Clergy Motivation and Occupational Well-being: Exploring a Quadripolar Model and Its

Role in Predicting Burnout and Engagement

Author(s): Philip D. Parker and Andrew J. Martin
Source: Journal of Religion and Health , September 2011, Vol. 50, No. 3 (September
2011), pp. 656-674
Published by: Springer

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41349822

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Religion and Health

This content downloaded from

31.46.251.120 on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:30:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Relig Health (201 1) 50:656-674
DOI 1 0.1007/s 1 0943-009-9303-5

ORIGINAL PAPER

Clergy Motivation and Occupational Well-being:

Exploring a Quadripolar Model and Its Role
in Predicting Burnout and Engagement

Philip D. Parker * Andrew J. Martin

Published online: 1 8 November 2009

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Abstract Clergy represent a salient group in Western communities, providing a variety

of services aimed at supporting diverse members of those communities. Significantly, rates
of attrition among clergy are high, suggesting the need to better understand their occu-
pational well-being and factors relevant to it. The present study draws on the quadripolar
need achievement framework to hypothesize motivational profiles among clergy and the
extent to which these profiles predict occupational well-being, as indicated by low burnout
and high engagement. K-means cluster analysis with 200 clergy confirmed a quadripolar
motivational profile (success-oriented, overstriving, self-protecting, failure accepting).
Using these group profiles as predictors, structural equation modeling identified significant
effects on all burnout and engagement factors, with success-oriented, overstriving, self-
protecting, and failure accepting groups each reflecting differential occupational well-
being profiles. Substantive and applied implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords Clergy • Stress • Burnout • Motivation • Well-being

Introduction

Clergy1 hold a particular prominence in Western countries as their activities connect to

large sections of the population. For instance, it is estimated that as many as 40 percent of
individuals in the United States that seek help for mental health issues see ministers of
religion as one of their first points of call (Weaver et al. 1997). It is therefore of concern

1 For the purposes of the present discussion and investigation, clergy are defined as rabbis, ministers,
priests, pastors, chaplains, nuns, pastoral counselors, parish nurses, and parish social workers (Weaver et al.
1997).

P. D. Parker • A. J. Martin (El)

Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, A35 Education Building,
Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
e-mail: a.martin@edfac.usyd.edu.au
P. D. Parker
e-mail: ppar3566@mail.usyd.edu.au

Springer

This content downloaded from

31.46.251.120 on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:30:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 J Relig Health (201 1) 50:656-674 657

that clergy reflect low levels of well-bei

attrition. For example, in Australia (the site
leave in the first 5 years of ministry, the
Randall 2004). In one study in the United St
clergy left ministry within 5 years (Meek
research suggests that one out of every tw
they had contemplated leaving on more
effects of problematic well-being for cl
engagement but also negative outcomes
function and even sexual misconduct (Gr
2004; Turton and Francis 2007).
Given their various roles in the commu
being of clergy is an important social c
Thus, it is the occupational well-being of
tigation, with particular interest in the
Specifically, we explore various motivatio
impact of these profiles on their well-be
and burnout.

Well-being, Engagement, and Burnout

From a theoretical perspective, well-being can be conceptualized as a continuum consisting

