Quantifying the Evidence for the Absence of the Job Demands and Job Control Interaction on Workers' Well-Being: A Bayesian Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Central theories on occupational health postulate that job resources reduce the negative effect of job demands on workers' well-being. However, this postulation lacks support thus far; numerous empirical investigations have assessed several job resources and several workers' well-being but studies produced inconsistent results. Systematic reviews tried to summarize these inconsistencies, however, no studies could adequately synthesize the breadth of studies to derive an aggregated conclusion due to missing quantitative aggregation. This study evaluates the interaction between job control and job demands on well-being by applying a systematic literature search and quantifying results through a Bayesian meta-analytic approach. Both aggregated study findings and raw participant-level data were included in our study, resulting in 104 effect sizes of aggregate-level data and 14 participant-level datasets. Overall, the data provided strong evidence for the absence of the interaction between job demands and control. Longitudinal and non-linear research designs were also examined but did not alter this overall conclusion. Contrary to the postulations of wide-spread theories, job control does not reduce the negative impact of job demands on worker well-being. Alternative theoretical approaches and the need for more consistent and rigorous research standards, like open-science practices, are discussed.