Quantifying Employee Emotions in Longitudinal Work Environment Questionnaires

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5237797/v1

Download PDF

Article

Quantifying Employee Emotions in Longitudinal Work Environment Questionnaires

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5237797/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

An individual differences' perspective posits that relatively stable emotions dictate an employee’s perception of the work environment. The present study, based on the Danish Psychosocial Questionnaire, set out to quantify to what extent individuals’ negative and positive affect account for the longitudinal relationships between baseline (Wave T1; N = 3,970) work environment (i.e., job demands or job relationships) and employee well-being (i.e., job satisfaction or perceived job stress) six months later (Wave T2; N = 2,375). Partial correlation analyses showed that very brief measures of employee emotions accounted for 75% of the variance between the initial work environment and later employee well-being. We argue and discuss the importance of considering individual differences in emotional traits in work environments, a dynamic often overlooked in research and practice in workplace interventions and improvements.

Biological sciences/Psychology

Biological sciences/Psychology/Human behaviour

work environment

individual differences

well-being

negative affect

positive affect

Work environment conditions (e.g., the job demands) are being related to later employee well-being (e.g., satisfaction, stress, or health). We still have limited knowledge of what extent such relationships reflect the actual work environment or mostly individual characteristics (Kasl, 1998; Rugulies, 2019; Theorell & Hasselhorn, 2005). This line of research often relies on employee surveys, and self-reported work environment data is at least partly explained by the employee's own emotions (Lazarus, 2003). Overlooking and not controlling for this fact in psychosocial questionnaires may confound analyses and interpretations of how the work environment impacts employees. The present study had access to the stratified Danish Psychosocial Questionnaire (DPQ) and attempted to quantify the extent to which individual differences in emotions explain the longitudinal relationship between the work environment and employee well-being.

Work Environment and Employee Well-being

Work environment is here defined in broad terms referring to what the workplace is like at the current time, including job demands, job role clarity, and work relationships. Employee well-being refers to how workers feel over time based on their workplace, such as job satisfaction, perceived stress, and perceived health (See Lesener et al., 2019 for a comprehensive review). The work environment predicts how satisfied or stressed an employee is with their job (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Kavosi et al., 2018). Positive work environments are often the precursor for employees to feel positively engaged at work (Clausen et al., 2017).

Job demands encompass a job's physical, psychological, social, and organisational work environment. Quantitative job demands are about the extent to which a job requires employees to work long hours, meet tight deadlines, or handle a large workload (Clausen et al., 2017). Meanwhile, emotional demands relate to aspects of the job that require sustained emotional effort from the employee, such as interacting with challenging colleagues or customers (Jonge et al., 2008). Both quantitative and emotional demands are related to job dissatisfaction and reduced well-being (Bowling et al., 2015; Edvik et al., 2020; Idris et al., 2011; Li et al., 2022; Scanlan & Still, 2019).

Job role clarity is another aspect of the work environment, which refers to how employees understand their current job duties, objectives, and expectations. Roles are further limited by the level of influence an employee can exert to make decisions, set priorities, and solve problems at work (Clausen et al., 2017). Both job role clarity and employee influence have shown negative associations with job stress (Kavosi et al., 2018).

Work relationships emphasise the interpersonal environment with colleagues and leadership. Teamwork reflects the willingness and ability of colleagues to work together supportively (Clausen et al., 2017; 2019), whereas leadership relationships refer to the leader's ability to communicate, motivate, and prioritise employee well-being (Clausen et al., 2017). Leadership is predictive of employee well-being (Clausen & Borg, 2010, 2011; Kelloway & Barling, 2010; Kuoppala et al., 2008; Mullen et al., 2008). This line of research has suggested that leadership quality affects employee well-being more than most other factors (Gilbreath & Benson, 2004). Employees in collaborative relationships report higher job satisfaction (Clausen & Borg, 2011; Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Nielsen & Daniels, 2012; Stansfeld & Candy, 2006).

Negative Affect and Positive Affect at Work

Not every employee reacts in the same way to the same work environment. For instance, some people are more content, while others are more stressed (Steel et al., 2008). One of the most commonly used instruments to capture individual differences in emotions is PANAS (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; Watson & Clark, 1994). PANAS is most often used for measuring ongoing emotional experiences (Merz & Roesch, 2011) and has reported relatively consistent test-retest stability over a year (Watson & Clark, 1994). Moreover, most of this stability seems to originate in the individual’s genetic make-up, and accounts for about half of the variance in most individual differences (Polderman et al., 2015). The impact of environmental experiences (for instance having a wage rise) on most individual differences tends to be small over time (e.g., Bühler et al., 2023). A study using PANAS longitudinally reported that at most up to 18% of within-person variance in positive and negative affect was due to effects from the environment (Cloos et al., 2023). Thus, work environments are accordingly not expected to greatly change employees, and is the reason why PANAS in the present study is treated as an individual control variable.