of two multidimensional constructs as end points, with burnout representing one pole and
engagement the other (see Bakker et al. 2008). This perspective on well-being, consisting
of burnout and engagement as opposing but independent constructs, has received extensive
empirical validation (Bakker et al. 2008; Schaufeli et al. 2002, 2008) and is the basis of the
present investigation's application of well-being. By exploring the role of burnout and
engagement, the current research attempts to provide an overarching test of potential
adaptive and maladaptive outcomes of motivation patterns much needed in well-being
research (Somerfield and McCrae 2000). Such an approach is also consistent with recent
moves toward a dual focus within applied research that examines distress and engagement
as parts of a wider focus on occupational well-being (e.g., Schaufeli et al. 2008; Taris et al.
2008).
In the current research, burnout reflects a prolonged and occupational-specific form
of strain whose effects are not experienced by the worker alone but also by the
recipients they provide care for (Byrne 1991). The concept of burnout has perhaps
become the most referenced theoretical model of strain in the literature and particularly
in relation to human service professions (Schaufeli and Enzman 1998). Burnout gen-
erally refers to the presence of at least three constructs: emotional exhaustion, deper-
sonalization (cynicism) directed toward clients and/or recipients, and feelings of a lack
of personal accomplishment at work (Maslach et al. 2001). While historically, burnout
has been considered from a higher order perspective (Maslach and Leiter 1999),
research is beginning to consider the unique predictors of each individual burnout
factor (e.g., Byrne 1999).
Engagement has traditionally been understood as resulting in satisfaction or enjoyment
at work (see Foster 2000; Luthans and Martinko 1987; Martin 2004b; Richardson and Watt
2006). The importance of satisfaction or enjoyment is well established in occupational
literature due to its relationship with organizational outcomes. Indeed, meta-analysis by

â Springer

This content downloaded from

31.46.251.120 on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:30:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 658 J Relig Health (201 1) 50:656-674

Harter et al. (2002) showed that enjoym

organizational health indicators of produc
turnover, and safety. However, satisfaction
engaged employees. Another particularly
workplace participation (the degree to w
organization), positive aspirations for care
industry long-term, and buoyancy (an in
lenges, and setbacks that are a characterist
2009).
The current research explores a motivational model of well-being utilizing Covington
and Roberts's (1994) quadripolar framework and motivation factors drawn from Martin's
(2002 2007, 2008a) Motivation and Engagement Wheel. Key dimensions of these models
are hypothesized to emerge from data analyses, and these dimensions are then hypothe-
sized to predict occupational well-being among clergy, as operationalized by burnout and
engagement.

Motivation: The Need for an Integrative Framework

Despite early research focusing on the role of motivation in the experience of stress (e.g.,
Vogel et al. 1958, 1959) and more recent calls for a greater focus on the role of motivation
in the stress process (Lazarus 1993; see also Coyne and Racioppo 2000), relatively little
integrative research exists in the literature. One of the possible reasons for this lack of
research may be that motivation often appears disjointed, theory-specific, and difficult to
integrate into applied settings (Martin 2007). As a result, motivational research often
remains theory-centric and does not include a range of key motivational constructs that are
likely to be relevant. Thus, while the current research aims to explore clergy well-being
from the perspective of the quadripolar need achievement framework, it is important to
draw together key motivational constructs to provide a robust and differentiated explora-
tion of the quadripolar model and its influence on clergy occupational well-being.
The Motivation and Engagement Wheel (MEW) draws together diverse aspects of
motivational theorizing, providing a use-inspired, multidimensional approach to motiva-
tion (Martin 2002, 2007). The model harnesses need achievement, self-worth, goal,
attribution, expectancy- value, and self-efficacy theories (Martin 2002) and emphasizes
eleven motivation constructs typically represented by four higher order factors - adaptive
cognition (mastery, self-efficacy, valuing), adaptive behavior (planning, persistence, task-
management), impeding cognition (failure avoidance, anxiety, uncertain control), and
maladaptive behavior (disengagement, self-handicapping). In the present study, this
combination of eleven motivation factors is used to test the quadripolar need achievement
framework that has previously been used to map some of these motivational constructs in
the context of other performance domains (e.g., Covington and Roberts 1994; Martin and
Marsh 2003; Martin et al. 2001). The current research, then, is a study of (a) the quadri-
polar framework among clergy using the group profiles on the MEW factors as indicators
for quadripolar groupings and (b) the role of these quadripolar groupings in predicting
occupational well-being.
Under this integrative motivational framework, the current research seeks to identify
key motivational traits that are important in occupational well-being among clergy thus
allowing for more targeted intervention. This research also has important potential yields
for motivation research by identifying how key motivational constructs cluster together

