INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4205
A Conceptual Paper on the Moderating Role of Coping Self-Efficacy
in Preventive Behavior toward Work Stress
Siti Musliha Mohd Idris., Khairunnisa’ Yussof., Norashikin Adam
Faculty of Business Management, UiTM Melaka campus Alor Gajah
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000346
Received: 12 October 2025; Accepted: 20 October 2025; Published: 12 November 2025
ABSTRACT
Work-related stress remains a significant work-related health concern affecting employees’ psychological
well-being and organizational productivity. Despite the growing attention to coping mechanisms, most
prevailing studies have emphasized reactive responses to stress rather than proactive prevention. This
conceptual paper suggests an integrative framework that combines the Health Belief Model (HBM) and Social
Cognitive Theory (SCT) to explain employees’ preventive behavior toward work stress. Grounded in these
theories, the framework posits that perceived severity and perceived susceptibility key constructs of HBM
serve as cognitive motivators of preventive actions. However, the conversion of these perceptions into actual
behavior depends on coping self-efficacy, a central construct in SCT, which moderates the relationship
between perceived threat and preventive behavior. This model highlights that individual who perceive work
stress as serious and personally relevant, and who also believe in their ability to manage stressors, are more
likely to engage in proactive coping strategies. The paper contributes theoretically by integrating motivational
and efficacy-based perspectives to extend work stress prevention literature and methodologically by offering
testable propositions for future empirical validation. Practically, it provides insights for organizations to design
interventions that strengthen employees’ coping self-efficacy and promote prevention behavior as well as well-
being cultures.
Keywords: work stress, coping self-efficacy, perceived severity, perceived susceptibility, preventive
behavior, Health Belief Model, Social Cognitive Theory
INTRODUCTION
Work-related stress continues to be one of the most pervasive work challenges in the 21st century, affecting
both organizational performance and employee well-being (WHO, 2023; Menardo et al., 2022). The complex
and fast-paced nature of modern work intensified by digitalization and blurred work–life boundaries exposes
employees to continuous psychological and physiological pressures (Cavicchioli et al., 2025). Likewise, rapid
technological change is associated with increased cognitive overload, uncertainty, and time pressure,
exacerbating stress (Makowska-Tłomak et al., 2023), promoting preventive behaviors against work stress has
become a central focus in work-related health psychology.
Within this area, the Health Belief Model (HBM) offers a framework linking perceived severity and perceived
susceptibility to preventive action (Rosenstock, 1974; Champion & Skinner, 2008), and continues to show
relevance in contemporary settings (Hüsser et al., 2023; Moradi et al., 2022; Okechukwu & Babatunde B.,
2021). However, perceptions alone may not ensure preventive action. The translation from awareness to
behavior often depends on self-efficacy, particularly coping self-efficacy (CSE) confidence in one’s capacity
to manage or prevent stressors (Chesney et al., 2006)). Recent evidence in occupational samples indicates that
coping self-efficacy can moderate the link between stress appraisals and outcomes, supporting its interactive
role in prevention (Jones et al., 2015; J. Wu et al., 2023)
Despite progress, several conceptual gaps remain. The literature often treats CSE as reactive (stress
recovery/burnout mitigation) rather than a proactive catalyst for prevention (Freire et al., 2020), and workplace
interventions still underuse theory-driven, integrative models that combine perceptual (HBM) and efficacy-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4206
based mechanisms (systematic reviews and organizational intervention work point to this need (Johari, 2020;
H. Li et al., 2025; Rathi & Kumar, 2022). These gaps motivate an integrative framework explaining why some
employees engage in preventive stress behaviors while others do not.
Addressing these gaps, the present conceptual paper aims to develop and justify an integrative model that
explains the relationship between perceived threat and preventive behavior of work stress, moderated by
coping self-efficacy. Specifically, the objectives of this paper are:
(1) to examine how perceived severity and perceived susceptibility influence prevention behavior of work
stress;
(2) to conceptualize coping self-efficacy as a moderating variable that strengthens these relationships; and
(3) to integrate the Health Belief Model and Social Cognitive Theory to provide a comprehensive framework
for understanding how motivation (perceived threat) and capability (self-efficacy) jointly drive preventive
behavior. By proposing this framework, the paper contributes theoretically to occupational health psychology
and practically to stress management strategies aimed at fostering proactive employee well-being.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Work Stress and Prevention Behavior
Work stress has long been recognized as one of the most significant occupational health concerns globally.
According to the World Health Organization (2023), excessive or prolonged work stress negatively affects
both mental and physical health, leading to burnout, depression, and reduced organizational performance. The
growing demands of the modern workplace intensified by competition, role ambiguity, and continuous
technological change have made employees increasingly vulnerable to stress (Cavicchioli et al., 2025).
