No abstract

Although previous theory and research suggest that employee well-being should be predicted by work conditions (viz., Karasek and colleagues' job demands-control-social support [J-DCS] model), other factors are also likely to be important. In this study, the authors consider correlates of employee psychological distress and well-being using a goal-focused approach grounded in Ford's (1992) motivational systems theory. Specifically, work conditions and midlevel work goal processes (WGP) were examined in a questionnaire study of health care employees. Regarding predictions derived from the J-DCS model, the authors found full support for the iso-strain, partial support for the nonlinearity, and no support for the buffer hypothesis. Of importance, however, WGP (i.e., cognitions and emotions involved in the pursuit of self-set work goals) explained variance in job satisfaction, burnout, depression, and somatic complaints, over and above that of the J-DCS model. This suggests that investigation of WGP can enhance our understanding of employee psychological distress and well-being.

Que le travail facilite la réalisation des objectifs personnels dépend de la perception de l’impact du travail sur l’atteinte de ces objectifs personnels. En accord avec la littérature sur l’autorégulation et le modèle cybernétique du stress organisationnel proposé par Edwards (1992), la facilitation de l’accès à ses objectifs personnels par le travail fut supposée en relation positive avec les attitudes relatives à l’emploi et le bien‐être de l’employé. En outre, on a prédit un rapport plus étroit entre la facilitation de l’accès à ses objectifs personnels par le travail et les performances du salarié quand les buts personnels étaient fortement valorisés. Ces hypothèses ont été mises à l’épreuve à travers un questionnaire rempli par 1036 employés du secteur de la santé. D’après l’analyse de régression, la facilitation de l’accès à ses objectifs personnels par le travail expliquait une part importante de la variance du bien‐être et des attitudes relatives à l’emploi, même après avoir contrôlé les caractéristiques des postes en référence au modèle de Karasek concernant les relations agents stressants—tension au travail (1979; Karasek & Theorell, 1990). L’importance des objectifs n’avait qu’une influence des plus limitées. On en conclut que la facilitation de l’accès à ses objectifs personnels par le travail offre une voie prometteuse pour explorer les attitudes liées à l’emploi et le bien‐être, en complément des modèles plus traditionnels des caractéristiques de l’emploi. Personal goal facilitation through work refers to perceptions of the extent to which one's job facilitates the attainment of one's personal goals. In line with the self‐regulation literature and Edwards’ (1992) cybernetic model of organisational stress, personal goal facilitation through work was predicted to show positive associations with job attitudes and employee well‐being. Moreover, stronger relationships between personal goal facilitation through work and employee outcomes were predicted for highly valued personal goals. These predictions were investigated in a questionnaire study of 1,036 health care employees. In regression analyses, personal goal facilitation through work accounted for substantial variance in job attitudes and well‐being, even after controlling for job characteristics from Karasek's (1979; Karasek & Theorell, 1990) model of occupational stressor–strain relations. There was only very limited evidence of moderating effects of goal importance. It is concluded that personal goal facilitation through work offers a promising source of insight into job attitudes and well‐being, complementing more traditional job characteristics models.

This study re‐evaluated causal relationships between job characteristics (demands, autonomy, social support) and employee well‐being (job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion) in a methodological replication of De Jonge et al. 's (2001) two‐wave panel study. The principal difference was the 2‐year time lag between measurements in this study versus a 1‐year time lag in the original study. Three competing causal models were compared: regular causation (job characteristics influence well‐being); reverse causation (well‐being influences job characteristics); and reciprocal causation (combining regular and reverse causation). As in the original study, regular causation offered the best account. Regarding specific longitudinal paths there were some between‐study differences, which are considered in relation to exposure‐time models of stressor‐strain relations.

Decades of research on the concreteness effect, namely better memory for concrete as compared with abstract words, suggest it is a fairly robust phenomenon. Nevertheless, little attention has been given to limiting retrieval contexts. Two experiments evaluated intentional memory for concrete and abstract word lists in three retrieval contexts: free recall, explicit word-stem completion, and implicit word-stem completion. Concreteness effects were observed in free recall and in explicit word-stem completion, but not in implicit word-stem completion. These findings are consistent with both a bidirectional version of the relational-distinctiveness processing framework (Ruiz-Vargas, Cuevas, & Marschark, 1996) and a second framework combining insights from dual coding theory (Paivio, 1971(Paivio, , 1986) and the transfer appropriate processing framework (Roediger, Weldon, & Challis, 1989). Also, consistent with the relational-distinctiveness framework, the second experiment suggested that concreteness effects might depend on relational processing at encoding: Concreteness effects were observed in explicit memory for related word lists but not for unrelated word lists.Concrete words like bicycle, tiger, or kick are better remembered than abstract words like justice, humour, or obey. Four decades of research on this concreteness effect in verbal memory have shown it to be a robust phenomenon generalising over different orienting tasks (e.g