â Springer

This content downloaded from

31.46.251.120 on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:30:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Relig Health (201 1) 50:656-674 659

and predict important occupational outcom

explored in previous work (e.g., Martin an
first empirical attempt at exploring all e
spective. Finally, the research has impo
insufficient attention has been given to
centrality as salient predictors of stress-
outcomes (Coyne and Racioppo 2000;
quadripolar framework, when applied t
important substantive and applied approa

Quadripolar Model of Need Achieveme

The quadripolar need achievement frame

cess") and avoidance ("fear of failure") m
four distinct groups (Covington 1992, 20
and Marsh 2003): success-oriented (high
approach/high avoidance), self-protecti
accepting (low approach/high avoidance;
model is based on self- worth theory (Cov
theory suggests that a primary motivating
promote self-worth (Covington and Beer
domains such as work provide a basis upo
enhanced or threatened - via its association
(Covington and Beery 1976). Indeed, Dew
and Dewe 2002) have found that what is
often associated with self-worth relevan
esteem, being made to look silly, feeling e
and appearing incompetent. Further, the
damage to that self-worth as a cause of
researchers (Deppe and Harackiewicz 199
1999; Pines 2000). Importantly, the four qu
to self-worth threat and thus differing ten
result (Covington 2000).

Success-oriented Individuals

Success-oriented individuals represent the most adaptive group in the quadripolar frame-
work (see Covington and Beery 1976). Success-oriented individuals tend to experience
greater well-being as success and failure are appraised more constructively than other
groups (Covington 2000). This is because success-oriented individuals are characterized by
an incremental theory of personal attributes, see success as dependent on factors under
their control such as effort, and view obstacles as feedback information in relation to the
need to try harder or try something different (Covington 1992, 1998; Covington and
Roberts 1994). This leads success-oriented individuals to view self- worth threats differ-
ently from other groups. First, failure within the work domain is not seen as threatening as
other groups because it indicates a lack of effort or unsuitable strategy rather than insuf-
ficient self- worth relevant personal attributes (Covington 1998, 2000; Covington and Beery
1976). Second, success-oriented individuals view personal attributes as a resource to

Ö Springer

This content downloaded from

31.46.251.120 on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:30:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 660 J Relig Health (201 1) 50:656-674

achieve goals rather than a validation of th

their relative level of competence less per
Finally, success-oriented individuals have
endeavors, resilient to setbacks, and focu
personal attributes (Martin and Marsh 20
It is suggested that the reason for high le
their relatively high levels of cognitive an
1976; Martin et al. 2001). In terms of the
Engagement Wheel, this would translate in
low failure avoidance, anxiety, and uncert
and Marsh 2003). In terms of behavioral
terized by a focus on adaptive task-focus
task-management and low levels of malad
disengagement (Covington and Beery 19
Marsh 2003). Accordingly, in the present s
low levels of adaptive and maladaptive m
engagement and low burnout as a consequ
2000; Martin 2002; Martin and Marsh 20

