You are on page 1of 13

A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON OCCUPATIONAL STRESS &

FRUSTRATION TOLERANCE OF INDIAN SECURITY FORCES:


DELIMITED TO BSF, CISF AND PAC
¹Awadhesh Kumar Shirotriya, Lecturer in Department of Physical Education, Anand College of
Education, Unit of Sharda Group of Institutions (SGI) Agra (UP)
² Dr. Biswajit Basumatary, Professor Lakshmibai National University of Physical Education, Gwalior
(MP)
It is my M.Phil Dissertation and Published in Indian Journal of Psychometry and
Education (ISSN 0378-1003), Vol.41 (2), pp. 214-218.

ABSTRACT

Statistics show that within the army and paramilitary force there have been more deaths in the recent past

due to stress rather than combat. Occupational stress and low level of frustration are the two main root

causes of suicides and shoot outs which are very pervasive in paramilitary and other security forces now

a days. The purpose of this study was to compare occupational stress and Frustration tolerance among

BSF, CISF and PAC with some selected rank and age categories. Data were collected through 150 male

subordinate officers and other personnel of different rank categories from selected three forces. Samples

were selected through random sampling by the Occupational Stress Index (OSI) by A.P. Srivatsava and

A.P. Singh and Frustration Tolerance (FRTO) Inventory by S.N.Rai. Data were evaluated by applying

ANOVA for comparing both parameters among selected three forces, level of significance was set at

0.05. The result of the study indicated that PAC endure highest level of occupational stress and BSF and

CISF exhibit moderate level of occupational stress and each category of paramilitary forces has similar

level of frustration tolerance this may be due to similar level of working atmosphere and transitions

lifestyle. The occupational stress among selected forces is of significantly higher level and should be

matter of concern of ensuring efficient work output from them.


Address for correspondence: A.K.Shirotriya, ‘Shrotriya Kunj’ 144, Civil Lines Opposite Commissioner Residence Meerut
(UP) 250001: Contact No’s:0121-2670029,+919897289144,
+919027036144,+917503324144:Email:aks144@gmail.com:Webpage:www.freewebs.com/akshirotriya

FULL PAPER
INTRODUCTION

Stress in the workplace is a growing problem, with extensive costs to individuals, organizations and

society. A recent study, has Reported that security forces have higher job stress than their civilian

counterparts. 26% of the service men reported significant work stress, 15% reported that work stress led

to emotional distress and 8% claimed that work stress was severe enough to affect their emotional and

mental health. In fact statistics show that within the army and other security forces there have been more

deaths in the recent past due to stress rather than combat, which means that more soldiers have been killed

due to suicides or ‘fragging’ rather than militants or insurgents.1 As such incidents are on the rise,

particularly with the security forces fighting militancy in border states like Jammu and Kashmir, the

experts and the doctors call this growing phenomenon as ‘stress’ and ‘frustration’ that has brought about a

behavior change in the security force personnel over the years.

OCCUPATIONAL STRESS

Stress has now become an area of concern for all types of occupation. There is little doubt, however, that

some professions have fared worse than others. It has long been argued that workers involved in high

levels of personal interaction, such as security forces and teachers, are more vulnerable to occupational

stress and professional ‘burnout’ than those in product-oriented organizations. All occupations are

associated with stress, but defense occupations are significantly more stressful than others. Occupational

stress, also known as job stress, has been defined as the experience of negative emotional states such as

frustration, worry, anxiety and depression attributed to work related factors (Kyriacou, 2001). Cooper and

Marshal2 defined occupational stress as negative environmental factors or stressors associated with a

1
Rudroneel Ghosh, “Stress; The Army's New Enemy Health” Wednesday, India eNews July 04, 2007.
2
Cooper, C.L. and Marshall, J., “Occupational source of stress: A review of the literature relating to coronary heart
disease and mental ill health”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 49 pp.11-28.
particular job. Stress is not always harmful. It is the individual's reaction to stress that determines the

outcome, i.e., whether the individual will adapt or become maladaptive.


Sources of Occupational Stress

Srivastava and Singh3 identified twelve sources of occupational stress like: role overload, role ambiguity,

role conflict, group pressures, low profitability, under participation, low status, responsibility for poor

people, intrinsic impoverishment, strenuous work, poor peer –relations and powerlessness.