The two fundamental temperament states, negative affect and positive affect, have been shown to play a significant role in all aspects of well-being (Anglim et al., 2020; Steel et al., 2008). Negative affect is characterised by a heightened susceptibility to negative experiences and stressful environments, including stress in the workplace (Bowling & Eschleman, 2010; Carlson, 1999; Ebstrup et al., 2011; Heinisch & Jex, 1997; Luo et al., 2023). This type of emotional experience also extends to physical and mental health (Jeronimus et al., 2014; Kotov et al., 2010; Lahey, 2009). Individuals high in negative affect tend to be less happy in any kind of relationship and are more inclined to negatively attribute faults to others (Karney & Bradbury, 2000). In contrast, positive affect is a core aspect of outgoing and energetic behaviours and is associated with job satisfaction, general happiness, and overall life satisfaction (Wilmot et al., 2019). Thus, such individuals would be more likely to experience working environments more positively because of their predispositions.

Research Question

The present study aimed to quantify the extent to which negative and positive affect explain the longitudinal relationships between the work environment and employee well-being. The research question was as follows: How much of the relationship between the work environment (i.e., quantitative and emotional demands, job role clarity, employee influence, teamwork, and leadership) and employee well-being (i.e., stress, health, and job satisfaction) can be explained by individual differences in emotional experiences (i.e., negative affect and positive affect)?

Participants and Procedure

The DPQ was distributed to a stratified sample of 8,958 employed individuals in Denmark, representing the Danish labour market. Data from this survey have been used for other studies (Clausen et al., 2022a; 2022b; 2023; Lunen et al., 2023). More details about the sampling are described in Clausen et al. (2019; 2023). At the first baseline (Wave T1) survey measurement, 48.4% response rate, N = 3,970 remained after cleaning incomplete questionnaires and unemployed workers. The sample was equally distributed across 14 different job groups, including office work, healthcare and social services, education, manufacturing, law enforcement, and business management (range = 5–9%). Women constituted 47% of the sample, and the age distribution was as follows: 6% between 18–34, 19% between 35–44, 32% between 45–54, and 43% over 54. Additionally, 26% had a high school diploma, 15% had a short-cycle tertiary education, 27% had a medium-cycle tertiary education, and 19% had a long-cycle tertiary education. After 6 months, a follow-up (Wave T2) questionnaire was conducted of which N = 2,375 met the inclusion criteria.

Instruments¹

Quantitative Demands/Work Environment. The quantitative demands scale in the DPQ was used to estimate workload. The scale consists of four items with questions like "How often is it the case that you do not have time to complete all your work tasks?" and "How often do you have deadlines that are hard to meet?" using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "Never/almost never" (1) to "Always" (5). The reliability (Cronbach's alpha) is reportedly .84 with a test-retest reliability of .78 (Clausen et al., 2019).

Emotional Demands/Work Environment. The emotional demands scale in the DPQ consists of four items with questions like "Are you placed in emotionally demanding situations at work?" and "Do you have to deal with relationships at work that are emotionally challenging?" using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "To a very small extent" (1) to "To a very large extent" (5). The Cronbach's alpha was .83 with a test-retest reliability of .74 (Clausen et al., 2019).

Job Role Clarity/Work Environment. The role clarity scale in the DPQ consists of four items. Questions such as "Are there any conflicting demands in your work?" and "Does your job involve tasks that conflict with your personal values?" were answered using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "To a very small extent" (1) to "To a very large extent" (5). The Cronbach's alpha documented for this scale is .81 with a test-retest reliability of .73 (Clausen et al., 2019).

Employee Influence/Work Environment. The influence at work scale in the DPQ consists of four items such as "Do you have any influence on how you carry out your work tasks?" and "Do you have sufficient authority to deal with the responsibilities you have in your work?" using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "To a very small extent" (1) to "To a very large extent" (5). The Cronbach's alpha documented for this scale is .87, with a test-retest reliability of .78 (Clausen et al., 2019).

Teamwork/Work Environment. This scale in the DPQ was used to capture the sense of cooperation measured by four items, such as "Do you and your colleagues work well together when problems emerge which require cooperation among you?" and "Is there a sense of community and cohesion between you and your colleagues?" using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "To a very small extent" (1) to "To a very large extent" (5). The Cronbach's alpha documented for this scale is .82 with a test-retest reliability of .75 (Clausen et al., 2019).

