工作中的无聊和投入:它们有不同的前因和后果吗?

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Industrial Health Pub Date : 2024-04-03 Epub Date: 2023-09-26 DOI:10.2486/indhealth.2023-0028
Michiko Kawada, Akihito Shimazu, Daisuke Miyanaka, Masahito Tokita, Keiko Sakakibara, Naana Mori, Fuad Hamsyah, Lin Yuheng, Kojiro Shojima, Wilmar B Schaufeli
{"title":"工作中的无聊和投入:它们有不同的前因和后果吗?","authors":"Michiko Kawada, Akihito Shimazu, Daisuke Miyanaka, Masahito Tokita, Keiko Sakakibara, Naana Mori, Fuad Hamsyah, Lin Yuheng, Kojiro Shojima, Wilmar B Schaufeli","doi":"10.2486/indhealth.2023-0028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to demonstrate the empirical distinctiveness of boredom at work and work engagement in relation to their potential antecedents (job demands and job resources) and consequences (psychological distress and turnover intention) based on the Job Demands-Resources model. A three-wave longitudinal survey was conducted among registered monitors of an Internet survey company in Japan. The questionnaire included scales for boredom at work, work engagement, psychological distress, and turnover intention as well as participants' job characteristics and demographic variables. The hypothesized model was evaluated via structural equation modeling with 1,019 participants who were employed full-time. As expected, boredom at work was negatively associated with quantitative job demands and job resources and positively associated with psychological distress and turnover intention. In contrast, work engagement was positively associated with job resources and negatively associated with turnover intention. Thus, boredom at work and work engagement had different potential antecedents and were inversely related to employee well-being and organizational outcomes. However, contrary to expectations, qualitative job demands were not significantly associated with boredom at work. Further investigation is needed to understand the relationship between boredom and qualitative job demands, which require sustained cognitive load and the use of higher skills.</p>","PeriodicalId":13531,"journal":{"name":"Industrial Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10995674/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Boredom and engagement at work: do they have different antecedents and consequences?\",\"authors\":\"Michiko Kawada, Akihito Shimazu, Daisuke Miyanaka, Masahito Tokita, Keiko Sakakibara, Naana Mori, Fuad Hamsyah, Lin Yuheng, Kojiro Shojima, Wilmar B Schaufeli\",\"doi\":\"10.2486/indhealth.2023-0028\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study aimed to demonstrate the empirical distinctiveness of boredom at work and work engagement in relation to their potential antecedents (job demands and job resources) and consequences (psychological distress and turnover intention) based on the Job Demands-Resources model. A three-wave longitudinal survey was conducted among registered monitors of an Internet survey company in Japan. The questionnaire included scales for boredom at work, work engagement, psychological distress, and turnover intention as well as participants' job characteristics and demographic variables. The hypothesized model was evaluated via structural equation modeling with 1,019 participants who were employed full-time. As expected, boredom at work was negatively associated with quantitative job demands and job resources and positively associated with psychological distress and turnover intention. In contrast, work engagement was positively associated with job resources and negatively associated with turnover intention. Thus, boredom at work and work engagement had different potential antecedents and were inversely related to employee well-being and organizational outcomes. However, contrary to expectations, qualitative job demands were not significantly associated with boredom at work. Further investigation is needed to understand the relationship between boredom and qualitative job demands, which require sustained cognitive load and the use of higher skills.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13531,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Industrial Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10995674/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Industrial Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.2023-0028\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Industrial Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.2023-0028","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在基于工作需求-资源模型,证明工作无聊和工作投入与其潜在前因(工作需求和工作资源)和后果(心理困扰和离职意向)之间的经验差异。在日本一家互联网调查公司的注册监督员中进行了一项三波纵向调查。问卷包括工作无聊感、工作投入、心理困扰和离职意向的量表,以及参与者的工作特征和人口统计变量。通过结构方程建模对假设模型进行了评估,1019名全职参与者参与了评估。正如预期的那样,工作无聊与定量的工作需求和工作资源呈负相关,与心理困扰和离职意向呈正相关。相反,工作投入与工作资源呈正相关,与离职意愿呈负相关。因此,工作无聊和工作投入有不同的潜在前因,与员工幸福感和组织结果呈负相关。然而,与预期相反,定性的工作需求与工作中的无聊感没有显著关联。需要进一步的调查来了解无聊和定性工作需求之间的关系,这需要持续的认知负荷和更高技能的使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Boredom and engagement at work: do they have different antecedents and consequences?

This study aimed to demonstrate the empirical distinctiveness of boredom at work and work engagement in relation to their potential antecedents (job demands and job resources) and consequences (psychological distress and turnover intention) based on the Job Demands-Resources model. A three-wave longitudinal survey was conducted among registered monitors of an Internet survey company in Japan. The questionnaire included scales for boredom at work, work engagement, psychological distress, and turnover intention as well as participants' job characteristics and demographic variables. The hypothesized model was evaluated via structural equation modeling with 1,019 participants who were employed full-time. As expected, boredom at work was negatively associated with quantitative job demands and job resources and positively associated with psychological distress and turnover intention. In contrast, work engagement was positively associated with job resources and negatively associated with turnover intention. Thus, boredom at work and work engagement had different potential antecedents and were inversely related to employee well-being and organizational outcomes. However, contrary to expectations, qualitative job demands were not significantly associated with boredom at work. Further investigation is needed to understand the relationship between boredom and qualitative job demands, which require sustained cognitive load and the use of higher skills.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Industrial Health
Industrial Health 医学-毒理学
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: INDUSTRIAL HEALTH covers all aspects of occupational medicine, ergonomics, industrial hygiene, engineering, safety and policy sciences. The journal helps promote solutions for the control and improvement of working conditions, and for the application of valuable research findings to the actual working environment.
×
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