The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
“Always online”: How and when task interdependence and dispositional workplace anxiety affect workplace telepressure after hours
Abstract
Information and communication technology (ICT) provides employees with convenience in communication. However, it also creates a preoccupation with and urges to respond quickly to work‐related ICT messages during nonworking time, which is defined as workplace telepressure after hours (WTA). Drawing on the job demand–resource model, conservation of resource theory, and workplace anxiety theory, this study explores how and when task interdependence and dispositional workplace anxiety affect WTA and how individuals cope with WTA. A total of 269 full‐time workers from an online survey panel completed questionnaires at three time‐points. We found that both task interdependence and dispositional workplace anxiety are positively related to WTA. The perception of pay‐for‐responsiveness moderates the relationship between task interdependence and WTA, such that the relationship is significant only for employees with a strong perception of pay‐for‐responsiveness. Others' approval contingency of self‐worth moderates the relationship between dispositional workplace anxiety and WTA, and the relationship is significant only for employees with high degrees of others' approval contingency of self‐worth. Finally, WTA arising from external work requirements or the internal pursuit of achieving work goals prompts employees to generate responsiveness coping strategies. Overall, these findings suggest that task interdependence and dispositional workplace anxiety are important factors affecting employees' WTA and highlight the importance of being responsive to WTA.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
The job demands–resources model: challenges for future research.
Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2011) · SA Journal of Industrial Psychology · doi:10.4102/sajip.v37i2.974 · Cited by 1,426
The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2008) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.392 · Cited by 1,224
Contingencies of Self-Worth in College Students: Theory and Measurement.
Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, A. (2003) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.894 · Cited by 1,018
Please respond ASAP: Workplace telepressure and employee recovery
Barber, L. K., & Santuzzi, A. M. (2015) · Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0038278 · Cited by 502
Day, A., Paquet, S., Scott, N., & Hambley, L. (2012) · Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0029837 · Cited by 436
Crocker, J., Karpinski, A., Quinn, D. M., & Chase, S. K. (2003) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.507 · Cited by 400 · cited 2×
“Others ’ approval contingency of self-worth refers to an individual ’ s evaluation of their own value and self-esteem being contingent upon the approval of and acknowledgment from others (Crocker, Karpinski, et al., 2003; Crocker, Luhtanen, et al., 2003).”
BackgroundMethodHopes Dashed and Dreams Fulfilled: Contingencies of Self-Worth and Graduate School Admissions
Crocker, J., Sommers, S. R., & Luhtanen, R. K. (2002) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/01461672022812012 · Cited by 233 · cited 1×
“Individuals with high levels of others ’ approval contingency become excessively reliant on external opinions and judgments to ascertain their own value (Crocker et al., 2002).”
BackgroundPanova, T., & Lleras, A. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.062 · Cited by 195 · cited 1×
“This, in turn, exacerbates work – family conflict (Day et al., 2019; Derks et al., 2015; Harris et al., 2015), reduces work – life balance (Carvalho et al., 2015), and contributes to insomnia and depression (Panova & Lleras, 2016; Thomée et al., 2007).”
BackgroundBecker, W. J., Belkin, L. Y., Conroy, S. A., & Tuskey, S. (2021) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206319890655 · Cited by 73 · cited 1×
“Second, some studies have found significant inter-day fluctuations in employees ’ workplace telepressure, and that work-place telepressure varies from day to day according to daily workloads and task urgency levels (Becker et al., 2021; Cambier et al., 2019; Y. Park et al., 2020).”
BackgroundDay, A., Barber, L. K., & Tonet, J. (2019) · The Cambridge Handbook of Technology and Employee Behavior · doi:10.1017/9781108649636.022 · Cited by 50
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 83
- 10.5465/amj.2014.0246 · DOI
- 10.1111/pere.12343 · DOI
- 10.1108/02683940710733115 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/smi.2864 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/smi.2668 · DOI
- 10.1037/apl0000362 · DOI
- Bolger N., 2013, Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research
- 10.1177/0149206307302552 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10869-017-9508-7 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.5334/pb.477 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10111-019-00592-1 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.037 · DOI
- 10.1037/a0013740 · DOI
- Carver C. S., 2011, Handbook of self‐regulation: Research, theory, and applications, 3
- 10.1080/1359432X.2018.1541886 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/apl0000266 · DOI
- 10.1002/smi.2955 · DOI
- 10.1037/apl0000843 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10869-006-9032-7 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00364.x · DOI
- 10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.593 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1108/S1479-3555(2010)0000008011 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/257012 · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/joop.12083 · DOI
- 10.1037/a0035076 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.08.007 · DOI
- 10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10869-023-09888-6 · DOI
- 10.1027/1866-5888/a000303 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104134 · DOI
- 10.1080/00346760701668495 · DOI
- 10.1002/smi.2792 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.dss.2012.12.035 · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.93 · DOI
- 10.1177/014920631452713 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.023 · DOI
- Heneman R. L., 1992, Merit pay: Linking pay increases to performance ratings
- 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00651.x · DOI
- 10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/a0016428 · DOI
- 10.5093/jwop2019a2 · DOI
- Jex S. M., 1998, Stress and job performance: Theory, research, and implications for managerial practice
- 10.1037/h0055313 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.036 · DOI
- 10.1080/00223980.2020.1745137 · DOI
- 10.1016/0030-5073(83)90118-6 · DOI
- 10.1037/h0046737 · DOI
- 10.1037/a0037890 · DOI
- 10.5465/amj.2021.0209 · DOI
- 10.3390/ijerph18105308 · DOI
- 10.1023/A:1016921920501 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.paid.2006.08.016 · DOI
- 10.1037/apl0000044 · DOI
- 10.1017/9781108649636.024 · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/0191-8869(96)00025-6 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.341 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.chbr.2021.1001101 · DOI
- 10.1002/jclp.10094 · DOI
- 10.1111/peps.12466 · DOI
- 10.1037/a0023594 · DOI
- 10.1002/job.2461 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115208 · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.838 · DOI
- 10.1080/10803548.2020.1846376 · DOI
- 10.3390/ijerph18030901 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2011.06.002 · DOI
- 10.1007/s41542-018-0022-8 · DOI
- 10.1037/apl0000355 · DOI
- 10.1002/job.2239 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/070674370505000207 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.chb.2004.12.007 · DOI · Paper page
- Thompson J. D., 2003, Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01808 · DOI
- 10.1177/0170840611410829 · DOI
- 10.1037/apl0000063 · DOI
- 10.1111/1748-8583.12226 · DOI
- 10.1002/job.2661 · DOI
- 10.1002/job.2012 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- He, X., Gao, Q., Cao, Y., Bian, R., & Wang, X. (.
- Venue
- PsyCh Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2024-03-26
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 639-653
- ISSN
- 2046-0252
- 2046-0260
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 11
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review