Quantifying the evidence for the absence of the job demands and job control interaction on workers’ well-being: A Bayesian meta-analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Central to many influential theories in the occupational health and stress literature is that job resources reduce the negative effects of job demands on workers' well-being. However, empirical investigations testing this supposition have produced inconsistent findings. This study evaluates the interaction between job demands and job control on workers' well-being through a systematic literature search and using a Bayesian meta-analytic approach. Both aggregated study findings and raw participant-level data were included in the study, resulting in 104 effect sizes of aggregate-level data and 14 participant-level data sets. Overall, the data provided strong evidence for the absence of an interaction between job demands and job control. Longitudinal and nonlinear research designs were also examined but did not alter this overall conclusion. Contrary to the postulations of widespread theories, job control does not reduce the negative impact of job demands on workers' well-being. Alternative theoretical approaches and the need for more consistent and rigorous research standards, like open science practices, are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".