1

One must know when to stop: work stressors and individual

differences as predictors of psychological detachment from

work during short respite periods.

Goldsmiths, University of London

Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of an MSc in Occupational Psychology.

Student ID number: 33270657

Supervisor: Dr Jo Lloyd

Date: 16th September 2013

Word count: 8,604

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor Dr Jo Lloyd for her patience, advice and support. She inspired,

encouraged, reassured and guided me throughout researching and writing the MSc dissertation. Thank

you for believing and motivating me to reach my potential.

Besides my supervisor I would like to thank my friends and family for having the confidence in me

throughout my MSc degree.

Thank you.

Executive Summary

1.1. Subject matter.

The aim of the current study was to investigate whether work stressors: job demand and role ambiguity

and individual differences: psychological flexibility (i.e. whether an individual has the ability to stay

focused on the present moment) and locus of control (i.e. whether an individual believes that they have

a direct control over their life) predict or hinder psychological detachment from work during short respite

periods (i.e. evenings). In relation to work stressors, it was proposed that individuals who experience

high levels of job demands and role ambiguity will also find it difficult to psychologically unwind from

work-related issues. In addition to individual differences, it was proposed that individuals who will report

high levels of psychological flexibility and strong believe that they have control over the environment

around them will also find it easier to mentally detach from work during off-job time.

1.2. Methods of analysis and findings.

The first step was to prepare the data by replacing participants’ responses with numerical equivalents,

investigating for missing values, reverse scored items of the scales where appropriate, and add all

scores for each factor. This was followed by analysing and exploring the data.

The results suggested that the psychological detachment, job demand, role ambiguity, psychological

flexibility and locus of control scales were consistent and reliable.

Analysis, which looked at the relationship between psychological detachment, job demands, role

ambiguity, psychological flexibility and locus of control, suggested that individuals who reported high

levels of job demand and role ambiguity also showed low levels of psychological detachment from work

during non-work times. Furthermore, the results showed that individuals who showed high levels of job

demands also reported to have ambiguous roles. Moreover, employees who have ambiguous roles

also reported that they find it difficult to remain focused on the present moment and tend to believe that

they do not have direct control over environment around them. The results also implied that individuals

who are able to remain focused on the present moment also reported to have strong believe that they

control the environment around them.

However, further explorations and analysis of the data that looked at which factors predict

psychological detachment from work during non-work time, showed that only job demands emerged as

a strong predictor of psychological detachment.

1.3. Strengths and limitations of the current study.

There are a number of strengths of the study. Psychological detachment from work during non-work

time is a new phenomenon. In relation to individual differences, the current study looked at

psychological flexibility and locus of control, which have important implications for both individuals and

organisations, as these are factors that can be improved. However, previous studies focused on

individual differences such as personality, which is fixed and cannot be enhanced. Another, strength of

the study lies in having participants from a wide range of occupations, which suggests that the findings

can be generalized to the group of working adults, rather than only a specific group.

Having said that, the study is not without limitations. It can be concluded that, when employees

experience high levels of job demand their psychological detachment from work during off-job time

decreases. However, it cannot be said that low psychological detachment is caused by high job

demands. Another limitation of the study is using self-report measures. Thus, it cannot be stated

whether high job demands or individuals’ perception of high job demands is associated with low

psychological detachment from work during non-work time.

1.4. Recommendations.

There are a number of aspects for future research to consider. It is recommended that factors related to

employees’ personal life be further investigated, as these may distract employees and help them to

mentally detach from work related issues during short respite periods. Furthermore, future research

should re-examine psychological flexibility and locus of control in relation to psychological detachment

and investigate whether individual differences moderate the relationship between high job demands

and psychological detachment.

Job demand is an important factor in relation to the ability to psychologically unwind from work during

non-work time. Organisations should implement effective interventions and teach employees time

management skills so that they can organise their time for work tasks in a more efficient manner. This

will help employees to complete their duties more efficiently at work and detach mentally from work

related issues at home.

Abstract

This study used a cross-sectional design and examined the multivariate relationship between

psychological detachment and job stressors (job demands and role ambiguity) and individual

differences (psychological flexibility and locus of control). The objective was to investigate which of

these factors support or hinder psychological detachment from work during non-work time. In total, 202

working adults from a variety of professions took part in the study by completing a self-report online

survey. Regression analysis revealed that high job demand was the only significant predictor of low

psychological detachment from work during non-work time. Furthermore, the remaining job stressor,

role ambiguity, was a non-significant predictor of psychological detachment. Additionally, both of the

individual difference variables, psychological flexibility and locus of control, were non-significant

predictors of psychological detachment.

Contents

1.Introduction. ............................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1.Psychological detachment from work during non-work time. ................................................................. 1

1.2.The current study. ................................................................................................................................. 3

1.3.Predictors of psychological detachment: work stressors and individual differences. ............................. 4

1.3.1.Work stressors: job demand and role ambiguity. ........................................................................... 4

1.3.1.1.Job demands and psychological detachment from work during non-work time........................... 4

1.3.1.2.Role ambiguity and psychological detachment from work during non-work time. ....................... 6

1.3.2.Individual differences: psychological flexibility and locus of control. ............................................... 7

1.3.2.1.Psychological flexibility. ............................................................................................................... 7

1.3.2.2.Locus of control. .......................................................................................................................... 8

2.Method ....................................................................................................................................................... 10

2.1.Design. ................................................................................................................................................ 10

2.2.Participants. ........................................................................................................................................ 10

2.3.Measures. ........................................................................................................................................... 11

2.3.1.Demographics. ............................................................................................................................. 11

2.3.2.Criterion variable measure. .......................................................................................................... 11

2.3.2.1.Psychological detachment measure. ......................................................................................... 11

2.3.3.Predictor variables measures. ...................................................................................................... 12

2.3.3.1.Job demands measure. ............................................................................................................. 12

2.3.3.2.Role ambiguity measure............................................................................................................ 12

2.3.3.3.Psychological flexibility measure. .............................................................................................. 13

2.3.3.4.Locus of control measure. ......................................................................................................... 13

2.4.Procedure. ........................................................................................................................................... 13

2.5.Ethics. ................................................................................................................................................. 14

3.Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 16

3.1.Data cleaning and screening. .............................................................................................................. 16

3.2.Descriptive Statistics. .......................................................................................................................... 16

3.3.Pearson’s correlation coefficient. ........................................................................................................ 17

3.4.Multiple Regression. ............................................................................................................................ 18

3.4.1.Collinearity diagnostics. ............................................................................................................... 18

3.5.Conclusion. ......................................................................................................................................... 19

4.Discussion ................................................................................................................................................ 20

4.1.Job demand and psychological detachment from work during non-work time. ................................... 20

4.2.Non-significant predictors of psychological detachment from work during non-work time. .................. 21

4.3.Additional significant results. ............................................................................................................... 22

4.4.Strengths of the current study. ............................................................................................................ 22

4.5.Limitations of the current study. .......................................................................................................... 23

4.6.Recommendations for future research. ............................................................................................... 23

4.7.Implications of the current study. ......................................................................................................... 24

4.8.Conclusion. ......................................................................................................................................... 24

5.References ................................................................................................................................................ 26

6.Appendices ............................................................................................................................................... 30

6.1.The online survey. ............................................................................................................................... 30

1

1. Introduction.

In recent years, there has been a growing body of literature surrounding the fairly new phenomenon of

psychological detachment (White, 2010). In today’s fast-paced, technologically developed, 24/7

economy, employees are largely still accessible to their managers while physically away from work.

Research indicates that this has resulted in a trend towards employees continuously facing work

demands, even during their non-work time (Etzion, Eden and Lapidot, 1998). As these demands are the

main sources of everyday stress, it is important that individuals detach from work, both physically and

psychologically, in order to keep stress levels at a manageable level (Sonnentag and Bayer, 2005).

