Beyond the resource perspective: Integrating appraisal to better understand job autonomy and its effect on well-being.

IF 3.9 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Barbara Stiglbauer, Marlene Penz
{"title":"Beyond the resource perspective: Integrating appraisal to better understand job autonomy and its effect on well-being.","authors":"Barbara Stiglbauer, Marlene Penz","doi":"10.1037/ocp0000403","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In occupational health psychology, understanding working conditions has traditionally relied on two approaches: appraisal and structural. While both focus on stressors-differentiating between types (e.g., challenge vs. hindrance vs. threat) and examining their appraisals-the role of appraisal in understanding resources is underexplored. This study therefore investigates job autonomy, a key job resource, through both approaches. Among over 700 German employees who were recruited with the help of an online panel provider, we examined job autonomy and its appraisal as a resource, challenge, hindrance, or threat across four measurement waves spanning 2.5 years. We analyzed cross-sectionally how actual autonomy, combined with individuals' desired levels of autonomy, influenced their appraisals. We also explored longitudinally how both actual autonomy and its appraisals impacted work-related well-being, including job satisfaction, resignation, and cognitive and emotional irritation. Results revealed that higher autonomy was associated with more resource and challenge appraisals, whereas lower autonomy led to more hindrance and threat appraisals. This pattern was particularly evident when actual autonomy levels aligned with desired levels or if desired levels were high. Conversely, a mismatch between actual and desired autonomy reduced the perceived benefit of autonomy. Combining autonomy levels and appraisals enhanced the predictability of well-being outcomes over time, both at the between-person and the within-person level of analysis. In conclusion, this study underscores the importance of integrating appraisal into structural approaches to understanding job resources and advocates for broader consideration of appraisal in future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48339,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational Health Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational Health Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000403","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In occupational health psychology, understanding working conditions has traditionally relied on two approaches: appraisal and structural. While both focus on stressors-differentiating between types (e.g., challenge vs. hindrance vs. threat) and examining their appraisals-the role of appraisal in understanding resources is underexplored. This study therefore investigates job autonomy, a key job resource, through both approaches. Among over 700 German employees who were recruited with the help of an online panel provider, we examined job autonomy and its appraisal as a resource, challenge, hindrance, or threat across four measurement waves spanning 2.5 years. We analyzed cross-sectionally how actual autonomy, combined with individuals' desired levels of autonomy, influenced their appraisals. We also explored longitudinally how both actual autonomy and its appraisals impacted work-related well-being, including job satisfaction, resignation, and cognitive and emotional irritation. Results revealed that higher autonomy was associated with more resource and challenge appraisals, whereas lower autonomy led to more hindrance and threat appraisals. This pattern was particularly evident when actual autonomy levels aligned with desired levels or if desired levels were high. Conversely, a mismatch between actual and desired autonomy reduced the perceived benefit of autonomy. Combining autonomy levels and appraisals enhanced the predictability of well-being outcomes over time, both at the between-person and the within-person level of analysis. In conclusion, this study underscores the importance of integrating appraisal into structural approaches to understanding job resources and advocates for broader consideration of appraisal in future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

超越资源视角:整合评估以更好地理解工作自主性及其对幸福感的影响。
在职业健康心理学中,理解工作条件传统上依赖于两种方法:评估和结构。虽然两者都关注压力源——区分不同类型(例如,挑战、阻碍、威胁)并检查它们的评估——但评估在理解资源方面的作用尚未得到充分探索。因此,本研究通过这两种方法来研究工作自主性这一关键的工作资源。在700多名德国员工中,我们通过一个在线小组提供商的帮助招募了这些员工,我们对工作自主性及其作为资源、挑战、障碍或威胁的评估进行了为期2.5年的四次测量。我们横断面分析了实际自主性,结合个人期望的自主性水平,是如何影响他们的评价的。我们还纵向探讨了实际自主性及其评估如何影响与工作相关的幸福感,包括工作满意度、辞职、认知和情绪刺激。结果表明,自主性越高,对资源和挑战的评价越多;自主性越低,对障碍和威胁的评价越多。当实际自治级别与期望的级别一致或者期望的级别很高时,这种模式尤其明显。相反,实际自治和期望自治之间的不匹配减少了自治的感知利益。结合自主水平和评估随着时间的推移增强了幸福感结果的可预测性,无论是在人与人之间还是在人与人之间的分析层面。综上所述,本研究强调了将评估纳入了解工作资源的结构性方法的重要性,并倡导在未来的研究中更广泛地考虑评估。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 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
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: Journal of Occupational Health Psychology offers research, theory, and public policy articles in occupational health psychology, an interdisciplinary field representing a broad range of backgrounds, interests, and specializations. Occupational health psychology concerns the application of psychology to improving the quality of work life and to protecting and promoting the safety, health, and well-being of workers. This journal focuses on the work environment, the individual, and the work-family interface.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信