Overstrivers

Overstrivers represent a group that is failure-avoidant but seek to avoid failure by suc-
ceeding (Covington 1998; Covington and Roberts 1994). Overstrivers may appear adaptive
at first, but effort and success can come at a price because the achievement domain is a
source of threat such that potential failure will expose the overstriver as inadequate and
threaten self- worth (Covington and Roberts 1994; Martin and Marsh 2003). Indeed,
overstrivers are characterized by a belief that the adequacy of their personal attributes is
the sole determinate of their self-worth, and thus achievement contexts that place that self-
worth at risk are constantly appraised as threatening (Covington and Beery 1976).
Overstrivers, reflect much of what is central to the idea of performance approach orien-
tations, importantly however, while such individuals do approach success they do it to
avoid failure (Covington 2000). In effect, when self-worth relevant attributes are on dis-
play, overstrivers are thought to experience a great deal of anxiety and doubt that their
attributes will be sufficient to meet the needs of the situation (Covington 2000). Thus,
overstrivers "hold out hope because success, when it occurs, reassures them of their worth;
yet at the same time, they live in constant fear knowing that they cannot succeed forever"
(Covington and Roberts 1994, p. 164). This anxiety, self-doubt, and outcome uncertainty
along with the persistent fear of failure suggest higher levels of burnout and slightly lower
levels of engagement particularly in relation to buoyancy that reflects confidence in
overcoming challenges.
In terms of a motivation profile, overstriving individuals hold beliefs associated with
both approach and avoidance orientations. In particular, they generally perceive personal
attributes as having been sufficient in the past but also hold doubts as to whether those
attributes will continue to support their self- worth relevant attributes (Covington 1992).
Covington and Roberts (1994) suggest that for such individuals, the personal significance
of failure is particularly high. Likewise, such individuals are not only failure-avoidant but
aim to overcome the fear of failure by the application of extensive and disproportionate
effort - however, it is effort driven by fear, not inspired by competence and success. As
such, Martin and Marsh (2003) suggested that overstriving individuals maintain adaptive

Springer

This content downloaded from

31.46.251.120 on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:30:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Relig Health (20 1 1 ) 50:656-674 66 1

behaviors but are also underpinned by ma

Covington and Roberts 1994). Hence, in the p
characterized by high levels of adaptive behav
unlike the success-oriented group, are also ex
higher impeding cognition.

Self-protectors

Self-protectors are those who are also failur

more maladaptive means than the overstriv
Marsh 2003; Martin et al. 2001). Research h
terized by maladaptive behavior such as self
such as planning, task-management, and per
and Marsh 2003). According to Covington (1
protect self-worth from failure. As a result
levels of protective and avoidant behaviors
and relatively low levels of mastery, self-eff
and task-management (Covington and Robe
Such individuals are characterized by a stron
doubt over their ability to succeed in comp
Covington and Roberts 1994; Martin and Ma
effort may not be sufficient to ensure an acce
worth relevant attributes. As such, self-pro
promises. First, self-protectors believe they
application of effort, thus the remaining opt
as withdrawn effort or excuse creations to m
relevant attributes less clear (Covington and
the best strategy to protect self-worth would b
between failure and personal attributes fore
engaged in the achievement domain sufficie
censure by others and to capitalize on the self
despite the self-imposed obstacles (Coving
Finally, self-protectors, who are uncertain th
caught between a compromise between sham
guilt at the self-imposed obstacles individuals
achievement domain (Covington and Beery
quence of these compromises, individuals ra
obstacles, they often reject success when it d
and as failure continues individuals experienc
failure become harder to sustain (Covingto
Thompson 2004). Given this demonstrated p
tectors are expected to experience low engage
worth protecting behaviors such as self-h
higher emotional exhaustion and burnout (C

Failure Accepters

Failure accepters represent those that Cov

suggests have given up and do not orien

â Springer

This content downloaded from

31.46.251.120 on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:30:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
662 J Relig Health (201 1) 50:656-674

meaningful way. As such, they are sugg

disengaged (Martin and Marsh 2003). Hen
with relatively low levels of adaptive c
maladaptive behavior and impeding cogn
1994). Interestingly, predictions about t
question. In Martin and Marsh's (2003) wor
a cascading maladaptive process. Accordi
lowest levels of performance and, importa
being. On the other hand, while Covingto
are likely to have low performance outcom
actually experience relatively 'normal' lev
about their negative evaluations" and "only
deficits" (p. 164). The present study is an o
clergy occupational engagement and burn