However, living in a technologically advanced society makes psychological detachment from work

during non-work time more difficult (Sonnentag, 2012). The current study seeks to explore some of the

variables that hinder or support psychological detachment.

1.1. Psychological detachment from work during non-work time.

Etzion, Eden and Lapidot (1998) define detachment as individuals being physically away from their

work situation and routine. They proposed that detachment from work becomes harder due to

developing technologies, which make , employees increasingly accessible to their managers as they

can be contacted and receive work related emails or phone calls even when they are physically away

from work. Furthermore, Sonnentag and Bayer (2005) emphasised the importance of not only being

physically detached from work, but also being mentally detached. Thus, the researchers highlighted the

psychological component in disengaging from the work environment as not thinking about work, work

related problems and activities during off-job time. In order for psychological detachment to occur, an

individual needs to physically leave the workplace, as well as refrain from reflecting on work-related

issues and engaging in work-related duties at home.

A study by Sonnentag, Kuttler and Fritz (2010) has demonstrated that employees who are mentally

detached from work-related duties during time off work reported higher levels of psychological well-

being, higher satisfaction with their life, experienced less emotional exhaustion, and showed fewer

symptoms of psychological strain (i.e. problems with sleep); whilst still remaining engaged at work

(Sonnentag, 2012). In a longitudinal study conducted by Sonnentag, Binnewies and Mojza (2010),

psychological detachment was found to be linked to changes in employees’ well-being over time.

2

Individuals who continued to be mentally preoccupied with work-related duties during off-hours reported

increased emotional exhaustion a year later. Moreover, employees who did not mentally disengage

from work during off-job time showed decreased energy levels that further add to burnout. Further

benefits of psychological detachment from work during time off work have been reported in a study that

looked at sabbatical leave. The results indicated that sabbatical leave decreased stress and burnout

and increased levels of life satisfaction and positive affect among individuals who psychologically

detached from work during their time off (Davidson, Eden, Westman, Cohen-Charash, Hammer, Kluger,

Krausz, Maslach, O’Driscoll, Perrewé, Quick, Rosenblatt and Spector, 2010).

Psychological detachment has also been found to have detrimental effects on individuals’ everyday

well-being. This has been illustrated in a study conducted by Sonnentag and Bayer (2005). The

researchers gathered questionnaires and daily survey measures over the course of three working days.

The results implied that employees who were psychologically detached from work during evening hours

experienced good moods and lower fatigue. In addition, Sonnentag, Binnewies and Mojza (2008)

demonstrated that psychological detachment from work during time after work is a powerful and

effective recovery experience. Over the course of one week, participants completed daily survey

measures. The researchers found that higher levels of fatigue and high negative activation the next

morning were reported amongst the individuals who did not psychologically detach from work in the

evening. Rothbard and Wilk (2011) argued for the importance of looking at employees’ mood at the

beginning of their working day. The researchers found that starting their working day in a good or a bad

mood had a significant influence on how employees perceived work events, how they related to these

events, and how well they performed during the day.

In order to maintain well-being at the workplace, it is essential for employees to have respite periods

away from work (Eden, 2001 cited in Sonnentag, 2003). Etzion, et al. (1998) looked at psychological

detachment in relation to longer respite periods, lasting two weeks or longer. The results from the

research indicated that along with mastery, control and relaxation, psychological detachment is one of

the main factors that lead to improved well-being when employees returned to work. Moreover,

Brosschot, Gerrin and Thayer (2006) argued that psychological detachment is the most important factor

for enhancing employees’ psychological well-being due to being the only recovery process that involves

mentally disengaging from work related duties (White, 2010). According to Westman and Eden (1997)

these beneficial effects of long respite periods became weaker three weeks after employees returned to

the workplace (Etzion, et al., 1998). In addition, Sonnentag and Bayer (2005) emphasised the

importance of researching psychological detachment from work in relation to short intervals.

Furthermore, based on research evidence Sonnentag (2003) reported that short respite periods such

3

as evening hours are also beneficial for employees’ well-being. Thus, daily recovery processes are

effective in supplementing the effects of long respite periods; indicating that employees do not need to

wait for a vacation in order to recover from work related stress.

1.2. The current study.

The current study aimed to predict the multivariate relationship between psychological detachment and

four predictor variables, including job stressors: job demand and role ambiguity, and individual

differences: psychological flexibility and locus of control, with the purpose of finding which of them

hinder or support psychological detachment from work during short respite periods (i.e. evenings).

Living in a fast-paced 24/7 economy, employees are continuously facing demands of work, which are

the main source of everyday stress. This makes it difficult to psychologically detach from work during

non-work time (Sonnentag, 2012). The current study looks at psychological detachment as it has been

reported to have detrimental effects on individuals’ everyday well-being (Sonnentag and Bayer, 2005;

Sonnentag, Binnewies and Mojza, 2008). Psychological detachment will be considered in relation to

short respite periods (i.e. evenings), because, as reported by Westman and Eden (1997), the effects of

longer breaks, such as vacations, become weaker three weeks after employees return to work (Etzion,

Eden and Lapidot, 1998).

Therefore, it is useful to investigate which individual differences hinder or support psychological

detachment. The individual differences that have been chosen for investigation in this study are

psychological flexibility and locus of control. These individual differences are of particular interest, as

unlike personality, for example, psychological flexibility and locus of control can be enhanced, which

may lead to improved psychological detachment from work during off-work time.

Additionally, the study looks at job stressors in relation to psychological detachment from work during

non-work time. The work stressors chosen include job demands and role ambiguity. The importance of

investigating these stressors is twofold. Firstly, according to Zohar, Tzischinski and Epstein (2003),

employees who are challenged with job stressors have a greater need for recovery, which is the result

of using more effort and regulating emotions in order to face these job stressors (Sonnentag, Kuttler

and Fritz, 2010). Dealing with work stressors at the workplace will make it difficult for employees to

mentally detach from work at home, and consequently increases the need for recovery. Secondly,

understanding the job stressors that influence psychological detachment will have important

4

implications in the workplace, in terms of trying to minimise these and increase the well-being of

employees (Sonnentag and Bayer, 2005).

1.3. Predictors of psychological detachment: work stressors and individual differences.

1.3.1. Work stressors: job demand and role ambiguity.

1.3.1.1. Job demands and psychological detachment from work during non-work time.

In relation to Karasek’s job control-demand model, the current study refers to job demands as a high

amount of complex work that an employee needs to accomplish, and dealing with incompatible

demands from others (Lavoie-Tremblay, Wright, Desforges, Gélinas Marchionni and Drevniok, 2008).

Occupational stress has a significant impact on organisations and employees’ physical and mental

health (Lu, 1999). In addition, Ganster, Fox and Dweyer (2001) argued that it is well established in the

scientific literature that job demands are one of the main factors that negatively affect health and well-

being (Sonnentag and Bayer, 2005). Geurts, Kompier, Roxburgh and Houtman (2003) suggested that

employees who experience a high workload will also report poor health and well-being as it limits their

opportunity for recovery (Sonnentag and Bayer, 2005). Moreover, in a 4-wave panel study including

668 employees, a significant relationship between high job demands and impaired mental health over

time was found (De Lange, Taris, Kompier, Houtman and Bongers, 2004).

McEwen (1998) argued that when individuals are exposed to high job demands, their physiological and

psychological systems become activated with the purpose of gathering the necessary energy to face

the job demands (Sonnentag, Binnewies and Mojza, 2010). Thus, Meijman and Mulder (1998)

proposed that an individual’s physiological and psychological systems will neutralize during even a

short respite period, during which the individual can recuperate (Sonnentag, Binnewies and Mojza,

2010). However, McEwen (1998) suggested that recovery will not occur when, during respite periods,

individuals are not exposed to job demands, yet, their physiological and psychological systems remain

activated. Moreover, it has been argued that experiencing high strain levels whilst away from job

demands could facilitate and lead to long term health issues (Sonnentag, Binnewies and Mojza, 2010).

