| Literature DB >> 32887334 |
Ester Gil-Beltrán1, Isabella Meneghel2, Susana Llorens1, Marisa Salanova1.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to investigate whether people who exercise regularly have higher levels of psychological well-being at work. Doing physical exercise is a habit that not only has consequences for physical and mental health, but it can also have positive consequences for organizations because physical exercise makes it easier for the employee to recover from physical, mental, and emotional effort during the workday, thus showing higher levels of engagement the next day. Through the analysis of structural equation models in a sample of 485 workers from different Spanish and Latin American companies, this study shows that subjects who exercise more have higher levels of vigor in physical exercise, which is positively related to high levels of well-being at work. This means that organizations that promote activities related to physical exercise among their employees are building a process of resource recovery, which, through the vigor of these activities, makes workers feel less stressed and more satisfied, thus experiencing greater well-being at work. Therefore, at a practical level, these results suggest that the practice of physical exercise is a tool for organizations that want to promote their employees' psychological well-being.Entities:
Keywords: healthy organizations; job satisfaction; physical exercise; positive affect; stress; vigor; well-being
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32887334 PMCID: PMC7503999 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17176384
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Hypothesized model. PE = Physical Exercise; VI1 = Item 1; VI2 = Item 2; VI3 = Item 3; SAT = Job satisfaction, AF = Positive affect, ST = Stress.
Descriptive statistics and correlations between the study variables.
| Variables | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Amount time PE | 266.50 | 179.27 | - | ||||
| 2 | Vigor PE | 4.21 | 1.09 | 0.28 ** | - | |||
| 3 | Job satisfaction | 4.46 | 1.19 | 0.04 | 0.07 | - | ||
| 4 | Positive affect | 4.11 | 1.40 | 0.07 | 0.18 ** | 0.71 ** | - | |
| 5 | Stress | 2.81 | 1.88 | −0.08 | −0.12 ** | −0.26 ** | −0.42 ** | - |
Note. The correlation is significant at the level of ** p < 0.01 (bilateral). PE = Physical Exercise; M = Means; SD = Standard Deviations.
Fit indices for structural equation models.
| Model | χ2 | gl | χ2/gl | RMSEA | CFI | IFI | TLI | AIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M1 | 23.36 | 13 | 1.80 | 0.04 | 0.99 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 67.36 |
| M2 | 55.96 | 13 | 4.30 | 0.08 | 0.95 | 0.96 | 0.90 | 99.96 |
Notes: χ2 = Chi-square; gl = degrees of freedom; χ2/gl = relative Chi-square; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; IFI = Incremental Fit Index; AIC = Akaike Information Criterion. M1 = Physical exercise model; M2 = Alternative model.
Figure 2Final model. VI1 = Item 1; VI2 = Item 2; VI3 = Item 3; SAT = Job satisfaction, AF = Positive affect, ST = Stress. *** p < 0.001.