Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld University, Universitätsstraße 25, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany.
BMC Public Health. 2019 Jul 29;19(1):1009. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7187-1.
The effort-reward imbalance (ERI) model is well-established in explaining work-related stress and health differences. A lack of reciprocity between efforts and rewards at the workplace is central to the theory. The third component (over-commitment) was defined to be a moderator of high-cost/low gain-working conditions increasing the risk of ill-health. Although the theory has been widely supported empirically, all underlying hypotheses have not been sufficiently tested. This article examines whether the strength of the effect of the effort-reward imbalance ratio on health indicators is bigger than the effects of efforts and rewards individually. Another research gap on the interaction with over-commitment is addressed and health measures are compared.
This study applied the effort-reward imbalance model on health satisfaction and the SF-12v2™ indicators physical health composite score (PCS) and mental health composite score (MCS) within a representative sample of German employees. After confirmatory factor analyses of the items of the components effort, reward and over-commitment were applied, multiple linear regression models and interaction effects were calculated for more than 7000 respondents within the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP) study.
Against the model's hypothesis, effort and especially reward had a stronger effect on health satisfaction and mental health individually than the effort-reward imbalance ratio. Over-commitment exerted a negative influence on health indicators and its interaction with the effort-reward imbalance ratio intensified this effect significantly for mental health. Overall, the best model fit was reached for mental health, which is in line with the model's stress theory foundation.
Although the ERI model has been applied for more than 20 years, theoretical and methodological demands can no longer be neglected. This article contributes to the revision of the effort-reward imbalance (ERI) model and demonstrates possible starting points for prevention programs focusing on rewards.
努力-回报失衡(ERI)模型在解释与工作相关的压力和健康差异方面已得到充分证实。该理论的核心是工作场所的努力与回报之间缺乏互惠性。第三个组成部分(过度投入)被定义为一种调节因素,它可以增加高成本/低收益工作条件下的健康风险。尽管该理论在经验上得到了广泛支持,但并非所有基本假设都得到了充分验证。本文研究了努力-回报失衡比对健康指标的影响是否大于努力和回报的个体影响。还研究了与过度投入的相互作用的另一个研究差距,并比较了健康指标。
本研究在德国员工的代表性样本中应用了努力-回报失衡模型来研究健康满意度以及 SF-12v2™指标生理健康综合评分(PCS)和心理健康综合评分(MCS)。在对各组成部分(努力、回报和过度投入)的项目进行验证性因子分析后,在德国社会经济面板(GSOEP)研究中,针对 7000 多名受访者计算了多元线性回归模型和交互效应。
与模型假设相反,努力,尤其是回报,对健康满意度和心理健康的个体影响大于努力-回报失衡比。过度投入对健康指标有负面影响,其与努力-回报失衡比的相互作用显著增强了对心理健康的影响。总体而言,心理健康的模型拟合度最佳,这与该模型的压力理论基础一致。
尽管努力-回报失衡(ERI)模型已经应用了 20 多年,但理论和方法学方面的需求不容忽视。本文为修订努力-回报失衡(ERI)模型做出了贡献,并为关注奖励的预防计划提供了可能的起点。