http://jca.sagepub.com/Journal of Career Assessment

http://jca.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/05/02/1069072713487853The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/1069072713487853

published online 3 May 2013Journal of Career AssessmentYotam Potok and Hadassah Littman-Ovadia

Relationship?Does Personality Regulate the Work Stressor–Psychological Detachment

  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Career AssessmentAdditional services and information for    

  http://jca.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://jca.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

What is This? 

- May 3, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

at BEN GURION UNIV NEGEV on May 6, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Article

Does Personality Regulate theWork Stressor–PsychologicalDetachment Relationship?

Yotam Potok1 and Hadassah Littman-Ovadia1

AbstractWork stressors are related to poor psychological detachment (i.e., mentally ‘‘switching off’’) fromwork during nonwork time, which in turn is related to low levels of recovery and health. This articleexamines two general personality orientations, attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety, andone vocation-specific personality tendency, overcommitment, as buffers of the work stressors–psy-chological detachment relationship. Survey data were collected from a sample of Israeli employees(N ¼ 210) and their significant others (N ¼ 109) to avoid same-source bias of psychological detach-ment assessments. Analyses showed that attachment avoidance moderated the negative associationbetween workload and psychological detachment (self-reported), but attachment anxiety did notmoderate the associations of role conflict and role ambiguity with psychological detachment. Over-commitment was a full mediator between job stressors (workload and role conflict) and psycholo-gical detachment. This study demonstrates the importance of personality, especially vocationalpersonality, in the work stressor–psychological detachment relationship.

Keywordspsychological detachment, job stressors, attachment orientations, overcommitment

In the past decade, employees have increasingly faced psychological stressors such as workload, role

ambiguity, and role conflict (Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, 2010; Sonnentag & Kruel, 2006),

which increase the risk of health problems (de Lange, Taris, Kompier, Houtman, & Bongers,

2003; Sonnentag & Frese, 2003). High work stress requires active coping strategies and efforts that

consume personal resources (Meijman & Mulder, 1998). The more effort invested, the greater the

consequent exhaustion and related health problems. When these stressors are removed in off-

work time, recovery begins and contributes to resources restoration, reduced stress, and greater

well-being (Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, 2010; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007).

Previous research reported reduced levels of stress and burnout immediately after extended

respites such as vacations, although this effect lasted only 4 weeks (Westman & Etzion, 2001).

1 Department of Behavioural Sciences and Psychology, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel

Corresponding Author:

Hadassah Littman-Ovadia, Department of Behavioural Sciences and Psychology, Ariel University, Ariel 40700, Israel.

Email: hadassaho@ariel.ac.il

Journal of Career Assessment00(0) 1-16ª The Author(s) 2013Reprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1069072713487853jca.sagepub.com

1

at BEN GURION UNIV NEGEV on May 6, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Sonnentag and Bayer (2005) argued that recovery processes such as psychological detachment in

daily occurring off-work time can also reduce stress and burnout.

Psychological Detachment

Psychological detachment was first introduced by Etzion, Eden, and Lapidot (1998, p. 579) and

described as an ‘‘individual’s sense of being away from work situations’’. These researchers studied

the effect of reserve military service, a special case of respite, on stress and burnout. They found that

psychological detachment, which played a moderating role between respite and stress and burnout,

contributed to a significant decline in job stress and burnout. Psychological detachment was further

broadened to include nonengagement in work-related behavioral obligations, thoughts, or feelings

(Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007).

Several theoretical models shed light on the role of psychological detachment in the stress-

recovery process. Boundary theory (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000; Clark, 2000) explains the

transition between life roles as processes of segmentation and integration. High role segmentation

implies well-defined boundaries between life roles, while high integration implies blurred, ambig-

uous boundaries. Research shows that work–home segmentation is positively related to psychologi-

cal detachment (Park, Jex, & Fritz, 2011). According to the effort-recovery model (Meijman &

Mulder, 1998), high work demands require investment of effort, which in turn consumes resources.

The recovery stage, in which resources are replenished, can only begin when employees are no lon-

ger exposed to the demands of their work (Schabracq, Winnubst, & Cooper, 2003). Psychological

detachment can help ensure that employees are not cognitively, emotionally, or behaviorally

engaged in work demands, allowing recovery to begin (Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, 2010).

According to the conservation of resources model (Hobfoll, 1989), people seek to gain, maintain,

and protect (tangible and intangible) personal resources. Psychological detachment generates a

recovery process that helps replenish resources depleted by high demands at work (Sonnentag &

Fritz, 2007), and may contribute to increased positive mood, higher life satisfaction, and lower levels

of emotional exhaustion (Fritz, Yankelevich, Zarubin, & Barger, 2010).

Extensive empirical findings regarding psychological detachment show that psychological detach-

ment is positively related to life satisfaction and emotional stability (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007), higher

work engagement and well-being (Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, 2010), improved work perfor-

mance and lower exhaustion (Fritz, Yankelevich, et al., 2010; Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005; Sonnentag

& Fritz, 2007), increased positive mood (Sonnentag, Mojza, Binnewies, & Scholl, 2008), and reduced

psychosomatic complaints (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). A longitudinal study by Fritz, Sonnentag, Spec-

tor, and McInroe (2010) found that psychological detachment during the weekend was positively

related to increased positive mood during the same weekend and in the subsequent work week.

Although psychological detachment is an internal process, it is observable by others (Sonnentag,

Kuttler, & Fritz, 2010). Therefore, this study expands previous studies by adding a significant-other-

report measure of psychological detachment.

