Learn the most up-to-date developments in applied psychology with one authoritative collection The Handbook on the State of the Art in Applied Psychology delivers 19 state-of-the-art addresses on a selected topic in applied psychology. Together, they constitute an up-to-date and authoritative reference that describes the most cutting-edge material in the most prominent domains of applied psychology. The accomplished academics and editors Dr. Peter Graf and Dr. David Dozois put the focus on areas where the most profound recent progress has been made. They also emphasize the link between science and practice, showcasing basic science research that has practical implications for real world problems. Readers will benefit from up-to-date research on topics as varied as occupational commitment and organizational productivity, forgiveness, shared cultural spaces, environmental decision making, and the early identification of reading problems. In addition to the papers included in the collection, the Handbook on the State of the Art in Applied Psychology features: * An insightful preface focused on the theme of connecting basic research to practical solutions in the real world * An overview of the chapters and their arrangement in the collection * An author and subject index to assist readers in finding the information they seek * A focus on the most cutting-edge advancements in the field of applied psychology, with an emphasis on the impact of technological innovation and increased recognition of cultural determinants of behavior Perfect for applied psychology researchers, workers, teachers, and students around the world, Handbook on the State of the Art in Applied Psychology also belongs on the bookshelves of anyone looking for an efficient way to get up to speed on the latest developments on a wide variety of relevant topics in applied psychology.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
List of Contributors
PART I: Optimal Health and Functioning at Work and Home
CHAPTER 1: Chasing the Dream
The Psychologically Healthy Workplace
Toward Evidence‐Based Practice in Employee Well‐Being
Leadership as a Case Study
Summary and Conclusion
CHAPTER 2: Commitment at Work
A Brief History
Why Workplace Commitments Matter
Commitment in an Era of Change
Advances in Methodology
CHAPTER 3: How Psychologists Can Contribute to Individual Well‐Being, Organizational Productivity, and Saving the Planet Through Better Buildings
Affordable and Clean Energy Goals
Sustainable Built Environments
Influence Building Sustainability Decisions
CHAPTER 4: Key Challenges to Understanding Environmental Decision‐Making
Background in the Environmental Movement
Assessing the Strength of Evidence
Focusing on What Matters
Expanding Our Theories of Altruism
Unifying the Grand Traditions
Considering Social Influences and Network Effects
Examining Emerging Technologies
Engaging Normative Theories
PART II: Mental and Physical Health
CHAPTER 5: On the Role of Passion in Optimal Functioning
On Optimal Functioning in Society
On the Concept of Passion
A Dualistic Model of Passion
Passion and Optimal Functioning in Society
CHAPTER 6: Effects, Mechanisms, and Implementation
Does It Work: Frameworks and Taxonomies for Evaluation and Monitoring of Effects of Interventions and Policies Promoting Physical Activity and Healthy Diet
Approaches Focused on Implementation Evaluation
Evidence‐Based Taxonomies of Good Practices in Evaluation and Monitoring
How It Works: Models, Frameworks, and Taxonomies Focusing on the Content of Interventions/Policies and Change Mechanisms
Behavior Change Techniques as Change Mechanisms
Under What Conditions It Works: Models, Frameworks, and Taxonomies Focusing on Implementation of Interventions and Policies Promoting Physical Activity and Healthy Diet
Conclusions on Models, Frameworks, and Taxonomies Elucidating Implementation
CHAPTER 7: Epigenetic Processes Mediating Environments, Experiences, and Mental Health
DNA Methylation: A Mechanism for Diversifying the Information Content of DNA
Evidence for Epigenetic Programming by Maternal Care
Reversal of Behavioral Programming by Maternal Care with Epigenetic Modulating Agents
Early Experience Elicits a Signaling Pathway that Results in Epigenetic Reprogramming
Early‐Life Adversity Triggers DNA Methylation Changes in Candidate Genes in Rodent Brains
Evidence for Effects of Early‐Life Adversity on DNA Methylation in Humans
Changes in DNA Methylation in Response to Early‐Life Adversity Involve Many Genes
Changes in DNA Methylation That Associate With Early Social Experiences Occur in the Immune System as Well as the Brain
Associations of Early‐Life Experience and DNA Methylation Changes in Peripheral White Blood Cells
DNA Methylation Alterations in Brain‐Specific Candidate Genes in Peripheral Tissues That Are Associated with Early Adversity and Neuropsychiatric Conditions
The Developmental Dynamics of DNA Methylation in Response to Early‐Life Social Experiences
Causal Relationship Between Early‐Life Adversity and DNA Methylation Alterations
Challenges and Prospectives
CHAPTER 8: Cardiac‐Disease‐Induced‐PTSD
PTSD: Clarifying the Diagnostic Debate
Can We Speak of Cardiac‐Disease‐Induced PTSD (CDI‐PTSD)?
The Unique Manifestations of CDI‐PTSD
CDI‐PTSD Among Cardiac Caregivers
Conclusions and Future Suggestions
CHAPTER 9: Mental Health Consequences of Terrorist Attacks in Adults
Overview: Terrorism and Mental Health Consequences
Research on the Impact of Terrorist Attacks on Mental Health
How Many Victims of Terrorist Attacks Develop a Psychological Disorder?
What Type of Mental Disorder Is the Most Frequent Among Terrorism Victims?
What Type of Victims Develop More Mental Disorders?
What Is the Course of Mental Disorders in Victims?
CHAPTER 10: Are Forgiveness and Unforgiveness Two Extremes of the Same Continuum?
Philosophical and Religious Antecedents
Conceptualization of Forgiveness
Positive and Negative Dimensions on Forgiveness Scales
Does Culture Play a Role in the Conceptualization and Operationalization of Forgiveness and Unforgiveness?
Measuring Forgiveness and Resentment
Social Cognition Correlates of Forgiveness and Resentment
Conclusions and Prospective on the Understanding of the Post‐Transgression Dynamics
PART III: Issues in Education
CHAPTER 11: Five Decades of Research on School Bullying
What Is Bullying?
