Work stress, personality traits, and cortisol secretion: Testing a model for job burnout
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Job stressors can cause a salivary cortisol secretion dysregulation which in turn can lead to burnout. However, job stressors do not induce the same cortisol secretion dysregulation and psychic consequences systematically to all workers. Personality traits may influence job stressor's adaptation. The objectives of this study were (a) to verify the mediating effect cortisol has on the relationship between work conditions and burnout, and (b) to identify the moderate mediation effects that personality traits have on the relationship between work conditions and salivary cortisol secretion. METHOD: Multilevel regression analyses were carried out on a sample of 352 employees in 34 Québec firms. Saliva samples were collected five times a day (on awakening, 30 minutes after awakening, at 2 p.m., 4 p.m., and bedtime) on three days (1 day off, 2 work days). Work conditions variables comprised skill utilization, decision authority, psychological demands, physical demands, job insecurity, irregular schedules, number of working hours, and social support. Personality traits included self-esteem, locus of control, and the Big Five. Both work conditions and personality traits were assessed with a psychosocial questionnaire. RESULTS: The level of salivary cortisol secretion was negatively associated with burnout. Certain workplace and personality variables had a significant effect on emotional exhaustion (psychological demands was positively associated, social support from supervisors was negatively associated) and on cortisol levels (job insecurity was negatively associated). Cortisol did not play any mediating role in the relationship between work conditions and burnout, which is moderated by personality traits. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that work conditions (skill utilization, decision authority, psychological demands, physical demands, job insecurity, irregular schedules, number of working hours, and social support) and the interaction of personality traits with work conditions have no indirect effects on burnout.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".