The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Learning new behaviour patterns: A longitudinal test of Karasek's active learning hypothesis among Dutch teachers
Open accessAbstract
This investigation deals with the active learning hypothesis in Karasek and Theorell's (1990) job demands-control model. The active learning hypothesis holds that high levels of learning and self-efficacy will occur among incumbents of high job demands/high job control jobs, whereas low levels of learning and self-efficacy will be found in low demands/low control jobs. This study tested these notions in the context of a two-wave study conducted over a period of one year among 876 Dutch teachers. Regression analysis revealed that job demands had a lagged negative (rather than a positive) effect on learning and self-efficacy; as expected, job control had a positive effect. Thus, the highest levels of learning and self-efficacy were found among incumbents of high control/low demands jobs (and not among incumbents of high control/high demands jobs). Further, the effects of changes in work characteristics on changes in learning behaviour and self-efficacy were examined, providing additional evidence that especially the transition from a low demands/low control to a high demands/low control job is associated with a strong deterioration of learning and self-efficacy. It is concluded that future research should address the interrelationships between learning and strain, preferably using longitudinal designs.
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
Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain: Implications for Job Redesign
Karasek, R. A. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392498 · Cited by 12,597
Cited by
Crafting a job on a daily basis: Contextual correlates and the link to work engagement
Petrou, P., Demerouti, E., Peeters, M. C. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Hetland, J. (2012) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.1783 · Cited by 1,026
Self-citationRecovery, health, and job performance: effects of weekend experiences
Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2005) · Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/1076-8998.10.3.187 · Cited by 462
Bond, F. W., & Flaxman, P. E. (2006) · Journal of Organizational Behavior Management · doi:10.1300/j075v26n01_05 · Cited by 221
de Jonge, J., Spoor, E., Sonnentag, S., Dormann, C., & van den Tooren, M. (2012) · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2011.576009 · Cited by 172
The SMART model of work design: A higher order structure to help see the wood from the trees
Parker, S. K., & Knight, C. (2024) · Human Resource Management · doi:10.1002/hrm.22200 · Cited by 108
Metadata
- Authors
- Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., De Lange, A. H., Schaufeli, W. B., & Schreurs, P. J. G.
- Venue
- Work & Stress
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-01
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-20
- ISSN
- 0267-8373 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5335
- OpenAlex
- W2132880481
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Learning new behaviour patterns: A longitudinal test of Karasek's active learning hypothesis among Dutch teachers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/0267837031000108149
- The paper
- Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., De Lange, A. H., Schaufeli, W. B., & Schreurs, P. J. G. (2003). Learning new behaviour patterns: A longitudinal test of Karasek's active learning hypothesis among Dutch teachers. Work & Stress. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267837031000108149
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.