Leadership/Work Environment. The quality of leadership scale in the DPQ consists of four items with questions such as "Is your immediate supervisor good at motivating the employees?" and "Is your immediate supervisor good at communicating clear goals for the work of you and your colleagues?" using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "To a very small extent" (1) to "To a very large extent" (5). The Cronbach's alpha documented for this scale is .91 with a test-retest reliability of .87 (Clausen et al., 2019).

Job Stress/Employee Well-being. Perceived job stress was measured with a single item: "How often have you felt stressed in the last two weeks?". This question was answered using a Likert scale ranging from (1) Never – (5) Always. This item has a reported test-retest reliability of .75 (Clausen et al., 2019).

Health/Employee Well-being. Self-rated health was measured with a single item: "Overall, how do you perceive your health?". This question was answered using a Likert scale ranging from (1) Very low – (5) Very high.

Job Satisfaction/Employee Well-being. One item was used to operationalise how much the employee likes the job: "Overall, how satisfied are you with your job?" 0 denotes the lowest possible level of job satisfaction, and 10 denotes the highest possible level. The test-retest reliability for this item is .77 (Clausen et al., 2019).

Negative Affect/Control Variable. A brief measure of negative affect (e.g., the state of emotionally negative experiences) was applied with four items on a 6-point Likert scale from "At no time" (1) to "All the time" (6): Item 1) "How much of the time in the last two weeks have you felt calm and relaxed?", Item 2) "How much of the time in the last two weeks have you been sad or upset?", Item 3) "How much of the time in the last two weeks have you had lower self-confidence?", and Item 4) "How much of the time in the last two weeks have you had a bad conscience or feelings of guilt?" (see the clinical use origins by Bech, 1999; Bech et al., 2015). At the six-month follow-up in the present study, this scale showed test-retest reliability of .63. See Appendix Table S3 for item correlations. These four items bear resemblance to the well-cited Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (see Table 1, PANAS; Watson & Clark, 1994). This scale had its origins in clinical use, but has since been much used in workplace environments (e.g., Ilies, & Judge, 2003). The 12-month test-retest reliability of PANAS has been reported to be over .60 (Watson et al., 1988). In the present study, we asked for the emotions based on the last two weeks.

Positive Affect/Control Variable. A brief measure of positive affect (e.g., the state of emotionally positive experiences) was captured with three items using a 6-point Likert scale from "At no time" (1) to "All the time" (6): Item 1) "How much of the time in the last two weeks have you felt quiet or reserved?", Item 2) "How much of the time in the last two weeks have you been active and energetic?", Item 3) "How much of the time in the last two weeks have you been happy and in good mood?" (Bech, 1999; Bech et al., 2015). See Table 1. At the six-month follow-up in the present study, this scale showed test-retest reliability of .61. See Appendix Table S3 for item correlations. The 12-month test-retest reliability of PANAS positive affects has been reported to be .63 (Watson et al., 1988).

Table 1

Positive and Negative Affect in the Present Study
DPQ	PANAS
Positive Affect
Quiet or reserved (-)	Enthusiastic
Active and energetic	Active and alert
Good mood	Excite and inspired
Negative Affect
Calm and relaxed (-)	Nervous
Sad and upset	Upset
Low self-confidence	Strong
Feelings of guilt	Guilty
Note. See Appendix Table S4 for the complete study variable items.

Statistical Analysis

Assumption checks, including missing values and outliers, assessing the normality of the sampling distribution, evaluating linearity, and verifying multivariate normality were performed on the dataset (Tabachnick et al., 2013). Follow-up data were used to calculate test-retest reliabilities for negative affect and positive affect scales.

Partial correlational analyses were conducted to address the first research question. We calculated correlations for all study variables while controlling for the overlapping variance of positive and negative affect. We also calculated correlations between baseline (Wave T1) work environment and employee well-being six months later (Wave T2), and quantified the difference in explained variance between the zero-order and partial correlations by calculating the percentage reduction (see Burke et al., 1993; Williams et al., 1996). The explained variance reduction rate indicates the percentage of the work environment conditions-outcomes relationship that is accounted for by the two individual characteristics. We used Chen and Spector’s (1991) formula to calculate the explained variance reduction rate:

$$\:Percentage\:reduction\:rate\:in\:{R}^{2}=\frac{\left(\:{R}_{zero-order\:-\:}^{2}{R}_{partial}^{2}\right)}{{R}_{zero-order\:\:}^{2}}\:$$

We also calculated the reduction rate of BIC values between the zero-order and partial correlations to address model complexity; larger reduction rates indicate that negative and positive affect improve model fit substantially relative to the increase in complexity (Schwarz, 1978). To interpret correlations, we adhered to the effect size guidelines for individual differences research (Gignac & Szodorai, 2016).