Work Stressors and Psychological Detachment

Work is often experienced as stressful and can cause exhaustion (Linden, Earle, Gerin, &

Christenfeld, 1997). Research regarding work stressors often distinguishes between the reactiv-

ity stage, which occurs in the presence of a stressor stimulus and requires high resource invest-

ment, and the recovery stage, which occurs when the stimulus is no longer present or when it

ceases to constitute a threat (Linden et al., 1997). In situations with psychological rather than

physical stressors, it is less easy to make a clear distinction between reactivity and recovery.

When a person continues to think or to react emotionally to stressors outside the workplace,

2 Journal of Career Assessment 00(0)

2

at BEN GURION UNIV NEGEV on May 6, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from

when such stressors are no longer present, the reactivity stage does not properly end and the

recovery stage cannot begin (Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, 2010). Consequently, psycholo-

gical work stressors can reduce, impede, or disable psychological detachment (Sonnentag,

2011). In the following section, we review three common psychological work stressors and

their relation with psychological detachment.

Workload. High workload is categorized as a task-related stressor that implies that an employee must

accomplish more work than the time available for the task (Borman, Ilgen, & Klimoski, 2003).

Employees experiencing high workload may be more willing to take their unfinished work home

with them or may be more prone to continue contemplating or expressing emotions such as anger,

frustration, or anxiety regarding their incomplete or future tasks (Sonnentag & Kruel, 2006). For

such employees, psychologically detaching becomes more difficult. Studies have found a strong

negative association between high workload and psychological detachment (Sonnentag & Bayer,

2005; Sonnentag & Kruel, 2006; Sonnentag, Kuttler, & Fritz, 2010). The present study seeks to

reproduce these results using an Israeli sample.

Hypothesis 1a: Workload is negatively related to psychological detachment.

Role Ambiguity. Role ambiguity is categorized as a role stressor and implies inconclusive or unclear

information or expectations regarding one’s work role (Borman, Ilgen, & Klimoski, 2003). Ambig-

uous role definitions may lead employees to cognitive preoccupation with work, which in turn can

hinder psychological detachment, although empirical findings are inconclusive (Sonnentag & Fritz,

2007; Sonnentag & Kruel, 2006). The present study examines the association between role ambigu-

ity and psychological detachment using a diverse occupational Israeli sample.

Hypothesis 1b: Role ambiguity is negatively related to psychological detachment.

Role Conflict. Role stress theory defines role conflict as contradicting or mutually exclusive role

expectations imposed by colleagues or superiors in the employee’s work environment (Borman,

Ilgen, & Klimoski, 2003; Katz & Kahn, 1978). Even when a compromise is achieved between con-

tradicting expectations, it is reasonable to assume that this compromise requires an investment of

cognitive or emotional resources, which potentially inhibits psychological detachment (Sonnentag

& Kruel, 2006). The present study examines the relationship between role conflict and psychological

detachment on a heterogenic Israeli sample in terms of work seniority and experience.

Hypothesis 1c: Role conflict is negatively related to psychological detachment.

Integrating Personality Traits in the Work Stressor–Detachment Relationship

Literature concerning psychological detachment focuses primarily on situational predictors such as

work stressors (Sonnentag, 2011). However, the definition of psychological detachment (Etzion,

Eden, & Lapidot, 1998) allows for cognitive and emotional components that are personal by nature.

To explore the integration of personality traits in the stressor–detachment relationship, this study

examines two personality measures that have yet to be tested in the detachment literature: attach-

ment orientations and overcommitment to work.

Attachment Orientations. Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969/1982) states that infants are born with a

psychological system that motivates them to seek closeness, assurance, and support from significant

Potok and Littman-Ovadia 3

3

at BEN GURION UNIV NEGEV on May 6, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from

others, especially in times of need. An infant who generally achieves assurance through closeness

will develop a secure attachment orientation; otherwise, the infant develops an insecure (anxious/

avoidant) attachment orientation.

Attachment and Work. In recent years, attachment orientations have been studied as an antecedent

for a variety of work-related variables including leadership, trust, work attitudes, and stress (e.g.,

Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). Hazan and Shaver (1990) found that

employees with secure attachment reported greater job satisfaction, fewer psychosomatic com-

plaints, and fewer health problems. More recent studies reported that people with insecure attach-

ment orientations (avoidant/anxious) reported that work disrupts their personal life (e.g., Sumer

& Knight, 2001).

Attachment Anxiety. Attachment anxiety refers to a helpless and pessimistic attitude toward life, a

tendency to perceive hardship as uncontrollable and negative expectations regarding one’s ability

to control and manage stress successfully (Hazan & Shaver, 1990; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).

Individuals high in attachment anxiety tend to seek confirmation, assurance, and attention from

attachment figures; a concurrent process, however, causes them to experience these relation-

ships as unsafe and uncertain (Hazan & Shaver, 1990; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Role con-

flict and role ambiguity are two work stressors that might include an interpersonal aspect as

well as potential pleasing component. Role conflict can create a conflict between two potential

attachment figures, and role ambiguity does not allow an appropriate pleasing of these potential

figures (e.g., two supervisors). Accordingly, we argue that employees high in attachment anxi-

ety will react strongly to role conflict and role ambiguity and consequently show diminished

psychological detachment.

Hypotheses 2a and 2b: Attachment anxiety moderates the relationship of role ambiguity and role

conflict with psychological detachment.

Attachment Avoidance. Attachment avoidance reflects a lack of confidence in interpersonal relationships,

a lack of trust in others’ intentions, and a desire for autonomy and emotional distance (Mikulincer &

Shaver, 2007). Although no existing research has explored the potential impact of attachment

avoidance on psychological detachment, there is empirical evidence showing that individuals

high in attachment avoidance tend to be less inclined to stop working or even to take leaves,

and tend to use their work to remain occupied and thus reduce the anxiety associated with

unfulfilled or unsatisfying attachment needs (Hazan & Shaver, 1990). Therefore, it seems that

work functions as a defense mechanism against interpersonal interactions. Lack of psychologi-

cal detachment potentially enables abstention from social interactions and can provide the

autonomy and emotional distance necessary for individuals high in attachment avoidance.