FRUSTRATION TOLERANCE

Frustration is an emotional response to circumstances where one is obstructed from arriving at a personal

goal. The more important the goal, the greater the frustration. It is comparable to anger and

disappointment. Sources of frustration may be internal or external. Internal sources of frustration involve

personal deficiencies such as a lack of confidence or fear of social situations that prevent one from

reaching a goal. Conflict can also be an internal source of frustration when one has competing goals that

interfere with one another. External causes of frustration involve conditions outside the person such as a

blocked road; or conditions linked to the person's actions but not directly such as lack of money, or lack

of sexual activity. All individuals at one time or another, in greater or lesser amount have to tolerate

frustration in their life. The frustration tolerance refers to the amount of stress one can tolerate before his

integrated functioning is seriously impaired. Thus, frustration tolerance refers to the capacity of the

individual to show persistence in efforts despite repeated failures and antagonistic environment. Thus it is

necessary to tolerate the frustration resulting from such events as failure in examination, loss of status

etc., to maintain the integration of the personality. The person who continues his effort may be said to

have more frustration tolerance that one who discontinues his efforts or indulges in any reactionary mode

of behavior.

Variables Affecting Frustration Tolerance

A large number of independent variables related to frustration tolerance have been studied. These

variables can be divided into the following categories: Organism variables, Environmental factors, Task

3
Srivastava, A.K., Management of Occupational Stress: Theories and Practice, New Delhi, 1999, Gyan Publishing
House.
characteristics, Cultural variables and other variables like Success in any task, Reinforcement also affects

frustration tolerance.

The aim of current study was to compare occupational stress and frustration tolerance among BSF, CISF

and PAC with some selected rank categories. Conceptualization of this study was mainly based on the

facts that occupational stress and low level of frustration are the two main root causes of suicides and

shoot outs which are very pervasive in army and security forces now a days. We used survey

methodology in this study and based on extensive review of literature, we postulated following

hypotheses:

1. All these forces have different fixed work pattern and have different working atmosphere so it was

hypothesized that there would be significant difference among all three forces on occupational stress.

2. Further it was hypothesized that there would be significant difference among all three forces on

frustration tolerance.

METHODOLOGY

Sample Selection

Total 150 (50 subjects from each force) male subordinate officers and other personnel of different rank

categories (Sepoy to Sub Inspector) as subjects were randomly selected from BSF, CISF and PAC from

various battalions and places. The age of the subjects were ranging from 20-50 years. All the subjects

belonged to different states and union territories of India and all the subjects had a minimum of 3 years

job experience, efforts were made to include all the branches.

Table-1

Selection of Subjects
PAC CISF BSF

6 BN 44 BN 15 BN 5 Res. BN STS BTC


(Meerut) (Meerut) (Agra) (Ghaziabad) (Tekanpur) (Indore)

25 10 15 50 38 12
Table-2

Rank Categories of Subjects

PAC CISF BSF


Sep. L.Nk Nk. Hav. P.C. Sep. Hav. S.I Cons. H.Cons. A.S.I S. I.
.
15 10 10 05 10 20 17 13 20 16 8 6

Sep. Sepoy
L.Nk. Lance Nayak
Nk. Nayak
Hav. Havaldar
P.C. Platoon Commander
Cons. Constable
H.Cons. Head Constable
A.S.I. Assistant Sub Inspector
S.I. Sub Inspector

Research Tools

1. Occupational Stress was measured using the Hindi version of Occupational Stress Inventory(OSI)

developed by AP Srivatsava and AP Singh consisting of 46 items, each to be rated on a five-point

scale. e.g., 5 for strongly agree, 4 for agree 3 agree, 2 for disagree and 1 for strongly disagree. Total

score on this scale is considered for the assessment of occupational stress. More the score on this scale

indicates more stress.

2. Frustration Tolerance was measured using the Frustration Tolerance Inventory (FRTO) developed

by S.N.Rai. This battery consists of 5 puzzles. Respondent were required to draw the figures for

solving the puzzles. Puzzle number I and III time (in minute and seconds) were summed and mean

time were calculated for each subject to know his frustration tolerance.

PROCEDURES

Data for this investigation were collected 150 (50 from each force) male officers and other personnel of

different rank categories from various battalions and places, starting with seeking permission from the

higher authorities (Director General & Commandant) concerned to involve subjects in the study. Almost
all the authorities agreed to co-operate in the study. Researcher were assured all the concern authorities

that each of them will receive a copy of the abstract of study. The data was collected from by using Hindi

version of occupational stress index (OSI) and Frustration Tolerance Inventory (FRTO).These index and

inventory are standardized, valid, reliable and objective, which are widely used in Indian context.

DATA ANALYSIS

To compare the three paramilitary forces on occupational stress and frustration tolerance analysis of

variance (ANOVA) were exclusively employed and the level of significance for F- ratio was set at 0.05.

Moreover, the analysis of variance was done with the help of SPSS Version 15.Wherever F value was

found significant, Least Significance Difference (Ronald. A. Fisher) post hoc test for mean comparison

were conducted to find out the status and different level of psychological parameter among the three

paramilitary groups. Further norms based grading among both psychological parameters was done to

depict the group status on occupational stress and frustration tolerance.