Moreover, the health implications of work-related stress are profound, as numerous studies have linked chronic
stress to serious health consequences, including cardiovascular and metabolic disorders (Awaluddin et al.,
2022; Kivimäki et al., 2006; Lukan et al., 2022).
Prevention behavior refers to proactive and self-initiated actions that employees undertake to minimize or
avoid exposure to potential work-related stressors before they manifest as psychological strain. In the context
of workplace well-being, these behaviors include scheduling regular breaks, managing workload, seeking
feedback, and engaging in organizational wellness initiatives (Azmi et al., 2022; Bui et al., 2021; Llorens et al.,
2022). Such preventive actions reflect a forward-looking approach, emphasizing health maintenance rather
than reactive coping once stress occurs. Therefore, prevention behavior toward work stress represents a key
outcome of cognitive appraisal and coping self-efficacy within the proposed model.
However, not all individuals experience or respond to work stress in the same way. The concept of preventive
behavior has emerged as a proactive approach, emphasizing actions taken before stress becomes harmful.
Preventive strategies may include time management, seeking social support, practicing mindfulness, and
maintaining work–life balance (Cabrera-Aguilar et al., 2023; Ganster & Rosen, 2013). These behaviors are
essential for sustaining long-term psychological well-being and organizational performance. The Health Belief
Model (HBM) offers a valuable theoretical framework to explain why some employees engage in preventive
behaviors while others do not (Azadi et al., 2025; Khosravizadeh et al., 2021; Valley & Stallones, 2018).
Perceived Severity and Perceived Susceptibility
Perceived Severity
Perceived severity refers to an individual’s belief about the seriousness of the consequences of a potential
threat in this study, work stress (F. Li et al., 2022; Wongchana & Songthap, 2024). When employees believe
that work stress can lead to serious psychological or physical harm, such as burnout, cardiovascular problems,
or chronic illness, they are more likely to engage in preventive coping efforts. The Health Belief Model (HBM)
posits that individuals who perceive higher severity and susceptibility to health threats are more inclined to
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4207
adopt preventive behaviors (Cal & Bahar, 2018; Khamai et al., 2024). In the workplace, recognizing the
serious implications of work stress has been linked to improved engagement in stress management and well-
being practices (Prasad, 2022; Rangkuti et al., 2024). For instance, meta-analytic and review evidence shows
that employees who acknowledge stress as a significant health risk are more responsive to interventions such
as mindfulness-based stress reduction and resilience training (Janssen et al., 2018). Moreover, in high-demand
workplaces, awareness of the severe consequences of stress such as emotional exhaustion, absenteeism, and
reduced work engagement creates a sense of urgency that motivates proactive coping and participation in
organizational well-being programs (Araujo-Filho et al., 2023; Ganster & Rosen, 2013). In the workplace,
recognizing the serious implications of work stress such as hearing loss from occupational noise exposure
where perceived severity predicted prevention intention (Lukan et al., 2022). This awareness thus represents an
essential cognitive component shaping preventive work-stress behavior.
Perceived Susceptibility
Perceived susceptibility refers to an individual’s belief about their personal vulnerability to a specific condition
or threat ((Fathi et al., 2017; Ramdan et al., 2022)). In the setting of work stress, employees who believe they
are more likely to experience stress due to high job demands, low job control, or lack of social support may be
more motivated to adopt positive coping strategies. According to the Health Belief Model (HBM), individuals
who believe they are personally at risk are more inclined to engage in preventive behaviours such as time-
management, negotiating workload, or mindfulness practice (Janz & Becker, 1984; Champion & Skinner,
2008). Recent empirical research by Filho et al. (2023) hints that awareness of job-stress risk can influence
participation in wellbeing programmes and preventive actions and program participation tends to vary with
perceived job stress and organisational. Understanding the risks associated with work stress can be a
transformative reagent for employees, encouragement them to engage more actively in well-being initiatives
(Fu et al., 2025). Therefore, perceived susceptibility, alongside perceived severity, constitutes a key cognitive
element that drives motivation for prevention-oriented behaviour within the workplace.
Coping Self-Efficacy as a Moderating Factor
The construct of coping self-efficacy originates from Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (1997), which
highlights the role of personal beliefs in determining behavioral performance under challenging circumstances.
Coping self-efficacy is defined as the individual’s confidence in their ability to effectively manage and regulate
stressors (Chesney et al., 2006). It differs from general self-efficacy in HBM by focusing specifically on
coping processes and emotional regulation.
In the context of work stress, coping self-efficacy acts as a personal resource that moderates how cognitive
appraisals translate into preventive behaviors. Recent research by Liu & King (2021) has mentioned that
coping self-efficacy positively affects how individuals appraise and respond to stressful situations.
Subsequently, according to Kosugi (2021), while risk perception can influence behavioral intentions, it is the
self-efficacy and efficacy beliefs related to action that significantly determine whether individuals engage in
preventive behaviors. This means that without a belief in their ability to cope effectively, employees may feel
overwhelmed by perceived threats and become less likely to act even when they recognize the potential risks
involved.