Accordingly, we argue that high attachment avoidance individuals will not be influenced by

the extent of their workload, while workload will be negatively associated with psychological

detachment in low attachment avoidance individuals.

Hypothesis 3: Attachment avoidance moderates the relationship between workload and psycho-

logical detachment.

Overcommitment. Overcommitment to work was first introduced by Siegrist (1996) as part of the

effort–reward imbalance (ERI) model of job stress. According to this model, perceptions of balance

between the effort employees believe they invest in their work and the rewards they receive pro-

motes health and satisfaction, whereas imbalance can lead to a sustained stress response.

4 Journal of Career Assessment 00(0)

4

at BEN GURION UNIV NEGEV on May 6, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from

The ERI model predicts that the experience of ERI is more frequent and damaging in employees

who are excessively committed to work. Overcommitment is defined as ‘‘a set of attitudes, behaviors

and emotions that reflect excessive striving in combination with a strong desire of being approved

and esteemed’’ (Siegrist, 2001, p. 55). Studies of the ERI model have found overcommitment to be

associated with work stress, emotional and physical exhaustion, burnout, and psychosomatic symp-

toms (Siegrist, 1996; Tei-Tominaga, Akiyama, Miyake, & Sakay, 2009; van Vegchel, de Jonge,

Bosma, & Schaufeli, 2005). Overcommitment to work, which is an intrinsic motivation (Siegrist,

2001), may affect one’s ability to psychologically detach from one’s work, beyond the impact of

situational work stressors (e.g., workload, role ambiguity, and role conflict), although research has

yet to explore overcommitment’s potential influence on psychological detachment. We hypothesize

that the relationship between work stressors, specifically workload, role ambiguity, and role conflict,

and psychological detachment is at least partially mediated by overcommitment to work.

Hypotheses 4a–4c: Overcommitment to work partially mediates the relationship between work-

load, role ambiguity, role conflict, and psychological detachment.

In this study, we explore the potential contribution of personality to the documented stressor–

detachment relationship. We expect work stressors to be negatively associated with psychological

detachment, in line with previous studies (e.g., Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007; Sonnentag & Kruel,

2006), and further expect these relationships to be moderated by attachment orientations and

mediated by overcommitment.

Method

Participants

We used a snowball sampling method to enroll potential community-based employees through

online electronic mail and social networks. The electronic message included a cover letter and a link

to an electronic survey. To obtain a heterogeneous sample representing a range of industries, posi-

tions, tenure periods, and occupations, we surveyed 210 Israeli employees (52.4% men) in a wide

variety of organizations, who had been employed in their current workplace for at least 6 months.

In our sample, participants worked an average of 44 hr per week (standard deviation [SD] ¼11.7) and had mean tenure of 5.84 years (SD ¼ 8.59). The majority of the sample was married

(51%) with ages ranging from 22 to 65 (M ¼ 34.7, SD ¼ 10.8). Our sample mainly comprised sal-

aried employees (93.7%) who had a mean of 15 years of education (SD¼ 2.52). Participants worked

in diverse occupations, including service-related (64.3%), technical (14.8%), manufacturing (4.8%),

and clerical (16.2%) occupations. Of the 210 study participants, 109 individuals returned surveys

completed by significant others. The majority of the significant-other-reports were completed by

spouses (56%), and the remainders were completed by close friends (22%), colleagues (16.5%), and

close family members (5.5%).

Procedure

Participants responded to an e-mail or social network message of the study. The message empha-

sized that the questionnaires were anonymous and requested individuals who met the inclusion cri-

terion (6 months’ employment with their current employer) to complete them voluntarily (without

compensation), with no time limit. Participants were also asked to send a link of the questionnaire to

a significant other. This link contained the significant other version of the psychological detachment

questionnaire. In the 2-month data collection period, we sent a reminder via electronic mail and

social networks every 10 days. The order of questionnaire items was scrambled after 100 partici-

pants in order to rule out primacy or fatigue effects.

Potok and Littman-Ovadia 5

5

at BEN GURION UNIV NEGEV on May 6, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Measures

Role conflict and ambiguity, workload, attachment orientations, overcommitment, and psychologi-

cal detachment measures were assessed by study participants. An additional measure of psycholo-

gical detachment was assessed by participants’ significant others. All items were in Hebrew.

Psychological Detachment. We measured psychological detachment using self-report and significant-

other-report measures, based on four well-validated psychological detachment items developed by

Sonnentag and Fritz (2007). Respondents reported their answers on a 5-point Likert-type scale from

1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item for this scale is ‘‘During after-work hours,

I forget about work.’’ Documented Cronbach’s a for this scale is .89 (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007).

The items were translated into Hebrew using the back translation technique (Brislin, 1970; Rom &

Mikulincer, 2003). Cronbach’s a for this scale in the present study was .85 for self-report and .89

for significant-other-report.

Role Conflict and Ambiguity. We assessed role conflict and ambiguity using the Hebrew version

(Aviad-Hayblum, 1992) of the Role Conflict and Ambiguity scales (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman,

1970), ranging from 1 (very false) to 7 (very true). The role conflict scale contains 8 items (Items

1–8). A sample item for this scale is ‘‘I do unnecessary things at work.’’ The role ambiguity scale

contains 6 items (9–14), with similar 7-point scales, all of which were reversed scored. A sample

item for this scale is ‘‘I know exactly what is expected of me.’’ Cronbach’s a reported for this mea-

sure is .83 for the role conflict subscale and .78 for the role ambiguity subscale (Rizzo et al., 1970).