The Current Research

The current research is a study of (a) the quadripolar framework among clergy using t
MEW factors as indicators for quadripolar groupings and (b) the role of these quadrip
groupings in predicting multidimensional burnout and engagement, two indicators of w
being. In terms of the first research aim, consistent with prior research, it is hypothes
that four groups will emerge corresponding to the quadripolar framework with the succ
oriented group reflecting high-adaptive cognition and behavior and low-impeding co
tion and maladaptive behavior; the opposite profile for the self-protecting group; h
adaptive behavior, low maladaptive behavior, and moderate adaptive cognition and
impeding cognition for the overstriving group; and low levels on all constructs for
failure accepting group. In terms of the second research aim, these groups will then be u
to predict clergy engagement and burnout. It is hypothesized that success-oriented p
ticipants will have the highest levels of well-being (indicated by high engagement and l
burnout). It is hypothesized that the overstriving group will have the next highest level
well-being followed by the self-protecting group. In line with competing contentions
Martin and Marsh (2003) and Covington and Roberts (1994), the effect of failure acc
tance on well-being is posed as a research question.

Methods

Participants

A total of 200 clergy from Australia, representing over eight denominations (e.g., Pente-
costal, Churches of Christ, Presbyterian, Baptist, Greek Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and
other), completed measures of workplace motivation, engagement, and burnout, along with
several socio-demographic items. The sample was predominantly male (78%; a figure in
line with population estimates, Kaldor et al. 1999), with females representing 22% of the
sample. The average age for the sample was 50.3 (SD = 10.3) years and the average years
of experience was 14.8 (SD = 9.7). Participants were contacted via mail or through the
central body of their denomination, with return rates of approximately 35%, a figure

â Springer

This content downloaded from

31.46.251.120 on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:30:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 J Relig Health (201 1) 50:656-674 663

consistent with other voluntary self-repo

et al. 2007; Francis et al. 2004; Meek et

Measures

Motivation

The motivation and engagement scale-work (MES-W) is a 44-item scale designed to

measure factors identified in the Motivation and Engagement Wheel (Martin 2004a, b,
2007). The 1 1 factors include the three adaptive cognitions of mastery (e.g., "Learning in
my work is important"), valuing (e.g., "What I do in my work will be useful to me in the
future"), and self-efficacy (e.g., "If I don't give up, I believe I can do difficult work tasks/
projects"); the three adaptive behaviors of planning (e.g., "Before I start something in my
work, I plan out how I am going to do it"), persistence (e.g., "If something in my work is
difficult, I keep at it trying to figure it out"), and task-management (e.g., "When I prepare
for work tasks, I usually prepare in places where I can concentrate"); the three impeding
cognitions of failure avoidance (e.g., "Often the main reason I try at work is because I
don't want people to think that I'm incompetent"), anxiety (e.g., "When important or
challenging work is coming up, I worry a lot"), and uncertain control (e.g., "I'm often
unsure how I can avoid doing poorly in my work"); and the maladaptive behaviors of self-
handicapping (e.g., "I sometimes do things instead of work before a deadline so I have an
excuse if I don't do so well") and disengagement (e.g., "Each week I'm trying less and less
at work") - are all measured by four items each. These items are assessed on a 7-point
scale with poles of 'strongly disagree' (1) and 'strongly agree' (7). All constructs have
been shown to have good to high reliability (mean reliability = .71), particularly given the
small number of items used to represent each factor, and have shown strong internal and
external construct validity (Martin 2007, 2008a).

Workplace Well-being

In the present study, workplace well-being is assessed via multidimensional burnout and
engagement. This is in line with recent moves to consider occupational well-being as a
continuum with burnout at one pole and engagement at the other (Schaufeli et al. 2002,
2008).
Burnout : Burnout is assessed using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI; Maslach et al.
1996). The MBI is built on a strong theoretical base and provides a multidimensional
perspective on burnout that has been well supported and validated in previous research
(e.g., Byrne 1991). The MBI comprises 22 items measuring three factors of workplace
burnout. Nine items measure emotional exhaustion (e.g., "I feel used up at the end of the
day"), five items measure depersonalization (e.g., "I worry that this job is hardening me
emotionally"), and eight items measure personal accomplishment (e.g., "I have accom-
plished many worthwhile things in this job"). Participants respond on a 7-point scale, with
poles of 'never' (0) and 'every day' (6) measuring the frequency with which respondents
experience what is indicated in each statement. Previous reliabilities have been good,
ranging from .71 to .90 (Maslach et al. 1996).
Engagement : Engagement is also proposed here as a multidimensional construct
(Schaufeli et al. 2002, 2008) and in previous work has been suggested to consist of
enjoyment, work satisfaction, participation, positive future career plans, and buoyancy
(e.g., Parker and Martin 2009). Engagement and well-being are measured through scales