Prevalence and Stability
Impact of Bullying and Victimization
The Nature of Bullying
Addressing Bullying in Schools
CHAPTER 12: Early Identification and Prevention of Reading Problems
What Is Known About Early Neural Predictors of Dyslexia
Discussion of the Early and Predictive Brain ResponsesRelated to Dyslexia
Preventative Training of Basic Reading Problems
Continuing from the Application Under Research Conditions to Its Distribution to All in Need: Potential Business Models for Commercialization
GraphoLearning International Development and Exports Project Public Summary
Pilot Studies for Preparation of Commercialization
Experimentation of Potential Business Models
Public Procurement—The Finnish Model
NGO Collaboration and Country‐Specific Context
Academic Networks and Research Collaboration
Discussion Associated With the Distribution Model
CHAPTER 13: Psychological Literacy in Undergraduate Psychology Education and Beyond
What Is Psychological Literacy?
How Can Educators Explicitly Support the Development of Psychological Literacy in Their UG Psychology Students?
How Can Psychology Be Given Away in Higher Education Beyond Psychology Programs?
The Psychological Science of Curricular Design and Delivery for Optimal Learning
Curricular Development of Self‐Management Capacity in Mainstream Units Across Diverse Disciplines and Educational Levels
Reflections and Conclusion
PART IV: What's Trending in Research?
CHAPTER 14: Assessing Personality from a Cultural Perspective
Assessing Personality from a Cultural Perspective
Etic and Emic Approaches in Personality Assessment
Issues in Transporting Tests Across Cultures
Guidelines on Test Translation and Adaptation
Combined Emic–Etic Approach
Development of the CPAI and Its Later Versions
Contributions of the Emic IR Factor
Beyond Universal versus Indigenous Factors
CHAPTER 15: Un‐Othering of the Other
The Construction of the Other
Types of Others
Processes of Othering
Un‐Othering: Processes and Mechanisms
Approaching Un‐Othering Through Intergroup Conflict Resolution Methods
Creating Shared Cultural Spaces for Un‐Othering
CHAPTER 16: Loneliness
Jo Cox: Murder and the Appointment of a Minister of Loneliness
Early Attention to Loneliness
Four Foundational Developments of the 1970s and Beyond
The Rise of Loneliness Research
Loneliness: Minor Malady or Serious Problem?
Loneliness Can Be Combatted
Putting the Pieces Together with One More Element
CHAPTER 17: Response Processes Validity Evidence
Modern Unified Validity Theory
Psychological Process of Responding and its Role in Validation
What Are Response Processes?
Are Response Processes Important?
Response Processes Techniques and Methods
Observations on the Current State of Response Processes Research and Next Steps
PART V: The State of Psychology as a Science and Profession
CHAPTER 18: Internationalization and Training of Psychologists in a Globalized World
What Is Understood by Internationalization?
Psychologists Education in Latin America
A Common Base of Psychology
CHAPTER 19: Intellectual Humility
Contemporary Interest in IH
Recent Research on IH
Intellectual Humility: Ten Questions
CHAPTER 20: Psychological Ethics in a Changing World: How Ethics Documents in Psychology
The Development of Ethics Documents in Psychology
Recognizing Fundamental Ethical Principles through a Universal Declaration
Key Features of the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles
Impact of the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles
Relevance of the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles to Today's World
End User License Agreement
Table 2.1 Meta‐analytic Estimates of the Relationships Between Organizational Com...
Table 2.2 Meta‐analytic Estimates of the Relationships Between Organizational Com...
Table 2.3 Meta‐analytic Estimates of the Relationships Between Organizational Com...
Table 9.1 Systematic Reviews of Scientific Literature on Mental Health Consequenc...
Table 9.2 Point Prevalence of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in Adult Victi...
Table 9.3 Point Prevalence of Other Mental Disorders Different from Posttraumatic...
Table 10.1 Definitions of Forgiveness and Its Components
Table 10.2 Instruments that Measure Forgiveness
Table 10.3 Factor Loadings with Oblique Rotation for the Partner's Forgiveness Sc...
Table 10.4 Definitions for the Couple's Forgiveness Scale
Table 10.5 Factor Loadings with Oblique Rotation for the Partner's Resentment Sca...
Table 10.6 Definitions for the Resentment Toward Partner's Factors
Table 10.7 Definitions of the Factors of the Unforgiveness Measure
Table 10.8 Correlations of Forgiveness and Resentment Factors with Severity of At...
Table 10.9 Correlations of Forgiveness and Resentment Factors with Rumination abo...
Table 12.1 Variables with statistically significant predictive correlations (P=pr...
Table 12.2 Value Creation with Collaborators and Partners by Agreement and Paymen...
Table 13.1 McGovern et al.'s (2011) Facets of Psychological Literacy (Bolding Add...
Table 13.2 Constraining the Definition of Psychological Literacy in Terms of the ...
Table 20.1 Ethical Principles and Related Values Contained in the Universal Decla...
Figure 3.1 The Theory of Planned Behavior is a utility theory in which the b...
Figure 3.2 The values‐beliefs‐norms theory of environmental behavior (Stern ...
Figure 3.3 The unified theory of the acceptance and use of technology (Venka...
Figure 6.1 The steps in the process of designing, enacting, and reporting in...
Figure 7.1 DNA methylation in strategic positions alters interactions of pro...
Figure 7.2 Unmethylated promoters are poised for expression at the proper ti...
Figure 7.3 Experience triggered, epigenetically propelled phenotypic changes...
Figure 9.1 Number of publications on the psychopathological consequences of ...
Figure 11.1 Elementary student reports of different forms of bullying across...
Figure 11.2 Secondary student reports of different forms of bullying across ...
Figure 11.3 Grade differences in student reports of bullying in a single sch...
Figure 16.1 Peplau and Perlman discrepancy model of loneliness.Lonelines...
Figure 16.2 Individual and societal factors in the emergence of loneliness....
Figure 16.3 Number of loneliness articles per year (PsycInfo data).
Figure 16.4 Loneliness and individual differences in the rate of age‐related...
Figure 17.1 Embretson's integrated system of validity.
