1 / 13

Attempts to improve work and well-being: Test of the Karasek model

Attempts to improve work and well-being: Test of the Karasek model. Sandra Ohly & Zan Strabac. EAWOP 2007, Stockholm. Overview. Karasek model Research questions and hypotheses Sample and method Results Implications. Prior research. Model supported for health outcomes

ivrit
Download Presentation

Attempts to improve work and well-being: Test of the Karasek model

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Attempts to improve work and well-being:Test of the Karasek model • Sandra Ohly & Zan Strabac EAWOP 2007, Stockholm

  2. Overview • Karasek model • Research questions and hypotheses • Sample and method • Results • Implications

  3. Prior research • Model supported for health outcomes • Mixed support for psychological well-being and active behavior • Problem • mostly homogeneous samples • mostly from single European countries

  4. Hypotheses • Well-being: • Job control will be positively related to general psychological well-being. • Job demands will be negatively related to general psychological well-being. • Job demands and job control will shown an interactive effect on general psychological well-being. • Proactive behavior • Job control will be positively related to proactive behavior. • Demands will positively related to proactive behavior. • Job demands and job control will show an interactive effect proactive behavior.

  5. Method • Data collected in the European Social Survey • 9217 full-time employees from 19 countries • 60.5% male, • mean age = 40.0 years (SD = 11.0) • mean level of education = 13.2 years (SD = 3.56) • Methodological advantages • large, representative, cross-national samples • Methodological challenges • quality of measures; clustering (VPCwell = 9%)

  6. Measures • Well-being „How happy/satisfied are you with your life?“ a = .65 • Proactive behavior „Have you made any attempt to improve conditions at work?“ • Job control „ ... organize your own work“ a = .87 • Job demand: Working hours, overtime included

  7. Analysis • Correcting for sampling design and clustering • Controlling for • Age • Gender • Living with partner • Education • Household income • Supervisor position

  8. Results: Well-being • Delta R-square Beta • Controls 9.8 % • Job control 2.2 % .007*** • Job demand -.010** • Interaction 0.2% .004*

  9. Proactive behavior • Delta R-square Beta • Controls 7.5 % • Job control 2.2 % .157*** • Job demand .003 • Interaction 0.0 % .001

  10. Summary • Hypotheses 1-3 supported: • Well-being is • positively related to job control • negatively related to job demands • Job control buffers the negative effect of demands. • Hypotheses 4 supported: • Job control is positively related to active behavior. • Hypotheses 5-6 not supported.

  11. Discussion • Job control is an important work characteristic • for well-being • and proactive work behavior • Long working hours are detrimental • Small effect size of interaction effect

More Related