The Hebrew version yielded as of .78 for the role conflict subscale and .87 for the role ambiguity

scale (Aviad-Hayblum, 1992). Cronbach’s as for this measure in the present study were .85 for the

role conflict subscale and .87 for the role ambiguity subscale.

Workload. Workload was measured using the Quantitative Workload Inventory (Spector, 1987;

Spector & Jex, 1998). This measure contains 5 items. Respondents indicate how often each item

occurs, on a scale ranging from 1 (less than once a month or never) to 5 (several times a day). Scores

range from 5 to 25 and high score indicates a high workload. A sample item for this scale is ‘‘How

often does your job require you to work very quickly?’’ Cronbach’s a reported for this scale is .82

(Spector & Jex, 1998). This scale was also translated into Hebrew using the back translation tech-

nique (Brislin, 1970; Rom & Mikulincer, 2003). Cronbach’s a found in this study was .86.

Attachment Orientations. Attachment orientations were measured using the experiences in close rela-

tionships questionnaire (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998), which includes two 18-item scales, one

measuring attachment anxiety and the other measuring attachment avoidance. Participants rate the

extent to which each item describes them in close relationships, on a 7-point scale ranging from 1

(not at all) to 7 (very much). Sample items are ‘‘I worry a fair amount about losing my connections

with others’’ (anxiety) and ‘‘I don’t feel comfortable opening up to other people’’ (avoidance). The

scale was translated from English into Hebrew by Mikulincer and Florian (2000), who also demon-

strated the measure’s intended two-factor structure in Israeli samples. In the present study, the inter-

nal reliabilities of the anxiety and avoidance scales were .92 and .87, respectively.

Overcommitment. We measured overcommitment with 6 items from the ERI questionnaire (Siegrist,

1996). Items are scored on a 4-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). A sample

item is ‘‘People close to me say that I sacrifice too much for my job.’’ Reported internal reliability

ranged from .74 to .88 (Siegrist et al., 2004). This scale was also translated into Hebrew for this study

6 Journal of Career Assessment 00(0)

6

at BEN GURION UNIV NEGEV on May 6, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from

using the back translation technique (Brislin, 1970; Rom & Mikulincer, 2003). Cronbach’s a found

in this study was .85.

Demographical Variables. We included demographic variables (gender, age, education, family status,

tenure, income level, job description, and work hours) in our analysis.

Construct Validity. Psychological detachment is defined as ‘‘individual’s sense of being away from

work situations’’ (Etzion et al., 1998, p. 579). Overcommitment is described as the inability to with-

draw from work obligations (Siegrist et al., 2004). We examined whether psychological detachment

and overcommitment constitute two distinct constructs by conducting a confirmatory factor analysis

using Amos 20. A two-factor model yielded good fit (w2 ¼ 68.496; df ¼ 34; p < .001; Normed Fit

Index [NFI] ¼ 0.93; Incremental Fit Index [IFI] ¼ 0.96; Tucker–Lewis Index [TLI] ¼ 0.94; Com-

parative Fit Index [CFI] ¼ 0.96; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] ¼ 0.070)

with all standardized factor loadings significant with a conservative a of .001 and above .44. When

we attempted to fit a one-factor model to include both psychological detachment and overcommit-

ment, the results yielded inadequate fit (w2 ¼ 336.367; df ¼ 36; p < .001; NFI ¼ 0.63; IFI ¼ 0.66;

TLI ¼ 0.47; CFI ¼ 0.65; RMSEA ¼ 0.200).

Results

Preliminary Analysis

From the demographical measures we tested, only work hours were significantly associated with

study variables. Accordingly, this measure was controlled throughout the study. Correlations

between all study measures, scale reliabilities, means, and SDs are presented in Table 1. Although

psychological detachment was first introduced and measured on an Israeli sample (Etzion et al.,

1998), the most frequently used, up-to-date measure, which was developed by Sonnentag and Bayer

(2005), was not tested on Israeli population. Therefore, preliminary analysis examines the consis-

tency across reporting sources of the psychological detachment scale in an Israeli sample. We expect

to find high-to-moderate correlations between the reporting sources measures, consistent with pre-

vious studies (Sonnentag & Kruel, 2006; Sonnentag, Kuttler, & Fritz, 2010; r¼ .44; r¼ .52, respec-

tively). Though moderate, these correlations are within the typical range of correlations reported

between self-report and peer-report measures (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988; Sonnentag & Kruel,

2006). In addition, all study hypotheses were tested for both reporting sources’ outcome measures.

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Zero-Order Correlations, and Cronbach’s as for All Study Variables.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Detachment self-report 2.65 1.06 (.85)2. Detachment significant

other’s reporta2.63 1.14 .55** (.89)

3. Workload 17.03 4.95 �.24** �.36** (.86)4. Role ambiguity 2.66 1.24 �.11 �.19 .22** (.87)5. Role conflict 3.24 1.36 �.21** �.25** .44** .32** (.85)6. Attachment anxiety 3.14 1.2 �.07 �.13 .19 .22** .35** (.92)7. Attachment avoidance 3.29 .94 �.10 �.13 .06 .28** .05 .25** (.87)8. Overcommitment 2.22 .74 �.52** �.43** .47** .30** .40** .25** .16* (.85)

Note. M ¼ mean; SD ¼ standard deviation. N ¼ 210. Parenthetical values are Cronbach’s as (reliability coefficients).aN ¼ 109.*p < .05. **p < .01.

Potok and Littman-Ovadia 7

7

at BEN GURION UNIV NEGEV on May 6, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Results revealed significant positive associations between self-reported and other’s-reported mea-

sure of psychological detachment (r ¼ .55, p < .001; see Table 1). These results are consistent with

previous results found in a Swiss population (Sonnentag, Kuttler, & Fritz, 2010).

