9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Do Work Beliefs Moderate the Relationship Between Work Interruptions, Wellbeing and Psychosomatic Symptoms?

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The purpose of this study was to explore the moderating effects of work beliefs in the relationship between work interruptions and general health, wellbeing and reports of psychosomatic symptoms. Self-report data were gathered from 310 employees from different occupational sectors. Results revealed that beliefs in hard work and morality ethic moderated the positive appraisal of work interruptions and acted as protective factors on impaired general health and wellbeing. The relationship was stronger among employees who endorsed strong beliefs in hard work and did not have regard for morality/ethics as a value. Likewise, beliefs in delay of gratification and morality/ethics moderated positive appraisal of work interruptions and reduced psychosomatic complaints. More specifically, the relationship was stronger among employees who had strong belief in the values of delayed gratification and weaker morality/ethics. These findings indicate that organisations should adopt work ideology or practices focused on work values particularly of hard work, delay of gratification and conformity to morality as protective factors that reduce the impact of work interruptions on employees’ general health and wellbeing.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.

          In this article, we attempt to distinguish between the properties of moderator and mediator variables at a number of levels. First, we seek to make theorists and researchers aware of the importance of not using the terms moderator and mediator interchangeably by carefully elaborating, both conceptually and strategically, the many ways in which moderators and mediators differ. We then go beyond this largely pedagogical function and delineate the conceptual and strategic implications of making use of such distinctions with regard to a wide range of phenomena, including control and stress, attitudes, and personality traits. We also provide a specific compendium of analytic procedures appropriate for making the most effective use of the moderator and mediator distinction, both separately and in terms of a broader causal system that includes both moderators and mediators.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A power primer.

            One possible reason for the continued neglect of statistical power analysis in research in the behavioral sciences is the inaccessibility of or difficulty with the standard material. A convenient, although not comprehensive, presentation of required sample sizes is provided here. Effect-size indexes and conventional values for these are given for operationally defined small, medium, and large effects. The sample sizes necessary for .80 power to detect effects at these levels are tabled for eight standard statistical tests: (a) the difference between independent means, (b) the significance of a product-moment correlation, (c) the difference between independent rs, (d) the sign test, (e) the difference between independent proportions, (f) chi-square tests for goodness of fit and contingency tables, (g) one-way analysis of variance, and (h) the significance of a multiple or multiple partial correlation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              WORK ENGAGEMENT: A QUANTITATIVE REVIEW AND TEST OF ITS RELATIONS WITH TASK AND CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                EJOP
                Eur J Psychol
                Europe's Journal of Psychology
                Eur. J. Psychol.
                PsychOpen
                1841-0413
                31 May 2017
                : 13
                : 2
                : 214-230
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Psychology, University of Surrey , Guildford, United Kingdom
                [b ] Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences , Lillehammer, Norway
                [3]Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
                [4]Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                [* ]Department of Psychology, University of Surrey, GU2 7XH, United Kingdom. zoezoupanou@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                ejop.v13i2.1169
                10.5964/ejop.v13i2.1169
                5450981
                6468a264-c223-4968-939f-c3cab393f991
                Copyright @ 2017

                All content is freely available without charge to users or their institutions. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission of the publisher or the author. Articles are distributed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 06 April 2016
                : 16 January 2017
                Categories
                Research Reports

                Psychology
                beliefs,health,interruptions,psychosomatic symptoms
                Psychology
                beliefs, health, interruptions, psychosomatic symptoms

                Comments

                Comment on this article