On the other hand, employees with low coping self-efficacy may experience a sense of helplessness even when
they recognize the risks of stress (Ren et al., 2018). Additionally, Ngobe (2023) highlights the detrimental
impact of low self-efficacy on job burnout, noting that individuals lacking confidence in their coping abilities
are more susceptible to experiencing burnout and overall stress. Thus, coping self-efficacy strengthens the
positive impact of perceived severity and susceptibility towards preventive behavior, serving as a
psychological amplifier that converts cognitive awareness into tangible action.
Integrating Theories: Health Belief Model and Social Cognitive Theory
Integrating the Health Belief Model (HBM) with Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) provides a comprehensive
understanding of the psychological mechanisms driving stress prevention behavior.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4208
• HBM clearly explains why employees are motivated to prevent stress through perceptions of severity and
susceptibility.
• SCT explains how these perceptions are interpreted into action through coping self-efficacy as a moderating
mechanism.
This integration acknowledges that motivation and capability are both essential and important in influencing
preventive behavior. As Bandura (1997) emphasized, knowledge of risk alone does not guarantee behavioral
change; individuals must believe in their ability to act effectively. Therefore, by combining the motivational
dimension of HBM with the self-regulatory mechanisms of SCT, this framework offers a robust theoretical
explanation for variability in work stress prevention across employees.
Summary of Literature Review
In summary, existing research highlights the knotted roles of cognitive perception and self-efficacy in shaping
employees’ preventive responses to work stress. Self-efficacy functions as a psychological buffer, moderating
the effects of stressors on well-being and performance (Bandura, 1997; Ganster & Rosen, 2013). Employees
who believe in their coping abilities are more likely to engage in preventive actions such as time management
and resource seeking before stress escalates. Conversely, low self-efficacy may lead individuals to perceive
stress as uncontrollable, reducing proactive behavior.
Alves et al. (2020) demonstrated that individuals who perceive higher risks tend to adopt preventive measures,
yet those with weaker self-efficacy view risks as overwhelming and avoid action. Similarly, Wu et al. (2022)
found that self-efficacy moderates the link between stress and coping, enhancing emotional resilience and
eudaimonic well-being. Together, these studies suggest that while perceptions of stress severity and
susceptibility motivate preventive behavior, coping self-efficacy determines whether this awareness translates
into action. Despite strong theoretical support, empirical work exploring coping self-efficacy as a moderator in
preventive stress behavior remains limited, underscoring the need for further investigation.
Development of Hypotheses and Conceptual Model Justification
Perceived Severity and Prevention Behavior of Work Stress
Perceived severity refers to an individual’s belief about the seriousness of the potential consequences of a
threat, such as the disadvantageous impact of work stress on one’s health and performance (Becker, 1978;
Champion & Skinner, 2008). In the workplace, employees who perceive that stress can lead to severe
outcomes such as burnout, fatigue, anxiety, and decreased productivity are more likely to engage in preventive
strategies in order to mitigate these risks (Ab Aziz et al., 2021; Cookson et al., 2019).
According to the Health Belief Model (HBM), individuals who perceive a condition as serious are more
motivated to adopt preventive behaviors (Rosenstock, 1974). Similarly, in occupational contexts, when work
stress is perceived as having serious implications for health and job performance, employees are likely to take
preventive actions such as time management, self-care, or seeking social support to prevent its occurrence.
Empirical studies strengthen this by Mehraban et al. (2018 and Wongchana & Songthap, (2024) found that
higher perceived severity of health threats significantly predicts preventive intentions across multiple
behavioral contexts. Translating this to the work environments, employees’ cognitive appraisal of the severity
of stress aids as a motivational driver for preventive action.
Therefore, it is proposed that:
H1: Perceived severity has a positive relationship with prevention behavior of work stress.
Perceived Susceptibility and Prevention Behavior of Work Stress
Perceived susceptibility refers to the extent to which individuals believe they are personally vulnerable to
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4209
experiencing a threat (Rosenstock, 1974; Janz & Becker, 1984). Within occupational settings, employees who
view themselves as more likely to experience stress due to workload, role ambiguity, or interpersonal conflicts
may be more motivated to adopt preventive coping strategies (Amini et al., 2021; Sukeri et al., 2020).
The HBM posits that perceived susceptibility influences the likelihood of engaging in preventive action. When
individuals perceive themselves as highly susceptible to stress, they are more vigilant and proactive in
managing their work demands (Champion & Skinner, 2008). Research in occupational health has similarly
demonstrated that employees’ personal risk perception predicts engagement in stress management and
wellness programs (Ganster & Rosen, 2013).