This implies that it is not sufficient for employees to be physically away from their work environment and

exposure to work-related demands. It is also essential for employees to be psychologically detached

from job demands during non-work time in order to reduce the high strain levels (Sonnentag, Binnewies

and Mojza, 2010). In addition, Brosschot, Pieper and Thayer (2005) argued that cognitive mechanisms

play a major role in physiological concomitants. Thus, the researchers argued that stressors do not lead

5

directly to prolonged activation. The constant and repeated activation of cognitive representations of

stress (i.e. preservative cognition) is a mediator between stressors (e.g. job demand) and prolonged

activation, which in turn will lead to maintained high strain levels. In respect to that, Sonnentag,

Binnewies and Mojza (2010) suggested that high strain levels caused by prolonged activation will

remain only when employees experience high job demands and lack of psychological detachment

during non-work hours.

Job demands have also been found to play an important role in psychological detachment from work

during non-work time. It has been established that employees who experience a high workload find it

difficult to mentally detach from work-related duties during off-work time, with work demands commonly

spilling over from work to home life (Sonnentag, Kuttler and Fritz, 2010). In a longitudinal experience-

sampling study, 106 working adults completed daily surveys: two at work, and one during the evening

at home. Their relatives were also interviewed every day over the phone. The results indicated that high

workload predicted negative affect at work. Furthermore, the researchers predicted that high workload

also extended and affected family life as it was associated with negative affect at home (Ilies, Schwind,

Wagner, Johnson, DeRue and Ilgen, 2007). Brosschot, Gerin and Thayer (2006) argued that

consequently, employees’ psychological and physiological systems will be activated and as a result

psychological detachment from work during non-work time will not occur (Sonnentag, et al., 2010). In

addition, Cropley and Millward Purvis (2003) conducted a diary study of school teachers, who made

hourly notes of their work-related thoughts over a work-day evening between 5 p.m. to 9p.m.

Individuals who reported high workload also showed low psychological detachment during the evenings

from work-related duties (Sonnentag and Kruel, 2006). The same finding emerged from a study

conducted by Sonnentag and Bayer (2005) based on daily survey measures during three working days.

The researchers reported that workload was negatively related to psychological detachment from work

during off-job time. A study by Sonnentag and Kruel (2006) revealed similar results, indicating that

employees who had a high workload demonstrated a low ability to mentally disengage from work during

non-work time, and continued to reflect on job-related issues in the evening.

In light of the previous research in the area, this study aims to further investigate the relationship

between job demands and psychological detachment during non-work time.

Hypothesis I: Individuals who experience high job demands will report low levels of psychological

detachment from work during non-work time.

6

1.3.1.2. Role ambiguity and psychological detachment from work during non-work time.

In relation to organisational context, role ambiguity is defined as a lack of clear information about a role

and the role expectations (Sonnentag and Kruel, 2006). Thus, employees will experience role ambiguity

when they do not possess necessary information about what their work objectives are and how to

approach their work tasks, and when there is ambiguity about the priority of work that needs to be

accomplished.

Role ambiguity is a job stressor that has been studied extensively in the scientific literature, and

according to the empirical research, role ambiguity has detrimental effects on both employees and

organisations (Siegall, 2000). In addition, a sample of 15.256 men, who had no previous history of

mental disorders completed a self-reported survey of a number of different work stressors such as: role

ambiguity, workload and social support. During 5 years of follow up, the researchers kept a record of

participants’ who took sick leaves due to depressive disorders, which lasted 30 days or longer. The

results suggested that employees who experienced high levels of role ambiguity developed depressive

disorders and as a result they took 30 or more days of sick leave (Inoue, Kawakami, Haratani,

Kobayashi, Ishizaki, Hayashi, Fujota, Aizawa, Miyazaki, Hiro, Masumoto, Hashimoto and Araki, 2010).

However, not many studies have tested role ambiguity in relation to psychological detachment. The

studies that have looked at the correlation between role ambiguity and psychological detachment from

work during non-work time have indicated non-significant relationships between these variables

(Sonnentag and Kruel, 2006; Sonnentag and Fritz, 2007). When an individual experiences high role

ambiguity, they are more likely to be mentally preoccupied about it during time off work as they will lack

a clear understanding of what is expected of them and how to prioritise their job. As a result, they will

not be able to psychologically detach from work during respite periods. On the other hand, individuals

with low role ambiguity will have a clear understanding of their work objectives and roles and as a result

they may find it easier to mentally disengage from work after work hours (Sonnentag and Kruel, 2006).

The current study will seek to add to the existing literature by investigating the relationship between role

ambiguity and psychological detachment from work during non-work time.

Hypothesis II: Individuals who experience high role ambiguity at work will report low levels of

psychological detachment from work during non-work time.

7

1.3.2. Individual differences: psychological flexibility and locus of control.

1.3.2.1. Psychological flexibility.

One of the individual difference variables included in the current study is psychological flexibility.

According to Hayes, Strosahl, Bunting, Twohig and Wilson (2004), Acceptance and Commitment

Therapy (ACT) is used in order to promote workplace mental health, and is based on mindfulness

strategies that have emerged from the Cognitive Behavioural Therapy movement. ACT promotes six

principles: acceptance, defusion, contact with the present moment, self-as-context, values, and

commitment action. These principles are interrelated and help to enhance psychological flexibility.

Psychological flexibility refers to the ability to remain focused on the present moment; being mindful

and aware of thoughts and feelings and yet having the ability to pursue goals and take actions

(Flaxman and Bond, 2010). It has been suggested that people who score high on psychological

flexibility will be able to psychologically detach themselves from work during time off work as they will

be able to focus on the present moment.

Psychological flexibility has been found to act as a mediator through which Acceptance and

Commitment Therapy can improve work-related stress. Fledderus, Bohlemijer and Pieterse (2010)

reported that psychological flexibility acts as a mediator in the relationship between coping styles and

emotional and psychological well-being (Fledderus, Bohlmeijer, Smit and Westerhof, 2010). In a study

conducted by Flaxman and Bond (2010), outcomes and processes of changes had been observed

across a three month period in working adults with above average levels of stress, who participated in

an ACT intervention. The researchers found that participants’ levels of psychological distress

decreased following the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy over the assessment period.

Furthermore, mediation effect analysis indicated that ACT was an effective intervention for mental

health improvement as a direct result of an increase in psychological flexibility. This is supported by

Lappalainen, Lehtonen, Skarp, Taubert, Ojanen and Hayes (2007), who found that client’s levels of

psychological flexibility elevated following Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (Flaxman and Bond,

2010).

Enhanced psychological flexibility is also related to many health benefits. Bond and Bunce (2000)

conducted a study in which they compared a group of individuals who had been through an ACT

intervention with a control group, and a group of individuals who received training on how to reduce

stressors at their source. The researchers reported that general mental health was only improved for

the employees that participated in the brief ACT intervention. Furthermore, Bond and Bunce (2003)

proposed that individuals who report high levels of psychological flexibility experience better mental

8

health over time (Hayes and Strosahl, 2004). In an empirical literature review it has been concluded

that individuals who reported high psychological flexibility also reported fewer psychological problems

(Chawla and Ostafin, 2007). Moreover, Bond and Bunce (2003) found that psychological flexibility is

also related to enhanced quality of life, emotional well-being, and job satisfaction (Fledderus,

Bohlmeijer, Smit and Westerhof, 2010).

The current study suggests that psychological flexibility is an important element in allowing individuals

to be able to psychologically detach from work during off-work time. One of the main features of

psychological flexibility is having contact with the present moment. In addition, psychological flexibility

relates to being able to shift focus from one life domain (e.g. work) to another area of life (e.g. personal

life (Kashdan and Rottenberg, 2010). Therefore, individuals who are not able to have contact with the

present moment (i.e. score low in psychological flexibility) also might be unable to psychologically

detach from work during off-work time. Psychological flexibility can be enhanced through Acceptance

and Commitment Therapy (Fledderus, 2010). This indicates that individuals’ psychological detachment

from work also could be enhanced.