Table of Contents
Department of Psychology, University of British ColumbiaVancouver, British Columbia, Canada
DAVID J. A. DOZOIS
Department of Psychology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
This edition first published 2021© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of Peter Graf and David J. A. Dozois to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered OfficeJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
Editorial Office111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyWhile the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data
Names: Graf, Peter, editor. | Dozois, David J. A., editor.Title: Handbook on the state of the art in applied psychology / edited by Peter Graf, David Dozois.Description: Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index.Identifiers: LCCN 2020023697 (print) | LCCN 2020023698 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119627692 (paperback) | ISBN 9781119627739 (adobe pdf) | ISBN 9781119628408 (epub)Subjects: LCSH: Psychology, Applied.Classification: LCC BF636 .H3185 2020 (print) | LCC BF636 (ebook) | DDC 158.7–dc23LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020023697LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020023698
Cover Design: WileyCover Image: © Sergey Panteleev/ iStockphoto
Shauna M. Bowes, MADepartment of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
Fanny M. Cheung, PhDThe Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, The People's Republic of China
Jacquelyn Cranney, PhDSchool of Psychology, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia
Rolando Díaz‐Loving, PhDFaculty of Psychology, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico, Universidad de Londres, Londres
Thomas Dietz, PhDDepartment of Sociology and Environmental Science and Policy, Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
David J. A. Dozois, PhDDepartment of Psychology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
María Paz García‐Vera, PhDDepartment of Personality, Assessment, and Clinical Psychology, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Janel Gauthier, PhDSchool of Psychology, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
Peter Graf, PhDDepartment of Psychology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Jarmo Hämäläinen, PhDDepartment of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
Yuen Wan Ho, PhD CandidateThe Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, The People's Republic of China
Anita M. HubleyDepartment of Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Shelley Hymel, PhDFaculty of Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
E. Kevin Kelloway, PhDDepartment of Psychology, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Paavo Leppänen, PhDDepartment of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
Scott O. Lilienfeld, PhDDepartment of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
Kaisa Lohvansuu, PhDDepartment of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
Aleksandra Luszczynska, PhDSWPS University of Social Sciences & Humanities, Wroclaw, PolandUniversity of Colorado, Colorado Springs, CO, USACARE‐BEH Center for Applied Research on Health Behavior and Health, SWPS University, Wroclaw, Poland
Heikki Lyytinen, PhDDepartment of Psychology, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
Maria Regina Maluf, PhDPontifical Catholic University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
John P. Meyer, PhDDepartment of Psychology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, CanadaCurtin Business School, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Sue Morris, PhDSchool of Psychology, UNSW Sydney, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia
Virginie Paquette, PhDDepartment of Psychology, University of Quebec in Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Daniel Perlman, PhDDepartment of Human Development and Family Studies, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA
Mikko Pitkänen, PhDIndustrial Engineering and Management, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland
Ulla Richardson, PhDCentre for Applied Language Studies, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
Sofia Rivera‐Aragon, PhDFaculty of Psychology, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico, Universidad de Londres, Londres
Rodrigo Miguel Rosales‐Sarabia, PhDFaculty of Psychology, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Ciudad de Mexico, Mexico, Universidad de Londres, Londres
Jesús Sanz, PhDDepartment of Personality, Assessment, and Clinical Psychology, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Moshe Szyf, PhDDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
R.C. Tripathi, PhDDepartment of Psychology, University of Allahabad, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
Robert J. Vallerand, PhDDepartment of Psychology, University of Quebec in Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Jennifer A. Veitch, PhDNational Research Council Canada – Construction, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Noa Vilchinsky, PhDDepartment of Psychology, Associate Professor of Psychology, Bar‐Ilan University, Ramat‐Gan, Israel
The chapters in this book are based on invited presentations delivered at the 29th International Congress of Applied Psychology (ICAP). The chapters were selected by a two‐stage process. In the first stage, all divisions of the International Association of Applied Psychology (IAAP) and all sections of the Canadian Psychological Association, were encouraged to nominate researchers and practitioners to present either a Congress‐invited keynote address or a Congress‐invited state‐of‐the‐art lecture. In the second stage, as co‐presidents of the 29th ICAP, we asked a subset of the invited speakers to convert their Congress presentation into a chapter that captures the state of the art in the topic domain. Our goal for this book was not to supplant the comprehensive IAAP Handbook of Applied Psychology, published by Wiley in 2011. Instead, our aim was to focus on the state of the art in a subset of domains that have changed most profoundly in the intervening years. With this in mind, we selected a small set of invited presentations and encouraged the authors to write chapters on the state of their art, focused on recent insights and breakthroughs, while also highlighting problems that remain to be addressed.
The 29th ICAP, which occurred in Montreal, Canada, from June 26–30, 2018, was a success. In the course of the event, about 3,000 registered participants from approximately 100 countries from all regions of the world delivered about 3,500 spoken presentations and posters. We call it a success because scientists and practitioners gathered to connect with and learn from each other. The chapters in this book are stronger because of learning facilitated by the 29th ICAP.
Psychology is a discipline that covers a wide variety of activities, and these are sometimes grouped into basic research and applied research. Basic and applied research are the same in at least two ways: Both use the scientific method for solving problems, and both are concerned with behavior, affect, and cognition. The difference between them comes from the purpose for which research is undertaken. For basic research, the purpose is hypothesis testing, generating, and accumulating knowledge, and advancing theoretical understanding of behavior, affect, and cognition. By contrast, the purpose of applied research is to understand and solve real‐world conundrums about behavior, affect, and cognition, whether experienced by individuals, groups, or societies. In his basic research on the link between affect and cognition, Peter might test the hypothesis that mere exposure to a stimulus is sufficient to reduce its power to elicit an intense emotional response. However, in his applied research on treatments for a disorder related to affect and cognition, David might investigate a hypothesis about the effectiveness of cognitive‐behavioral therapy to modify schema structures or test the cognitive mechanisms of change in a preventative intervention. As highlighted by these illustrations, by virtue of their different purposes, basic and applied research complement each other, and each contributes a unique and valuable perspective on problems, findings, and insights about behavior, affect and cognition.
The theme of the 29th ICAP, Psychology: Connecting Science to Solutions, was chosen to focus attention on what applied psychology is all about—using the methods of science to solve real‐world problems. We also hoped this theme would inspire more and deeper reflection on the everyday context of those aspects of behavior, affect, and cognition, which are pertinent and perhaps critical to the questions being addressed by basic research.