Thus, awareness of one’s vulnerability can serve as an internal cue that triggers prevention-oriented behaviors
such as pacing work, setting boundaries, or practicing mindfulness.
Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: Perceived susceptibility has a positive relationship with prevention behavior of work stress.
Prevention Behavior of Work Stress
Prevention behavior refers to proactive and self-initiated actions that employees undertake to minimize or
avoid exposure to potential work-related stressors before they manifest as psychological strain. In the context
of workplace well-being, these behaviors include scheduling regular breaks, managing workload, seeking
feedback, and engaging in organizational wellness initiatives (Fakharian et al., 2025; Midkiff et al., 2018;
Sukohar, 2021). Such preventive actions reflect a forward-looking approach, emphasizing health maintenance
rather than reactive coping once stress occurs. Therefore, prevention behavior of work stress represents a key
outcome of cognitive appraisal and coping self-efficacy within the proposed model.
The Moderating Role of Coping Self-Efficacy
While perceived severity and susceptibility establish the cognitive foundation for preventive motivation, not all
individuals translate these perceptions into preventive behavior. This translation depends largely on coping
self-efficacy (CSE) an individual’s belief in their capability to manage or prevent stressors effectively
(Bandura, 1997; Chesney et al., 2006). According to Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), self-efficacy is a central
determinant of behavioral initiation, persistence, and effort, shaping how individuals convert cognitive
awareness into adaptive action (Bandura, 2001).
In the workplace, employees with high coping self-efficacy perceive stressors as manageable challenges rather
than uncontrollable threats. Such perceptions facilitate proactive coping strategies and emotional regulation,
reducing the likelihood of stress escalation (Cabrera-Aguilar et al., 2023). This mindset enables workers to
employ problem-focused coping, time management, and resource-seeking behaviors that prevent stress from
accumulating. Conversely, employees with low coping self-efficacy often perceive stress as inevitable or
overwhelming, which can lead to avoidance, emotional exhaustion, or withdrawal even when they recognize
potential stressors.
Empirical evidence supports the interactive and moderating role of self-efficacy in occupational and health
contexts. For instance, Morales-García et al. (2023) found that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between
resilience and stress outcomes in healthcare workers, while Chesney et al. (2006) demonstrated that individuals
with high coping self-efficacy engage more frequently in problem-solving and emotion-focused coping.
Likewise, studies using the Job Demands–Resources model show that self-efficacy moderates how cognitive
appraisals translate into well-being or strain (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Collectively, these findings confirm
that self-efficacy strengthens the link between perceived stress threats and preventive behaviors by
empowering individuals to act on their cognitive awareness.
Consequently, coping self-efficacy amplifies the effects of perceived severity and susceptibility by enhancing
confidence, motivation, and self-regulation in managing work stress. Employees with high self-efficacy are
more likely to transform their risk awareness into concrete preventive behaviors such as planning tasks,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4210
seeking feedback, or participating in mindfulness and wellness programs. Conversely, those with lower self-
efficacy are more prone to denial or disengagement despite recognizing stress risks.
Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H3: Coping self-efficacy moderates the relationship between perceived severity and prevention behavior of
work stress, such that the relationship is stronger for individuals with higher coping self-efficacy.
H4: Coping self-efficacy moderates the relationship between perceived susceptibility and prevention behavior
of work stress, such that the relationship is stronger for individuals with higher coping self-efficacy.
The Conceptual Framework
The conceptual model integrates the Health Belief Model (Rosenstock, 1974) and Social Cognitive Theory
(Bandura, 1997), positioning coping self-efficacy as a moderating variable that enhances the strength of
perceived threat–behavior relationships.
• Perceived Severity and Perceived Susceptibility represent the motivational drivers (from HBM).
• Coping Self-Efficacy represents the behavioral enabler (from SCT).
• Their interaction predicts the extent to which employees engage in preventive actions to mitigate work stress.
METHODOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DESIGN
Research Approach
The proposed conceptual framework integrates constructs from the Health Belief Model (HBM) (Rosenstock,
1974; Champion & Skinner, 2008) and Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) (Bandura, 1997). This integration can
be empirically tested using a quantitative, cross-sectional design, appropriate for assessing relationships among
psychological perceptions, efficacy beliefs, and behavioral outcomes.
Alternatively, future researchers may adopt a longitudinal design to observe changes in coping self-efficacy
and preventive behaviors over time, offering stronger causal inferences. The primary aim of such a study
would be to test the moderating effect of coping self-efficacy on the relationships between perceived severity,
perceived susceptibility, and prevention behavior of work stress.