Work Stressors Hypotheses

Pearson correlations were calculated in order to test Hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 1c. As hypothesized,

results revealed significant negative associations between workload and role conflict to the self-

report measure (r ¼ �.24, p < .01 and r ¼ �.21, p < .01, respectively) and to the significant other

measure (r ¼ �.36, p < .01 and r ¼ �.25, p < .01, respectively). Hypothesis 1b was not supported.

The association between role ambiguity and psychological detachment was not significant with

either self-report or other-report source (r ¼ �.11, p ¼ ns; r ¼ �.19, p ¼ ns, respectively). These

results taken together partially support Hypothesis 1. Psychological detachment shared its variance

with workload and role conflict but not with role ambiguity.

Attachment Hypotheses

Attachment Anxiety. Four hierarchal regression analyses (two for each reporting source of psycholo-

gical detachment) were performed to examine the extent to which attachment anxiety moderated the

associations between role conflict and role ambiguity and psychological detachment (dependent

variable). In all regressions, work hours was entered in Step 1 (control), followed by standardized

scores of role ambiguity (predictor) and attachment anxiety (moderator) for Hypothesis 2a, and role

conflict (predictor) and attachment anxiety (moderator) for Hypothesis 2b. To test moderation

effects, Standardized Role Ambiguity � Attachment Anxiety scores were entered in Step 3 for

Hypothesis 2a, and Standardized Role Conflict� Attachment Anxiety scores for Hypothesis 2b. For

Hypothesis 2a, the controlled variable had significant contribution in the self-report detachment

analysis (b ¼ �.15, p < .05); however, the main effects and the interaction did not (see Table 2).

As for Hypothesis 2b, neither the controlled variable nor attachment anxiety had a significant con-

tribution. However, role conflict was significantly associated with self-reported psychological

detachment (b¼ �.19, p < .01). The interaction in Step 3 was not significant (see Table 3). Hypoth-

eses 2a and 2b were not supported.

Table 2. Regression Coefficients: Predicting Self-a and Significant-Other-b (Presented in Parenthesis) ReportedPsychological Detachment From Attachment Anxiety and Role Ambiguity.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

b t b t b t

Work hours �.15 (�.14) �2.11* (�1.47) �.14 (�.14) �2.01* (�1.42) �.15 (�.14) �2.16* (�1.40)Role ambiguity �.08 (�.14) �1.18 (�1.35) �.08 (�.14) �1.18 (�1.34)Attachment anxiety �.06 (�.12) �.88 (�1.20) �.07 (�.12) �.92 (�1.21)Attachment Anxiety � Role

Ambiguity�.11 (.02) �1.60 (.17)

R2 .021 (.020) .034 (.061) .046 (.061)F 4.46* (2.16) 2.37 (2.27) 2.43* (1.70)DR2 .021 (.020) .013 (.041) .012 (.00)F 4.46* (2.16) 1.31 (2.30) 2.55 (.030)

Note. aN ¼ 210. bN ¼ 109. Results in parentheses predicting significant-other’s reported detachment. The coefficients arestandardized b weights.*p < .05.

8 Journal of Career Assessment 00(0)

8

at BEN GURION UNIV NEGEV on May 6, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Attachment Avoidance. Two hierarchal regression analyses (one for each reporting source of psycho-

logical detachment) were performed to examine the extent to which attachment avoidance moder-

ated the associations between workload and psychological detachment (dependent). Work hours was

entered in Step 1 (control), followed by standardized scores of workload (predictor) and attachment

avoidance (moderator). To test moderation effect, Standardized Workload�Attachment Avoidance

scores were entered in Step 3. Results showed that the controlled variable had significant contribu-

tion (b ¼ �.146, p < .05) in Step 1, but this contribution lost its significance when the two main

effect variables were introduced in Step 2. Workload, but not attachment avoidance, was signifi-

cantly associated with self- and significant-other-reported psychological detachment (b ¼ �.21,

p < .001; b ¼ �.32, p < .001, respectively). The Workload � Attachment avoidance interaction was

significantly associated with the self-report measure (b ¼ .15, p < .05) but not with the significant

other measure (see Table 4). Hypothesis 3 was partially supported.

Simple slope analysis, conducted to reveal the source of interaction for the self-report measure

(Aiken & West, 1991), revealed that the association between workload and psychological deta-

chment variable was significant in the low (�1 SD) attachment avoidance condition (t ¼ 3.489,

p < .001, b ¼ �.52) but was not significant in the high (þ1 SD) attachment avoidance condition

(p ¼ ns; see Figure 1). In other words, increasing workload was associated with decreasing psycho-

logical detachment among low attachment avoidance individuals but was unrelated to psychological

detachment among high attachment avoidance individuals.

Overcommitment Hypotheses

Hypotheses 4a, 4b, and 4c were tested using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) approach, which defines four

conditions of mediation. The first condition states that the predictor variables (work stressors) must

be significantly related to the mediator (overcommitment). As Table 1 shows, all work stressors

(workload, role ambiguity, and role conflict) satisfied this condition. To meet the second condition,

the mediator must be significantly related to the outcome variable (psychological detachment). As

Table 1 shows, this condition was also satisfied for both the self-report and the significant-other-

report measures. To satisfy the third and fourth conditions, the predictors must be significantly

related to the outcome variable, and this relationship must be reduced when the mediator is intro-

duced into the regression equation. Three hierarchal regression analyses were performed for each

outcome variable (see Table 5), entering a different work stressor (workload, role ambiguity and role

Table 3. Regression Coefficients: Predicting Self-a and Significant-Other-b (Presented in Parenthesis) ReportedPsychological Detachment From Attachment Anxiety and Role Conflict.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

b t b t b t

Work hours �.15 (�.14) �2.11* (�1.47) �.12 (�.12) �1.67 (�1.28) �.12 (�.13) �1.70 (�1.31)Role conflict �.20 (�.21) �2.68** (�2.01*) �.19 (�.20) �2.64** (�1.93)Attachment anxiety �.01 (�.08) �.16 (�.76) �.02 (�.09) �.22 (�.87)Attachment Anxiety �

Role Conflict.03 (.05) .43 (.50)

R2 .021 (.020) .061 (.080) .061 (.082)F 4.46* (2.16) 4.35** (3.05*) 3.29* (2.34)DR2 .021 (0.20) .039 (.060) .00 (.00)F 4.46* (2.16) 4.22* (3.45*) .18 (.25)

Note. aN¼ 210. bN¼ 109. Results in parentheses predicting significant-other-reported detachment. The coefficients are stan-dardized b weights.*p < .05. **p < .01.