In addition to previous research, the current study will seek to investigate the relationship between

psychological flexibility and detachment from work during non-work time.

Hypothesis III: Individuals who report high levels of psychological flexibility will also report high levels of

psychological detachment from work during non-work time.

1.3.2.2. Locus of control.

Rotter (1966) distinguished that individuals have either an internal or external locus of control.

Individuals with an internal locus of control try to control the environment around them in a confident,

alert and directive manner as they hold a strong belief that they have control over their life. Individuals

with external locus of control, on the contrary, believe that they do not have direct control over their life

and attribute outcomes to powerful others, fate, or luck (Ng, Sorensen and Eby, 2006).

Locus of control is a personality variable that has been studied at length in many different settings

(Spector, 1988). Judge and Bono (2001) argued that locus of control is a fundamental factor at work as

it is associated with numerous important work outcomes such as job satisfaction and job performance

(Ng, Sorensen and Eby, 2006). In addition, empirical research has shown that individuals who hold an

internal locus of control also display higher levels of physiological and psychological well-being.

9

Furthermore, internals manage both everyday stress and stress at the workplace better than externals

do (Spector, Cooper, Sanchez, O'Driscoll, Sparks, Bernin, Bussing, Dewe, Hart, Lu, Miller, De Moraes,

Ostrognay, Pagon, Pitariu, Poelmans, Radhakrishnan, Russinova, Salamatov, Salgado, Shima, Siu,

Stora, Teichmann, Theorell, Vlerick, Westman, Widerszal-Bazyl, Wong and Yu, 2002). In a recent

meta-analysis, researchers looked at the relationship between locus of control and a number of

different work outcomes. The results implied that locus of control was an important aspect related to

well-being and job-related affective reactions (Meier, Semmer, Elfering and Jacobshagen, 2008).

Kirkcaldy, Shephard and Furnham (2002) administered the pressure management indicator (PMI, which

measured job satisfaction, job stressors, physical and mental health, in addition to Type A behaviour

and locus of control) to a sample of 332 managers. The researchers reported that individuals with a

high internal locus of control perceive lower levels of stress and higher levels of health than individuals

with a high external locus of control.

In addition to the findings in the scientific literature, the current study proposes that individuals who

have high internal control beliefs (believe that they can control what is happening at work) will be able

to psychologically detach from work during off-work time. On the contrary, individuals who have high

external beliefs will be unable to psychologically detach from work during off-work time due to having

beliefs that things are beyond their control. They may also worry more and think about work during

respite periods.

In light of the previous literature discussed, the current study will investigate the relationship between

locus of control and psychological detachment.

Hypothesis IV: Individuals who report an internal locus of control will also report high levels of

psychological detachment from work during non-work time.

10

2. Method

2.1. Design.

This study made use of a cross-sectional design, with four predictor variables and one criterion

variable. The criterion variable in the study was psychological detachment and predictor variables

included: job demand, role ambiguity, psychological flexibility and locus of control. The data collection

procedure was standardized by providing all participants with the same instructions in relation to

responding to the survey. The data was analysed using correlation coefficient and multiple linear

regression analyses.

2.2. Participants.

The sampling method used in the study was opportunity and snowball sampling. The survey was

distributed via email to friends and family of the researcher, who farther distributed the survey to their

work colleagues, friends and family. Their participation in the study was voluntary. A total of 202

working adults participated in the study, of whom 71 (35.1%) were males and 131 (64.9%) were

females. One-hundred-and-ninety-four participants provided their age, which ranged from 18 years old

to 62 years old. The mean age was 34.83 and the standard deviation was 8.54. In terms of marital

status, 90 (44.6%) participants were single, divorced/ separated or widowed, whereas 111 (55%)

participants were in a relationship or married, and one person (0.5%) did not provide information about

their marital status. Fifty-eight (28.7%) participants reported having children, whereas 144 (71.3%)

stated that they do not have children. Among the 58 participants who have children, one (0.5%) did not

specify how many children they have, 21 (10.4%) participants reported having 1 child, 25 (12.4%) have

2 children, 6 (3%) participants have 3 children, 4 (2%) respondents have 4 children and one person

(0.5%) has 7 children. In relation to ethnicity, the vast majority of participants, 168 (83.2%) were White,

13 (6.4%) participants were Black or African American, 5 (2.5%) participants were Hispanic or Latino, 6

(3%) were Asian/Pacific Islanders. The remaining 10 (5%) of respondents were of other ethnicity.

Out of the people that participated in this study, 150 (74.3%) were full-time and 52 (325.7%) were part-

time working adults. Two participants (1%) had completed GCSE/ O’level as their highest level of

education, 8 (4%) completed A’level, 29 (14.4%) had a diploma, 59 (29.2%) had a bachelor’s degree,

80 (39.6%) had a master’s degree, 10 (5%) had a doctoral degree and remaining 14 (6.9%)

11

respondents had other qualifications. The participants of this study were working in various professions

such as psychologists, midwives, teachers/ lecturers, graphic designers, sales, catering, IT, and

medics.

2.3. Measures.

The online questionnaire (refer to appendix 6.1) consisted of six sections gathering information about

participants’ demographic characteristics and investigating the criterion variable (psychological

detachment) and predictor variables (job demand, role ambiguity, psychological flexibility and locus of

control).

2.3.1. Demographics.

The first section consisted of 12 items regarding demographic characteristics. The participants were

asked to provide the following information about themselves: age in years, gender, ethnicity, marital

status, whether they have children, how many children they have, their highest level of educational

attainment , working regime, how many hours they work in a typical week, and their occupation.

2.3.2. Criterion variable measure.

2.3.2.1. Psychological detachment measure.

The second section was a subscale taken from The Recovery Experience Questionnaire by Sonnentag

and Fritz (2007), which consisted of four items: ‘I forget about work.’, ‘I don’t think about work.’, ‘I

distance myself from work.’, ‘I get a break from the demands of work.’ Participants were asked to

respond to the items in relation to their free evenings (as the study looked at short respite periods) and

indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with the statements. The items were rated on a 5-

point Likert scale as follows: I do not agree at all, I somewhat disagree, I neither agree nor disagree, I

somewhat agree, and I fully agree. In addition, the statement ‘I do not agree at all’ was scored as 1 and

the statement ‘I fully agree’ was scored as 5. Thus, the possible range of scores was from 4 to 20,

where low scores indicated low psychological detachment and high scores indicated high psychological

detachment. The scale is a self-report measure, which has been widely used by researchers in the field

12

of psychological detachment. The scale is consistent and reliable as indicated by high Cronbach’s α (α

= .855).

2.3.3. Predictor variables measures.

2.3.3.1. Job demands measure.

The third section was a subscale taken from Karasek’s (1985) Job Demand and Control Questionnaire,

which consisted of seven items. Sample items included: ‘My job requires working very fast.’, ‘My job

requires working very hard.’ and ‘I am not asked to do an excessive amount of work.’ Participants were

asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statements. The items were

rated on a 4-point Likert scale as follows: Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. In

addition, the statement ‘Strongly Agree’ was scored as 1, and the statement ‘Strongly Disagree’ was

scored as 4. Four items- 1, 2, 6 and 7- were reverse scored. Thus, the possible range of scores was

from 7 to 28. The scale is a self-report measure with high Cronbach’s α (α = .820), suggesting that the

scale was consistent and reliable.