Population and Sampling
The suitable population for this study includes working adults across various organizational sectors (e.g.,
education, healthcare, corporate, and public administration). Since work stress is a universal issue, diverse
occupational representation enhances generalizability. A non-probability purposive sampling approach can be
used to target employees currently exposed to moderate-to-high job demands. Recommended sample size for
structural equation modeling (SEM) or moderation analysis is at least 300 respondents (Hair et al., 2022). Data
can be collected using an online survey (Google Forms, Qualtrics, etc.) to ensure anonymity and accessibility.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4211
Summary of Methodological Implications
This proposed methodology offers a practical roadmap for empirically validating the conceptual framework.
By operationalizing the constructs through established scales and testing the hypothesized moderation effects
statistically, future studies can confirm the theoretical integration of perceived threat, coping self-efficacy, and
preventive behavior in the workplace.
Such validation would not only strengthen the theoretical linkage between the Health Belief Model and Social
Cognitive Theory but also provide actionable insights for designing stress prevention programs that enhance
employees’ coping resources.
DISCUSSION AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Theoretical Discussion
The proposed conceptual framework extends existing theories of work stress by integrating cognitive
perception (from the Health Belief Model) and behavioral capability (from Social Cognitive Theory). This
combination presents an alternative perspective on the connection between employees’ beliefs and self-
efficacy in shaping their proactive measures to mitigate work stress. From a theoretical viewpoint, the model
makes three significant contributions. First, it advances the Health Belief Model (HBM) by applying it to the
organizational and occupational health context, an area where it has been underutilized. Traditionally, HBM
has been used to predict health behaviors such as vaccination uptake, disease prevention, and physical activity
(Al-Haroni et al., 2024; Fakharian et al., 2025; Ullah et al., 2024). By extending its use to workplace stress,
this study highlights how perceived severity (the seriousness of stress consequences) and perceived
susceptibility (the likelihood of being affected) serve as psychological triggers for preventive behaviors in
professional settings. This adaptation underscores that employees’ cognitive appraisal of work stress functions
similarly to health risk perceptions in personal health domains.
Second, the model advances the field of work-related health psychology by extending traditional coping
frameworks. It positions coping self-efficacy not merely as a direct predictor but as a moderating variable,
explaining when and why preventive behaviors are likely to occur (Tsai et al. (2024).
Third, the model promotes a preventive orientation in workplace well-being research and practice. Instead of
emphasizing reactive coping after stress arises, it underscores proactive strategies prior to experiencing work-
related stress such as self-regulation, resilience building, and boundary management that align with modern
organizational health paradigms (Cabrera-Aguilar et al., 2023). This direction reflects a progressive shift from
managing work stress symptoms to cultivating sustainable well-being and resilience in contemporary work
environments.
Practical Implications for Organizations
This conceptual framework offers several practical implications for organizations and occupational health
management. First, organizations should design well-being programs that address both perceptual and
efficacy-based factors. Training initiatives that promote and increase awareness of stress severity and
susceptibility, alongside resilience and coping skill development, can enhance employees’ coping self-efficacy
and promote preventive action (Cabrera-Aguilar et al., 2023).
Second, creating a supportive organizational climate that nurtures psychological safety, autonomy, and open
communication encourages employees to engage in proactive coping. Leadership behaviors that model work
stress prevention and recognize positive coping can further strengthen these efforts.
Finally, integrating coping self-efficacy assessments into human resource practices allows targeted
interventions and personalized development plans. Policies promoting work–life balance, flexibility, and
access to counseling can strengthen employees’ confidence and capacity to manage work stress effectively.
Collectively, these practices shift workplace well-being from reactive work stress management to proactive
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4212
prevention.
Implications for Future Research
The proposed model opens several promising directions for future research. First, empirical studies should test
the moderating role of coping self-efficacy through longitudinal or experimental designs to establish causal
relationships. Second, cross-cultural investigations could examine how cultural orientations shape perceived
severity and susceptibility, and whether the influence of self-efficacy differs across collectivist and
individualist contexts. Third, future studies may explore mediating mechanisms such as proactive coping,
emotional regulation, or psychological resilience that explain how self-efficacy translates cognitive threat
perceptions into preventive behaviors. Mixed-method approaches combining quantitative surveys and
qualitative interviews could further enrich understanding by capturing the nuanced cognitive and emotional
processes underlying preventive stress behavior. Fifth, for future empirical validation, it is recommended that
researchers adopt validated instruments for the core constructs. Coping Self-Efficacy may be measured using
the Coping Self-Efficacy Scale (Chesney et al., 2006), perceived severity and susceptibility through adapted
Health Belief Model measures (Champion & Skinner, 2008), and prevention behavior using the Proactive
Coping Inventory (Greenglass et al., 2006). This approach will ensure construct validity and facilitate
replication across occupational contexts.
In summary, this conceptual paper offers an integrative framework linking the Health Belief Model and Social
Cognitive Theory to explain preventive behavior toward work stress. By addressing both motivational and
capability dimensions, it reframes workplace stress management as a proactive prevention process. The model
provides valuable theoretical and practical insights for fostering resilient, healthy, and high-performing
workforces.
