Who is more susceptible to job stressors and resources? Sensory-processing sensitivity as a personal resource and vulnerability factor


Autoři: Tinne Vander Elst aff001;  Maarten Sercu aff001;  Anja Van den Broeck aff004;  Elke Van Hoof aff006;  Elfi Baillien aff004;  Lode Godderis aff001
Působiště autorů: Knowledge, Information and Research Center, IDEWE Group (an External Service for Prevention and Protection at work), Leuven, Belgium aff001;  Research Group Work, Organisational and Personnel Psychology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium aff002;  Research Group of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium aff003;  Research Centre for Work and Organisation Studies, KU Leuven, Brussels, Belgium aff004;  Optentia, North West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa aff005;  Departement Psychology (PSYCH), Faculty of Psychological and Educational Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium aff006;  Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway aff007;  Environment and Health, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium aff008
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225103

Souhrn

This study aimed to investigate whether people scoring higher (compared to lower) on sensory-processing sensitivity respond differently to the work environment. Specifically, based on the literature on sensory-processing sensitivity and the Job Demands-Resources model, we predicted that the three components of sensory-processing sensitivity (i.e. ease of excitation, aesthetic sensitivity and low sensory threshold) amplify the relationship between job demands (i.e. workload and emotional demands) and emotional exhaustion as well as the relationship between job resources (i.e. task autonomy and social support) and helping behaviour. Survey data from 1019 Belgian employees were analysed using structural equation modelling analysis. The results showed that ease of excitation and low sensory threshold amplified the relationship between job demands and emotional exhaustion. Low sensory threshold also strengthened the job resources–helping behaviour relationship. This study offered first evidence on the greater susceptibility among highly sensitive persons to the work environment and demonstrated that the moderating role might differ for the three components of sensory-processing sensitivity. Additionally, it adds sensory-processing sensitivity to the Job Demands-Resources model and highlights the idea that personal factors may act both as a personal vulnerability factor and a personal resource, depending on the nature of the perceived work environment.

Klíčová slova:

Behavior – Emotions – Employment – Interpersonal relationships – Jobs – Pain sensation – Psychological stress – Sensory cues


Zdroje

1. Aron EN, Aron A, Jagiellowicz J. Sensory processing sensitivity: A review in the light of the evolution of biological responsivity. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2012;16(3):262–82. doi: 10.1177/1088868311434213 22291044

2. Jagiellowicz J, Xu X, Aron A, Aron EN, Cao G, Feng T, et al. The trait of sensory processing sensitivity and neural responses to changes in visual scenes. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience. 2010;6(1):38–47. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsq001 20203139

3. Van IJzendoorn MH, Belsky J, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ. Serotonin transporter genotype 5HTTLPR as a marker of differential susceptibility? A meta-analysis of child and adolescent gene-by-environment studies. Translational psychiatry. 2012;2(8):e147. doi: 10.1038/tp.2012.73 22872162

4. Aron EN. The highly sensitive person: How to thrive when the world overwhelms you. New York: Broadway Books; 1996.

5. Smolewska KA, McCabe SB, Woody EZ. A psychometric evaluation of the Highly Sensitive Person Scale: The components of sensory-processing sensitivity and their relation to the BIS/BAS and "Big Five". Personality and Individual Differences. 2006;40(6):1269–79. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.09.022 WOS:000236702300017.

6. Evers A, Rasche J, Schabracq MJ. High sensory-processing sensitivity at work. International Journal of Stress Management. 2008;15(2):189–98. doi: 10.1037/1072-5245.15.2.189

7. Aron EN, Aron A. Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to introversion and emotionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1997;73(2):345–68. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.73.2.345 WOS:A1997XM66500010. 9248053

8. Lombard A. The effect of sensory processing on the work performance of call centre agents in a South African context [Doctoral thesis]. Cape Town: University of Cape Town; 2012.

9. Pluess M, Assary E, Lionetti F, Lester KJ, Krapohl E, Aron EN, et al. Environmental sensitivity in children: Development of the Highly Sensitive Child Scale and identification of sensitivity groups. Developmental psychology. 2018;54(1):51. doi: 10.1037/dev0000406 28933890

10. Belsky J, Pluess M. Beyond diathesis stress: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological bulletin. 2009;135(6):885. doi: 10.1037/a0017376 19883141

11. Ellis BJ, Boyce WT, Belsky J, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Van IJzendoorn MH. Differential susceptibility to the environment: An evolutionary–neurodevelopmental theory. Development and psychopathology. 2011;23(1):7–28. doi: 10.1017/S0954579410000611 21262036

12. Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Sanz-Vergel AI. Burnout and work engagement: The JD-R approach. In: Morgeson FP, editor. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol 1. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 12014. p. 389–411.

13. Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The Job Demands‐Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2007;22(3):309–28. doi: 10.1108/02683940710733115

14. Lu L, Lin HY, Lu C-Q, Siu O-L. The moderating role of intrinsic work value orientation on the dual-process of job demands and resources among Chinese employees. International Journal of Workplace Health Management. 2015;8(2):78–91. doi: 10.1108/IJWHM-11-2013-0045

15. Sobocko K, Zelenski JM. Trait sensory-processing sensitivity and subjective well-being: Distinctive associations for different aspects of sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015;83(Supplement C):44–9. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.045

16. Liss M, Mailloux J, Erchull MJ. The relationships between sensory processing sensitivity, alexithymia, autism, depression, and anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences. 2008;45(3):255–9. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.04.009

17. Aron EN, Aron A, Davies KM. Adult shyness: The interaction of temperamental sensitivity and an adverse childhood environment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2005;31(2):181–97. doi: 10.1177/0146167204271419 15619591

18. Pluess M, Boniwell I. Sensory-processing sensitivity predicts treatment response to a school-based depression prevention program: Evidence of vantage sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015;82:40–5. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.011

19. Angelo RP, Chambel MJ. The reciprocal relationship between work characteristics and employee burnout and engagement: A longitudinal study of firefighters. Stress and Health. 2015;31(2):106–14. doi: 10.1002/smi.2532 24124018

20. Jensen MT, Knudsen K. A two-wave cross-lagged study of business travel, work–family conflict, emotional exhaustion, and psychological health complaints. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2017;26(1):30–41. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2016.1197206

21. Bacharach SB, Bamberger P. Beyond situational constraints: Job resources inadequacy and individual performance at work. Human Resource Management Review. 1995;5(2):79–102. doi: 10.1016/1053-4822(95)90013-6

22. Van den Broeck A, Vansteenkiste M, De Witte H, Lens W. Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work & stress. 2008;22(3):277–94. doi: 10.1080/02678370802393672

23. Nielsen K, Nielsen MB, Ogbonnaya C, Känsälä M, Saari E, Isaksson K. Workplace resources to improve both employee well-being and performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Work & Stress. 2017;31(2):101–20. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2017.1304463

24. Schaufeli WB, Taris TW. A critical review of the Job Demands-Resources Model: Implications for improving work and health. Bridging occupational, organizational and public health. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Springer; 2014. p. 43–68.

25. Grover SL, Teo STT, Pick D, Roche M. Mindfulness as a personal resource to reduce work stress in the job demands‐resources model. Stress and Health. 2017;33(4):426–36. doi: 10.1002/smi.2726 27862960

26. Van den Broeck A, Schreurs B, Guenter H, van Emmerik IH. Skill utilization and well-being: a cross-level story of day-to-day fluctuations and personal intrinsic values. Work & Stress. 2015;29(3):306–23. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2015.1074955

27. Van den Broeck A, Van Ruysseveldt J, Vanbelle E, De Witte H. The job demands–resources model: Overview and suggestions for future research. Advances in positive organizational psychology: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2013. p. 83–105.

28. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer; 1984.

29. Taris TW, Kompier MAJ. Cause and effect: Optimizing the designs of longitudinal studies in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress. 2014;28(1):1–8. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2014.878494

30. Gerstenberg FXR. Sensory-processing sensitivity predicts performance on a visual search task followed by an increase in perceived stress. Personality and Individual Differences. 2012;53(4):496–500. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.019

31. Podsakoff PM, Ahearne M, MacKenzie SB. Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1997;82(2):262–70. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.262 WOS:A1997WU20100006. 9109284

32. Notelaers G, De Witte H, Van Veldhoven M, Vermunt JK. Construction and validation of the short inventory to monitor psychosocial hazards. Médecine du Travail et Ergonomie. 2007;44(1):11–7.

33. Baillien E, De Cuyper N, De Witte H. Job autonomy and workload as antecedents of workplace bullying: A two-wave test of Karasek's Job Demand Control Model for targets and perpetrators. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2011;84(1):191–208. doi: 10.1348/096317910x508371 WOS:000288575700011.

34. Schaufeli WB, Van Dierendonck D. UBOS Utrechtse Burnout Schaal: Handleiding. Lisse, the Netherlands: Swetz & Zeitlinger B.V.; 2000.

35. Aron EN. Hoog sensitieve personen: Hoe blijf je overeind als de wereld je overweldigt [The highly sensitive person: How to thrive when the world overwhelms you?]. Utrecht: A. W. Bruna Uitgevers b.v.; 1996.

36. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables. User’s guide (version 7.11). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and Muthén; 2013.

37. Bowen NK, Guo S. Structural equation modeling. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011.

38. Slagt M, Dubas JS, van Aken MAG, Ellis BJ, Deković M. Sensory processing sensitivity as a marker of differential susceptibility to parenting. Developmental psychology. 2018;54(3):543. doi: 10.1037/dev0000431 29154642

39. Weston R, Gore PA. A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist. 2006;34(5):719–51. doi: 10.1177/0011000006286345

40. Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS: Sage publications; 2009.

41. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual review of psychology. 2012;63:539–69. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 21838546


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11