Mannheim Institute of Public Health, Social and Preventive Medicine, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Social Psychology Program, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Behav Med. 2019 Apr;42(2):265-275. doi: 10.1007/s10865-018-9982-z. Epub 2018 Oct 26.
Ambivalent social ties, i.e., whereby a relationship is evaluated simultaneously in positive and negative terms, are a potential source of distress and can perturb health-relevant biological functions. Social interactions at the workplace, in particular with supervisors, are often described in ambivalent terms, but the psychological and psychobiological impact of such interactions has received little scientific attention. The current study examined associations between ambivalent attitudes towards one's supervisor, perceived distress (general and work-related), and diurnal dynamics of the stress hormone cortisol. 613 employees evaluated their supervisor in terms of positive and negative behaviors, which was combined into an ambivalent index. Higher ambivalence was associated with higher perceived distress and work-related stress (p < .001), and with a larger cortisol awakening response and higher day-time secretion post-awakening (p < .01). The present study is the first to identify ambivalence towards supervisors as a predictor of employee distress and stress-related endocrine dysregulation. In consequence, focusing solely on positive or negative leader behavior may insufficiently capture the true complexity of workplace interactions and attempts to compensate negative behaviors with positive are unlikely to reduce distress-but quite the opposite-by increasing ambivalence.
矛盾的社会关系，即一个关系同时被评价为积极和消极的，是痛苦的潜在来源，并可能扰乱与健康相关的生物功能。工作场所的社会互动，特别是与主管的互动，通常用矛盾的术语来描述，但这种互动的心理和心理生物学影响很少受到科学关注。本研究考察了对主管的矛盾态度、感知到的困扰（一般和与工作相关的）以及应激激素皮质醇的昼夜动态之间的关联。613 名员工根据主管的积极和消极行为对其进行了评价，这些评价被综合为一个矛盾指数。更高的矛盾程度与更高的感知困扰和与工作相关的压力（p<0.001）相关，与更大的皮质醇觉醒反应和更高的觉醒后日间分泌（p<0.01）相关。本研究首次将对主管的矛盾态度确定为员工困扰和与压力相关的内分泌失调的预测因素。因此，仅仅关注积极或消极的领导行为可能不足以捕捉工作场所互动的真正复杂性，并且试图用积极行为来弥补消极行为不太可能减轻困扰——恰恰相反——反而会增加矛盾。