CONCLUSION
Work-related stress remains one of the most persistent challenges in these modern organizations, affecting
employees’ psychological health, performance, and overall well-being. This conceptual paper proposes an
integrative framework explaining how employees’ cognitive appraisals specifically perceived severity and
perceived susceptibility influence their preventive behavior toward work stress, and how this relationship is
moderated by coping self-efficacy. By bridging the Health Belief Model (HBM) and Social Cognitive Theory
(SCT), the paper advances a dual-perspective understanding of stress prevention that integrates both
motivational and capability dimensions of human behavior.
The proposed model contributes to theory by extending the traditional application of the HBM beyond medical
contexts to organizational and occupational health psychology. It also reconceptualizes coping self-efficacy
from a direct predictor of coping to a moderating psychological resource that determines whether awareness of
stress risks translates into proactive behavior. This integration provides a fresh lens for understanding how
cognitive perceptions and self-beliefs interact to promote well-being at work.
From a practical perspective, the model offers a framework for designing preventive stress management
strategies. By enhancing employees’ awareness of work stress risks and strengthening their coping self-
efficacy through resilience training, coaching, and supportive leadership, organizations can foster a workforce
that is not merely reactive to stress but proactive in maintaining mental health and productivity.
Nevertheless, this paper acknowledges limitations. Future research should empirically validate the proposed
relationships using techniques such as structural equation modeling or moderated regression, and explore
cross-cultural and longitudinal perspectives. Ultimately, preventing work stress requires more than awareness;
it demands belief in one’s ability to act effectively. The integration of cognitive and efficacy-based constructs
thus provides a balanced and holistic foundation for promoting healthier, more resilient, and high-performing
workplaces.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4213
Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies
The authors used Grammarly and ChatGPT for language editing and refinement. The conceptual development,
analysis, and interpretation remain solely the authors’ responsibility
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to express a great acknowledgment of the funding from Universiti Teknologi MARA
Melaka.
REFERENCES
1. A. A. Ab Aziz, N. Zaini, S. Shaidin, and A. A. Abd Hamid, “Occupational stress and coping strategies
among non-tenure lecturers in a Malaysian public university,” Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 11,
no. 6, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v11-i6/10384
2. H. Al-Haroni, N. D. Nik Farid, and M. S. Azanan, “Effectiveness of education intervention, with regards
to physical activity level and a healthy diet, among Middle Eastern adolescents in Malaysia: A study
protocol for a randomized control trial, based on a health belief model,” PLoS ONE, vol. 19, Jan. 2024.
[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289937
3. R. Alves, C. Samorinha, and J. Precioso, “Knowledge, attitudes and preventive behaviors toward
COVID-19: A study among higher education students in Portugal,” J. Health Res., vol. 35, no. 4, pp.
318–328, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1108/jhr-07-2020-0254
4. R. Amini, F. Biglari, M. Khodaveisi, and L. Tapak, “Effect of education based on the health belief model
on earthquake preparedness in women,” Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., vol. 52, 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101954
5. I. Araujo-Filho, L. D. Medeiros da Silva, and A. C. Meneses do Rêgo, “Prehospital emergency care and
professional burnout: Nurses in focus,” J. Surg. Clin. Res., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 83–91, 2023. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.20398/jscr.v14i1.33139
6. S. M. Awaluddin et al., “The pattern of cardiovascular disease risks among working people (18–64 years)
via a nationwide household-based survey in Malaysia,” CVD, 2022.
7. N. A. Azadi et al., “Effects of an educational health belief model program on promoting preventive
behaviors for breast cancer among women in Iran,” J. Patient Exp., vol. 12, pp. 1–8, 2025. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/23743735251341719
8. R. Azmi, S. N. S. Ahmad, B. A. Mustafa Kamil, and N. S. A. Mohd Zaki, “The implementation of
employee assistance program in Malaysia, the United Kingdom and Australia in dealing with mental
health issues at workplace: An overview,” Int. J. Entrepren. Manag. Pract., vol. 5, no. 17, pp. 49–57,
2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.35631/ijemp.517004
9. A. Bandura, Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY, USA: W. H. Freeman, 1997.
10. A. Bandura, “Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective,” Annu. Rev. Psychol., vol. 52, pp. 1–26,
2001. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
11. T. H. T. Bui, T. N. T. Nguyen, H. D. Pham, C. T. Tran, and T. H. Ha, “The mediating role of self-
compassion between proactive coping and perceived stress among students,” Sci. Prog., vol. 104, no. 2,
pp. 1–14, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/00368504211011872
12. E. Cabrera-Aguilar et al., “Resilience and stress as predictors of work engagement: The mediating role of
self-efficacy in nurses,” Front. Psychiatry, vol. 14, Aug. 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1202048
13. A. Cal and Z. Bahar, “Use of the health belief model in the prevention of lymphedema after breast
cancer,” Prog. Health Sci., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 176–181, 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0012.1115
14. M. Cavicchioli, F. Demaria, F. Nannetti, A. C. Scapolan, and T. Fabbri, “Employees’ attitudes and work-
related stress in the digital workplace: An empirical investigation,” Front. Psychol., vol. 16, Feb. 2025.