The Congress theme also was meant as a call to action, an exhortation to strengthen the relationship between science and practice. We believe such a call to action is warranted for many reasons, especially these. First, the continued widespread use of practices and interventions supported only by historical habit, sometimes intuition and willing (nondemanding) clients. The lecture class format of many university courses comes immediately to mind as one such largely unexamined practice. The second is the ubiquitous availability of fake practices and interventions, modern‐day pseudo‐scientific quackeries pushed on social media and the internet. By increasing awareness of the value of science‐based solutions, the Congress theme also was intended as an indirect effort to counteract the potential harmful effects brought about by pseudo‐science.
The chapters in this book reveal applied psychology as a fascinating, thriving, and broadly diverse discipline. We believe this status quo comes, in part, from us all being members of the same family. Scientists and practitioners have the same basic education in psychology; both are steeped in the scientific method, and we use the same basic concepts for describing and understanding aspects of behavior, affect, and cognition. By virtue of their commonalities, science and practice energize each other. And because psychology is relevant to every aspect of behavior, affect, and cognition, an applied psychology committed to Connecting Science to Solutions is a sure‐fire strategy for developing effective solutions for individuals—whether healthy or ill, young or old, male or female, and for society or societies—whether industrialized or emerging, rich or poor, etc.
We selected the abstract art on the cover, called Energy Trails, to represent the vibrancy, and the rich and fluid interactions within applied psychology, wherever they link us in our interconnected world.
The book has 20 chapters, arranged into five broad thematic groups. The first group of chapters is on Optimal Health and Functioning at Work and Home. Dr. Kevin Kelloway (Chapter 1) examines psychological well‐being and mental health issues in the workplace, highlights the limitations of this research, stresses the need for an evidence‐based approach, and contends that changing organizational conditions, such as leadership, can improve employee well‐being. Dr. John P. Meyer (Chapter 2) discusses the construct of workplace commitment, reviews the empirical evidence for why commitment is so important to organizations and employees, and highlights some of the important methodological advances that have taken place in this important research area. Dr. Jennifer Veitch (Chapter 3) focuses on how psychologists can contribute to individual well‐being, organizational productivity, and choosing sustainable technologies that will save the planet through better buildings. Finally, Dr. Thomas Dietz (Chapter 4) discusses major challenges for the future of environmental psychology.
The second chapter group is on Mental and Physical Health. Dr. Robert Vallerand (Chapter 5) addresses the role of harmonious passion in optimal functioning, including psychological well‐being, physical health, positive relationships, individual performance, and contributing to one's community or society at large. Dr. Aleksandra Luszczynska (Chapter 6) focuses on health psychology and health promotion and proposes that the synergistic use of models, frameworks or taxonomies for evaluation, mechanisms, and implementation may provide better insight into the mechanisms by which interventions and policies work. Dr. Moshe Szyf (Chapter 7) highlights the mechanisms through which exposures and experiences modulate or even override genetic predisposition through DNA methylation. This chapter also demonstrates how mapping DNA methylation has implications for understanding, diagnosing, preventing and intervening in mental health disorders. Dr. Noa Vilchinsky (Chapter 8) discusses cardiac–disease‐induced‐post‐traumatic stress disorder as a valid diagnostic entity. By highlighting meta‐analytic and narrative systematic reviews, Drs. Jesús Sanz and Maria Paz Garcia‐Vera (Chapter 9) describe the current state of the empirical literature on the psychopathological consequences of terrorist attacks. And finally, Dr. Rolando Diaz‐Loving and his colleagues (Chapter 10) review the literature on forgiveness and unforgiveness as two extremes of a continuum.
The third section of this book addresses Issues in Education. Dr. Shelley Hymel (Chapter 11) highlights what we have learned in five decades of research on school bullying. She argues that research and practice in bullying might benefit from considering the larger context of promoting students' overall social and emotional development. Dr. Heikki Lyytinen and colleagues (Chapter 12) discuss strategies to enhance the early identification and prevention of early reading problems. Drs. Jacquelyn Cranney and Sue Morris (Chapter 13) address the need to rethink undergraduate education in psychology and contend that psychological literacy needs to be at the heart of the underlying pedagogical philosophy (i.e., both for educators and for students).
The fourth section of this volume is What's Trending in Research? Drs. Fanny Cheung and Yuen Wan Ho (Chapter 14) address the issue of assessing personality across cultures, the importance of demonstrating equivalence between original and the translated tests, and the need for a combined emic–etic approach to assessment. Dr. R. C. Tripathi (Chapter 15) contends that many studies on intergroup conflicts neglect to focus on essentialist beliefs that feed perceived differences between the self and the other groups and highlight the process of “othering.” Dr. Daniel Perlman (Chapter 16) illustrates how the topic of loneliness has shifted from being virtually neglected in the social sciences to a pressing need today (e.g., the British government's appointment of a Minister of Loneliness in 2018). Dr. Anita Hubley (Chapter 17) describes modern unified validity theory and discusses the importance of response processes in validity and test development.
The final section of this book covers topics related to The State of Psychology as a Science and Profession. Dr. Maria Regina Maluf (Chapter 18) discusses the internationalization on the education and training of psychologists and the movement toward international agreement on core professional competencies. Dr. Scott Lilienfeld and Shauna Bowes (Chapter 19) discuss how intellectual humility may be a vital construct for applied psychological science, and present key unresolved questions regarding this construct. Dr. Janel Gauthier (Chapter 20) reflects on the development and evolution of ethics documents in psychology and considers the relevance and meaning of the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists in addressing the global and local ethical challenges that psychologists face today.
It takes a village to create an edited book. We are grateful to the authors, for their willingness to turn their Congress presentations into chapters. We also appreciate the many individuals who nominated chapter authors, that is, executive committee members of the divisions of the IAAP and of the sections of the CPA. This book was made possible, in part, by financial support provided the 29th ICAP.