2.3.3.2. Role ambiguity measure.

The fourth section included a work ambiguity subscale taken from the ‘Role conflict and ambiguity in

complex organizations’ by Rizzo, House and Lirtzman (1970), which consisted of 10 items. The sample

questions were: ‘I feel certain about how much authority I have.’, ‘I am able to act the same regardless

of the group I am with.’, ‘I feel certain how I will be evaluated for a raise or promotion.’ Respondents

were asked to rate how true each statement is for them. The items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale

as follow: Very false, Somewhat true, Slightly false, Neither false or true, Slightly true, Somewhat true

and Very true. In addition, the statement ‘Very false’ was scored as 1, and the statement ‘Very true’

was scored as 7. Thus, the possible range of scores was from 10 to 70. All 10 items were reverse

scored in order for low scores to indicate low levels of role ambiguity and high scores to represent high

levels of role ambiguity. The scale is a self-report measure, which is consistent and reliable as indicated

by high Cronbach’s α (α = .821).

13

2.3.3.3. Psychological flexibility measure.

The fifth section included the Work-related Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (WAAQ) by Bond,

Lloyd and Guenole (in press), which measured psychological flexibility. The scale consisted of 7 items

such as: ‘I am able to work effectively in spite of any personal worries that I have.’, ‘I can admit to my

mistakes at work and still be successful.’, ‘I can still work very effectively, even if I am nervous about

something.’ Participants were asked to rate how true each statement is for them. The items were rated

on a 7-point Likert scale as follow: Never true, Very seldom true, Seldom true, Sometimes true,

Frequently true, Almost always true and Always true. The statement ‘Never true’ was scored as 1, and

‘Always true’ was scored as 7. The possible range of scores was from 7 to 49, where low scores

indicated low levels of psychological flexibility and high scores represented high levels of psychological

flexibility. Cronbach’s α was very high (α = .911), suggesting that the scale was consistent and reliable.

2.3.3.4. Locus of control measure.

The sixth and final section consisted of the Development of the Work Locus of Control Scale by Spector

(1988), which included 16 items such as: ‘If employees are unhappy with a decision made by their

boss, they should do something about it.’, ‘Getting the job you want is mostly a matter of luck.’, ‘Making

money is primarily a matter of good fortune.’ Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which

they agree or disagree with the statements. The items were rated on a 6-point Likert scale: Disagree

very much, Disagree moderately, Disagree slightly Agree slightly, Agree moderately and Agree very

much. The statement ‘Disagree very much’ was scored as 1, and ‘Agree very much’ was scored as 6.

As indicated by Spector (1988), eight items- 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 11, 14 and 15- were reverse scored. The

possible range of scores was from 16 to 96, where low scores indicated internal locus of control and

high scores indicated external locus of control. The scale is a self-report measure, which is consistent

and reliable as indicated by high Cronbach’s α (α = .822).

2.4. Procedure.

The data was collected from participants using an online questionnaire (refer to appendix 6.1) created

on SurveyMonkey. The researcher emailed a brief description of the study with a link, which allowed

participants to access the questionnaire. The survey took approximately 10 minutes to complete and

14

participants were asked to distribute the link further to anyone who is 18 years old and over and

currently employed.

Once participants opened the link, they were presented with an introduction and briefing about the

study, which included information about the researcher and research supervisor, the rights of the

participant, and how to contact the researcher. The next page required participants to consent to take

part in the study and declare that they have read and understood the purpose of the study. Without

consent, participants would be unable to proceed to the study. Respondents were also asked to write

an anonymity number, which would enable the researcher to identify their responses if they wished to

withdraw from the study. Once giving their consent, participants could proceed with completing the

questionnaire. Before submitting their responses, participants were provided with a debriefing page,

which provided more detailed information about the aim of the study, references to studies that looked

at psychological detachment, and contact details if the participants had queries or if they wished to

receive results from the study.

The collected data was transferred to Excel format and then into SPSS and appropriate changes were

made such as coding the data, reversing values and computing scores of each variable. The data was

analysed using correlation coefficient and multiple linear regression analyses.

2.5. Ethics.

Before the researcher was allowed to proceed with the study, the ‘Psychology Department Ethical

Approval Form’ had to be completed and submitted for approval. The Departmental Ethical Committee

at the Institute of Management Studies at the Goldsmith’s University of London granted the ethical

approval. The BPS (British Psychology Society) guidelines were followed throughout the study.

All participants were presented with information about the aim of the study and what would be expected

of them; they were told that it would take approximately 10 minutes to complete the survey. Moreover,

participants were ensured about the confidentiality of the data they provided by explaining that the data

will be reported in aggregate format, questionnaires would be concealed, and no one other than the

researcher would have access to the data.

Furthermore, respondents were informed that participation in the study was entirely voluntary and that

they were free to withdraw from the study at any time and for any reason, and they do not need to

disclose this reason. Participants were asked to provide an anonymity number, in order to enable the

15

researcher to identify their responses should they wish to withdraw from the study. They were also

provided with the email address of the researcher in case they required more information about the

study and/or they wished to withdraw after completing the survey.

Participants were unable to proceed to the questionnaire without providing their consent to participate

in the study. Thus, they were required to tick a box next to the following statement ‘I confirm that I have

read and understand the purpose of this study and I give my consent to participate in the research

study.’

On the completion of the questionnaire participants were presented with a debriefing page. It included

more detailed information about the research, references of studies that looked at psychological

detachment and the email address to the researcher.

16

3. Results

3.1. Data cleaning and screening.

Once the data from SurveyMonkey was transferred to SPSS, participants’ responses were recorded

into numerical equivalent of their answers. Missing values were then recorded into SPSS into system

missing and missing observations were assumed to be missing completely at random (MCAR) as

Little’s MCAR test was non-significant. In addition to this result, the ‘Missing Value Analysis’ was used

in order to replace the 32 missing values. According to Field (2005) this method is better than using the

mean. The next step was to reverse scored four items- 1,2, 6,7- from the job demand scale, all of the

10 items from the role ambiguity measure and eight items- 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 11, 14 and 15- from the locus of

control measure. Lastly, the scores for the criterion variable and for each of the predictor variables were

added by using the ‘compute’ command. Following that, the data was explored and analysed.

3.2. Descriptive Statistics.

Table 1. Means, standard deviation and Cronbach’s alpha for the criterion variable (psychological detachment)

and the predictor variables (job demand, role ambiguity, psychological flexibility and locus of control). (N=202).

M ± SD Cronbach’s alpha

Psychological Detachment 12.15 ± 4.35 .85

Job Demand 19.12 ± 3.53 .82

Role Ambiguity 28.45 ± 9.52 .82

Psychological Flexibility 34.84 ± 7.66 .91

Locus of Control 43.18 ± 10.00 .82

The table 1 represents Cronbach’s alpha values for each of the scale. The rule of thumb is that the

scale should have a minimum Cronbach’s alpha value of .7 to be considered consistent and reliable

(Brane, Kemp and Snelgar, 2009). In addition to this, all the scales showed internal reliability with

Cronbach’s α= .85 for psychological detachment, Cronbach’s α=.82 for job demand, role ambiguity and

locus of control and Cronbach’s α= .91 for locus of control.

The descriptive statistics of the criterion variable suggest that participants reported slightly above

moderate levels of psychological detachment (12.15 out of possible score of 20). Furthermore, the

17

results of predictor variables were as follow. In addition to job stressors, the results indicate that

participants scored slightly above moderate levels of job demand (19.12 out of possible score of 28)

and low scores of role ambiguity (28.45 out of possible score of 70). In relation to individual differences

participants reported high scores in psychological flexibility (34.84 out of possible score of 49) and

slightly below moderate levels of locus of control (43.18 out of possible score of 96).

3.3. Pearson’s correlation coefficient.

The bivariate correlations between the criterion variable and the predictor variables are presented in

table 2. According to the bivariate correlations, the criterion variable, psychological detachment, had

significant negative correlation with job demand (r = -.376, p < 0.001) and significant negative

relationship with role ambiguity (r = -.259, p < 0.001). Furthermore, according to the bivariate

correlations, the criterion variable did not have significant correlation with psychological flexibility (r =

.080, p= 0.260) and with locus of control (r = -.044, p= 0.531).