Ethical Consideration

The Danish National Research Centre for the Working Environment (NRCWE) collected and handled the data in line with the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), ensuring respondents' anonymity and confidentiality. This study was waived from ethical approval as it did not require interventions or contact with participants. The study was approved by NRCWE and the local university, following national research ethics guidelines. Each participant gave informed consent prior to filling out the questionnaire. The data were fully anonymised, and discretion consideration was applied to prevent the possibility of identifying individual persons in the data material.

In preparatory analyses, Little's MCAR test indicated that the observed pattern of missing values was random (χ²(df = 7741) = 4671, p = 1)², and was handled by multiple imputation technique (Little et al., 2014). Outliers defined as Mahalanobis distance leverage score five times greater than the sample average leverage value were screened using leverage indices. Univariate normality was tested with the Shapiro-Wilk normality test, while multivariate normality was tested with Mardia's multivariate kurtosis test (Mardia, 1970). Due to the sensitivity of statistical tests to a large sample, normality was further confirmed with skew and kurtosis values and graphics. All descriptive statistics at the first survey measurement T1 are reported in Table 2. All variable reliabilities were satisfactory, α > .77.

The results from the cross-sectional baseline measurements at T1 are presented in Table 2. Overall, correlations between work environment and employee well-being were moderate (r ≈ .20) to high (r ≈ .40). Some of the higher correlations were between quantitative demands and job stress at r = .44 and job satisfaction and leadership at r = .48. Overall, both negative affect and positive affect correlated moderately with work environment, 1–6 (r _mean = .28), and stronger with employee well-being, 7–9 (r _mean = .45). All longitudinal zero-order correlations between T1 work environment and T2 employee well-being are found in Appendix Tables, with similar correlational sizes.

Table 2

*Descriptive Statistics and Study Correlations between Work Environment (1–6) T1 and Employee Well-being (7–9) T1*
Variables	M	SD	α	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	11
1. Quantitative Demands	8.91	3.16	.84	-
2. Emotional Demands	7.18	3.68	.84	.34	-
3. Job Role Clarity	12.33	2.68	.82	− .24	− .12	-
4. Employee Influence	11.28	3.44	.87	.00	− .07	.35	-
5. Teamwork	11.54	2.85	.82	− .20	− .09	.42	.33	-
6. Leadership	10.05	3.73	.91	− .20	− .14	.46	.33	.50	-
7. Job Stress	2.52	1.04		.44	.27	− .22	− .13	− .23	− .23	-
8. Health	3.52	0.91		− .08	− .09	.15	.20	.19	.18	− .27	-
9. Job Satisfaction	7.30	2.05		− .21	− .20	.46	.49	.44	.48	− .30	.26	-
10. Negative Affect	5.55	3.39	.80	.29	.24	− .34	− .23	− .31	− .27	.55	− .34	− .44	-
11. Positive Affect	12.00	2.44	.77	− .21	− .17	.35	.28	.34	.32	− .47	.43	.48	− .73
Note. N = 3,970. M = Mean. SD = Standard deviation. α = Chronbach's alpha. Variables 1–6 are work environment conditions; Quantitative Demands, Emotional Demands, Job Role Clarity, Employee Influence, Teamwork, Leadership (scaled 1–17); In grey are employee well-being variables (7, 8, 9); Job stress and Health (scaled 1–5); Job Satisfaction (scaled 0–10); Negative affect (scaled 1–21); Positive affect (scaled 1–16). r > .03 is significant (p < .01). See Appendix for correlational table between work conditions T1 and outcomes T2.

Work Environment and Longitudinal Employee Well-being

We conducted partial correlations, controlling for negative affect and positive affect, cross-sectionally for baseline T1 (first four columns in Table 3) and longitudinally with follow-up T2 well-being measures 6 months later (last four columns in Table 3). Overall, individual differences in negative and positive affect could explain large portions of the work environment/employee well-being: On average, 79% of the variance between work environment measurements and job stress, 93% with health, and 49% with job satisfaction. The size of these explanations was largely similar whether employee well-being were measured in baseline Wave T1 or six months later in Wave T2. In many cases, individual differences were able to explain all or most of the work environment relationships. For instance, between employee influence and job stress (99%) or job role clarity and health (100%). On average, individual differences measured by negative affect and positive affect explained 75% of all work environment conditions relating to all employee outcomes. Overall, the improvement of model fit BIC ranged from 5.8–12.7% cross-sectionally, and 3.8–5.8% longitudinally.