Peter Graf and David J. A. Dozois29th ICAP Co‐Presidents
E. Kevin Kelloway
Department of Psychology, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Employee wellness, total worker health and the creation of psychological health and safety in the workplace are all popular programs rooted in the belief that a healthy worker is a productive worker and that improving employee well‐being will translate into economic benefit for the firm. I review healthy workplace programs and the notion of a psychologically healthy workplace and point to the inadequacy or lack of theory underpinning many of the existing taxonomies of healthy work. Moreover, much of the research in this area has been based on weak research designs with an overreliance on cross‐sectional self‐report data. Longitudinal studies and, ideally, carefully controlled intervention studies are needed to evaluate the claims made in this area. I use research on leadership and employee well‐being as an exemplar to argue that there is evidence that changing organizational conditions (i.e., leadership) can have a beneficial effect on employee well‐being. Approaching the topic of a healthy workplace with more rigorous research designs has the potential to strengthen the evidence base and to provide organizations with guidance on how best to intervene to enhance employee well‐being
employee wellness, psychologically healthy workplace, evidence‐based practice, leadership, transformational leadership
Organizations are increasingly implementing programs and policies to improve the health and well‐being of employees (Goetzel, Roemer, Liss‐Levinson, & Samoly, 2008). Such efforts are typically rooted in the belief that a healthy worker is a productive worker (Cooper & Bevan, 2014) and that increasing the health of workers will result in an economic return to the organization (e.g., Baicker, Cutler, & Song, 2010). Indeed, the very definition of a healthy workplace is based on the view that employee health and well‐being can be integrated with organizational goals such as profitability and productivity (Sauter, Lim, & Murphy, 1996).
Although the initial focus of such efforts was on the physical health of employees (Baicker, Cutler, & Song, 2010), more recently there has been a renewed focus on psychological well‐being and mental health issues in the workplace (Kelloway, 2017a). In the developed world, mental health problems are a leading cause of workplace disability (Kelloway, 2017a; Mental Health Commission of Canada [MHCC], 2012) and are among the most costly issues facing employers (Dimoff & Kelloway, 2016). The cost of mental health problems and mental illness has been estimated to be $50 billion annually in Canada (MHCC, 2012), between $150 billion and $300 billion each year in the United States (American Institute of Stress, 2005), and over 135 million euros each year (approximately 5% of GDP, McDaid, 2011) in the European Union.
Healthy workplace programs, defined as “employer‐sponsored initiatives directed at improving the health and wellbeing of workers” (Goetzel et al., 2008, p. 4) are expected to mitigate these costs by improving productivity, reducing absenteeism and reducing health‐care costs (Goetzel & Ozminkowski, 2008). There are certainly data that support this expectation—suggesting that when organizations focus on creating healthier workplaces, they also reap a financial benefit (e.g., Grawitch, Gottschalk, & Munz, 2006; Kelloway & Day, 2005). Unfortunately, in reviewing this literature, Dimoff, Kelloway, and MacLellan (2014, p. 317) suggested that the extant research is “characterized by methodological inadequacies including poor research design (e.g., the lack of control groups and reliance on questionable outcome measures), poorly articulated logic (i.e., inadequate articulation of how a given outcome translates into organizational performance) and narrow focus (e.g., focusing on single conditions, outcomes, or types or organizations)”.
A tremendous amount of research has demonstrated the efficacy of healthy workplace programs in improving both individual and organizational outcomes (Baicker et al., 2010; Goetzel, Ozminkowski, Sederer, & Mark, 2002; Grawitch, Gottschalk, & Munz, 2006; Kelloway & Day, 2005). Reductions in high blood pressure, excess body fat, and elevated levels of cholesterol (Goetzel et al., 2002, 2008), as well as improvements in organizational outcomes, such as reduced turnover, better accident rates, and even competitive marketplace advantage (Greening and Turban, 2000) have been associated with healthy workplace initiatives. Despite these findings, concerns about the effectiveness of healthy workplace initiatives remain.
Dimoff et al. (2014) document at least three of the most pressing concerns with healthy workplace initiatives. First, the program may be inappropriately targeted—being aimed at, or used by, individuals who would not particularly benefit from their participation. Sponsored gym memberships, for example, may be used by those who go to the gym anyway but not be used by those who are less active—and who would benefit most from the initiative. Second, organizational resources (e.g., mental health services) may be underutilized (Linnan et al., 2008). Dimoff and Kelloway (2016) developed a resource utilization model in which they suggested that individuals may not (a) recognize that they could benefit from a resource or program, (b) be aware of what resources/programs are available or (c) use the program or resource because of stigma or other concerns. As they note, potentially useful initiatives such as employee assistance programs remain widely underutilized by employees (Able Minded Solutions, 2010). Finally concerns about stigma or the perceptions of others may affect the decision whether or not to use a resource (Dimoff & Kelloway, 2016).
A concern for a psychologically healthy workplace is, arguably, rooted in Kornhauser's (1965) seminal investigation into the mental health of factory workers and the subsequent Work in America (US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1973) report that drew attention to the existence and effects of workplace stressors. By 1990, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in the United States had identified work stress as a national epidemic and one of the 10 leading causes of workplace death. In doing so they identified six major classes of workplace stressors; (a) role stressors (e.g., intra‐and inter‐role conflict, ambiguity), (b) work load and pace, (c) work scheduling, (d) career concerns, (e) job content and control, and (f) interpersonal stressors (Sauter, Murphy, & Hurrell, 1990). A substantial amount of research supports the importance and negative effects of such stressors (for a review see Kelloway & Day, 2005).
Other approaches to a healthy workplace emphasize the provision of organizational resources that either mitigate the impact of stressors or contribute directly to individual well‐being (Kelloway & Day, 2005). For example, the American Psychological Association promotes a model of the psychologically healthy workplace that is based on five major features of the organization: recognition, involvement, growth and development, health and safety, and work–family balance (see, e.g., Grawitch, Gottshalk & Muntz, 2006).
In Canada, discussion about what constitutes a psychologically healthy workplace has been driven by the enactment of a national standard for psychological health and safety (Canadian Standards Association, 2013). Although the standard is voluntary, many employers have adopted the principles and methods outlined in the standard as their basis for working toward a psychologically healthy workplace and it is reasonable to suggest that the standard provides a form of due diligence for employers in that, if they implement the standard, they can legitimately claim to be following best practices in the creation of a healthy workplace. The standard is based on four general principles guiding the organization:
Commit to improving psychological health and safety.
Have leadership commitment to the issue.
Involve employees in the identification of workplace issues and the design of workplace programs.
Ensure the confidentiality of individuals.
The general approach advocated is that the organization assess the workplace to develop and implement ways to improve working conditions within the organization and that it evaluate these efforts and re‐calibrate as necessary.
