Quantifying the evidence for the absence of the job demands and job control interaction on workers' well-being: A Bayesian meta-analysis.

K. Huth, Greg A. Chung-Yan
{"title":"Quantifying the evidence for the absence of the job demands and job control interaction on workers' well-being: A Bayesian meta-analysis.","authors":"K. Huth, Greg A. Chung-Yan","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/z5bdk","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Central to many influential theories in the occupational health and stress literature is that job resources reduce the negative effects of job demands on workers' well-being. However, empirical investigations testing this supposition have produced inconsistent findings. This study evaluates the interaction between job demands and job control on workers' well-being through a systematic literature search and using a Bayesian meta-analytic approach. Both aggregated study findings and raw participant-level data were included in the study, resulting in 104 effect sizes of aggregate-level data and 14 participant-level data sets. Overall, the data provided strong evidence for the absence of an interaction between job demands and job control. Longitudinal and nonlinear research designs were also examined but did not alter this overall conclusion. Contrary to the postulations of widespread theories, job control does not reduce the negative impact of job demands on workers' well-being. Alternative theoretical approaches and the need for more consistent and rigorous research standards, like open science practices, are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":169654,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of applied psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of applied psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/z5bdk","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Central to many influential theories in the occupational health and stress literature is that job resources reduce the negative effects of job demands on workers' well-being. However, empirical investigations testing this supposition have produced inconsistent findings. This study evaluates the interaction between job demands and job control on workers' well-being through a systematic literature search and using a Bayesian meta-analytic approach. Both aggregated study findings and raw participant-level data were included in the study, resulting in 104 effect sizes of aggregate-level data and 14 participant-level data sets. Overall, the data provided strong evidence for the absence of an interaction between job demands and job control. Longitudinal and nonlinear research designs were also examined but did not alter this overall conclusion. Contrary to the postulations of widespread theories, job control does not reduce the negative impact of job demands on workers' well-being. Alternative theoretical approaches and the need for more consistent and rigorous research standards, like open science practices, are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
工作需求和工作控制相互作用对员工幸福感缺失的量化证据:贝叶斯元分析。
在职业健康和压力文献中,许多有影响力的理论的核心是,工作资源减少了工作需求对工人福祉的负面影响。然而,检验这一假设的实证调查产生了不一致的结果。本研究通过系统的文献检索和贝叶斯元分析方法,评估了工作需求和工作控制对员工幸福感的相互作用。本研究纳入了综合研究结果和原始参与者水平数据,得出了104个综合水平数据的效应量和14个参与者水平数据集。总的来说,这些数据为工作需求和工作控制之间缺乏相互作用提供了强有力的证据。纵向和非线性研究设计也进行了检验,但没有改变这一总体结论。与普遍理论的假设相反,工作控制并没有减少工作需求对工人福祉的负面影响。本文还讨论了其他理论方法和对更一致和严格的研究标准的需求,如开放科学实践。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信