Furthermore, the table 2 represents significant correlations, which were not hypothesized in the study.

Job demand had positive significant relationship with role ambiguity (r = .337, p < 0.001). Moreover,

role ambiguity showed negative significant relationship with psychological flexibility (r = -.383, p <

0.001) and positive significant relationship with locus of control (r = .344, p < 0.001). Also, psychological

flexibility had negative significant relationship with locus of control (r = -.235, p < 0.001).

Table 2. The significance and correlation coefficient values of the bivariate correlations entered to the model

(Pearson’s r).

N=202

2 3 4 5

1 Psychological detachment -.376** -.259** .080 -.044

2 Job demand .337** -.134 .108

3 Role ambiguity -.383** .344**

4 Psychological flexibility -.235**

5 Locus of Control

*p < .05 ; **p < .001

18

3.4. Multiple Regression.

The data were analysed using the ‘Enter’ method and a multiple regression analysis was performed on

the raw data. The results indicate that the overall model was significant (F= 9.61, df= 4, p< 0.001). The

model explained 14.6% of the variance in psychological detachment from work during non-work time

(Adjusted R²= .146).

The information for the strength of the predictor variables entered into the model is provided in table 3.

Table 3. The unstandardized and standardised regression coefficient for the variables entered into the model.

Model B SE B β

Job demand -.399 .085 -.325**

Role ambiguity -.079 .035 -.173

Psychological flexibility -.011 .040 -.019

Locus of Control .020 .030 .046

*p < .05 ; **p < .001

Accordingly, job demand (β = -.325, p < 0.001) was significant predictor of psychological detachment

from work during non-work time as the predictor variable had the greatest beta loading and the highest

significance. The other variables, psychological flexibility and locus of control did not emerge as

significant predictors. Furthermore, the table 3 shows that role ambiguity lost significance. The

hypothesis was rejected.

3.4.1. Collinearity diagnostics.

Collinearity diagnostics were requested in order to investigate the assumption of no multicollinearity.

The tolerance values indicated that correlation between predictor variables, job demand, role ambiguity,

psychological flexibility and locus of control, varied between 0 and 1 indicating independence of

variance of each variable. Furthermore, variance inflation factor (VIF) was not greater than 10 and the

average VIF was not substantially greater than 1 indicating that the regression was not biased by

multicollinearity (Field, 2005). Taking all into account assumption of non-multicollinearity was met.

19

3.5. Conclusion.

To conclude, a multiple regression analysis was performed between psychological detachment as the

criterion variable and four predictor variables: job stressors including job demand and role ambiguity,

and individual differences including psychological flexibility and locus of control. Using the ‘Enter’

method, a significant model emerged. The model was of weak strength explaining 14.6% of the

variance. Furthermore, the only significant predictor of psychological detachment from work during non-

work time was job demand.

Moreover, bivariate correlations revealed that that there was a significant correlation between

psychological detachment and role ambiguity. However, under multiple regression analysis role

ambiguity became non-significant predictor of psychological detachment. Also, the predictor variables

correlated with each other. The results indicated significant correlation between job demand and role

ambiguity. Role ambiguity showed significant correlation with psychological flexibility and locus of

control. Lastly, there was significant correlation between psychological flexibility and locus of control.

20

4. Discussion

The purpose of the study was to investigate work stressors (job demand and role ambiguity) and

individual differences (psychological flexibility and locus of control) in order to explain which factors

hinder or support psychological detachment from work during short respite periods (i.e. evenings). In

addition to the literature review, there were four proposed hypotheses. Job demand, role ambiguity and

locus of control were hypothesised to be negatively associated with psychological detachment from

work during non-work time, whereas psychological flexibility was hypothesised to be a positive

predictor. Following data exploration and analysis, the results revealed that job demand was the only

significant predictor of psychological detachment. The remaining predictor variables (role ambiguity,

psychological flexibility and locus of control) were non- significant predictors of psychological

detachment from work.

The relationship between the criterion variable (psychological detachment from work during non-work

time) and the significant predictor variable, job demand, will now be explored further. Thereafter, the

results of the non-significant predictor variables (role ambiguity, psychological flexibility and locus of

control) will be discussed. This will be followed by reporting other significant findings in the study. The

limitations and strengths of the current study will then be deliberated, before providing

recommendations for future research and practical implications of the current study.

4.1. Job demand and psychological detachment from work during non-work time.

With respect to job demand, the job stressor has been found to be a significant negative predictor of

psychological detachment from work during non-work time. This result was expected and is in line with

previous research that revealed that employees who experience high job demands will find it difficult to

mentally detach from work during non-work time (Sonnentag and Bayer, 2005; Sonnentag and Kruel,

2006; Sonnentag, et al., 2010). Indeed, individuals show low psychological detachment from work when

they ponder upon and anticipate job demands (i.e. chronic time pressure), which are going to continue

in the following days (Sonnentag and Bayer, 2005). In addition, McEwen (1998) explained that

employees, who have been exposed to high job demands during the day, will have activated both their

physical and psychological systems in order to collect energy, which will be used to deal with the

demands. However, individuals will not be able to recover when these systems are still activated during

non-work time, in which they do not have to deal with these job demands (Sonnentag, Binnewies and

21

Mojza, 2010). Thus, it is plausible to suggest that nowadays, employees take a lot of work home with

them in order to complete tasks or prepare for the next working day during non-work time. Additionally,

they will be preoccupied with job demands physically and/or psychologically, thus, making it less likely

that they will psychologically unwind from work during short respite periods (i.e. evenings).

4.2. Non-significant predictors of psychological detachment from work during non-work time.

Analyses showed that role ambiguity, psychological flexibility and locus of control were non-significant

predictors of psychological detachment.

In relation to job stressors, the results indicate that the model revealed a complex relationship with role

ambiguity. Under bivariate correlation, role ambiguity had significant negative relationship with

psychological detachment. This suggests that individuals who reported high levels of role ambiguity

also showed lower levels of psychological detachment from work during off-job time. However, the

variable became non-significant under the multiple regression analysis. The results imply that job

demand is more important in relation to being able to mentally detach from work during non-work time

than role ambiguity, which is in line with previous research (Sonnentag and Kruel, 2006). In addition to

that, there are a number of reasons why job demand has been found to be a significant predictor of low

psychological detachment, whereas role ambiguity has not. Firstly, participants have scored higher on

job demand compared to role ambiguity. This might indicate that job demands are perceived as more

stressful for employees than ambiguous roles are. Also, individuals might be preoccupied with work

related tasks during non-work time when faced with a high workload rather than when faced with role

ambiguity (Sonnentag and Kruel, 2006).

In relation to individual differences, both psychological flexibility and locus of control have been found to

be non-significant predictors of psychological detachment from work. These two variables, however,

were correlated with role ambiguity and also indicated a relationship with each other. An explanation as

to why these individual differences did not emerge as significant predictors of the criterion variable

might simply be that psychological flexibility and locus of control do not affect psychological detachment

from work during off-job time. However, previous research into psychological detachment did not

investigate the relationship between psychological flexibility and locus of control. To the researchers’

knowledge, this is the first study that investigated these individual differences in relation to

psychological detachment from work during short respite periods (i.e. evenings). These were of

particular interest because these specific individual differences can be enhanced.

22

4.3. Additional significant results.

The results from the correlation coefficients showed that role ambiguity had significant negative

relationship with psychological detachment and psychological flexibility; and significant positive

relationship with job demand and locus of control. The results also showed that psychological flexibility

had significant negative relationship with locus of control.

Individuals who reported having ambiguous roles also reported low psychological flexibility and an

external locus of control. This implies that individuals who do not have a clear understanding of their job

responsibilities are also less likely to be able to remain focused on the present moment, are unable to

be mindful of their thoughts and feelings, and still be able to pursue goals and take actions.

