Do We Practice What We Preach? A Mixed Methods Study of Stress in Stress Experts: Implications for Transfer of Awareness and Learning.

IF 3 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Sarah E Crozier, Anna Sutton, Sarah-Jane Lennie, Cary L Cooper
{"title":"Do We Practice What We Preach? A Mixed Methods Study of Stress in Stress Experts: Implications for Transfer of Awareness and Learning.","authors":"Sarah E Crozier, Anna Sutton, Sarah-Jane Lennie, Cary L Cooper","doi":"10.1002/smi.70064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This two-phased, mixed methods study develops our understanding of how knowledge, education and awareness about workplace health phenomena is utilized by experts and applied to their own working lives, through a study that explores how stress is transferred and applied in the management of one's own experience of stress. Phase one gained quantitative data from a sample of 118 stress experts across 18 countries, and phase two used qualitative data from life histories interviews and focus groups with 14 stress experts who had also participated in Phase 1. Phase one found that stress experts experience less occupational stress than a norm group. The number of years experts have been researching stress does not influence the stress-wellbeing relationship. Instead, the greater the belief in their expertise influence, the better their wellbeing, and this effect is independent of the stressors they experience. Phase two built sequentially on this to explore experts' reflections regarding the management of their own stress and the influence of their expert knowledge. Narrative thematic analysis was undertaken to provide discursive insights that captured appraisal of learning and framing of stress experiences. We provide conceptual and practical contributions to further our understanding about how expert status in health impacts outcomes and how this wider learning has theoretical and practical impacts. We show how stress beliefs impact upon behaviors, emotions and cognition. We conclude that awareness and knowledge in itself is not always powerful enough to shape outcomes, and our data evidences how spirals of learning interact with environment and context over time through rich narratives that chart reflection on the development and maintenance of expert status.</p>","PeriodicalId":51175,"journal":{"name":"Stress and Health","volume":"41 3","pages":"e70064"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12180487/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stress and Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.70064","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This two-phased, mixed methods study develops our understanding of how knowledge, education and awareness about workplace health phenomena is utilized by experts and applied to their own working lives, through a study that explores how stress is transferred and applied in the management of one's own experience of stress. Phase one gained quantitative data from a sample of 118 stress experts across 18 countries, and phase two used qualitative data from life histories interviews and focus groups with 14 stress experts who had also participated in Phase 1. Phase one found that stress experts experience less occupational stress than a norm group. The number of years experts have been researching stress does not influence the stress-wellbeing relationship. Instead, the greater the belief in their expertise influence, the better their wellbeing, and this effect is independent of the stressors they experience. Phase two built sequentially on this to explore experts' reflections regarding the management of their own stress and the influence of their expert knowledge. Narrative thematic analysis was undertaken to provide discursive insights that captured appraisal of learning and framing of stress experiences. We provide conceptual and practical contributions to further our understanding about how expert status in health impacts outcomes and how this wider learning has theoretical and practical impacts. We show how stress beliefs impact upon behaviors, emotions and cognition. We conclude that awareness and knowledge in itself is not always powerful enough to shape outcomes, and our data evidences how spirals of learning interact with environment and context over time through rich narratives that chart reflection on the development and maintenance of expert status.

我们言行一致吗?压力专家对压力的混合方法研究:对意识转移和学习的启示。
这项分两阶段的混合方法研究通过一项探索压力如何转移并应用于个人压力体验管理的研究,加深了我们对专家如何利用有关工作场所健康现象的知识、教育和意识并将其应用于自己的工作生活的理解。第一阶段从18个国家的118名压力专家中获得了定量数据,第二阶段使用了来自生活史访谈和焦点小组的定性数据,这些专家也参加了第一阶段。第一阶段发现,压力专家经历的职业压力比普通人群要少。专家研究压力的年数并不影响压力与健康的关系。相反,相信自己的专业知识影响越大,他们的幸福感就越好,而且这种影响与他们所经历的压力源无关。第二阶段在此基础上依次探讨专家对自身压力管理的思考及其专业知识的影响。进行了叙事主题分析,以提供话语见解,捕捉学习评价和压力经验的框架。我们提供概念和实践贡献,以进一步了解健康专家地位如何影响结果,以及这种更广泛的学习如何具有理论和实践影响。我们展示了压力信念如何影响行为、情绪和认知。我们的结论是,意识和知识本身并不总是强大到足以塑造结果,我们的数据表明,随着时间的推移,学习的螺旋是如何与环境和背景相互作用的,通过丰富的叙述来反映专家地位的发展和维持。
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
Stress and Health
Stress and Health 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
4.90%
发文量
91
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Stress is a normal component of life and a number of mechanisms exist to cope with its effects. The stresses that challenge man"s existence in our modern society may result in failure of these coping mechanisms, with resultant stress-induced illness. The aim of the journal therefore is to provide a forum for discussion of all aspects of stress which affect the individual in both health and disease. The Journal explores the subject from as many aspects as possible, so that when stress becomes a consideration, health information can be presented as to the best ways by which to minimise its effects.
×
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