Predicting Psychological Strain with Job Demands and Organizational Injustice through the Implications of Job Demand-Control Model and Fairness Theory

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 111-143
Author(s):  
Seçil BAL TASTAN ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 201-208
Author(s):  
Zhi Zeng ◽  
Jun Liu ◽  
Qiong Xie ◽  
Yali Wu ◽  
Hua Wang ◽  
...  

Work environments can affect job satisfaction and psychological well-being. Using the job demand-control model as a foundation, this study aimed to explore the relationships between physical and psychosocial work environments and psychological well-being and job satisfaction in the workplace. A multistage sampling method was used with the 2012 China Labor-force Dynamics Survey among 4442 employees. Our outcome measures included psychological well-being and job satisfaction. The final model showed migrants (odds ratio [OR] = 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13-1.60) and nonmanagerial employees (OR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.25-1.78) who worked in general enterprises (OR= 1.61, 95% CI = 1.34-1.92) or suffered longer weekly work hours (OR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.24-1.63) had worse psychological well-being or lower job satisfaction. Following the job demand-control model, higher job demands and lower job autonomy were significantly and positively associated with worse psychological well-being and lower job satisfaction. This study highlights that improved work environments can protect employees’ well-being. Policymakers must provide better work environments. They must consider its physical environment (stable work contract and short work hours) and psychosocial environment (low job demands and high job autonomy) aspects, particularly for migrants and nonmanagerial employees.


Author(s):  
Frédéric Dutheil ◽  
Morteza Charkhabi ◽  
Hortense Ravoux ◽  
Georges Brousse ◽  
Samuel Dewavrin ◽  
...  

Purpose of the study: Work addiction risk is a growing public health concern with potential deleterious health-related outcomes. Perception of work (job demands and job control) may play a major role in provoking the risk of work addiction in employees. We aimed to explore the link between work addiction risk and health-related outcomes using the framework of job-demand-control model. Methods: Data were collected from 187 out of 1580 (11.8%) French workers who agreed to participate in a cross-sectional study using the WittyFit software online platform. The self-administered questionnaires were the Job Content Questionnaire by Karasek, the Work Addiction Risk Test, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale and socio-demographics. Data Analysis: Statistical analyses were performed using the Stata software (version 13). Results: There were five times more workers with a high risk of work addiction among those with strong job demands than in those with low job demands (29.8% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.002). Addiction to work was not linked to job control (p = 0.77), nor with social support (p = 0.22). We demonstrated a high risk of work addiction in 2.6% of low-strain workers, in 15.0% of passive workers, in 28.9% of active workers, and in 33.3% of high-strain workers (p = 0.010). There were twice as many workers with a HAD-Depression score ≥11 compared with workers at low risk (41.5% vs. 17.7%, p = 0.009). Sleep quality was lower in workers with a high risk of work addiction compared with workers with a low risk of work addiction (44.0 ± 27.3 vs. 64.4 ± 26.8, p < 0.001). Workers with a high risk of work addiction exhibited greater stress at work (68.4 ± 23.2 vs. 47.5 ± 25.1) and lower well-being (69.7 ± 18.3 vs. 49.3 ± 23.0) compared with workers at low risk (p < 0.001). Conclusions: High job demands are strongly associated with the risk of work addiction. Work addiction risk is associated with greater depression and poor quality of sleep. Preventive strategies should benefit from identifying more vulnerable workers to work addiction risk.


2015 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 294-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elsy Verhofstadt ◽  
Elfi Baillien ◽  
Dieter Verhaest ◽  
Hans De Witte

Ergonomics ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Alexander Häusser ◽  
Stefan Schulz-Hardt ◽  
Andreas Mojzisch

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document