Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 71Workaholism, burnout, and well-beingWork-Family Balance ChallengesJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Psychologically detaching despite high workloads: The role of attentional processes

Smit, Brandon W., Barber, Larissa K.·2016·Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
DOI 10.1037/ocp0000019
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although psychologically detaching from work is beneficial for employee well-being and productivity, heavy workloads can interfere with detachment. Drawing from the self-regulation literature, we expand the stressor-detachment model to explore 2 attentional factors that shape the workload-detachment relationship: dispositional self-control-defined as a trait ability to regulate thoughts and behavior-and a daily planning intervention designed to direct attention away from incomplete work goals. Overall, we hypothesized that the ability to control and redirect attention is crucial for detaching from high workloads. Using an experimental daily diary design with 103 employees, we replicated previous results that daily workload is negatively associated with daily psychological detachment. However, this relationship was nonsignificant for individuals high on dispositional self-control and those that completed the planning intervention. We also observed a 3-way interaction, where the planning intervention was only effective for individuals low on dispositional self-control because employees high on self-control were naturally better at detaching from high workloads. Overall, these results illustrate the theoretical and practical utility of an attention-based perspective on detachment processes, including a simple intervention for helping individuals detach at home despite high workloads. (PsycINFO Database Record

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/ocp0000019

Cites

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

Still being checked.

Cited by

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Smit, B. W., & Barber, L. K.
Affiliations
  • Ball State University (US)
  • Northern Illinois University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2016
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
432-442
ISSN
  • 1076-8998 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1307
DOI
10.1037/ocp0000019
OpenAlex
W2426977858
Cited by
71
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 12
FWCI
12.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Occupational Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Workaholism, burnout, and well-being
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Work-Family Balance Challenges
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Keywords
psychological detachment, workload, attentional processes, self-regulation, work-life boundaries, employee well-being
MeSH terms
Self-Control, Adult, Female, Goals, Humans, Leisure Activities, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Random Allocation, Regression Analysis, Stress, Psychological, United States, Work, Workload, Workplace, Young Adult

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.