Table 3

*Relationships between Work Environment Measures Wave T1 and Three Employee Well-being Measures in Waves T1 and T2*
	T1 -> T1				T1 -> T2
	Zero- order (r)	Partial (r)	% PANAS	ΔBIC rate	Zero-order (r)	Partial (r)	% PANAS	ΔBIC rate
Job Stress
Quant. Demands sDemands	.44	.36	34%	11.3%	.36	.28	42%	4.4%
Emo. Demands	.27	.17	60%	11.9%	.25	.17	56%	5.2%
Job Role Clarity	− .22	− .02	99%	11.6%	− .19	− .04	96%	5.2%
Employee Influence	− .13	.01	99%	12.7%	.13	− .03	94%	5.8%
Teamwork	− .23	− .05	95%	11.6%	− .18	− .04	96%	5.3%
Leadership Quality	− .23	− .09	85%	11.8%	− .18	− .06	88%	5.5%
Mean Average	.25	.12	79%	11.8%	.22	.10	79%	5.2%
Health
Quant. Demands	− .08	.02	95%	6.7%	− .11	− .01	99%	4.6%
Emo. Demands	− .09	− .02	96%	6.6%	− .09	− .02	94%	4.8%
Job Role Clarity	.15	.00	100%	6.1%	.19	.05	94%	3.9%
Employee Influence	.20	.09	80%	5.8%	.21	.11	71%	4.0%
Teamwork	.19	.05	93%	5.7%	.20	.07	87%	3.8%
Leadership Quality	.18	.05	92%	5.9%	.17	.05	92%	4.2%
Mean Average	.15	.04	93%	6.1%	.16	.05	90%	4.2%
Job Satisfaction
Quant. Demands	− .21	− .10	78%	8.6%	− .19	− .08	82%	5.3%
Emo. Demands	− .20	− .11	68%	8.9%	− .17	− .09	72%	5.6%
Job Role Clarity	.46	.34	46%	6.3%	.36	.23	59%	3.5%
Employee Influence	.49	.43	26%	7.7%	.43	.35	32%	4.2%
Teamwork	.44	.33	44%	6.5%	.36	.24	55%	3.7%
Leadership Quality	.48	.39	34%	7.1%	.39	.29	44%	3.9%
Mean Average	.38	.28	49%	7.5%	.32	.21	57%	4.4%

Note. Underscores signify employee well-being measures. Zero-order correlation = bivariate Pearson's correlations at T1; Partial correlation = Zero-order correlation controlled for negative affect and positive affect at T1; T1 = baseline N = 3,970, T2 = 6 months follow-up N= 2,375; T2 % Ind. Differences are the explained variance between T1 work conditions and T2 employee outcomes. All correlations r > .03, p < .001; % Individual Differences = R² reduction rate (%) between zero-order and partial correlations; ΔBIC rate = reduction rate in BIC value between zero-order and partial correlations.

In the present stratified, mostly representative Danish sample (N = 3,970), two brief individual state characteristics, negative affect and positive affect, accounted for a majority of the longitudinal variance between work environment and employee well-being. This is fairly consistent with previous literature (e.g., Brief et al., 1988; Payne, 1988). Approximately 50% of job performance predicted by job engagement has been accounted for by individual trait characteristics (Bowling, 2007; Kajonius et al., 2023). Our present study, however, is arguably the first to show that individual differences in two emotional experiences explain the majority of variance between work environment variables in a Nordic sample.

Argumentatively, as an alternative view to the present study, emotional characteristics could be seen as dependent of the work environment rather than predictors. There might not be sufficient causal evidence for this. Genetic analyses report that workplace variables are heritable and much mediated by employee characteristics (Ilies, & Judge, 2003). When using monozygotic twins, sharing 100% of the same genes, experiencing different environments has not reported notable environmentally driven effects, most often ranging below the r_E = .10s (e.g., Kandler et al., 2012). Even so, when it comes to even more ability-based individual characteristics such as intelligence, the longitudinal mediation by environment often is close to zero (Willoughby et al., 2021). One workplace study reports that positive and negative affect at the workplace genetically and stably mediated job satisfaction ratings between three waves (Li et al., 2016).

Limitations

Despite using longitudinal data, there are still limits to the ability of the present study to present causality or lasting effects from how one experiences the work environment. Also, we were unable to operationalise individual employee emotions fully as we were confined to the pre-made variables in the Danish Psychosocial Questionnaire.

Furthermore, all variables were operationalised using only self-reported data, which is normally a weakness and tends to introduce noise. The present study shares all challenges encountered in psychological research, including common method variance which may lead to inflated relationships and reduced ecological validity. Despite the large sample size, participants may also be prone to self-selection bias due to voluntary involvement and could overrepresent certain types of individuals.

The brevity of the negative affect and positive affect measures in the present study is arguably also an important limitation. These few items may not capture the depth and breadth of individual differences in emotions, representing, at best, a preview and a conservative estimate. In addition, these affect measures overlapped strongly (r = − .74; See Appendix Table S2), notably more than in other surveys (r ≈ − .48; Vedel et al., 2019). This could diminish their unique explanatory contributions and using longer and more extensive individual measurements could arguably deliver more clear results.

