Control over the scheduling of simulated office work reduces the impact of workload on mental fatigue and task performance.

Abstract

Two experiments tested the hypothesis that task-induced mental fatigue is moderated by control over work scheduling. Participants worked for 2 hr on simulated office work, with control manipulated by a yoking procedure. Matched participants were assigned to conditions of either high control (HC) or low control (LC). HC participants decided their own task scheduling, whereas LC participants had to follow these fixed schedules. For Experiment 1, fatigue was higher in LC participants who worked harder, so Experiment 2 compared control effects in high- and low-workload groups. As predicted, the impact of workload was reduced under HC conditions, for subjective fatigue, and most secondary tasks and aftereffects. The findings are interpreted within the framework of compensatory control theory.

Effects of training with added difficulties on RADAR detection

“…By optimally filling up the frame with attention-demanding tasks, the amount of inactivity was reduced, and thus participants were more likely to stay properly engaged on the primary task. Without an attention-demanding task, participants might lower their overall effort towards the primary task (Hockey & Earle, 2006). With another related task added to the primary task, the level of effort might be raised and, thus, be useful for keeping performance levels higher for both tasks than for the primary task alone.…”

“…That is, all types of difficulties are not necessarily equivalent in their effectiveness or their desirability for training, and an irrelevant concurrent task is more likely to be undesirable than a relevant sequential task. The fourth alternative corresponds to the cognitive antidote hypothesis (Kole, Healy, & Bourne, 2008), by which adding cognitive complications to a routine task serves to overcome a decline in accuracy that occurs with prolonged work on a simple primary task as participants become bored, fatigued or disengaged (see Hockey & Earle, 2006, for a discussion of the effects of effort and mental fatigue on performance).…”

Relative effects of demand and control on task-related cardiovascular reactivity, task perceptions, performance accuracy, and mood

“…Experimental investigations of the JDC Model have frequently employed simulations including mail sorting tasks (e.g., Jimmieson and Terry, 1998;Perrewe and Ganster, 1989;Searle et al, 1999Searle et al, , 2001, in-basket tasks (e.g., Jimmieson andTerry, 1997, 1999), and specific work samples (e.g., Hockey and Earle, 2006;Rau, 1996). Regarding workrelated well-being, significant effects have been found more frequently for objectively manipulated demand than objectively manipulated control (e.g., Hockey and Earle, 2006;Jimmieson andTerry, 1997, 1999;Searle et al, 1999Searle et al, , 2001. In addition, a small number of negative effects of control have been reported in experimental simulation studies.…”

Contribution à un modèle explicatif de la charge de travail : le cas du service à la clientèle

“…Ainsi, plusieurs d'entre elles soulignent l'influence du contrôle, du support social, de la pression temporelle et de la reconnaissance sur la charge de travail (Ballet et Kelchtermans, 2009;Beech-Hawley, Wells et Cole, 2004;Hockey et Earle, 2006;Shirom et al, 2009;Toulouse et al, 2009). Ces études confirment également la nécessité de s'attarder au contexte dynamique de l'individu, de son activité professionnelle et de son contexte organisationnel afin de conceptualiser la charge de travail.…”