| Literature DB >> 31717977 |
Yuanjie Bao1, Wei Zhong2.
Abstract
Drawing on the conservation of resources theory, this study examines the detrimental effect of hindrance stressors on self-rated health among a sample of Chinese public sector employees. Analysis of survey data based on 404 MPA students from a leading Chinese university who are working in various public organizations across China suggested that hindrance stressors were negatively related to both physical and mental health (β = -0.11, p < 0.01 and β = -0.38, p < 0.001, respectively), and emotional exhaustion mediated those relationships (95% bias-corrected confidence intervals for the indirect effects on physical and mental health based on 5000 bootstrapped samples were -1.64 to -0.35 and -3.51 to -1.81, respectively, excluding 0). Furthermore, perceived organizational support moderated the effect of hindrance stressors on emotional exhaustion (β = -0.10, p < 0.05), and moderated the indirect effects of hindrance stressors on physical and mental health via emotional exhaustion (index of moderated mediation was 0.116 with bootstrapped confidence interval of 0.018-0.296 for physical health, and 0.317 with bootstrapped confidence interval of 0.008-0.663 for mental health). The effects of hindrance stressors were weaker when perceived organizational support was high, suggesting a moderating effect. Our findings not only provide important theoretical contributions to the literature on public employees' work-related stress and associated health outcomes, but also offer practical implications to those who are interested in stress intervention to improve the wellbeing of public employees and general society.Entities:
Keywords: emotional exhaustion; hindrance stressor; mental health; perceived organizational support; physical health
Year: 2019 PMID: 31717977 PMCID: PMC6888470 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16224408
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Hypothesized model. POS = perceived organizational support.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results.
| Model |
| df | Δ | RMSEA | SRMR | CFI | TLI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Three-factor model | 212.35 | 87 | 2.44 | --- | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.96 | 0.96 |
| Two-factor model 1 1 | 693.38 | 89 | 7.79 | 481.03 (2) *** | 0.13 | 0.16 | 0.82 | 0.79 |
| Two-factor model 2 2 | 480.16 | 89 | 5.40 | 267.81 (2) *** | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.88 | 0.86 |
| Two-factor model 3 3 | 1276.19 | 89 | 14.34 | 1063.84 (2) *** | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.65 | 0.59 |
| One-factor model 4 | 1515.34 | 90 | 16.84 | 1302.99 (3) *** | 0.20 | 0.19 | 0.59 | 0.51 |
Δχ2 and Δdf denote differences between the three-factor model and other models. RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation, SRMR = standardized root-mean-square residual, CFI = comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis index. *** p < 0.001. 1 This model combines hindrance stressors and POS (perceived organizational support) into one factor. 2 This model combines hindrance stressors and emotional exhaustion into one factor. 3 This model combines POS and emotional exhaustion into one factor. 4 This model combines hindrance stressors, POS, and emotional exhaustion into one factor.
Means, standard deviations, and correlations among variables.
| Mean | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Gender | 0.40 | 0.49 | ||||||||
| 2. Age | 30.29 | 4.49 | 0.12 * | |||||||
| 3. Organizational Tenure | 5.22 | 3.89 | 0.08 | 0.70 ** | ||||||
| 4. Hindrance Stressors | 2.56 | 0.79 | 0.12 * | 0.01 | 0.05 | (0.78) | ||||
| 5. Emotional Exhaustion | 2.15 | 1.20 | 0.00 | −0.14 ** | −0.06 | 0.52 ** | (0.92) | |||
| 6. POS | 4.11 | 1.29 | −0.11 * | 0.09 | 0.06 | −0.33 ** | −0.29 ** | (0.90) | ||
| 7. Physical Health | 51.66 | 7.45 | 0.02 | −0.16 ** | −0.21 ** | −0.11 * | −0.18 ** | 0.11 * | (0.72) | |
| 8. Mental Health | 44.08 | 9.66 | −0.03 | 0.16 ** | 0.11 * | −0.37 ** | −0.50 ** | 0.30 ** | −0.04 | (0.76) |
N = 404. Cronbach’s alphas are reported in parentheses. POS = perceived organizational support. ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Regression results for mediation and moderation.
| Variables | Emotional Exhaustion | Physical Health | Mental Health | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | Model 7 | Model 8 | Model 9 | Model 10 | |
| Step 1: Control variables | ||||||||||
| Gender | 0.02 | −0.05 | −0.06 | −0.06 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.04 | −0.05 | −0.01 | −0.03 |
| Age | −0.20 ** | −0.16 ** | −0.15 * | −0.15 * | −0.02 | −0.03 | −0.06 | 0.17 * | 0.14 * | 0.08 |
| Organizational Tenure | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.04 | −0.20 ** | −0.20 ** | −0.19 ** | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.05 |
| Step 2: Main effect | ||||||||||
| Hindrance Stressors | 0.53 *** | 0.49 *** | 0.46 *** | −0.11 ** | −0.01 | −0.38 *** | −0.16 ** | |||
| Step 3: Mediating effect | ||||||||||
| Emotional Exhaustion | −0.20 ** | −0.40 *** | ||||||||
| Step 4: Moderating effect | ||||||||||
| POS | −0.12 ** | −0.12 ** | ||||||||
| Hindrance Stressors × POS | −0.10 * | |||||||||
| Overall F | 3.084 * | 41.29 *** | 35.03 *** | 30.51 *** | 6.62 *** | 6.19 *** | 7.32 *** | 3.87 ** | 19.60 *** | 30.80 *** |
| R2 | 0.02 | 0.29 | 0.31 | 0.32 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.16 | 0.28 |
| ΔF | 152.42 *** | 7.37 ** | 5.78 * | 4.72 ** | 11.20 ** | 64.94 *** | 63.33 *** | |||
| ΔR2 | 0.27 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.14 | 0.12 | |||
N = 404. Standardized coefficients are reported. POS = perceived organizational support. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Figure 2Interactive effects of hindrance stressors and POS on emotional exhaustion. POS = perceived organizational support.
Moderated mediation results for self-rated health across levels of POS.
| Physical Health | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| POS | Conditional Indirect Effect | SE | LL 95% CI | UL 95% CI | |
| Hindrance Stressors | Low (−1.293) | −0.987 | 0.338 | −1.713 | −0.389 |
| High (1.293) | −0.688 | 0.272 | −1.323 | −0.232 | |
| Mental Health | |||||
| POS | Conditional Indirect Effect | SE | LL 95% CI | UL 95% CI | |
| Hindrance Stressors | Low (−1.293) | −2.700 | 0.483 | −3.723 | −1.832 |
| High (1.293) | −1.881 | 0.413 | −2.760 | −1.146 | |
N = 404. Bootstrap sample size = 5000. POS = perceived organizational support. LL = lower limit, CI = confidence interval, UL = upper limit.