Recommendations and Concluding Thoughts

Based on the rather strong explanation from emotional experiences, we are inclined to recommend including individual measures as controls in future studies, especially for subjective self-report questionnaires. This is to avoid misinterpreting correlations between work environment and well-being in surveys as having similar effects on all employees. This would allow organisations to apply interventions and resources more effectively. Taking overall individual differences into account in work environment surveys may help mitigate the share of explanations that “lies in the eye of the beholder.”

Disclosure Statement

The authors’ report no potential conflict of interest.

Funding

This research was not supported by any funding.

Author Contribution

PJK encouraged LHC to investigate the presented idea and supervised the findings of this work. LHC performed statistical analyses and prepared the first draft. LHC and PJK discussed the results and contributed equally to the final manuscript.

Data Availability

This study’s design and its analysis were not preregistered and materials are not available because they are not owned by the authors. The dataset is owned by Danish National Research Centre for the Working Environment (NRCWE) and is not publicly accessible. Contact NRCWE ([email protected]) to explore possibilities for accessing the data. The first author had access to the dataset through an employment affiliation. The code is available upon request.

Anglim, J., Horwood, S., Smillie, L. D., Marrero, R. J., & Wood, J. K. (2020). Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(4), 279-323. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000226
Bech, P. (1999). Health‐related quality of life measurements in the assessment of pain clinic results. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 43(9), 893-896. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-6576.1999.430906.x
Bech, P., Timmerby, N., Martiny, K., Lunde, M., & Søndergaard, S. (2015). Psychometric evaluation of the Major Depression Inventory (MDI) as depression severity scale using the LEAD (Longitudinal Expert Assessment of All Data) as index of validity. BMC Psychiatry, 15([190]), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-015-0529-3
Bowling, N. A. (2007). Is the job satisfaction–job performance relationship spurious? A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(2), 167-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.007
Bowling, N. A., Alarcon, G. M., Bragg, C. B., & Hartman, M. J. (2015). A meta-analytic examination of the potential correlates and consequences of workload. Work and Stress, 29(2), 95-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2015.1033037
Bowling, N. A., & Eschleman, K. J. (2010). Employee personality as a moderator of the relationships between work stressors and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(1), 91-103. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017326
Brief, A. P., Burke, M. J., George, J. M., Robinson, B. S., & Webster, J. (1988). Should negative affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 193-198. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.193
Bühler, J. L., Orth, U., Bleidorn, W., Weber, E., Kretzschmar, A., Scheling, L., & Hopwood, C. J. (2023). Life events and personality change: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 08902070231190219.
Burke, M. J., Brief, A. P., & George, J. M. (1993). The role of negative affectivity in understanding relations between self-reports of stressors and strains: A comment on the applied psychology literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(3), 402-412. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.3.402
Carlson, D. S. (1999). Personality and role variables as predictors of three forms of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55(2), 236-253. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1680
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1991). Negative affectivity as the underlying cause of correlations between stressors and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 398-407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.3.398
Clausen, T., & Borg, V. (2010). Do positive work-related states mediate the association between psychosocial work characteristics and turnover? A longitudinal analysis. International Journal of Stress Management, 17(4), 308-324. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021069
Clausen, T., & Borg, V. (2011). Job demands, job resources and meaning at work. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(8), 665-681. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941111181761
Clausen, T., Christensen, K. B., Sørensen, J. K., Bjorner, J. B., Madsen, I. E. H., Borg, V., & Rugulies, R. (2023). The predictive validity of the Danish Psychosocial Work Environment Questionnaire with regard to onset of depressive disorders and long-term sickness absence. Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 67(2), 195-207. https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxac069
Clausen, T., Madsen, I. E. H., Christensen, K. B., Bjorner, J. B., Poulsen, O. M., Maltesen, T., Borg, V., & Rugulies, R. (2019). The Danish Psychosocial Work Environment Questionnaire (DPQ): Development, content, reliability and validity. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 45(4), 356-369. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3793
Clausen, T., Madsen, I. E. H., Christensen, K. B., Bjørner, J. B., Poulsen, O. M., Maltesen, T., Pedersen, J. M., Borg, V., & Rugulies, R. (2017). Dansk Psychosocialt Spørgeskema. Et spørgeskema om psychosocialt arbejdsmiljø: Dokumentationsrapport.
Clausen, T., Pedersen, L. R. M., Andersen, M. F., Theorell, T., & Madsen, I. E. H. (2022a). Job autonomy and psychological well-being: A linear or a non-linear association? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31(3), 395-405. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2021.1972973
Clausen, T., Rugulies, R., & Li, J. (2022b). Workplace discrimination and onset of depressive disorders in the Danish workforce: A prospective study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 319, 79-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2022.09.036
Cloos, L., Ceulemans, E., & Kuppens, P. (2023). Development, validation, and comparison of self-report measures for positive and negative affect in intensive longitudinal research. Psychological Assessment, 35(3), 189-204.