Springer

This content downloaded from

31.46.251.120 on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:30:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 664 J Rei ig Health (201 1) 50:656-674

assessing work satisfaction (e.g., "I enjoy

think I'm good at dealing with work press
we discuss things at work"), and positive f
in this line of work"). These scales compri
of 1 ('strongly disagree') to 7 ('strongly
shown to be reliable (ranging from .80 for
reflect robust construct validity (Martin 20
2009).

Statistical Analyses

As an initial step, all constructs were assessed via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to
test factor structure and dimensionality. CFA was performed using LISREL 8.80
(Jöreskog and Sörbom 2006). Maximum likelihood estimation is used to estimate the
model with a sampling of several fit indices to evaluate the model fit. These indices are
the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI),
non-normed fit index (NNFI), and the chi-square value. For RMSEA, values at or less
than .08 are taken to reflect a close and reasonable fit and values under .05 are con-
sidered to be an excellent fit (see Schumacker and Lomax 1996). The NNFI and CFI
vary along a continuum of 0-1 in which values at or greater than .90 are considered
be a satisfactory fit and values at .95 or over are used to reflect an excellent f
(McDonald and Marsh 1990).
K-means cluster analysis was then used to test the hypothesized group profiles. K-mean
cluster analysis comprises a set of algorithms designed to generate taxonomies tha
maximize between-group differences and minimize within-group differences on a set
factors hypothesized to contain a multi-group structure (Clatworthy et al. 2005; Lorr 1983
Cluster analysis has been suggested by Boersma and Lindblom (2009) as important fo
well-being research as it helps identify natural groups on a number of constructs simu
taneously that are present in the data but may be missed by traditional correlation tech-
niques. The current research used k-means cluster analysis in SPSS (15.0). The similari
measure used was Euclidean Distance, and the number of cluster was set a-priori based on
hypotheses stemming from the quadripolar need achievement framework (Martin an
Marsh 2003). Consistent with Martin and Marsh (2006), these derived groupings were the
further investigated using ANOVA to confirm significant differences between groups on
the central factors.

The second set of analyses adopted a latent variable approach to exploring the grou
differences in clergy well-being across the four quadripolar groups. Here, multiple-ind
cator-multiple-cause (MIMIC) modeling was used to determine the extent to which th
respective stages predicted the dependent measures. MIMIC models are an approach
similar to a multivariate regression in which latent variables (the dependent constructs i
this study) are predicted by grouping variables (in this case, groups emerging from clust
analysis) represented by a single indicator (Parker et al. 2007). In this case, groups wer
dummy coded and the success-oriented group used as the reference group. As such
parameter estimates represent how far and in what direction group means differ from th
success-oriented group. Importantly, MIMIC models have the advantage of correcting
dependent variables for unreliability, hence estimates represent parameters controlled fo
measurement error and indicator item contributions (Parker et al. 2007 for a review
MIMIC and related latent variable techniques).

