| Literature DB >> 32138361 |
Jae-Geum Jeong1, Seung-Wan Kang2, Suk Bong Choi1.
Abstract
An employee's off-work activities are known to contribute positively to recovering their energy levels depleted by daily work. Despite this view and understanding, the effect of employees' weekend activities on their psychological well-being has not attracted sufficient research interest. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between employees' weekend activities and their psychological well-being, and the mediating role of job stress in the above relationship. We also investigated the moderating role of the recovery experiences in the relationship between employees' weekend activities and job stress. Furthermore, we examined the moderated mediating effect of recovery experiences on the relationship among employees' weekend activity, job stress, and psychological well-being. The survey data was obtained from 294 employees working in 15 manufacturing companies in South Korea. The participants were 71.1% men and 28.9% women, 49.7% were university graduates, followed by 26.2% college graduates, 12.6% high school graduates, 10.2% post-graduates, and 1.4% Ph.D. holders. In terms of age composition, 50% participants were in their thirties, followed by 19.7% in their forties. The empirical analysis revealed that weekend activities are positively associated with employees' psychological well-being. Moreover, job stress was found to mediate the relationship between weekend activities and psychological well-being. We also found that the recovery experiences positively moderated the relationship between weekend activities and job stress. Further, the study revealed that the higher the level of recovery experience, the greater the effect of weekend activities on psychological well-being affected by job stress. The paper also discusses the theoretical and practical implications of the study.Entities:
Keywords: hierarchical multiple regression; job stress; moderated mediation effect; psychological well-being; recovery experiences; weekend activities
Year: 2020 PMID: 32138361 PMCID: PMC7084709 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17051642
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Hypothesized research model.
Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities.
| Variables | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Gender | 1.29 | 0.45 | - | ||||||||
| 2. | Age | 2.25 | 0.92 | −0.87 | - | |||||||
| 3. | Education | 2.61 | 0.88 | 0.21 ** | −0.23 ** | - | ||||||
| 4. | Position | 1.91 | 1.13 | −0.08 | 0.44 ** | 0.07 | - | |||||
| 5. | Job characteristics | 2.34 | 1.77 | −0.00 | 0.11 | −0.09 | −0.02 | - | ||||
| 6. | Weekend activities | 2.44 | 0.67 | 0.09 | 0.03 | −0.04 | −0.07 | −0.09 | - | |||
| 7. | Recovery experiences | 2.48 | 0.91 | −0.00 | −0.02 | −0.05 | −0.19 ** | −0.13 * | 0.33 ** | (0.93) | ||
| 8. | Job stress | 3.01 | 0.66 | −0.03 | 0.00 | −0.00 | 0.10 | 0.12 * | −0.38 ** | −0.062 ** | (0.88) | |
| 9. | Psychological well-being | 3.50 | 0.53 | 0.15 ** | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.02 | −0.05 | 0.31 ** | 0.19 ** | −0.29 ** | (0.91) |
Notes: n = 294. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test). Values in parentheses along the diagonal are Cronbach’s alphas.
Model fit statistics for measurement models.
| Model | χ2 (df) | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | Δχ2 (Δdf) a |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hypothesized four-factor model (WA, RE, JS, PW) | 1020.78 (645) | 0.939 | 0.934 | 0.045 | |
| 3-factor model (WA & RE merged, JS, PW) | 1605.85 (662) | 0.847 | 0.838 | 0.070 | 585.07 (17) *** |
| 2-factor model (WA & RE merged, JS & PW) | 2722.44 (664) | 0.667 | 0.647 | 0.103 | 1701.66 (19) *** |
| 1-factor model | 3835.68 (665) | 0.487 | 0.457 | 0.128 | 2814.90 (20) *** |
Notes: WA: Weekend activities, RE Recovery experiences, JS: Job stress, PW: Psychological well-being, CFI: Comparative fit index, TLI: Tucker–Lewis index, RMSEA: Root mean square error of approximation; a Chi square difference for each model reflects its deviation from the four-factor model. *** p < 0.001.
Hierarchical multiple regression for job stress and psychological well-being.
| Variables | Job Stress | Psychological Well-Being | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | |
| Gender | −0.02 | 0.01 | −0.01 | 0.14 * | 0.11 | 0.11 |
| Age | −0.09 | −0.05 | 0.02 | 0.14 * | 0.11 | 0.10 |
| Education | −0.01 | −0.02 | −0.04 | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.11 |
| Position | 0.14 * | 0.10 | 0.01 | −0.04 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| Job characteristics | 0.13 * | 0.09 | 0.01 | −0.06 | −0.01 | −0.00 |
| Weekend activities | −0.36 *** | 0.03 | 0.28 *** | 0.24 *** | ||
| Recovery experiences | −0.28 * | 0.11 | 0.00 | |||
| Job stress | −0.19 ** | |||||
| Weekend activities × Recovery experiences | −0.42 * | |||||
|
| 0.03 | 0.16 *** | 0.44 *** | 0.04 * | 0.14 *** | 0.17 *** |
| Δ | 0.13 *** | 0.28 *** | 0.10 *** | 0.03 *** | ||
Notes: n = 294. Standardized coefficients are reported; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2Moderating effect of recovery experiences on the relationship between weekend activities and job stress.
Hierarchical multiple regression for recovery experiences and psychological well-being.
| Variables | Recovery Experiences | Psychological Well-Being | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | |
| Gender | −0.02 | −0.08· | 0.07 * | 0.09 | 0.10 |
| Age | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.04 * | 0.10 | 0.09 |
| Education | −0.03 | −0.01 | 0.03 | 0.11 | 0.11 |
| Position | −0.18 *** | −0.16 *** | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.02 |
| Job characteristics | −0.07 ** | −0.05 * | 0.01 | −0.03 | −0.01 |
| Weekend activities | 0.41 *** | 0.36 *** | 0.32 *** | ||
| Recovery experiences | 0.13 * | ||||
|
| 0.06 | 0.15 *** | 0.04 * | 0.17 *** | 0.18 *** |
| Δ | 0.09 *** | 0.13 *** | 0.01 *** | ||
Notes: n = 294. Standardized coefficients are reported. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.