The standard identifies 13 environmental features, or workplace conditions that overlap with previous models regarding organizational culture, psychological and social support, clear leadership and expectations, civility and respect, psychological demands, growth and development, recognition and reward, involvement and influence, workload management, engagement, balance, psychological protection, and protection of physical safety. The standard does not present a theory of job stress or even define what is meant by psychological health and safety. Rather, the features identified were compiled based on a literature review. Others have followed the lead of the standard in proposing measures and models that reflect the standard, (Ivey, Blanc, Michaud, & Dobreva‐Martinova, 2018) and still others have proposed similar models (Kelloway & Day, 2005; Warr, 1987).
All of these models are simple taxonomies with no underlying theory of what constitutes a psychologically healthy workplace (Kelloway & Day, 2005). Rather, the models simply identify a list of workplace conditions that may be related to individual well‐being. Given that a healthy workplace is frequently described as integrating both individual (i.e., well‐being) and organization (i.e., productivity) goals (Sauter et al., 1996), it is particularly surprising that none of the extant models speak to this integration. As Dimoff et al. (2015) noted, the mechanisms through which the identified work conditions are expected to affect organizational outcomes is typically poorly articulated.
For example, a frequently made claim is that healthy workplace programs will reduce absenteeism (see Dimoff et al., 2015) and that this reduction will be associated with cost savings for the organizations. There are several problems with this claim when applied to a psychologically healthy workplace. First, the relationship between experienced strain and absenteeism is empirically very small. In their meta‐analysis based on 137 studies, Darr and Johns (2008) reported significant but very small correlations between strain and measures of absenteeism, psychological illness, and physical illness. Although there was some evidence that psychological and physical illness mediated the relationship between strain and absenteeism—suggesting that strain resulted in absenteeism‐causing illness, the effects were very small. As Darr and Johns (2008) note, their findings dispute the common claims that stress or strain accounts for a majority of absenteeism in organizations.
Second, there is very little empirical evidence that one can change working conditions to reduce strain. While, the results of Darr and Johns (2008) suggest that reducing strain by creating a healthy workplace is unlikely to result in a substantial reduction in absenteeism, a potentially larger concern is the lack of intervention studies in the literature. Research on psychologically healthy workplaces continues to be dominated by cross‐sectional self‐report data (Kelloway & Francis, 2010). Intervention studies with strong designs (e.g., random assignment to conditions, use of control groups, longitudinal measures) are required to justify claims that psychologically healthy workplaces will result in reduced organizational costs, or enhanced organizational productivity.
A concern for the lack of empirical evidence supporting many medical treatments led to the development of the concept of evidence‐based practice in medicine (Smith, 1991). In particular, the concern was that many therapeutic interventions were overused, underused, or misused (Walshe & Rundall, 2001) and these concerns have resonated across a wide variety of disciplines (Gray, Elhai, & Schmidt, 2007; Hemsley‐Brown & Oplatka, 2005; Kelly, Deane, & Lovett, 2012; Lilienfeld, Ritschel, Lynn, Cautin, & Latzman, 2013). Several commentators have noted the applicability of these concerns to organizational research and practice (e.g., Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006; Rynes et al., 2001) and have called for a greater use of evidence‐based decision‐making in organizations (Baba & HakemZadeh, 2012; Rousseau, 2006).
The recognition of a gap between “science” and “practice” in organizations (e.g., Briner, Denyer, & Rousseau, 2009; Briner & Rousseau, 2011; Rousseau & Barends, 2011) has typically been attributed to a lack of knowledge on the part of human resource practitioners and managers in organizations (Charlier, Brown, & Rynes, 2011; Rynes, Colbert, & Brown, 2002; Rynes, Giluk, & Brown, 2007), noting that both practitioner journals (Rynes, Giluk, & Brown et al., 2007) and MBA programs provide inadequate coverage of evidence‐based practices (Charlier, Brown, & Rynes et al., 2011).
Kelloway (2017b) proposed an alternate view suggesting that evidence‐based management first requires management‐based evidence. The suggestion is, essentially, that the research methods commonly employed to study employee well‐being do not provide clear evidence or guidance for practice.
Previously, Kelloway (2017b) used the example of hours of work to demonstrate how even well‐established phenomena in organizational research may not provide a clear basis for evidence‐based practice. Several meta‐analyses have suggested small to moderate correlations between hours of work and indices of well‐being (e.g., Sparks, Cooper, Fried, & Shirom, 1997; Ng & Feldman, 2008). However, these data do not lend themselves to unambiguous interpretation.
As Sparks et al. (1997, p. 401) note “across the samples used in the meta‐analysis, individuals' weekly working hours varied greatly. Some individuals worked only a minimum number of hours per week, (e.g., 3–4 hours). Across all samples, the actual working hours reported ranged from 0.5 to 110 hours per week.” The observed correlations do not, as suggested by some (e.g., Ng & Feldman, 2008) clearly indicate the deleterious effects of long work hours—although this is the most common interpretation. It may be, for example, that well‐being is enhanced for part‐time workers who work fewer hours (e.g., Kelloway & Gottlieb, 1998) rather than impaired for those who work long hours. Moreover, the data offer no guidance as to what the ideal work week might be. Various researchers have suggested that health problems manifest at 48 (Barton & Folkhard, 1993), 50 (Spurgeon, Harrington, & Cooper, 1997), 60 (Park et al., 2001) or 65 (Nagashima et al., 2007) hours per week. Thus, the available data tell us that work hours are associated with impaired well‐being but do not provide a clear answer to the question as to when the negative effects of work hours appear. As a result, they provide little practical guidance for organizational decision‐makers.
Although the widespread reliance on cross‐sectional, self‐report data places limits around the use of our data, the bigger problem here is our inability to estimate dose–response relationships that would provide managers with guidance in managing organizational stressors. Presenting managers with generic, albeit research‐based, suggestions to reduce workload is unlikely to be helpful—presenting an empirically derived strategy for managing workload to avoid deleterious health consequences for employees is more likely to provide a basis for action.
There is also a clear need for longitudinal research that examines well‐being in organizations. Kelloway and Francis (2012) have previously suggested the need for descriptive longitudinal research (Ployhart & Vandenburg, 2010). They argued that there is considerable value in understanding how constructs such as well‐being change across time (e.g., Garst, Frese, & Molenaar, 2000)—examining the form, the duration and the timing of change, as well as the potential causes of change (Pitariu & Ployhart, 2010; Ployhart &Vandenberg, 2010). Although it is common to suggest that theory provides the best guidance for the design of longitudinal studies (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010), Kelloway and Francis (2012) noted that few, if any, of our theories of well‐being at work provide any guidance on the nature of change.