^ Spring er

This content downloaded from

31.46.251.120 on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:30:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 J Relig Health (201 1) 50:656-674 665

Table 1 Reliability and psychometrics

Mean SD Kurtosis Skewness Alpha

Adaptive cognition
Mastery orientation 5.82 .73 1.83 -.92 .70
Self-efficacy 5.51 .72 .05 -.55 .51
Valuing 6.12 .57 1.57 -.83 .60
Impeding cognition
Anxiety 3.24 1.17 -.84 .22 .76
Failure avoidance 2.95 1.34 -.39 .63 .88

Uncertain control 2.64 .98 .48 .80 .85

Adaptive behavior
Task-management 5.60 .81 .92 -.87 .74
Persistence 5.60 .74 .81 -.80 .68

Planning 5.27 .85 .70 -.71 .73

Maladaptive behavior
Disengagement 1.64 .74 4.32 1.81 .76
Self-handicapping 1.99 .91 2.12 1.28 .80
Engagement
Future plans 5.93 .99 4.11 -1.71 .89
Enjoyment 5.96 .88 6.08 -1.85 .84
Participation 6.01 .80 4.34 -1.58 .85
Buoyancy 5.26 .99 .53 -.68 .83
Burnout

Emotional exhaustion 2.08 1.09 .22 .55 .90

Depersonalization 1.14 .96 .95 1.09 .78

Personal accomplishment 4.57 .78 .42 -.50 .74

Results

Preliminary Descriptive, Reliability, and CFA Analyses

As indicated in Table 1, all constructs were approximately normally distributed and all
within the requirements for latent modeling stipulated by West et al. (1995). Internal
consistencies were generally high with an average reliability of .77, notwithstanding the
reliability for self-efficacy (a = .51).2 Construct validity of the central measures was
explored via CFA (with additional interest in model fit in the context of the low reliability
on self-efficacy). This overarching CFA was conducted to ensure (a) all factors showed
good internal validity in terms of observed items converging on the latent factor they were
designed to measure and (b) relationships between these latent factors were in the direction
expected on the basis of past research and theory. The CFA comprised an 18-factor model
consisting of three burnout, four engagement, and eleven motivation factors. This model fit
the data well ( df= 3,086; jf = 4,925; RMSEA = .05; NNFI = .94; CFI = .94) and
suggested good construct validity. Indeed, high average factor loadings suggested indicator

2 It should be noted that Cronbach's alpha gives the lower bound for reliability and is systematically biased
against scales with few items (Grayson, 2004).

Ö Springer

This content downloaded from

31.46.251.120 on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:30:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 666 J Rei ig Health (201 1) 50:656-674

items converged on the factor they were

constructs were consistent with past resea
this model provided a sound measurement b

Estimating Quadripolar Groups with Clust

Cluster analysis was used to estimate the

analyses, the variables were first standar
winsorized to ±3) to ensure that no variable
due to differences in distribution or outl
and Brusco 2008). Results converged after
model. Moreover, the sample was approx
hypothesized groups (group means on the 1
ANOVA was then used to confirm that t
differed on the motivation constructs. Th
motivation constructs across the groups (
Cluster one accounted for 24% ( n = 48)
cognition and maladaptive behavior and lo
suggested this as the self-protecting grou
(2003), self-handicapping (M = 1.14), anxie
were particularly high in this group; over
Lowest levels were found for persistence
of which were over half a standard deviatio
comprised 28% (n = 56) of the sample and
all motivation constructs. The lowest mean
nitions of failure avoidance ( M = -.52) a
cognitions of mastery ( M = -.83) and self
21% (n = 41) of the sample and suggested
lowest means on impeding cognition and
(M = -.90), self-handicapping ( M = -.71),
had the highest means on adaptive cognitio
valuing work (M = .68), and persistence (
28% ( n = 55) of the sample. Although thi
oriented group, there was a major diverge
nition. In particular, anxiety (M = .57) an
the sample means. This profile, then, refle

The Predictive Role of Quadripolar Group

A latent variable MIMIC model was then

ripolar groups. Here, the quadripolar gro
predictors of the latent engagement and bu
using categorical predictors in such a mode
oriented cluster used as the reference cat
techniques such as MANOVA) is that engag
as latent variables which control for measu
ential extent to which indicator items contr
The MIMIC model provided a good
RMSEA = .06; CFI = .96; NNFI = .95). Tabl

