A reciprocal interplay between psychosocial job stressors and worker well-being? A systematic review of the “reversed” effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Work represents an important role in society, and the nature and consequences of job stress have garnered significant research interest. In recent years, considerable effort has been made to elucidate the occupational stressor-strain relationship, or the interplay between unfavorable working conditions (stressor) and worker well-being (strain). In line with Bandura's notion of "reciprocal determinism", a reciprocal occupational stressor-strain relationship is now increasingly postulated, where variables exert mutual influences on each other over time. The objective of this study was to determine the extent of empirical support for three specific "reversed" (strain-to-stressor) effects, guided by the Demand-Control-Support model. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted (1996-2012 inclusive) through a search of databases. After relevant studies were identified, a methodological quality appraisal was performed based on four key criteria: sample size, measurement, non-spuriousness, and non-response bias. Subsequently, a quantitative synthesis of evidence from high-quality studies was performed by calculating a standardized index of convergence for each reversed effect. RESULTS: Twenty-three qualifying studies were found and evidence from ten high-quality studies ultimately contributed to the synthesis. Moderately strong evidence in support of a positive strain-to-job demands effect was found, but there was no evidence in support of either a strain-to-job control or a strain-to-workplace social support effect CONCLUSIONS: In conjunction with available evidence on the corresponding "normal" (stressor-to-strain) effect, this review gives credence to the possibility of a reciprocal stressor-strain relationship involving job demands and worker well-being.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".