[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1546832
15. V. L. Champion and C. S. Skinner, “The health belief model,” in Health Behavior and Health Education:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 4th ed., San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass, 2008, ch. 2.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4214
16. M. A. Chesney, T. B. Neilands, D. B. Chambers, J. M. Taylor, and S. Folkman, “A validity and
reliability study of the coping self-efficacy scale,” Natl. Inst. Health, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2006.
17. M. D. Cookson, P. M. R. Stirk, and O. A. M. A. Kara, “Evidence-based and theoretically-driven
behaviour change interventions for physical activity to enhance health and wellbeing,” Univ.
Hertfordshire, vol. 7, Dec. 2019.
18. E. Fakharian et al., “Predictors of mothers’ preventive behaviors for children’s dental trauma: A cross-
sectional study using the health belief model,” BDJ Open, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2025. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-025-00346-4
19. Y. Fathi, M. Barati, M. Zandiyeh, and S. Bashirian, “Prediction of preventive behaviors of the
needlestick injuries during surgery among operating room personnel: Application of the health belief
model,” Int. J. Occup. Environ. Med., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 232–240, 2017. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.15171/ijoem.2017.1051
20. C. Freire et al., “Coping strategies and self-efficacy in university students: A person-centered approach,”
Front. Psychol., vol. 11, May 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00841
21. D. C. Ganster and C. C. Rosen, “Work stress and employee health: A multidisciplinary review,” J.
Manage., vol. 39, no. 5, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313475815
22. J. F. Hair, G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 3rd ed. Sage, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
030-80519-7
23. A. P. Hüsser, T. Ohnmacht, and V. T. Thao, “Tourists’ preventive travel behaviour during COVID-19:
The mediating role of attitudes towards the intention to apply non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs)
while travelling,” Curr. Issues Tour., 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2022.2162373
24. M. Janssen et al., “Effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction on employees’ mental health: A
systematic review,” PLoS ONE, vol. 13, no. 1, 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191332
25. F. S. Johari, “Work-related stress and coping strategies: A systematic literature review,” Int. J. Acad.
Res. Bus. Soc. Sci., vol. 10, no. 6, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v10-i6/7469
26. C. L. Jones et al., “The health belief model as an explanatory framework in communication research,”
Health Commun., vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 566–576, 2015. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.873363
27. N. Khamai, K. Seangpraw, and P. Ong-Artborirak, “Using the health belief model to predict tuberculosis
preventive behaviors among tuberculosis patients’ household contacts during the COVID-19 pandemic in
northern Thailand,” J. Prev. Med. Public Health, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 223–233, 2024. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.23.453
28. O. Khosravizadeh et al., “Applying the health belief model and behavior of diabetic patients: A
systematic review and meta-analysis,” Clin. Diabetol., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 209–220, 2021. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.5603/DK.2021.0020
29. M. Kivimäki et al., “Work stress in the etiology of coronary heart disease—A meta-analysis,” Scand. J.
Work Environ. Health, vol. 32, no. 6, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.1049
30. M. Kosugi, “Determinants of preventive behaviors for COVID-19 in Japan,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Health, vol. 18, no. 19, p. 9979, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18199979
31. F. Li et al., “A systematic review and meta-analysis on preventive behaviors in response to the COVID-
19 pandemic among children and adolescents,” BMC Public Health, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2022.
[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13585-z
32. H. Li, Z. Zhang, S. Yang, and G. Zhu, “Systematic review and meta-analysis of propranolol in the
prevention and treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder,” Front. Pharmacol., vol. 16, Jan. 2025.
[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2025.1545493
33. S. Llorens, M. Salanova, M. J. Chambel, P. Torrente, and R. P. Ângelo, “Organizational drivers of
burnout and work engagement: A multilevel study in Portuguese firefighter brigades,” Int. J. Environ.
Res. Public Health, vol. 19, no. 7, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19074053
34. J. Lukan, L. Bolliger, N. S. Pauwels, M. Luštrek, D. De Bacquer, and E. Clays, “Work environment risk
factors causing day-to-day stress in occupational settings: A systematic review,” BMC Public Health,
vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12354-8
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4215
35. E. Makowska-Tłomak, S. Bedyńska, K. Skorupska, R. Nielek, M. Kornacka, and W. Kopeć, “Measuring
digital transformation stress at the workplace–Development and validation of the digital transformation
stress scale,” PLoS ONE, vol. 18, no. 10, Oct. 2023, pp. 1–28. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287223
36. S. S. Z. Mehraban, A. Namdar, and M. M. Naghizadeh, “Assessment of preventive behavior for cervical
cancer with the health belief model,” Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev., vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 2155–2163, 2018.