Potok and Littman-Ovadia 9

9

at BEN GURION UNIV NEGEV on May 6, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from

conflict) in each regression analysis; in all six regressions, the mediator and outcome variables were

overcommitment and psychological detachment, respectively. In these analyses, we also control for

work hours (entered in Step 1). Results revealed that workload and role conflict were negatively

related to psychological detachment in the self-report version in Step 1, and this significant associ-

ation disappeared when the mediator (overcommitment) was introduced in Step 2, satisfying the

third and fourth conditions of mediation. Results for role ambiguity indicated that the control vari-

able (work hours) was associated with psychological detachment in Step 1, but role ambiguity was

not. Therefore, overcommitment is not a mediating factor between role ambiguity and psychological

detachment.

Regression analyses for other-reported psychological detachment revealed that all work stressors

(workload, role ambiguity, and role conflict) were negatively related to psychological detachment

in Step 1 and that these associations disappeared when the mediator (overcommitment) was intro-

duced in Step 2 (see Table 5), which satisfied Baron and Kenny’s (1986) fourth condition.

Sobel tests indicated a significant indirect effect of workload (z ¼ 4.71, p < .001) and role conflict

(z ¼ 4.13, p < .001) via overcommitment on self-reported psychological detachment; and a signif-

icant indirect effect of workload (z ¼ 2.70, p < .01), role ambiguity (z ¼ 2.47, p < .05), and role

conflict (z ¼ 2.66, p < .01) via overcommitment on other-reported psychological detachment.

Furthermore, the regression weights of all predictors (see Model 2 in Table 5) lost their significance

entirely when overcommitment was entered, suggesting full mediation.

Discussion

In this study, we examined the utility of integrating personality traits in the stressor–detachment

relationship. Specifically, we tested the moderating roles of attachment orientations (anxiety and

avoidance) and the mediating role of overcommitment. The analyses suggest that attachment avoid-

ance moderates the association between workload and psychological detachment; however, attach-

ment anxiety did not moderate the association between psychological detachment and either role

conflict or ambiguity. Further analyses suggested that overcommitment fully mediated the relation-

ships between psychological detachment to role conflict and workload. However, when we tested

these hypotheses on significant-other-reported data, overcommitment fully mediated all three work

stressors, role ambiguity included.

Table 4. Regression Coefficients: Predicting Self-a and Significant-Other-b (Presented in Parenthesis) ReportedPsychological Detachment from Attachment Avoidance and Workload.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

b t b t b t

Work hours �.15 (�.14) �2.11* (�1.47) �.08 (�.07) �1.14 (�.77) �.07 (�.05) �1.01 (�.56)Workload �.22 (�.33) �3.11** (�3.46**) �.21 (�.32) �2.99** (�3.14**)Attachment avoidance �.10 (�.12) �1.46 (�1.27) �.09 (�.09) �1.29 (�.97)Attachment

Avoidance �Workload

.15 (.13) 2.26* (1.36)

R2 .021 (.020) .077 (.141) .10 (.156)F 4.46* (2.16) 5.61** (5.76**) 5.57* (4.82**)DR2 .021 (.020) .056 (.121) .023 (.015)F 4.46* (2.16) 6.07** (7.43**) 5.10* (1.86)

Note. aN ¼ 210. bN ¼ 109. Results in parenthetheses predicting significant-other-reported detachment. The coefficients arestandardized b weights.*p < .05. **p < .001.

10 Journal of Career Assessment 00(0)

10

at BEN GURION UNIV NEGEV on May 6, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from

As for attachment avoidance, the self-reported detachment analysis revealed that workload was

negatively associated with psychological detachment only in the low avoidant attachment condition,

suggesting that highly avoidant employees’ off-work time detachment is not influenced by the extent

of their workload. Highly avoidant participants might be less capable of psychological detachment,

regardless of their perceived workload. These findings suggest that the tendency to prefer autonomy,

emotional distance, and solitude through work (Hazan & Shaver, 1990) may be observable even in

the absence of work stressors. Data from significant-other-reports did not provide further support,

although a simple slope analysis revealed a similar trend for the self-reported data (see Figure 1).

As hypothesized, the direct negative links found between workload and self-reported psycholo-

gical detachment and between role conflict and self-reported psychological detachment, and the

negative associations between all three stressors, including role ambiguity, and detachment based

on significant-other-reported data, disappeared when controlling for overcommitment. These find-

ings suggest that work stressors are associated with overcommitment, which in turn may inhibit

detachment. Overcommitment is a behavioral pattern described as a combination of internal moti-

vation reflecting excessive striving and a strong desire for approval and esteem (Siegrist, 2001). In

Figure 1. Simple slope for the interaction effect of workload and attachment avoidance on psychologicaldetachment.

