1328 - SEPARATING THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF: THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF CHALLENGE AND HINDRANCE JOB DEMANDS FOR BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT

Session: D01S043 - Psychosocial Risks at Work 1
AUTHORS:
Dopico Casal Carlos (Psychosocial Risks at Work Laboratory, Department of Social Psychology, Basic Psychology, and Methodology, University of Santiago de Compostela ~ Santiago de Compostela ~ Spain) , Hernández Artur (Psychosocial Risks at Work Laboratory, Department of Social Psychology, Basic Psychology, and Methodology, University of Santiago de Compostela ~ Santiago de Compostela ~ Spain) , Montes Carlos (Psychosocial Risks at Work Laboratory, Department of Social Psychology, Basic Psychology, and Methodology, University of Santiago de Compostela ~ Santiago de Compostela ~ Spain)
Abstract text:
Introduction: In psychosocial risk assessments, the relevance of job demands is often attributed to their frequency of exposure. However, frequency does not necessarily reflect impact: prevalent stressors may contribute little, whereas less common ones can be decisive. Within the challenge-hindrance stress framework, little is known about the weight of each specific stressor in predicting occupational health.


Purpose: To examine the relative importance of challenge and hindrance demands in predicting burnout and work engagement.


Method: A multi-occupational sample of 822 (68.5% women) employees completed an online survey that assessed 37 job demands extracted from the scientific literature. Burnout and engagement were measured using the BAT-12 and the UWES-3, respectively.


Results: Twenty-five demands were experienced as hindrances (rBAT=.13 - .51, p< .001; rUWES=.01 - -.33, p< .001 - ns), and four as challenges (rBAT=.08 - .21, p< .001 - p=.02; rUWES=.08 - .20, p< .001 - p=.03). Eight stressors showed inconsistent associations with outcomes and were not classified as demands. Cognitive demands (98.8%) and variability of work task (98.7%) were the most frequently reported demands; both were challenges. Relative importance analyses indicated that hindrance and challenge demands explained 97.0% and 3.0% of the variance in burnout (R2=.52, 95%CI [.49 - .59]), respectively, with life-work conflict as the most important predictor (RW=12.4, 95%CI [7.9 - 16.1]). For engagement, while hindrance demands explained 81.1% and challenge stressors 18.9% of the variance (R2=.34, 95%CI [.31 - .42]), job responsibility (a challenge demand) showed the highest relative weight (RW=10.9, 95%CI [5.4 - 16.3]).


Conclusions: Although nearly all employees were exposed to cognitive demands and variability of work task, these stressors played a marginal role in predicting burnout or engagement. When considering health outcomes, it is more important to differentiate the nature and relative weight of job demands than their prevalence.