Work Preferences as Moderators of the Effects of Paced and Unpaced Work on Mood and Cognitive Performance: A Laboratory Simulation of Mechanized Letter Sorting

Abstract

This article describes a laboratory study of work preferences (ideal job demand and discretion levels) as moderators of the effects of paced and unpaced work on cognitive and affective responses. Posttest measures of cognitive performance and self-reported stress and arousal were used as outcome measures with covariance control for the corresponding pretest values. The experimental design allowed within-subjects contrasts of fast versus slow pacing and of machine-paced versus self-paced conditions. Self-paced performance compared favorably with machine-paced performance; however, individual differences in ideal demand influenced the relative speed of work under the two conditions. Work preferences also moderated relationships between pacing and outcome measures; ideal discretion moderated machine-pacing versus self-pacing effects in relation to cognitive performance and stress, and ideal demand moderated fast versus slow pacing effects in relation to arousal. These findings are discussed in relation to existing literature on pacing and on person-environment fit.

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

“…In addition, high-demand conditions were characterised by higher perceived task stressfulness and lower task satisfaction relative to low-demand conditions. Finally, consistent with previous experimental studies (e.g., Bohlin et al, 1986;Hockey and Earle, 2006;Hutt and Weidner, 1993;Parkes et al, 1990;Rau, 1996), high-demand exerted deleterious effects on mood. Specifically, high-demand was associated with significantly higher post-task levels of negative mood and stress, and lower post-task levels of positive mood and arousal relative to low-demand.…”

Self-determination, control, and reactions to changes in workload: A work simulation.

“…The vast majority of prior experimental research investigating the D-CM has mainly used between-participants designs (see Flynn & James, 2009; Häusser, Mojzisch, & Schulz-Hardt, 2011; Jimmieson & Terry, 1997, 1998, 1999; O'Brien, Terry, & Jimmieson, 2008; Parker et al, 2009; Perrewe & Ganster, 1989; Searle, Bright, & Bochner, 1999, 2001 ). Only three experimental studies investigate task demands, such as workload, using methods that take into account within-participant effects (Glaser, Tatum, Nebeker, Sorenson, & Aiello, 1999; Hockey & Earle, 2006; Parkes, Styles, & Broadbent, 1990). Based on recent evidence from experience sampling studies indicating that task demands fluctuate on a day-to-day basis at work (Butler, Grzywacz, Bass, & Linney, 2005; Daniels, Boocock, Hartly, & Holland, 2009; Daniels & Harris, 2005), it is now crucial to incorporate a temporal dimension into studies on work demands and control.…”

Aligning Task Control With Desire for Control: Implications for Performance

“…With regard to performance outcomes, Parkes, Styles, & Broadbent (1990) found that speed and accuracy on a mail-sorting task suffered in cases of mismatch. However, the mail-sorting task did not test the complex thinking and decision-making necessary in many organizational settings.…”