Marina Müller , Michael Barthelmäs , Johannes Keller
{"title":"Bullshit job experiences at work and subjective well-being: The moderating role of protestant work ethic","authors":"Marina Müller , Michael Barthelmäs , Johannes Keller","doi":"10.1016/j.paid.2025.113388","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The aim of this paper is to (a) explore the relation between perceptions of negative experiences at work (bullshit job perception) and subjective well-being, and (b) examine protestant work ethic (the conviction that only hard, painful work is good work) as a moderating factor concerning the relation between bullshit job perception and subjective well-being. Three cross-sectional studies (total <em>N</em> = 1400) were conducted with samples of US employees. Moderation analyses revealed that the relationship between perceiving one's job as bullshit and subjective well-being was qualified by protestant work ethic. Bullshit job perception was negatively related to subjective well-being but only for individuals low in protestant work ethic. Interestingly, bullshit job perception and subjective well-being were not or even positively associated for individuals scoring high in protestant work ethic. Thus, perceiving negative aspects at work can be associated with high levels of subjective well-being among persons strongly endorsing the protestant work ethic, which emphasizes the importance of hard work. In contrast, individuals low in protestant work ethic tend to report lower subjective well-being when faced with adverse work experiences. Our findings underscore the significance of examining the interplay between work-related attitudes and workplace experiences with respect to employees' subjective well-being.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48467,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Individual Differences","volume":"247 ","pages":"Article 113388"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886925003502","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to (a) explore the relation between perceptions of negative experiences at work (bullshit job perception) and subjective well-being, and (b) examine protestant work ethic (the conviction that only hard, painful work is good work) as a moderating factor concerning the relation between bullshit job perception and subjective well-being. Three cross-sectional studies (total N = 1400) were conducted with samples of US employees. Moderation analyses revealed that the relationship between perceiving one's job as bullshit and subjective well-being was qualified by protestant work ethic. Bullshit job perception was negatively related to subjective well-being but only for individuals low in protestant work ethic. Interestingly, bullshit job perception and subjective well-being were not or even positively associated for individuals scoring high in protestant work ethic. Thus, perceiving negative aspects at work can be associated with high levels of subjective well-being among persons strongly endorsing the protestant work ethic, which emphasizes the importance of hard work. In contrast, individuals low in protestant work ethic tend to report lower subjective well-being when faced with adverse work experiences. Our findings underscore the significance of examining the interplay between work-related attitudes and workplace experiences with respect to employees' subjective well-being.
期刊介绍:
Personality and Individual Differences is devoted to the publication of articles (experimental, theoretical, review) which aim to integrate as far as possible the major factors of personality with empirical paradigms from experimental, physiological, animal, clinical, educational, criminological or industrial psychology or to seek an explanation for the causes and major determinants of individual differences in concepts derived from these disciplines. The editors are concerned with both genetic and environmental causes, and they are particularly interested in possible interaction effects.