Potok and Littman-Ovadia 11

11

at BEN GURION UNIV NEGEV on May 6, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from

previous studies, overcommitment was found to consume resources and lead to a sustained stress

reaction, emotional and physical exhaustion, burnout, and psychosomatic symptoms (e.g., Joksimo-

vic et al., 1999). These outcome variables were also found to be associated with low psychological

detachment (e.g., Fritz, Sonnentag, Spector, & McInroe, 2010; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). Thus,

present study findings suggest that exhaustion, burnout, and psychosomatic symptoms, which pre-

vious studies found in participants high in overcommitment, may be predicted by low psychological

detachment from work. Furthermore, the mediating role of overcommitment was supported by the

self-report data and the significant-other-report data in this study, thereby supporting our hypotheses

and overcoming potential same-source bias concerns (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,

2003; Sonnentag & Kruel, 2006).

Sonnentag, Kuttler, and Fritz (2010) highlighted the importance of an additional viewpoint on a

person’s psychological detachment. In their study, they argue that a lack of detachment can be

observed by one’s partner. The moderate-to-high correlations found in this study between reporting

sources of psychological detachment are consistent with previous studies on European populations

(Sonnentag & Kruel, 2006; Sonnentag, Kuttler, & Fritz, 2010) and consistent with the typical range

of correlations reported between self-report and peer-report measures (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988;

Sonnentag & Kruel, 2006). These findings suggested consistency of the psychological detachment

Table 5. Regression Coefficients Predicting Psychological Detachment From Work stressors andOvercommitment.

Self-reporta Significant-other-reportb

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

b t b t b t b t

Predictors: Workload and OvercommitmentWork hours �.137 �1.787 �.095 �1.390 �.095 �.879 �.051 �.493Workload �24.6 �3.214*** �.041 �.548 �.285 2.625** �.129 �1.131Overcommitment �.484 �6.599*** �.356 3.127**R2 .099 .284 .104 .201F 9.246*** 22.233*** 4.676* 6.714***DR2 .099 .186 .104 .098F 9.246*** 43.552*** 4.676* 9.776**

Predictors: Role ambiguity and OvercommitmentWork hours �.199 �2.643** �.105 �1.568 �.130 �1.195 �.061 �.593Role ambiguity �.095 �1.257 .019 .284 �.214 �1.970* �.095 �.889Overcommitment �.505 �7.356*** �.382 �3.552***R2 .052 .283 .072 .196F 4.672* 22.131*** 3.129* 6.513***DR2 .052 .231 .072 .125F 4.672* 54.113*** 3.129* 12.401***

Predictors: Role Conflict and OvercommitmentWork hours �.176 �2.371* �.099 �1.486 �.126 �1.176 �.063 �.613Role conflict �.220 �2.976** �.058 .831 �.276 �2.498* �.126 �1.149Overcommitment �.480 �6.772*** �.362 �3.239**R2 .091 .286 .097 .202F 8.447*** 22.415*** 4.341* 6.731***DR2 .091 .195 .097 .105F 8.447*** 45.865*** 4.341* 10.492**

Note. aN ¼ 210. bN ¼ 109.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

12 Journal of Career Assessment 00(0)

12

at BEN GURION UNIV NEGEV on May 6, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from

measure across European and Israeli populations, and further validated this already well-validated

measure (Fritz, Sonnentag, et al., 2010).

We hypothesized that high anxiety attachment participants who experience high role conflict and

ambiguity will experience lower detachment. However, the moderating role of attachment anxiety in

the stressor–detachment association was not supported. It may be that the dual mechanism that leads

anxious individuals to pursue attachment figures (which may inhibit their ability to psychologically

detach) on one hand, and leads to excessive sensitivity and negative emotions when doing so (which

may induce them to detach) on the other hand, resulted in a nonsignificant relationship with detach-

ment from work.

Limitations

These study findings should be interpreted in light of its limitations. First, all of our variables were

measured with a cross-sectional design, which requires caution in interpreting causality. Therefore,

future studies should include longitudinal designs in order to strengthen this potential causality

chain. Second, we used a snowball sampling method that makes the generalization of our findings

difficult. The majority of our study participants were salaried employees, who worked in the service

sector and had 15 years of education (SD ¼ 2.52). Third, our sample included a variety of occupa-

tions and demographical characteristics. Although this should potentially increase generalizability,

it also statistically increases unexpected confounding variables that make results interpretation

difficult.

Implications for Future Research and Practice

Our study examined the utility of integrating personality characteristics in a well-documented stres-

sor–detachment relationship (e.g., Sonnentag, 2011; Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005; Sonnentag & Fritz,

2007; Sonnentag &Kruel, 2006; Sonnentag, Kuttler, & Fritz, 2010). Future research can extend this

examination by including additional personality traits and situational variables. Additionally, psy-

chological detachment is a recovery experience that can be distinguished from other recovery

experiences (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). To extend the job stress recovery literature, future research

should explore the possible integration of personality traits in other stressor–recovery relationships

as well.

Our study has implications for future practice. Preserving human capital should serve as a high

priority for organizations. Previous studies have shown that employees who psychologically detach

themselves from work in off-work time can replenish their resources and reduce work-related stress

(e.g., Park, Jex, & Fritz, 2011; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). The present study suggests that personality

traits affect these employees’ psychological detachment. Thus, organizations should acknowledge

that not only work stressors can cause reduced psychological detachment from work. In addition

to efforts to cultivate a culture that endorses employees’ psychological detachment in off-job time,

organizations may develop specific training programs in psychological detachment for different

groups based on their personality profiles.

Authors’ Note

This research is based on a masters’ dissertation prepared by the first author under the supervision of the second

(corresponding) author.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication

of this article.

Potok and Littman-Ovadia 13

13

at BEN GURION UNIV NEGEV on May 6, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions.

Academy of Management Review, 25, 472–491.

Aviad-Hayblum, A. (1992). The instruction. Its characterizations and significance in dealing with burnout pro-

cesses among social workers models (Unpublished master’s thesis). Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in psychological research:

Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,

1173–1182.