Ebstrup, J. F., Eplov, L. F., Pisinger, C., & Jørgensen, T. (2011). Association between the Five Factor personality traits and job stress: Is the effect mediated by general self-efficacy? Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 24(4), 407-419. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2010.540012
Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23-43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305
Edvik, A., Geisler, M., Muhonen, T., Witmer, H., & Björk, J. (2020). Credence in the organization’s ability to respond to change – Implications on work engagement and job satisfaction in the Church of Sweden. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 995. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00995
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40(2), 287-322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00605.x
Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069
Gilbreath, B., & Benson, P. G. (2004). The contribution of supervisor behaviour to employee psychological well-being. Work and Stress, 18(3), 255-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370412331317499
Heinisch, D. A., & Jex, S. M. (1997). Negative affectivity and gender as moderators of the relationship between work-related stressors and depressed mood at work. Work and Stress, 11(1), 46-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678379708256821
Idris, M. A., Dollard, M. F., & Winefield, A. H. (2011). The effect of globalization on employee psychological health and job satisfaction in Malaysian workplaces. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 53(6), 447-454. https://doi.org/10.1539/joh.11-0035-FS
Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2003). On the heritability of job satisfaction: The mediating role of personality. Journal of applied psychology, 88(4), 750-759.
Jeronimus, B. F., Riese, H., Sanderman, R., & Ormel, J. (2014). Mutual reinforcement between neuroticism and life experiences: A five-wave, 16-year study to test reciprocal causation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4), 751. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037009
Jonge, J. D., Dormann, C., & Tooren, M. V. D. (2008). The Demand-Induced Strain Compensation model: Renewed theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. In K. Näswall, J. Hellgren, & M. Sverke (Eds.), The individual in the changing working life (pp. 67–87). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490064.004
Kajonius, P., Dåderman, A., & Sjöberg, A. (2023). Leadership personality at work: The Big Five linking work engagement and performance. Psychology of Leaders and Leadership, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000150
Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., & Riemann, R. (2012). Left or right? Sources of political orientation: the roles of genetic factors, cultural transmission, assortative mating, and personality. Journal of personality and social psychology, 102(3), 633-645.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2000). Attributions in marriage: State or trait? A growth curve analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 295-309. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.295
Kasl, S. V. (1998). Measuring job stressors and studying the health impact of the work environment: An epidemiolgic commentary. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4), 390-401. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.3.4.390
Kavosi, Z., Ranaei Kordshouli, H., Zare Saadabadi, M., & Ghorbanian, A. (2018). The factors related to the employees’ job stress: A meta-analysis. Health Management and Information Science, 5(4), 145-151.
Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (2010). Leadership development as an intervention in occupational health psychology. Work and Stress, 24(3), 260-279. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2010.518441
Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “big” personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 136(5), 768-821. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020327
Kuoppala, J., Lamminpää, A., Liira, J., & Vainio, H. (2008). Leadership, job well-being, and health effects — A systematic review and a meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 50(8), 904-915. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e31817e918d
Lahey, B. B. (2009). Public health significance of neuroticism. American Psychologist, 64(4), 241-256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015309
Lazarus, R. S. (2003). Does the positive psychology movement have legs? Psychological Inquiry, 14(2), 93-109. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1402_02
Lesener, T., Gusy, B., & Wolter, C. (2019). The job demands-resources model: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Work and Stress, 33(1), 76-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2018.1529065
Li, B., Li, Z., & Fu, M. (2022). Understanding beginning teachers’ professional identity changes through job demands-resources theory. Acta Psychologica, 230, 103760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103760
Li, W. D., Stanek, K. C., Zhang, Z., Ones, D. S., & McGue, M. (2016). Are genetic and environmental influences on job satisfaction stable over time? A three-wave longitudinal twin study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(11), 1598-1619.
Little, T. D., Jorgensen, T. D., Lang, K. M., & Moore, E. W. G. (2014). On the joys of missing data. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39(2), 151-162. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jst048
Lunen, J.C., Rugulies, R., Sørensen, J.K., Andersen, L.L., & Clausen, T. (2023). Exploring exposure to multiple psychosocial work factors: Prospective associations with depression and sickness absence. European Journal of Public Health, 33(5). https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckad118
Luo, J., Zhang, B., Cao, M., & Roberts, B. W. (2023). The stressful personality: A meta-analytical review of the relation between personality and stress. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 27(2), 128-194. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221104002
Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57(3), 519-530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmva.2008.02.033