[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.22034/APJCP.2018.19.8.2155
37. E. Menardo et al., “Nature and mindfulness to cope with work-related stress: A narrative review,” Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 19, no. 10, 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19105948
38. M. F. Midkiff, C. R. Lindsey, and E. A. Meadows, “The role of coping self-efficacy in emotion
regulation and frequency of NSSI in young adult college students,” Cogent Psychol., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–
14, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2018.1520437
39. Z. Moradi, S. S. Kazemi, M. M. Sciences, and A. Montazeri, “The occupational neck pain prevention
behaviors assessment questionnaire: Development and psychometric evaluation,” Unpublished
manuscript, 2022.
40. L. D. Ngobe, “Work stress and job burnout among lecturers in state-owned universities in Rivers State:
The mediating role of self-efficacy,” Iris J. Econ. Bus. Manage., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 1–8, 2023. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.33552/IJEBM.2023.01.000514
41. C. Okechukwu and B. O. Babatunde, “Work-related stress and the relationship with the health belief
model among medical doctors in a tertiary hospital in Port-Harcourt, Nigeria,” J. Educ. Soc. Behav. Sci.,
Jun. 2021, pp. 10–21. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.9734/jesbs/2021/v34i430320
42. K. D. V. Prasad, “Effect of occupational stress on work-life balance and psychological well-being,” Int.
J. Health Sci., vol. 6, Jun. 2022, pp. 3349–3373. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6ns5.9367
43. I. M. Ramdan, K. P. Candra, and M. Sultan, “Perception of preventing behavior against COVID-19
among Indonesian industrial workers,” Int. J. Public Health Sci., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 98–105, 2022.
[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.11591/ijphs.v11i1.21071
44. A. A. Rangkuti, R. Gazadinda, and R. Rustyawati, “Work stress and psychological well-being of high
school teachers in Indonesia,” KnE Soc. Sci., 2024, pp. 1–7. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v9i9.15635
45. S. Rathi and P. Kumar, “Job stress: A systematic literature review,” J. Health Sci., vol. 6, no. S6, p. 812,
2022. [Online]. Available: https://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/15934
46. Y. Ren, Y. Zhou, S. Wang, T. Luo, M. Huang, and Y. Zeng, “Exploratory study on resilience and its
influencing factors among hospital nurses in Guangzhou, China,” Int. J. Nurs. Sci., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 57–
62, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnss.2017.11.001
47. I. M. Rosenstock, “Historical origins of the health belief model,” Health Educ. Monogr., vol. 2, no. 4, pp.
328–335, 1974. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/109019817400200403
48. S. Sukeri et al., “Perceived severity and susceptibility towards leptospirosis infection in Malaysia,” Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 17, no. 17, 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176362
49. A. Sukohar, “Health belief model and hypertension prevention,” Indian J. Forensic Med. Toxicol., Nov.
2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.37506/ijfmt.v15i3.15619
50. F.-J. Tsai, S.-W. Shen, Y.-J. Hu, and C.-C. Tseng, “Health beliefs model to explore older adults’
dementia prevention and health promotion from 2021 to 2022 in Taiwan: A cross-sectional survey
study,” Medicine (Baltimore), vol. 103, no. 42, p. e39744, Oct. 2024. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000039744
51. F. Ullah, L. Ragazzoni, I. Hubloue, F. Barone-Adesi, and M. Valente, “The use of the health belief model
in the context of heatwaves research: A rapid review,” Disaster Med. Public Health Prep., vol. 18, 2024.
[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2024.26
52. M. Valley and L. Stallones, “A thematic analysis of health care workers’ adoption of mindfulness
practices,” Workplace Health Saf., vol. 66, no. 11, pp. 538–544, 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1177/2165079918771991
53. World Health Organization, Workplace Stress and Mental Health. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2023.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
www.rsisinternational.org
Page 4216
[Online]. Available: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240053052
54. T. Wongchana and A. Songthap, “Factors affecting tuberculosis (TB) prevention behaviors among
household contacts in Phitsanulok Province, northern Thailand: Implications for TB prevention strategy
plan,” BMC Infect. Dis., 2024.
55. C. Wu et al., “Exploring links between Chinese military recruits’ psychological stress and coping style
from the person-environment fit perspective: The chain mediating effect of self-efficacy and social
support,” Front. Psychol., vol. 13, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.996865
56. J. Wu, J. Shen, Z. Tao, Z. Song, and Z. L. Chen, “Self-efficacy as moderator and mediator between
medication beliefs and adherence in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes,” Patient Prefer. Adherence, vol.
17, pp. 217–226, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S382362
