The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL REACTIONS TO HIGH WORKLOADS: IMPLICATIONS FOR WELL‐BEING
Abstract
We report a field study examining within‐individual effects of workload on distress at work and daily well‐being. The study was conducted using experience‐sampling methodology to measure daily workload, affective distress, and blood pressure throughout and at the end of each of 10 workdays, and emotional burnout and daily strain (two indicators of low well‐being) during the evening in a sample of 64 full‐time employees who provided a total of 354 person‐day data points. We also measured employees’ job control and perceived organizational support with a separate survey. Results showed that workload was positively associated with affective distress and blood pressure, and with the indicators of low daily well‐being. Furthermore, affective distress mediated the relationship between workload and daily well‐being. More importantly, job control and organizational support had cross‐level moderating influences on the relationships of workload with affective distress and blood pressure such that these relationships were weaker for participants who reported having more control on their job, as well as for participants who reported receiving more organizational support.
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
Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310 · Cited by 18,093
The measurement of experienced burnout
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.4030020205 · Cited by 14,496
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
Perceived organizational support.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500 · Cited by 10,023
A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.83 · Cited by 9,406
Benetos, A., Zureik, M., Morcet, J., Thomas, F., Bean, K., Safar, M., Ducimetière, P., & Guize, L. (2000) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/s0735-1097(99)00586-0 · Cited by 207
Cited by
Recovery from job stress: The stressor-detachment model as an integrative framework
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2015) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.1924 · Cited by 1,307
Technostress creators and job outcomes: theorising the moderating influence of personality traits
Srivastava, S. C., Chandra, S., & Shirish, A. (2015) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12067 · Cited by 456
Beal, D. J. (2015) · Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111335 · Cited by 436
Day, A., Paquet, S., Scott, N., & Hambley, L. (2012) · Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0029837 · Cited by 436
Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., Koopman, J., & Passantino, L. G. (2017) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2014.0455 · Cited by 235
Metadata
- Authors
- ILIES, R., DIMOTAKIS, N., & DE PATER, I. E.
- Venue
- Personnel Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-05-12
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 407-436
- ISSN
- 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-6570
- OpenAlex
- W2124919102
- Cited by
- 287
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 28.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