Merz, E. L., & Roesch, S. C. (2011). Modeling trait and state variation using multilevel factor analysis with PANAS daily diary data. Journal of research in personality, 45(1), 2-9
Mullen, J., Kelley, E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2008). Health and well-being outcomes of the work-family interface. In K. Korabik, D. S. Lero, & D. L. Whitehead (Eds.), Handbook of work-family integration (pp. 191-214). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012372574-5.50014-4
Nielsen, K., & Daniels, K. (2012). Does shared and differentiated transformational leadership predict followers' working conditions and well-being? The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 383-397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.001
Payne, R. (1988). A longitudinal study of the psychological well-being of unemployed men and the mediating effect of neuroticism. Human Relations, 41(2), 119-138. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678804100203
Polderman, T. J. C., Benyamin, B., De Leeuw, C. A., Sullivan, P. F., Van Bochoven, A., Visscher, P. M., & Posthuma, D. (2015). Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nature Genetics, 47(7), 702-709. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3285
Rugulies, R. (2019). What is a psychosocial work environment? Scandinavian Journal of Work, environment, and Health, 45(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3792
Scanlan, J. N., & Still, M. (2019). Relationships between burnout, turnover intention, job satisfaction, job demands and job resources for mental health personnel in an Australian mental health service. BMC Health Services Research, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3841-z
Soh, M., Zarola, A., Palaiou, K., & Furnham, A. (2016). Work-related well-being. Health Psychology Open, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2055102916628380
Stansfeld, S., & Candy, B. (2006). Psychosocial work environment and mental health — A meta-analytic review. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 32(6), 443-462. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.1050
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 138-161. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138
Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B., Sullivan, B. A., & Lorentz, D. (2008). Understanding the search for meaning in life: Personality, cognitive style, and the dynamic between seeking and experiencing meaning. Journal of Personality, 76(2), 199-228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00484.x
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The annals of statistics, 461-464.
Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (Vol. 6). Pearson Education.
Theorell, T., & Hasselhorn, H. M. (2005). On cross-sectional questionnaire studies of relationships between psychosocial conditions at work and health—are they reliable? International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 78, 517-522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-005-0618-6
Vedel, A., Gøtzsche-Astrup, O., & Holm, P. (2019). The Danish IPIP-NEO-120: A free, validated five-factor measure of personality. Nordic Psychology, 71(1), 62-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/19012276.2018.1470553
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological bulletin, 96(3), 465-490. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.96.3.465
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form. Psychology Publications, New York (1999).
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 767-793). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012134645-4/50030-5
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.
Williams, L. J., Gavin, M. B., & Williams, M. L. (1996). Measurement and nonmeasurement processes with negative affectivity and employee attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), 88-101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.1.88
Wilmot, M. P., Wanberg, C. R., Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Ones, D. S. (2019). Extraversion advantages at work: A quantitative review and synthesis of the meta-analytic evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(12), 1447-1470. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000415
Willoughby, E. A., McGue, M., Iacono, W. G., & Lee, J. J. (2021). Genetic and environmental contributions to IQ in adoptive and biological families with 30-year-old offspring. Intelligence, 88, 101579.
Young, H. R., Glerum, D. R., Wang, W., & Joseph, D. L. (2018). Who are the most engaged at work? A meta-analysis of personality and employee engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(10), 1330-1346. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2303

See appendix table S4 for complete overview of the questionnaire and constructs used
In cases of a random missing data pattern with only a small percentage of values missing (< 5%) from a large dataset, any method for handling missing data yields comparable results (Tabachnick et al., 2013).

No competing interests reported.

Appendix.docx

Download PDF

Reviewers invited by journal
30 Oct, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
30 Oct, 2024
Editor invited by journal
27 Oct, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
23 Oct, 2024
First submitted to journal
10 Oct, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Quantifying Employee Emotions in Longitudinal Work Environment Questionnaires

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Introduction

Method

Participants and Procedure

Instruments¹

Statistical Analysis

Ethical Consideration

Results

Work Environment and Longitudinal Employee Well-being

Discussion

Limitations

Recommendations and Concluding Thoughts

Declarations

Funding

Author Contribution

Data Availability

References

Footnotes

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1

Quantifying Employee Emotions in Longitudinal Work Environment Questionnaires

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Introduction

Method

Participants and Procedure

Instruments1

Statistical Analysis

Ethical Consideration

Results

Work Environment and Longitudinal Employee Well-being

Discussion

Limitations

Recommendations and Concluding Thoughts

Declarations

Funding

Author Contribution

Data Availability

References

Footnotes

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1

Instruments¹