A balanced view of long work hours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to address the theoretical ordering of the associations between work hours, psychological demands, decision latitude, and psychological distress. Design/methodology/approach A mediation model, predicting that the association between long work hours and psychological distress is mediated by psychological demands and decision latitude, was tested with a representative sample of 7,802 individuals in full‐time paid employment surveyed by a government agency. Structural equation modeling was used and the full mediation model was replicated for subsamples of men and women. The analysis controlled for demographic variables, work characteristics and socioeconomic status. Findings As expected, decision latitude is associated with less and psychological demands with more psychological distress. Long work hours are associated with more decision latitude and psychological demands. The association between long work hours and psychological distress is mediated by psychological demands and decision latitude. The mediation process was supported in male and female sub‐samples. Research limitations/implications Considering the weak associations between work hours and psychological strain reported in previous research, the findings of this study support new theorizing about this association. Accordingly, long work hours may be viewed as a distal variable influencing the duration of exposure to psychological demands. The study reported here also underscores the need to further investigate the positive consequences of long work hours within the context of psychological contracts. Originality/value This is one of the few studies that conceptualize work hours as something other than an occupational risk factor or as a job demand with a direct impact on psychological strain. It thus provides a new basis for thinking about the process through which long work hours may influence psychological strain.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".