CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 72

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Job Characteristics, Recovery Experiences and Occupational Well‐being: Testing Cross‐lagged Relationships across 1 Year

Kinnunen, Ulla, Feldt, Taru·2013·Stress and Health
DOI 10.1002/smi.2483
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The aim of the present study conducted among 274 Finnish employees was to examine the relationships between job characteristics, recovery experiences and occupational well‐being across 1 year. We hypothesized that these relationships would follow normal causation, that is, job characteristics at T1 predict recovery experiences (detachment, relaxation, mastery and control at off‐job time) and well‐being (fatigue at work and work engagement) at T2, and recovery experiences at T1 predict well‐being at T2. The structural equation modelling analyses lent support to the hypothesized normal causation model compared with the reversed causation and reciprocal models. However, only the longitudinal relationships between job characteristics and recovery experiences were significant. More specifically, high job demands at T1 predicted poor detachment, relaxation and control during off‐job time at T2; and high job resources at T1 predicted high mastery experiences in off‐job time at T2. Thus, our study showed that job demands in particular inhibited recovery experiences in the long term, but this was not reflected in employee well‐being across 1 year. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/smi.2483

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. 10.1177/0018726708094863 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1037/a0014933 · DOI
  3. 10.1002/9781118619179 · DOI
  4. Browne M. W., 1993, Testing structural equation models, 136
  5. 10.1080/13594320344000093 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1348/096317901167217 · DOI
  7. 10.1080/02678370802390132 · DOI
  8. 10.5271/sjweh.843 · DOI
  9. Demerouti E., 2009, Currents perspectives on job‐stress recovery, 85, 10.1108/S1479-3555(2009)0000007006 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.874 · DOI
  11. 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.936 · DOI
  12. 10.5271/sjweh.1053 · DOI
  13. 10.1037/1076-8998.10.1.31 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1080/02678370802379432 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1016/j.jvb.2008.01.003 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Halbesleben J. R. B., 2010, Work engagement: Recent developments in theory and research, 102
  17. Hobfoll S., 2001, Handbook of organizational behavior, 41
  18. 10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1016/0006-3223(96)84228-4 · DOI
  20. 10.5271/sjweh.1049 · DOI
  21. Lazarus R., 1984, Stress, appraisal and coping
  22. Lindström K., 2000, User's guide for the QPSNordic. General Nordic Questionnaire for Psychological and Social Factors at Work
  23. Lorens S., 2007, Does a positive gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement exist?, Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 825, 10.1016/j.chb.2004.11.012 · DOI
  24. Lorente L. R., 2008, Extension of the job‐demands–resources model in the prediction of burnout and engagement among teachers over time, Psicothema, 20, 354
  25. 10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Maslach C., 1996, Maslach Burnout Inventory manual
  27. 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Mauno S., 2010, Handbook of employee engagement. Perspectives, issues, research and practice, 111
  29. 10.1016/j.jvb.2006.09.002 · DOI
  30. Meijman T. F., 1998, Handbook of work and organizational psychology: Vol. 2. Work psychology, 5
  31. 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.341 · DOI
  32. 10.1027/1866-5888/a000049 · DOI
  33. 10.1177/0013164405282471 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1002/job.595 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.1111/j.2044‐8325.2010.02013.x · DOI
  36. 10.1023/A:1015630930326 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.1007/s10902-008-9100-y · DOI
  38. 10.1080/02678370903415572 · DOI · Paper page
  39. 10.1007/s00420-011-0672-1 · DOI
  40. 10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.393 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1037/a0020032 · DOI
  42. 10.1080/02678370802379440 · DOI
  43. 10.1108/S1479-3555(2009)0000007004 · DOI
  44. Spector P. E., 2002, Why negative affectivity should not be controlled in organizational stress research. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 79, 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200002)21:1<79::AID-JOB964>3.0.CO;2-G · DOI
  45. 10.1348/096317909X424583 · DOI
  46. 10.1136/oem.60.suppl_1.i3 · DOI
  47. 10.1016/j.jvb.2008.11.003 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 72

Metadata

Authors
Kinnunen, U., & Feldt, T.
Affiliations
  • School of Social Sciences and Humanities University of Tampere Tampere Finland
  • Department of Psychology University of Jyväskylä Jyväskylä Finland
Venue
Stress and Health
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-01-21
Volume
29
Issue
5
Pages
369-382
ISSN
  • 1532-3005
  • 1532-2998
DOI
10.1002/smi.2483
Cited by
72
References
12
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)

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