RESULTS

For analyzing the data collected from this study the results were divided into 3 groups (low, moderate and

high) based on mean and then according to the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and their relations with

other parameters have been explored.

Table -2

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF OCCUPATION STRESS AMONG BSF, CISF AND PAC

Source of variation d.f SS MSS f-ratio

Between the group 2 16719.45 8359.72


28.55*
Within group 147 43040.45 292.79
*Significant at 0.05 level of significance
Tab F (.O5), N-2=3.06

It is evident from table 2, there is a significant difference in occupational stress among the three

paramilitary groups i.e. BSF, CISF and PAC as the obtained f value was 28.55 which are much greater
than tabulated f value (3.06).This finding implies that occupational stress level of paramilitary forces i.e.

BSF, CISF and PAC are of significantly different level. Since f value was significant post hoc mean test

was conducted to find out the status and actual differences among three groups for occupational stress.

Table -3

LSD Post Hoc Test for Comparison of Means Among BSF, CISF and PAC

PAC CISF BSF M.D. C.D.


161.68 135.82 25.86*
161.68 148.50 13.18*
3.42

135.82 148.50 12.86*


*Significant
Table 3, shows post hoc comparison of occupational stress between PAC and CISF, PAC and BSF, CISF

and BSF are significantly different as the mean difference values were found to 25.86, 13.18 and 12.86

respectively which are greater than the criterion mean difference i.e. 3.42.

Above statistical findings shows the three paramilitary forces were found to be of significantly different

level of occupational stress. The finding on occupational stress showed the trend PAC > BSF > CISF.

This trend indicates that PAC having the highest level of occupational stress followed by BSF and CISF.

Table-4

Norms Based Grading of Occupational Stress among BSF, CISF and PAC

(In Numbers and Percentage)

Groups High (156-230) Moderate (123-155) Low (46-122) Overall Grading Based on
Mean Scores
BSF 16 (32%) 32 (64%) 03 (06%) 148.58 (Mean Scores) –Moderate

CISF 07 (14%) 32 (64%) 11 (22%) 132.82 (Mean Scores) –Moderate


PAC 34 (68%) 16 (32%) 00 (00%) 161.68(Mean Scores) –High
Figure: 1

Table-5

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF FRUSTRATION TOLERANCE AMONG BSF, CISF AND PAC

Source of variation d.f SS MSS f-ratio

Between the group 2 16.24 8.12


1.16
Within group 147 1028.51 6.99
Not significant at 0.05 level of significance
Tab F (.O5), N-2=3.06

It is evident from table 5, there is no significant difference in frustration tolerance among the three

paramilitary groups i.e. BSF, CISF and PAC as the obtained f value was 1.16 which is less than tabulated

f value (3.06).This finding implies that frustration tolerance level of paramilitary forces i.e. BSF, CISF

and PAC are not significantly different.

Table-6

Norms Based Grading of Frustration Tolerance among BSF, CISF and PAC
(In Number and Percentage)

Groups High Tolerance Low Tolerance

BSF 20 (40%) 30 (60%)


CISF 18 (36%) 32 (64%)

PAC 20 (40%) 30 (60%)


Figure :2

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The analysis of data reveals that there is significant deference in Occupational Stress among BSF,

CISF and PAC. This may be attributed to the fact that all three forces do not have a fixed work pattern

and they must be geared to meet expected and unexpected emergencies for unspecified periods of time. A

CISF job is not a high tension job like the BSF and PAC. Theirs are mainly shift jobs with little pressure.

It is not fare to compare the CISF with the BSF or PAC as both forces are wholly deployed in high stress

and tense areas including borders and high counter-insurgency zones, with very short time for rest and or

even training. Probable other reasons for significant difference could be that high job demands, hectic

work schedules, conflicting demands ,shift work , poor relations with co-workers ,lack of promotions

,excessive overtime, multiple & prolonged tours, limited leaves and loneliness. In addition to this

financial benefit in relation to job profile being obtained matter of dissatisfaction among forces is the

major issues over and above their constantly changing working conditions in terms of their placement of

duties over the area which could be always rafting with diverse topography, alien place with accustomed

in different cultural environment.

The finding pertaining the BSF, CISF and PAC are not significantly in Frustration Tolerance in

other words we can interpret that there were similar level of this parameter. This may be attributed to the

fact that all three forces have same working conditions, relationship with co workers, transitions lifestyle,

living arrangements, atmosphere, pattern of leave and same system of administration.


CONCLUSION

Within the limitation of present study and findings of the study following conclusion may be drawn:

1. Among all the selected security forces PAC endure highest level of occupational stress. Probable

reasons for this result could be no clear cut assign level of duty and extended duty hours for PAC

personnel.

2. Each category of security forces has similar level of frustration tolerance this may be due to similar

level of working atmosphere and transitions lifestyle.