Furthermore, individuals who experience high levels of role ambiguity are more likely to believe that

they do not have direct control over the environment around them. The correlation coefficients results

further showed that individuals who experience high role ambiguity reported high levels of job demand,

which might suggest that ambiguous roles are perceived as more demanding. Moreover, the individual

differences showed significant negative relationships with each other. Thus, individuals who reported

high levels of psychological flexibility also reported having an internal locus of control; suggesting that

those who are likely to be able to remain focused at the present moment, be mindful of their thoughts

and feelings, and still be able to pursue goals and take actions, also have a strong belief that they can

control the environment around them.

4.4. Strengths of the current study.

The study looked at psychological detachment, which is a new phenomenon in the scientific literature.

Previous research looked at job stressors, workload and role ambiguity (Sonnentag and Bayer, 2005;

Sonnentag and Kruel, 2006) and individual differences such as personality (Sonnentag and Fritz, 2007)

in relation to psychological detachment from work during non-work time. However, the current study

looked at individual differences including psychological flexibility and locus of control, which can be

enhanced, unlike personality. In addition, this could have important implications for both individuals and

organisations in terms of improving employees psychological detachment. The results indicated that

psychological flexibility and locus of control were non-significant predictors of psychological

detachment, yet, the correlation coefficients results indicated some relationships.

23

The sample in the study included employees from a wide range of professions such as: midwifes,

psychologists, teachers, medics, individuals working in retail, catering, IT, etc. This indicates that the

findings can be generalized to the group of working adults, rather than only a specific group.

4.5. Limitations of the current study.

Conclusions about causality cannot be drawn due to use of the multiple regression method. Thus, a

significant outcome does not imply causation or direction. In addition, it can be concluded that, when

employees experience high job demand their psychological detachment from work during off-job time

decreases. However, it cannot be said that low psychological detachment is caused by high job

demands. In terms of directing future research, this limitation can be used to inform future studies,

where other methodologies such as experimental designs may be used in order to confirm the causality

and direction of this finding.

Self-report measures have been used in the study. Consequently, there is a lack of a comprehensive

answer as to whether high job demands or individuals’ perception of high job demands is associated

with low psychological detachment from work during non-work time. Future research should consider

using objective measures in order to clarify this (Sonnentag and Kruel, 2006).

4.6. Recommendations for future research.

The current study controlled for demographic characteristics such as marital status, whether

participants had children, and if so how many. However, future research should look into other factors

related to employees’ personal life, which might serve as a distraction and help employees to detach

from work-related issues during short respite periods. Sonnentag and Kruel (2006) suggested that

positive (i.e. pleasant evening) as well as negative (i.e. argument with a partner) experiences at home

might help individuals to mentally unwind from work during off-job time.

It is suggested that the importance of both of the individual differences in relation to psychological

detachment from work during non-work time is reinvestigated. The researcher proposes that mainly it is

important to look at psychological flexibility as the particular individual difference can be enhanced

through Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). For instance, it would be recommended that a

study with a control group and a group of employees who will receive ACT, which enhances

psychological flexibility, be conducted in order to investigate whether employees, who receive ACT will

24

also report higher levels of psychological detachment following the session. Additionally, psychological

detachment should be measured before and after the intervention, and once more a few weeks later in

order to investigate how long the effects last.

A further recommendation is to investigate whether psychological flexibility and/ or locus of control

serve as moderators between high job demands and psychological detachment.

4.7. Implications of the current study.

As established by the current study and previous research, job demands play a major role in

employees’ ability to mentally detach from work-related issues during short respite periods (i.e.

evening).

In order to improve employees’ psychological detachment from work during off-job time it is essential

for organisations to address the issue of high job demands and introduce efficient time management

interventions. This can be done by teaching employees how to more efficiently manage their time at

work. In addition, it is proposed that time management interventions be implemented in the workplace.

A review of time management literature suggested that there are a number of benefits of implementing

such an intervention. The research indicated that following a time management intervention, employees

learned how to manage their time more effectively, worried less, and reduced procrastination

(Claessens, Van Eerde, Rutte and Roe, 2007). Consequently, employees should complete their work-

related tasks in a shorter time frame, thus allowing them to mentally unwind from these demands during

non-work time (Sonnentag and Kruel, 2006).

4.8. Conclusion.

The purpose of the study was to investigate whether work stressors (job demand and role ambiguity)

and individual differences (psychological flexibility and locus of control) hinder or support psychological

detachment from work during short respite periods (i.e. evening). Job demand was found to be a

significant negative predictor of psychological detachment from work during non-work time, whereas

role ambiguity, psychological flexibility and locus of control were non-significant predictors of the

criterion variable. However, the correlation coefficients results suggested that psychological

detachment from work had a significant negative relationship with both of the job stressors. Moreover,

role ambiguity had significant positive relationship with job demand and locus of control and a

25

significant negative relationship with psychological flexibility. Furthermore, the individual differences

showed a significant negative relationship with each other.

It was the first study that looked at psychological flexibility and locus of control in relation to

psychological detachment. These particular individual differences were included as they can be

enhanced, which could have important implications for both individuals and organisations in terms of

improving employees psychological detachment from work during non-work time. Even though, they

were non-significant, the correlation coefficients results indicated some relationships. In addition, future

research should consider reinvestigating the importance of both of the individual differences in relation

to psychological detachment from work during non-work time.

26

5. References:

Bond, F.W. & Bunce, D. (2003) cited in Fledderus, M., Bohlmeijer, E. T., Smit, F., & Westerhof, G. J.

(2010). Mental health promotion as a new goal in public mental health care: A randomized

controlled trial of an intervention enhancing psychological flexibility. Journal

Information, 100(12).

Bond, F. W. & Bunce, D. (2000) cited in Hayes, S.C. & Strosahl, K.D. (2004). A Clinician’s Guide to

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. New York: KA/PP.

Bond, F. W. & Bunce, D. (2003) cited in Hayes, S.C. & Strosahl, K.D. (2004). A Clinician’s Guide to

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. New York: KA/PP.

Bond, F. W., Lloyd, J., & Guenole, N. (in press). The work‐related acceptance and action questionnaire:

initial psychometric findings and their implications for measuring psychological flexibility in

specific contexts. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.

Brane, N.Kemp, R. & Snelgar, R. (2009). SPSS for Psychologists (4th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.

Brosschot, J. F., Gerin, W., & Thayer, J. F. (2006) cited in Sonnentag, S., Kuttler, I., & Fritz, C. (2010).

Job stressors, emotional exhaustion, and need for recovery: A multi-source study on the

benefits of psychological detachment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(3), 355-365.

Brosschot, J.F., Gerrin, W. & Thayer, J.F. (2006) cited in White, E. (2010). Helping to promote

psychological well-being at work: the role of work engagement, work stress and psychological

detachment using the job demand-resources model. The Plymouth Student Scientist, 4(2),

155-180.

Brosschot, J. F., Pieper, S., & Thayer, J. F. (2005). Expanding stress theory: prolonged activation and

perseverative cognition. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30(10), 1043-1049.

Chawla, N., & Ostafin, B. (2007). Experiential avoidance as a functional dimensional approach to

psychopathology: An empirical review. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63(9), 871-890.

Claessens, B. J., Van Eerde, W., Rutte, C. G., & Roe, R. A. (2007). A review of the time management

literature. Personnel Review, 36(2), 255-276.

Cropley, M. & Millward Purvis, L.J. (2003) cited in Sonnentag, S., & Kruel, U. (2006). Psychological

detachment from work during off-job time: The role of job stressors, job involvement, and

recovery-related self-efficacy. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(2),

197-217.

Davidson, O. B., Eden, D., Westman, M., Cohen-Charash, Y., Hammer, L. B., Kluger, A. N., Krausz, M.,

Maslach, C., O’Driscoll, M., Perrewé, P. L., Quick, J. C., Rosenblatt, Z., & Spector, P. E.

