986. Effects of carbohydrates on mood and behavior. Nutrition Reviews: Diet
and Behaviour, 44: 51-61.
Strauch, B. 2004. Investigating human error: Incidents, accidents, and complex systems. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing.
Suvanto, S. & Ilmarinen, J. 1989. Stress and strain in flight attendant work. Ergonomia; 12: 85–91.
Tourigny, L., V. Baba, V., & Wang, X. 2010. Stress episode in aviation: The case of China. Cross Cultural Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 17 Iss: 1 pp. 62 – 78
Van hooff, M. L. M., Geurts, S. A. E., Kompier, M. A. J., & Taris, T. W. 2007. Workdays, in-between workdays and the weekend: A diary
study on effort and recovery. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 80, 599–613.
Vertovesk, N. 2009. Anti-stress mind & body training and specific patterns of reaction and relaxation. ICASM
Waez, A., Ferdowsi, S., & Khoda panahi, M. K. 2007. The survey of level of stress and general health in commercial pilots. Applied
Psychlogical Journal. 1(3):285-299.
Zari’i Matin, H. (2000). Human resources management. The Center of Publication of the Office of Islamic Propagation of the Islamic
Seminary of Qum. P.271

40