Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Workaholism literature has been so far focused on individual differences in workaholic tendencies, considering the construct as a stable individual trait and highlighting its health and well-being consequences. Only recently, research has started inspecting the daily dynamics and potential consequences of state workaholism. In this preregistered study, we aimed at systematically investigating the within-individual fluctuations in workaholism levels and their potential short-term and delayed psychophysiological responses as captured by ambulatory assessment integrating subjective and objective data. Using an intensive longitudinal design over 10 workdays with 114 workers from various occupations (2,534 measurement occasions), we found higher systolic and diastolic blood pressure, emotional exhaustion, and sleep disturbances in workdays characterized by higher-than-usual workaholism symptoms. Moreover, the reactivity to state workaholism, as indexed by afternoon blood pressure, was found as a mediator of the subsequent prolonged activation indexed by bedtime blood pressure. Finally, we found evidence of a buffering effect of evening psychological detachment on the relationship between state workaholism and sleep disturbances. Overall, our results support the conceptualization of workaholism as a multilevel phenomenon that acts as an internal job-related demand by showing the typical strain reactions triggered by well-characterized external demands. This study contributes to the literature by highlighting that transient workaholism symptoms can result in significant short-term stress responses at different levels, providing new, robust, and multisource evidence that underlies the importance of effectively preventing and managing dysfunctional work investment since its early manifestation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) PubDate: Mon, 05 Aug 2024 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1037/ocp0000383
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Recent occupational health research has begun exploring unhelpful workplace social support (UWSS). UWSS refers to actions taken by a colleague that the recipient believes are intended to be helpful but are perceived as ineffective. For example, a colleague may provide help that is not wanted or do something incorrectly while providing aid. Despite the perceived good intentions of UWSS providers, empirical research suggests that UWSS is a potent workplace demand negatively associated with occupational well-being. The mechanisms that link UWSS and reduced occupational well-being, however, have yet to receive empirical examination. We integrate the job demands–resources model, conservation of resources theory, and basic needs theory to construct a multistage model linking UWSS to reduced work engagement via the frustration of basic psychological needs and the consequent experiencing of negative emotions. We test this model across two studies—a three-wave weekly study (NLevel 1 = 960, NLevel 2 = 320) and a 5-day daily diary study (NLevel 1 = 1,680, NLevel 2 = 336)—and find several significant direct and indirect effects. Across both studies (though at different levels of analysis), partial support was linked to reduced work engagement via the frustration of both the need for competence and relatedness and the experiencing of negative affect, while in Study 2, a daily link between undependable support and work engagement through relatedness frustration and the experiencing of negative affect was found. Implications for research and practice are discussed, and future research directions are offered. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) PubDate: Mon, 05 Aug 2024 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1037/ocp0000382
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Recovering from work is essential for maintaining occupational well-being, health, motivation, and performance, but recovery is often difficult to achieve. In this study, we evaluated and compared the effectiveness of two (parallel) interventions aimed at promoting recovery: one based on mindfulness and one involving applying cognitive–behavioral strategies. Both interventions were embedded in a measurement burst design, which allowed us to examine the mechanisms underlying change or intervention success. To explore mechanisms of change, we used the stressor-detachment model as a theoretical framework. We operationalized the interventions’ effects in three ways: as changes from pretest to posttest, as changes in daily states, and as changes in daily associations. To this end, we used intensive longitudinal data to examine the roles that daily negative activation plays in detachment and strain. In a randomized controlled trial (N = 393), we administered three assessments of traits: pretest, posttest (8 weeks later), and follow-up (3 months after the posttest). We also administered 2 work weeks of experience sampling questionnaires (preintervention and postintervention). Latent change models and Bayes factor equivalence tests revealed that both interventions substantially—and to a similar extent—increased detachment. Bayesian multilevel path models showed improvements in all state variables, including improvements in negative activation, and provided some evidence that mindfulness-based and cognitive–behavioral approaches might tackle different processes at the daily level. We discuss theoretical implications for the literature on recovery from work and specifically for the stressor-detachment model. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) PubDate: Mon, 05 Aug 2024 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1037/ocp0000381
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) have been shown to effectively reduce absenteeism, workplace injury rates, and health-related productivity impairments. However, established measures for determining its impact on employee-level productivity have rarely been used, nor have studies employed biological measures of well-being. Drawing on the allostatic load theory, we examine the effects of an EAP on biological measures (heart rate, heart rate variability), established measures of health-related productivity (Workability Index, Health and Work Performance Questionnaire, Workplace Limitations Questionnaire), and absenteeism 4 weeks and 6 months after clients started to receive counseling. We conducted a quasi-experimental study comparing an EAP (n = 73) with a matched control group (n = 134) using propensity score matching. We found that an EAP improves health-related productivity 4 weeks and 6 months after enrolling in counseling, above and beyond changes in the control group. Biological measures changed in the hypothesized directions, but differences between the groups did not reach significance. Absenteeism did not change in the EAP group 6 months after enrolling in counseling. In an exploratory analysis, we found that individuals requiring many sessions in the first 4 weeks showed worse productivity outcomes, demonstrating a negative dose–response relationship. Our study provides an example of how to include biological measures in EAP research. It adds to the scientific evidence of the usefulness of EAP services in restoring employee-level productivity. We calculate that the marginal productivity improvements per employee using the EAP are as much as $15,600 per annum. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) PubDate: Mon, 05 Aug 2024 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1037/ocp0000380
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Recovery from work is highly relevant for employees, yet understanding the interpersonal antecedents of impaired recovery experiences remains unclear. Specifically, because former research neglected supervisor behaviors as a predictor of impaired recovery and abusive supervision is a core stressor, we examine daily abusive supervision as a predictor of subordinates’ recovery experiences (i.e., psychological detachment and relaxation). We draw on research on the recovery paradox and propose that psychological detachment and relaxation will be impaired on days with high abusive supervision, although recovery would have been highly important on those days. We suggest a cognitive mechanism (via rumination) and an affective mechanism (via anger) to explain this paradox. We test coworker reappraisal support as a moderator that buffers the adverse effects of abusive supervision on rumination and anger. In a daily diary study (171 subordinates, 786 days), we found an indirect effect of abusive supervision on psychological detachment via rumination and indirect effects of abusive supervision on psychological detachment and relaxation via anger. Coworker reappraisal support moderated the association of abusive supervision and rumination, such that the relationship was weaker when coworker support was high. Our results suggest that including negative supervisor behaviors, such as abusive supervision, in recovery research is highly relevant. Coworkers can help cognitively process abusive-supervision experiences by providing reappraisal support. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved) PubDate: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1037/ocp0000377
Subscription journal
[89 journals]
