Refine
H-BRS Bibliography
- yes (13)
Departments, institutes and facilities
Document Type
- Article (7)
- Conference Object (4)
- Dataset (1)
- Preprint (1)
Keywords
- problem-solving pondering (3)
- affective rumination (2)
- burnout (2)
- human resource management (2)
- irritation (2)
- negative work reflection (2)
- overcommitment (2)
- positive work reflection (2)
- psychological detachment (2)
- recovery (2)
Work-related thoughts in off-job time have been studied extensively in occupational health psychology and related fields. We provide a focused review of research on overcommitment – a component within the effort-reward imbalance model – and aim to connect this line of research to the most commonly studied aspects of work-related rumination. Drawing on this integrative review, we analyze survey data on ten facets of work-related rumination, namely (1) overcommitment, (2) psychological detachment, (3) affective rumination, (4) problem-solving pondering, (5) positive work reflection, (6) negative work reflection, (7) distraction, (8) cognitive irritation, (9) emotional irritation, and (10) inability to recover. First, we leverage exploratory factor analysis to self-report survey data from 357 employees to calibrate overcommitment items and to position overcommitment within the nomological net of work-related rumination constructs. Second, we leverage confirmatory factor analysis to self-report survey data from 388 employees to provide a more specific test of uniqueness vs. overlap among these constructs. Third, we apply relative weight analysis to quantify the unique criterion-related validity of each work-related rumination facet regarding (1) physical fatigue, (2) cognitive fatigue, (3) emotional fatigue, (4) burnout, (5) psychosomatic complaints, and (6) satisfaction with life. Our results suggest that several measures of work-related rumination (e.g., overcommitment and cognitive irritation) can be used interchangeably. Emotional irritation and affective rumination emerge as the strongest unique predictors of fatigue, burnout, psychosomatic complaints, and satisfaction with life. Our study assists researchers in making informed decisions on selecting scales for their research and paves the way for integrating research on effort-reward imbalance and work-related rumination.
Work-related thoughts during off-job time have been studied extensively in occupational health psychology and related fields. We provide a focused review of the research on overcommitment—a component within the effort–reward imbalance model—and aim to connect this line of research to the most commonly studied aspects of work-related rumination. Drawing on this integrative review, we analyze survey data on ten facets of work-related rumination, namely (1) overcommitment, (2) psychological detachment, (3) affective rumination, (4) problem-solving pondering, (5) positive work reflection, (6) negative work reflection, (7) distraction, (8) cognitive irritation, (9) emotional irritation, and (10) inability to recover. First, we apply exploratory factor analysis to self-reported survey data from 357 employees to calibrate overcommitment items and to position overcommitment within the nomological net of work-related rumination constructs. Second, we leverage apply confirmatory factor analysis to self-reported survey data from 388 employees to provide a more specific test of uniqueness vs. overlap among these constructs. Third, we apply relative weight analysis to assess the unique criterion-related validity of each work-related rumination facet regarding (1) physical fatigue, (2) cognitive fatigue, (3) emotional fatigue, (4) burnout, (5) psychosomatic complaints, and (6) satisfaction with life. Our results suggest that several measures of work-related rumination (e.g., overcommitment and cognitive irritation) can be used interchangeably. Emotional irritation and affective rumination emerge as the strongest unique predictors of fatigue, burnout, psychosomatic complaints, and satisfaction with life. Our study is intended to assist researchers in making informed decisions on selecting scales for their research and paves the way for integrating research on the effort–reward imbalance and work-related rumination.
An Experimental Field-Study on Active and Passive Work Breaks in a Stressful Work Environment
(2017)
Work breaks are known to have positive effects on employees’ health, performance, and safety. However, prior research has focused mainly on their timing, duration, and frequency but less on break activities. Moreover, most studies examined work breaks in rather repetitive and physical demanding work. Thus, we conducted an experimental field study with a sample of employees’ working in a stressful and cognitive demanding working environment and examined how different types of work breaks (boxing, deep relaxation, and usual breaks) affect participants’ mood, cognitive performance, and neuro-physiological state.
The number of studies on work breaks and the importance of this subject is growing rapidly, with research showing that work breaks increase employees’ wellbeing and performance and workplace safety. However, comparing the results of work break research is difficult since the study designs and methods are heterogeneous and there is no standard theoretical model for work breaks. Based on a systematic literature search, this scoping review included a total of 93 studies on experimental work break research conducted over the last 30 years. This scoping review provides a first structured evaluation regarding the underlying theoretical framework, the variables investigated, and the measurement methods applied. Studies using a combination of measurement methods from the categories “self-report measures,” “performance measures,” and “physiological measures” are most common and to be preferred in work break research. This overview supplies important information for ergonomics researchers allowing them to design work break studies with a more structured and stronger theory-based approach. A standard theoretical model for work breaks is needed in order to further increase the comparability of studies in the field of experimental work break research in the future.
Many workers experience their jobs as effortful or even stressful, which can result in strain. Although recovery from work would be an adaptive strategy to prevent the adverse effects of work-related strain, many workers face problems finding enough time to rest and to mentally disconnect from work during nonwork time. What goes on in workers’ minds after a stressful workday? What is it about their jobs that makes them think about their work? This special issue aims to bridge the gap between research on recovery processes mainly examined in Occupational Health Psychology, and research on work stress and working hours, often investigated in the field of Human Resource Management. We first summarize conceptual and theoretical streams from both fields of research. In the following, we discuss the contributions of the five special issue papers and conclude with key messages and directions for further research.
While academic research on recovery was rather segregated between occupational health psychology and management research at the beginning of the 20s century and streams of research developed independently, recent developments hint at a closing divide and better integration of recovery research across disciplines. This for example becomes evident in publications of researchers across the traditional outlets within both fields, as well as increasing close collaborations of researchers firmly rooted in one of the fields. In preparation of this special issue, the editors were interested in whether this development represents a convergence or even a true merging of research in these different disciplines. We therefore interviewed Prof. Sabine Sonnentag as expert from occupational health psychology research and Prof. Ute Stephan with expertise in management research. Both are excellent and world-famous researchers in their disciplines. We discussed the current state, the advances during the last years, and the future directions of recovery research in their respective fields. We also talked about their perspectives on integrative topics and about specific issues in both domains that might stimulate a new recovery management research agenda.