(2010). Sabbatical leave: who gains and how much?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5),

953.

27

De Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A., Houtman, I. L., & Bongers, P. M. (2004). The

relationships between work characteristics and mental health: examining normal, reversed and

reciprocal relationships in a 4-wave study. Work & Stress, 18(2), 149-166.

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

respite. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 577-585.

Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (2nd ed.). London:SAGE.

Flaxman, P. E., & Bond, F. W. (2010). A randomised worksite comparison of acceptance and

commitment therapy and stress inoculation training. Behaviour research and therapy, 48(8),

816-820.

Fledderus, M., Bohlemijer, E.T. & Pieterse, M.E. (2010) cited in Fledderus, M., Bohlmeijer, E. T., Smit,

F., & Westerhof, G. J. (2010). Mental health promotion as a new goal in public mental health

care: A randomized controlled trial of an intervention enhancing psychological flexibility. Journal

Information, 100(12).

Fledderus, M., Bohlmeijer, E. T., Smit, F., & Westerhof, G. J. (2010). Mental health promotion as a new

goal in public mental health care: A randomized controlled trial of an intervention enhancing

psychological flexibility. Journal Information, 100(12).

Ganster, D.C., Fox, M.L., & Dweyer, M.J. (2001) cited in Sonnentag, S., & Bayer, U. V. (2005).

Switching off mentally: Predictors and consequences of psychological detachment from work

during off-job time.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(4), 393.

Geurts, S. A. E., Kompier, M. A. J., Roxburgh, S., & Houtman, I. L. D. (2003) cited in Sonnentag, S., &

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

detachment from work during off-job time.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(4),

393.

Hayes, S.C. & Strosahl, K.D. (2004). A Clinician’s Guide to Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. New

York: KA/PP.

Hayes, S.C., Strosahl, K.D., Bunting, K., Twohig, M. & Wilson, K. (2004) cited in Flaxman, P. E., &

Bond, F. W. (2010). A randomised worksite comparison of acceptance and commitment

therapy and stress inoculation training. Behaviour research and therapy, 48(8), 816-820.

Ilies, R., Schwind, K. M., Wagner, D. T., Johnson, M. D., DeRue, D. S., & Ilgen, D. R. (2007). When can

employees have a family life? The effects of daily workload and affect on work-family conflict

and social behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1368–1379.

Inoue, A., Kawakami, N., Haratani, T., Kobayashi, F., Ishizaki, M., Hayashi, T., Fujota, O., Aizawa, Y.,

Miyazaki, S., Hiro, H., Masumoto, T., Hashimoto & Araki, S. (2010). Job stressors and long

term sick leave due to depressive disorders among Japanese male employees: findings from

the Japan Work Stress and Health Cohort study. Journal of epidemiology and community

health, 64(3), 229-235.

28

Judge, T.A. & Bono, J.E. (2001) cited in Ng, T. W., Sorensen, K. L., & Eby, L. T. (2006). Locus of

control at work: a meta‐analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(8), 1057-1087.

Karasek R. (1985). Job Content Instrument Questionnaire and User’s Guide, Version 1.1. Los Angeles:

Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Southern California.

Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of

health. Clinical psychology review, 30(7), 865-878.

Kirkcaldy, B. D., Shephard, R. J., & Furnham, A. F. (2002). The influence of type A behaviour and locus

of control upon job satisfaction and occupational health. Personality and Individual

Differences, 33(8), 1361-1371.

Lappalainen, R., Lehtonen, T., Skarp, E., Taubert, E., Ojanen, M., & Hayes, S. C. (2007) cited in Fla

man, P. E., & Bond, F. W. (2010). A randomised worksite comparison of acceptance and co

mitment therapy and stress inoculation training. Behaviour research and therapy, 48(8),

816-820.

Lavoie-Tremblay, M., Wright, D., Desforges, N., Gélinas, C., Marchionni, C. & Drevniok, U. (2008).

Creating a Healthy Workplacefor New-Generation Nurses. Journal of Nursing Scholarship,

40(3), 290-297.

Lu, L. (1999). Work Motivation, Job Stress and Employees’ Well-being. Journal of Applied Management

Studies, 8(1), 61-72.

McEwen, B.S. (1998) cited in 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(5), 965.

Meier, L. L., Semmer, N. K., Elfering, A., & Jacobshagen, N. (2008). The double meaning of control:

Three-way interactions between internal resources, job control, and stressors at work. Journal

of Occupational Health Psychology,13(3), 244.

Meijman, T.F. & Mulder, G. (1998) cited in 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(5), 965.

Ng, T. W., Sorensen, K. L., & Eby, L. T. (2006). Locus of control at work: a meta‐analysis. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 27(8), 1057-1087.

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

Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150-163.

Rothbard, N. P., & Wilk, S. L. (2011). Waking up on the right or wrong side of the bed: Start-of-workday

mood, work events, employee affect, and performance. Academy of Management

Journal, 54(5), 959-980.

29

Rotter, J.B. (1966) cited in Ng, T. W., Sorensen, K. L., & Eby, L. T. (2006). Locus of control at work: a

meta‐analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(8), 1057-1087.

Siegall, M. (2000). Putting the stress back into role stress: Improving the measurement of role conflict

and role ambiguity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(5), 427-435.

Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behaviour: a new look at the

interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 518.

Sonnentag, S. (2012). Psychological Detachment From Work During Leisure Time The Benefits of

Mentally Disengaging From Work. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(2), 114-118.

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

psychological detachment from work during off-job time.Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 10(4), 393.

Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2008). " Did you have a nice evening?" A day-level study

on recovery experiences, sleep, and affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 674.

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(5), 965.

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(3), 204.

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

job stressors, job involvement, and recovery-related self-efficacy. European Journal of Work

and Organizational Psychology, 15(2), 197-217.

Sonnentag, S., Kuttler, I., & Fritz, C. (2010). Job stressors, emotional exhaustion, and need for

recovery: A multi-source study on the benefits of psychological detachment. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 76(3), 355-365.

Sonnentag, S., Kuttler, I., & Fritz, C. (2010) cited in Sonnentag, S. (2012). Psychological Detachment

From Work During Leisure Time The Benefits of Mentally Disengaging From Work. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 21(2), 114-118.

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(3), 257-276.

Spector, P. E. (1988). Development of the work locus of control scale. Journal of occupational

psychology, 61(4), 335-340.

Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Sanchez, J. I., O'Driscoll, M., Sparks, K., Bernin, P., Bussing, A., Dewe,

P., Hart, P., Lu, L., Miller, K., De Moraes, L.R., Ostrognay, G.M., Pagon, M., Pitariu, H.D.,

Poelmans, S.A.Y., Radhakrishnan, P., Russinova, V., Salamatov, V., Salgado, J.F., Shima, S.,

30

Siu, O., Stora, J.B., Teichmann, M., Theorell, T., Vlerick, P., Westman, M., Widerszal-Bazyl, M., Wong,

P.T.P. & Yu, S. (2002). Locus of control and well-being at work: how generalizable are western

findings?. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 453-466.

Westman & Eden (1997) cited in Etzion, D., Eden, D., & Lapidot, Y. (1998). Relief from job stressors

and burnout: Reserve service as a respite. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 577-585.

White, E. (2010). Helping to promote psychological well-being at work: the role of work engagement,

work stress and psychological detachment using the job demand-resources model. The

Plymouth Student Scientist, 4(2), 155-180.

Zohar, D., Tzischinski, O. & Epstein, R. (2003) cited in Sonnentag, S., Kuttler, I., & Fritz, C. (2010). Job

stressors, emotional exhaustion, and need for recovery: A multi-source study on the benefits of

psychological detachment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(3), 355-365.

6. Appendices

6.1. The online survey.