3. The occupational stress among security forces is of significantly higher level and should be matter of

concern of ensuring efficient work output from them.

4. Contrary to popular perception civilian armed force like PAC working conditions are significantly

unfavorable and not ideal one resulting more occupational stress among PAC personnel.

5. It is also concluded that it is higher authorities who are concern and policy maker think of stream

liming services conditions in terms of pay, benefits, duty hours etc. be stream line.

REFERANCES:

1. Charles D. S. et al. (1994), “Job Stress in University, Corporate, And Military Personnel”,
International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 19-31.Available at
www.springerlink.com/index/N448318248073808.pdf. (accessed 27 September2008)
2. Cooper, C.L. and Marshall, J. (2001), “Occupational Source of Stress: A Review of the Literature
Relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill health”, Journal of Occupational Psychology,
Vol. 49, pp.11-28. Available at medind.nic.in/iay/t03/i2/iayt03i2p6.pdf –(accessed 29 September
2008)
3. Dedic G and Kostic P. (2001), “Causes Of Frustration In Soldiers During The Period Of
Adaptation To The Military Environment” Vojnosanit Pregl. Nov-Dec; Vol.58 No.6, pp.621-
630.Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11858018. (accessed 30 September2008)
4. Edwards J A et al. (2007), “A Longitudinal Study Exploring The Relationships Between
Occupational Stressors, Non-Work Stressors And Work Performance”. Journal of Work and
Stress, Vol. 21 No.2, pp.99-116. Available at
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a779904266~db=all~jumptype=rss.
(accessed 02 October 2008)
5. G Prasad Rao et al. (2000), “A Study Of Stress And Psychiatric Morbidity In The Central
Industrial Security Force”, Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine. Vol. 30 Issue 1, pp. 39-
47.Available at http://www.ijpm.info/article.asp?issn=0253-
7176;year=2008;volume=30;issue=1;spage=39;epage=47;aulast=Rao (accessed 27 September
2008)
6. Hourani, Laurel L et al. (2006), “Mental Health, and Job Performance among Active Duty
Military Personnel: Findings from the 2002 Department of Defense Health-Related Behaviors
Survey”, Journal of Military Medicine. Available at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17036605
(accessed 29 September2008)
7. John M.V.and Fred A. (1995), “Police Stressors: Variations in Perception Among Police
Personnel” Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 23 Issue 3, pp. 287-294. Available at
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/00472352/1995/00000023/00000003/art00012;jsessio
nid=3jbmg1kucj5hc.alexandra (accessed 04 October 2008)

8. Karen Miller et al. (2000), “Occupational Stress And Gender: A Cross-Cultural Study”. Journal of
the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, Vol. 16 Issue 5, pp.271 – 278. Available at
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/73504773/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
(accessed 03 October 2008)
9. Pflanz S and Sonnek S. (2002), “Work Stress In The Military: Prevalence, Causes, And
Relationship To Emotional Health”, Journal of Military Medicine, Nov; Vol. 167 Issue 11,
pp.877-82. Available at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12448610 (accessed 29 September 2008)
10. Rosenweig, S. (1944), An Outline of Frustration Theory. In Personality And Behaviour Disorders.
New York,pp. 14-16.
11. Srivastava, A.K.,(1999), Management of Occupational Stress: Theories and Practice, Gyan
Publishing House, New Delhi, pp.12-20.
12. Srivastava, A.K. and Singh A.P. (1981), “Construction and Standardization of an Occupational
Stress Index: A Pilot Study”. Indian journal of clinical psychology. Vol. 8 No.5, pp.13-16.
Available at www.bizresearchpapers.com/Jain.pdf (accessed 05 October 2008)
13. SI Gangyan et al. (2008), “Changing Low Frustration Tolerance: A Case Study of an Olympic
Medalist”, Acta Psychological Sinica, Vol. 40 No. 02 pp.240-252. Available
at www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/en/aps/200800400002/0240.htm (accessed 29 December 2008)
14. Shi L et al. (2003), “Job Stress: A Study Of University Faculties And Staffs In China”. J. Beijing
Normal University, Vol.177, pp.65-71. Available at www.academicjournals.org/pdf
%202008/Sep/Jing.pdf (accessed 29 December 2008)
15. Thompson, J.W. (1978), “Frustration Tolerance, Parenting Attitudes and Perception of Parenting
Behavior as Factors in the Incidence of Child Abuse”. Dissertation abstract. Available
atwww.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract. aspx?id=50993(accessed 01 January 2009)
16. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational stress –(accessed 24September 2008)
17. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_frustration_tolerance (accessed 01 November 2008)
18. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frustration –(accessed 01 January 2009)
19. www.symptoms-of-stress.com/occupational-stress.php (accessed 3 February 2009)

You might also like