in enhancing coping skills, increasing social support, and reducing stress responses. Stress management intervention studies in the workplace have increased during the past two decades [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] . It is often assumed that there are two basic approaches to interventions in the workplace 1,9,10) . One is an organization-oriented approach, which aims to identify and improve a stressful work environment, and the other is individual-oriented and aims to enhance the coping abilities of individual employees. The latter approach is of particular interest to occupational health psychologists, who regard employee stress responses as the results of coping with stressful work environments, and who frequently help employees cope more effectively 11) . Our study was conducted on the basis of the individualoriented approach.There are various kinds of intervention techniques in the individual-oriented approach. Cognitive-behavioral training, stress measurement and personalized feedback, meditation, relaxation training, and physical fitness training are all examples. Accumulated experiences from individual-oriented intervention showed that cognitivebehavioral training or a combination of cognitivebehavioral training with relaxation training was more effective than other techniques 11,12) . In accord with that evidence, our intervention program was planned combining the two techniques.All participants in this study were teachers, for whom job stress has become a problem of especially serious proportions because it affects on their psychological wellbeing and the future of the profession. In Japan, 0.24% of teachers were suspended from their jobs in 2000 because of a mental disorder; the highest rate for the last University Graduate School of Education-The aim of this study was to examine the effects of a stress management program for teachers on their stress responses, social support, and coping. Participants (n=24) were assigned to either an intervention or a waiting list control group. A five-session program, including psychoeducation, group discussion, roleplaying and relaxation training, was conducted for the intervention group at two week intervals. Eight participants from each of the groups responded to preand post-intervention questionnaire surveys. The positive intervention effect was significant for social support from co-workers (p=0.035), whereas the negative intervention effect was significant for proactive coping (p=0.033). No significant effect was observed for stress responses (vigor, anger, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and somatic stress responses) (p>0.05). The positive intervention effect was marginally significant for social support from co-workers (p=0.085) and anger (p=0.057) among those who at first had high stress response scores in the pre-intervention survey (n=5 and n=4 for the intervention and waiting list control groups, respectively). Furthermore, the positive intervention effect was significant for social support from co-workers (p=0.021) and marginally significant ...