Barrick, M., & Mount, M. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis.

Personnel Psychology, 44, 1�26.

Borman, W. C., Ilgen, D. R., & Klimoski, R. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of psychology, volume 12: Industrial

and organizational psychology. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books (Original

ed. 1969).

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult romantic attachment: An

integrative overview. In: J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships

(pp. 46–76). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 1,

185–216.

Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53,

747–770.

de Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., Houtman, I. L. D., & Bongers, P. (2003). ‘‘The very best of the

millennium:’’ Longitudinal research and the demand control (support) model. Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, 8, 282–305.

Etzion, D., Eden, D., & Lapidot, Y. (1998). Relief from job stressors and burnout: Reserve service as a respite.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 577–585.

Fritz, C., Sonnentag, S., Spector, P. E., & McInroe, J. (2010). The weekend matters: Relationships between

stress recovery and affective experiences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 1137–1162.

Fritz, C., Yankelevich, M., Zarubin, A., & Barger, P. (2010). Happy, healthy and productive? The role of

detachment from work during non-work time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 977–983.

Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988).A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor rat-

ings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43–62.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1990). Love and work: An attachment-theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 59, 270�280.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American

Psychologist, 44, 524–513.

Joksimovic, L., Siegrist, J., Meyer-Hammer, M., Peter, R., Franke, B., Klimek, W. J., Heintzen, M. P., &

Strauer, B. E. (1999). Overcommitment predicts restenosis after coronary angioplasty in cardiac patients.

International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 6, 356–369.

Judge, T., Heller, D., & Mount, M. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John

Wiley.

14 Journal of Career Assessment 00(0)

14

at BEN GURION UNIV NEGEV on May 6, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Linden, W., Earle, T. L., Gerin, W., & Christenfeld, N. (1997). Physiological stress reactivity and recovery:

Conceptual siblings separated at birth? Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 42, 117–135.

Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In P. J. D. Drenth & H. Thierry (Eds.),

Handbook of work and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 5–33). Hove, England: Psychology Press.

Mikulincer, M., & Florain, V. (2000). Exploring individual differences in reactions to mortality salience—Does

attachment style regulate terror management mechanisms? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

79, 260–273.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York,

NY: Guilford Press.

Park, Y., Jex, S. M., & Fritz, C. (2011). Relationships between work-home segmentation and psychological

detachment from work: The role of communication technology use at home. Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, 16, 457–467.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in beha-

vioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 88, 879–903.

Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970).Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150–163.

Rom, E., & Mikulincer, M. (2003). Attachment theory and group processes: The association between attach-

ment style and group-related representations, goals, memories and functioning. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 84, 1220–1235.

Schabracq, M., Winnubst, J., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). The handbook of work and health psychology (2nd ed.).

Chichester, England: John Wiley.

Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high effort/low reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 1, 27–41.

Siegrist, J. (2001). A theory of occupational stress. In J. Dunham (Ed.), Stress in the Workplace: Past, Present

and Future (pp. 52–66). London, England: Whurr.

Siegrist, J., Starke, D., Chandola, T., Godin, I., Marmot, M., Niedhammer, I., & Peter, R. (2004). The measure-

ment of effort–reward imbalance at work: European comparisons. Social Science & Medicine, 58, 1483–1499.

Sonnentag, S. (2011). Recovery from fatigue: The role of psychological detachment. In Phillip L. Ackerman

(Ed.), Cognitive fatigue: Multidisciplinary perspectives on current research and future applications.

Decade of Behavior Science Conference, 253–72. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Sonnentag, S., & Bayer, U. V. (2005).Switching off mentally: Predictors and consequences of psychological

detachment from work during off-work time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 393–414.

Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2010). Staying well and engaged when demands are high: The

role of psychological detachment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 965–976.

Sonnentag, S., & Frese, M. (2003). Stress in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.),

Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Vol. 12. Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 453–491).

New York, NY: John Wiley.

Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and validation of a

measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 12, 204–221.

Sonnentag, S., & Kruel, U. (2006). Psychological detachment from work during off-work time: The role of job

stressors, job involvement, recovery efficacy. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,

15, 197–217.

Sonnentag, S., Kuttler, I., & Fritz, C. (2010). Job stressors, emotional exhaustion, and need for recovery: A mul-

tisource study on the benefits of psychological detachment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 355–365.

Sonnentag, S., Mojza, E. J., Binnewies, C., & Scholl, A. (2008). Being engaged at work and detached at home:

A week-level study on work engagement, psychological detachment, and affect. Work & Stress, 22,

257–276.

Potok and Littman-Ovadia 15

15

at BEN GURION UNIV NEGEV on May 6, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Spector, P. E. (1987). Interactive effects of perceived control and job stressors on affective reactions and health

outcomes for clerical workers. Work and Stress, 1, 155–162.

Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and strain:

Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative Workload

Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356–367.

Sumer, H. C., & Knight, P. (2001). How do people with different attachment styles balance work and family?

A personality perspective on the work–family linkage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 653–663.

Tei-Tominaga, M., Akiyama, T., Miyake, Y., & Sakai, Y. (2009). The relationship between temperament, job

stress and overcommitment: A cross-sectional study using the TEMPS-A and a scale of ERI. Industrial

Health, 47, 509–517.

van Vegchel, N., de Jonge, J., Bosma, H., & Schaufeli, W. (2005). Reviewing the effort-reward imbalance

model: Drawing up the balance of 45 empirical studies. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 1117–1131.

Westman, M., & Etzion, D. (2001).The impact of vacation and job stress on burnout and absenteeism.

Psychology and Health, 16, 595–606.

16 Journal of Career Assessment 00(0)

16

at BEN GURION UNIV NEGEV on May 6, 2013jca.sagepub.comDownloaded from