We do know that observed change in a variable over time can reflect alpha (i.e., true change in the construct), beta (i.e., changes in the measurement instrument) or gamma (i.e., changes in conceptualization) change (Golembiewski, Billingsley, & Yeager, 1976). Longitudinal measurements—repeated measures of the same people over time—are required to disentangle the nature of change. We also need more predictive longitudinal research (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010)—focusing on variables that predict change over time. Understanding the nature of change and being able to predict change over time allow a firm basis on which to plan interventions—direct attempts to improve well‐being at work.
Interventions in organizations, including those targeting employee well‐being, are also required, although they are notoriously difficult to conduct (see Karinika‐Murray & Biron, 2015). Numerous logistic and organizational problems can arise that result in interventions not having the intended effect, having unintended effects or that make it impossible to disentangle the effects of the intervention from other organizational practices. Although these pragmatic concerns pose a challenge to the researcher, they are also reflective of organizational life (Hakel, 1983). Despite these challenges, intervention research remains the single greatest source of knowledge about the conditions that affect well‐being in organizations. If we can show that changing an organizational practice results in a change in well‐being that cannot be attributed to other causes then we have learned a great deal about workplace practices and policies that influence individual well‐being.
Kelloway (2017b) focused on the effects of leadership on individual well‐being. Leaders have the power and authority to implement practices and change procedures in their organizations (Kelloway, Penney, & Dimoff, 2017) and, as a result can influence the development of a psychologically healthy workplace by eliminating stressors and promoting healthy practices (Kelloway & Day, 2005). The leader's ability to assign work tasks and make consequential decisions exerts a direct influence on individual well‐being in organizations. Moreover, leaders can influence employee well‐being through their actions. We know, for example, that leaders' daily actions—whether positive (Kelloway, Weigand, McKee, & Das, 2013) or negative (Wong & Kelloway, 2016)—have an effect on individual well‐being. These findings are consistent with a well‐developed body of literature suggesting that leadership in organizations influences virtually every outcome variable in occupational health psychology (Kelloway & Barling, 2010).
Although it is beyond the scope of this chapter to offer a definition of leadership, researchers have generally adopted one of two perspectives—defining leadership as a role within organizations (i.e., a formal role such as manager or supervisor) or a process of behavioral influence (i.e., a leader is one who influences other people to do something). As Kelloway and Barling (2010) noted, for the most part, researchers have combined these two perspectives—focusing on the way those in formal authority interact with, and influence, others.
Although there is a large and ever‐growing body of literature that attempts to define effective leadership in organizations, transformational leadership theory has emerged as the single‐most researched theory of leadership in recent years (Barling, Christie & Hoption, 2010). Transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1985; Bass & Riggio, 2006) posits four dimensions of effective leadership. Transformational leaders act as positive role models (idealized influence) and inspire followers to achieve their best (individualized consideration). They also show concern for individual employees (individualized consideration) and challenge employees to question old assumptions and ways of doing things (intellectual stimulation).
A growing body of literature suggests that when leaders enact these four behaviors, positive effects on employee well‐being ensue. For example, in two studies Arnold, Turner, Barling, Kelloway, and McKee (2007) found that transformational leadership predicted employees' sense of meaningful work which, in turn, predicted individual well‐being. McKee, Driscoll, Kelloway, and Kelley (2011) and others (Kelloway, Turner, Barling, & Loughlin, 2012) have reported similar effects. Nielsen, Randall, Yarker, Brenner, et al. (2008) showed that perceptions of involvement, influence, and meaningful work mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and well‐being. These results were subsequently replicated in a longitudinal extension of the study (Nielsen, Yarker, Brenner, Randall, & Borg, 2008).
With the exception of the latter study, most of these findings have been based on cross‐sectional studies. However there have also been some longitudinal extensions. Using a diary methodology, both Kelloway, Weigand, McKee, and Das (2013) and Wong and Kelloway (2016) found effects of leaders' behavior on psychological indices (i.e., daily mood, McKee et al., 2013) or physiological indices (i.e., systolic blood pressure, Wong & Kelloway, 2016). Using three‐wave data with data collection waves separated by 4 months, Johnston (2012) estimated latent growth curves and showed that both the initial levels and longitudinal changes in transformational leadership were associated with corresponding changes in individual well‐being.
Previous studies have shown that it is possible to teach transformational leadership to organizational leaders and that doing so has a significant effect on both individual and organizational outcomes (e.g., Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996; Kelloway, Barling & Helleur, 2002; Mullen & Kelloway, 2009). Drawing on this literature, McKee, Driscoll, Kelloway, and Kelley (2018) used a wait‐list control group design to assess the effectiveness of leadership training on employee well‐being. In a series of analyses, they showed the following:
Relative to a control group, employees of the leaders who were trained reported significantly higher perceptions of leaders’ transformational leadership behavior.
Leaders’ transformational leadership behavior was positively associated with employees’ sense of meaning at work.
Employees’ sense of meaning significantly predicted employees’ psychological well‐being.
These results provide strong support for the hypothesis that leadership training can be a potent intervention in occupational health psychology (Kelloway & Barling, 2010).
Kelloway, Penney, and Dimoff (2017) adapted the APA psychologically healthy workplace model to suggest specific actions for leaders to improve employee well‐being while maintaining a theoretical base in transformational leadership theory. Their R.I.G.H.T. model of leadership suggested that leaders contribute to a psychologically healthy workplace when their activities focus on employee recognition, the involvement of employees in decision‐making, growth, and development of employees, ensuring that health and safety issues are dealt with and fostering teamwork and team cohesion in organizations. In doing so, Kelloway, Penney, and Dimoff (2017) suggested that R.I.G.H.T. leadership was a supplement to, rather than a replacement for, transformational leadership theory.
