Called and Burnout: Integrating career research with occupational health psychology

People are increasingly in search for meaning in their work and private life. They want to increase their self-awareness and reach personal fulfillment. People who are not able to cope with life‘s challenges often suffer from burnout, anxiety and depression. Consequently, the construct of calling becomes more and more important in the occupational context because of its positive consequences regarding numerous work (e.g. organizational commitment) and non-work-related outcomes (e.g. depression, life satisfaction) for individuals as well as for organizations. Building on first promising findings, the aim of the following chapter is to investigate the association of experiencing a calling in one‘s job and burnout (here defined as psychological phenomenon of prolonged exhaustion and disengagement at work, cf., Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Our findings suggest that experiencing one‘s work as a calling is negatively related to burnout. Especially with regard to the sub-dimension of disengagement, experiencing a calling turned out to be a protective factor. Further, the burnout sub-dimension of disengagement mediated the relationship between the experience of a calling and job satisfaction. Implications for further research and health-related preventive strategies are discussed.

Challenge stressors: longitudinal effects on self attitudes, work attitudes, and health.

Recent research suggests that some stressors (i.e. hindrance stressors) have mainly negative consequences, whereas others (i.e. challenge stressors) can simultaneously have positive and negative consequences (e.g., LePine et al., 2005). Although a number of studies have dealt with potential outcomes of challenge stressors, some criteria have received only limited attention (e.g., positive self-attitudes; cf. Widmer et al., 2012), and some have been neglected altogether (i.e., physical health outcomes). Furthermore, while sophisticated methods – such as meta-analyses (e.g., LePine et al., 2005), diary studies (Ohly & Fritz, 2010), and multi-source analyses (Wallace et al., 2009) – have been applied to the framework, there are no longitudinal studies. We report results from a longitudinal study containing three waves, with two time-lags of one month each (N = 393). We analyzed relationships between challenge stressors and work attitudes (e.g. job satisfaction), self attitudes (e.g. self-esteem), and health indicators (e.g. sleep quality) using cross-lagged SEM. We expected positive effects of challenge stressors to appear only when their negative variance is controlled (e.g. by including hindrance stressors as a suppressor variable; cf. Cavanaugh et al., 2000). As the positive aspects of challenge stressors relate to self-affirming experiences, we also expected positive effects to be especially strong for self attitudes. Regarding work attitudes, the only significant paths found were from work attitudes to challenge stressors over both time lags. Regarding health, there was a significant cross-sectional association at time 1, which was negative, as expected. Longitudinally, a positive path from challenge stressors to health for both time lags was found only when hindrances stressors were controlled, confirming the expected suppressor effect. Hindrance stressors had a negative effect on health. For self-attitudes, there was a positive cross-sectional association at time one. In addition, a positive effect on self attitudes was found longitudinally for both time lags, but only when hindrance stressors were controlled. Additional analyses showed that the positive longitudinal effect on health was mediated by self attitudes. Although the lack of associations with work attitudes was surprising, our results indicate that challenge stressors contain aspects that provide an opportunity to develop self-esteem through demanding work situations, thereby contributing to personal growth and thriving at the workplace. They also confirm the ambiguous nature of challenge stressors, as, with one exception, positive effects were found only when hindrance stressors were controlled (cf. Widmer et al., 2012). Finally, our results confirm the importance of self-related attitudes in the stress process.

Effects of Alzheimer caregiving on allostatic load

This study aimed to determine if Alzheimer caregivers have increased allostatic load compared to non-caregivers. Potential psychological moderators (mastery, depression, and role overload) of the relationship between caregiving status and allostatic load were also explored. Eighty-seven caregivers and 43 non-caregivers underwent biological assessment of allostatic load and psychological assessments. Caregivers had significantly higher allostatic load compared to non-caregivers ( p < .05). Mastery, but not depression or overload, moderated the relationship between caregiving status and allostatic load. In conclusion, allostatic load may represent a link explaining how stress translates to downstream pathology, but more work is necessary to understand the role of psychological factors.

The relationship between self-efficacy and resting blood pressure in spousal Alzheimer's caregivers

Objective. To examine whether high levels of self-efficacy for problem-focused coping were significantly related to several resting BP measures in spousal Alzheimer's disease caregivers. Design. Cross-sectional. Methods. Participants included 100 older caregivers (mean age = 73.8 ± 8.14 years) providing in home care for a spouse with Alzheimer's disease. All participants completed a 13-item short form of the Coping Self-Efficacy Scale and underwent an in-home assessment where a visiting nurse took the average of three serial BP readings. Multiple regression was used to examine the relationship between self-efficacy and mean arterial pressure (MAP), systolic BP (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP), and pulse pressure (PP) after controlling for age, gender, smoking history, body mass index, the care recipient's clinical dementia rating, diabetes, alcohol use, and the use of antihypertensive medications. Results. Overall, high levels of self-efficacy for problem-focused coping were associated with lower MAP, SBP, and PP. Self-efficacy for problem-focused coping was marginally associated with resting DBP, but not significant. In addition, we conducted secondary analyses of the other two self-efficacy scales to explore the relationship between each dimension and MAP. We found that there were no significant relationships found between MAP and self-efficacy for stopping unpleasant thoughts/emotions or self-efficacy for getting social support. Conclusions. The present study adds to the current body of literature by illustrating the possibility that higher self-efficacy can have physiological advantages, perhaps by buffering chronic stress's impact on resting BP. Another contribution of the current study is its attempt to understand the role of each individual component of self-efficacy. These findings invite future research to investigate whether caregivers might experience cardiovascular benefits from interventions aimed at enhancing self-efficacy.