4.4 Article

Exploring the Relationship Between Work-Related Rumination, Sleep Quality, and Work-Related Fatigue

期刊

JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 341-353

出版社

EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING FOUNDATION-AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0028552

关键词

work-related rumination; fatigue; sleep; recovery; work-related stress

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the association among three conceptualizations of work-related rumination (affective rumination, problem-solving pondering, and detachment) with sleep quality and work-related fatigue. It was hypothesized that affective rumination and poor sleep quality would be associated with increased fatigue and that problem-solving pondering and detachment would be associated with decreased fatigue. The mediating effect of sleep quality on the relationship between work-related rumination and fatigue was also tested. An online questionnaire was completed by a heterogeneous sample of 719 adult workers in diverse occupations. The following variables were entered as predictors in a regression model: affective rumination, problem-solving pondering, detachment, and sleep quality. The dependent variables were chronic work-related fatigue (CF) and acute work-related fatigue (AF). Affective rumination was the strongest predictor of increased CF and AF. Problem-solving pondering was a significant predictor of decreased CF and AF. Poor sleep quality was predictive of increased CF and AF. Detachment was significantly negatively predictive for AF. Sleep quality partially mediated the relationship between affective rumination and fatigue and between problem-solving pondering and fatigue. Work-related affective rumination appears more detrimental to an individual's ability to recover from work than problem-solving pondering. In the context of identifying mechanisms by which demands at work are translated into ill-health, this appears to be a key finding and suggests that it is the type of work-related rumination, not rumination per se, that is important.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据