The R.I.G.H.T. model is also grounded in the theoretic and empirical literatures. For example, recognition of employees is a critical component of transformational leadership (e.g., Nielsen, Randall, Yarker, & Brenner, 2008) and transformational leadership predicts employee recognition by the supervisor (Gilbert & Kelloway, 2018). In turn, recognition is empirically linked to employee well‐being (Gilbert & Kelloway, 2018). In their review, Brun and Dugas (2008) noted the importance of employee recognition and suggested that individuals could be recognized for their potential (i.e., personal recognition), performance (i.e., process recognition), achievements (i.e., product recognition) or dedication to the organization. All of these forms of recognition are tactics used by transformational leaders.
Employee involvement is also implicit in transformational leadership theory; transformational leaders listen to, and attend to the needs of, their followers (Bass, 1985). Transformational leaders involve others in decision‐making (Bouwmans, Runhaar, Wesselink, & Mulder, 2017) Moreover, employees of transformational leaders feel encouraged to speak up on issues that affect them (Detert & Burris, 2007) and report an increased climate of involvement within the work unity (Richardson & Vandenbergh, 2005).
Transformational leaders also foster and show concern for the growth and development of their employees. By coaching and mentoring, leaders help their employees to learn, and use, new skills in the workplace. Empirically, transformational leadership is associated with increased employee creativity (Qu, Janssen, & Shi, 2015), skill development (Dong, Bartol, Zhang, & Li, 2017), and group‐level emotional intelligence (Lopez‐Zafra et al., 2017).
Concern for the well‐being of others is also a hallmark of transformational leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006) and, in particular, the individualized consideration dimension of transformational leadership theory. A large body of evidence supports the association between transformational leadership and outcomes related to both health and safety (for a review, see Kelloway & Barling, 2010). In addition to increasing safety behaviors and reducing incidents and injuries (Mullen & Kelloway, 2009), transformational leaders directly affect the stressors that employees may experience in their work environment. For example, employees may experience reduced work–family conflict when they work for a transformational leader (Hammond, Cleveland, O'Neill, Stawski, & Jones Tate, 2015; Munir, Nielsen, Garde, Albertsen, & Carneiro, 2012).
Finally, in an increasingly projectized work environment (Chiocchio, Kelloway, & Hobbs, 2015), employees increasingly work in teams. Transformational leadership has been noted to increase team cohesion (Pillai & Williams, 2004), group effectiveness, and group potency (Jung & Sosik, 2002). Nembhard and Edmondson (2006) pointed to the relationship between team psychological safety climate and leadership. Characteristics of transformational leaders can result in positive group‐level outcomes in a team context (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003).
Research on transformational leadership has shown that it can be taught (Barling et al., 1996) and that teaching managers these skills results in enhanced employee well‐being (McKee, Driscoll, Kelloway, & Kelley, 2018). In our work, we are beginning to replicate these findings using the R.I.G.H.T. leadership model to teach managers how they can create a psychologically healthy workplace.
Although laudable in intent, efforts to create and assess the notion of a psychologically healthy workplace are fraught with difficulties. Conceptually, efforts to define a healthy workplace have offered little more than taxonomies with no clearly articulated rationale for how the identified features translate into either individual health or organizational productivity—often cited as the goal of a health workplace (Sauter, Lim, & Murphy, 1996). Efforts to promote a healthy workplace often seem more like advocacy than science (Dimoff et al., 2015) with claims (e.g., such as the link between stress and absenteeism) that are simply not supported by the empirical literature.
Research into the nature of psychologically healthy workplace is characterized by the use of inadequate research methods—relying on cross‐sectional, self‐report data to establish both the characteristics of a healthy environment and the purported outcomes of that environment. In contrast, I have suggested the need for both descriptive and predictive longitudinal research. The use of intervention designs, though difficult to implement in practice, was identified as a much‐needed approach to research in this area. As researchers we need to demonstrate that we can create healthier work environments and that doing so will result in improvements to both individual well‐being and organizational functioning.
Finally, research linking leadership to employee well‐being was suggested as an example of how to advance the cause of psychologically healthy work. Research on leadership, and transformational leadership in particular, has demonstrated that when employees see their leaders as behaving transformationally, they report improved health outcomes. Importantly, these data have emerged from longitudinal studies. Moreover, intervention research has shown that we can train leaders to enact transformational leaders and that when we do employee health outcomes are improved. The R.I.G.H.T. model of leadership was introduced as a behavioral approach to enacting transformational leadership that has promise for leaders looking for guidance on what they can do to lead a psychologically healthy workplace.
Able Minded Solutions. (2010). Return to work and accommodations for workers on disability leave for mental disorders. Human Solutions Report.
American Institute of Stress. (2005). “Workplace Stress.” Retrieved from
Arnold, K., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & McKee, M. (2007). Transformational leadership and psychological well‐being: The mediating role of meaningful work.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
Baba, V. V., & HakemZadeh, F. (2012). Toward a theory of evidence based decisionmaking.
Baicker, K., Cutler, D., & Song, Z. (2010). Workplace wellness programs can generate savings.
Barling, J., Christie, A., & Hoption, A. (2010). Leadership. In S. Zedeck, et al. (Eds.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology
(pp. 183–240). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment.
Journal of Applied Psychology
Barton, J., & Folkard, S. (1993). Advancing versus delaying shift systems.
Bass, B. M. (1985).
Leadership and performance beyond expectations
. New York, NY: Free Press.
„Ich bin wirklich begeistert. Auch die Möglichkeit des zusätzlichen eReaders im Abo finde ich persönlich toll.”
„Die Auswahl von Legimi ist großartig.”
„Der Leser findet seine E-Books/Hörbücher sehr schnell und sie lassen sich, ob mit oder ohne Internetverbindung problemlos öffnen.”
Wurm sucht Buch
„Ich finde das Angebot von Legimi richtig toll.”
„Besonders schön finde ich die große Auswahl an möglichen Abo-Modellen und besonders die Abos mit eReader.”
Miss Foxy Reads
„Ich muss sagen, dass ich von dem E-Reader mehr als positiv überrascht bin.”
„Das ist wirklich eine großartige Idee und mal was ganz Anderes.”
Mikka liest das Leben...
Tausende von E-Books und Hörbücher
Ihre Zahl wächst ständig und Sie haben eine Fixpreisgarantie.
Sie haben über uns geschrieben:
Dabei gewährt der E-Book-Anbieter größtmögliche Freiheiten
Größter Vorteil die Möglichkeit, in der aktuellen App komfortabel zwischen E-Book und Hörbuchversion eines Titels
Spotify for E-Books