â Springer

This content downloaded from

31.46.251.120 on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:30:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 J Relig Health (201 1) 50:656-674 667

<f ^ "с
á <f S ~ Š «
^ 'S
~ si
•л m - S
О. s© rf ep.s -
Q - I 11
JI . - . Q. <U

ш ® ® ^ È
ш ш " 1 з£a. Q
>■ ^ S С
О «Л ^ 00 «Г) ^ § .2
D "Ì ^ £ tž
» 1 ' ä>§л .с
с X

c¿ t*^ <ч so оо r*> E "Я

û- ° ' г Г ' % -В

,_ г**) ir) ос T+mr^i

/-s
-О
12
ь-
1íI
0)
.
,_ 7 ОС Г~~- t SÛ Tí 1Л 2 , f*J .
ш w • ■ |- |- • О gU) ,
2 s fr
^ и .2 с
[_ 00 ^ - OOh »ЮОО >2«V
Ц r^OssOsO^tf^TtmlSo '
с w г г ' °р г
Ü й >-
^oooom©ooos0110
s £§
t¡2 h 1Л1Л^1п mvì^ ' ' Ц^сц
Q ° f f f f ' ' f ¿s 2 c-
^ У u «a
2 l-S
^ноо m M Tt - sooor^ 2-Ci.
- r^sommm*r>tNr^TtX).5'0 ' ' '
сл ° ' Г Г Г Г ' ' Г 2 S '€
J8 8 g.
Z ® ^
«£ Tj-ooooor-o -
«£ ^ ^Crirj- (N - m- - -> 2 U t
si ~ í i

I ¿1
^ Ž
Os m oo h Г) h^ ■-
Tt о ON !
On ^ ■- x
«5 чО чО m - о - О - OJ О - • с 't

н J ■ í
5 D
II I 5 D ě
(V o - rjosoosooomoo- osfNřT^
(V f* î ri ' ' mm
S ° ' ' r i
Ťf Я
04 ' 2 >
^ ' о ы
r- sOu-i<4 IO m T}- Tt- ю m r- - Il >
çj OJ - cj Tt TJ- m m OJ m Tf ' Tt я ^
D ° Г Г Г f Г Г Г ' í E й §
. /-v ,, (2 z (2 I £"
и
. X t~- r-~ m - ^ - 04 sorsimrj a' (N - «л ,, и
5Л >7 SO m - O O ro rameoso "<t ГО OJ o <r Ь

>7 < SO - m • - Г O Il
•„и O Г '
С
#o

Js y-N ^ fr 3
^ y-N О ON so OJ m m- m o OJ m ri ч Ф Й S 5
Ё ^ h о vC • • " ir> -rf rj D - m m Tt - ¡2 с щ
О
о
u-
£ ^ о • • f f Г Г Г Г Г Г g v .g щ
О
О
ГЧ го OJ m Tj-m- Г- OJ OO - or- OS - O
ТГ - - - Г- - OJ - Tt - OJ Tt <N О О Г4 Ir Li Ì fs
TD
С " - '' ' ' 1
cd
сл
0XJ
С
tü
^ ^
I i S
•В _) m ^
cd ^ i/)oo тгчт «oriTt rtso

> ~ i' Г Г Г i
О « Г 8 я
О H ^ .2 оо а *3 o«
<¿2 СЛ £ N ^ os 1Л о - vO«r>fer- - - -ir--- ОО Г- rj Tf Г- OJ rj 3 ~3 ^ £
< .S »О ' «Л ' •- о - ' - ' o CrnrtTt^ • ' - CJ
< S -I - ' ' -H ' ' Г 'S • ' JJ Г I
и-
U s S I S S ^ Ef«
п
« h g i1 и _'Е. I н >■ - «ili
я S < ш'-5 X '«^ ûj <; ^-о
J2<; м
i2h-,
I 2О с 1J h-,
.k <Ц
с E 21
4)

S 8.<ZU ûj S 3,5Z<D ш D- < 1J ^

H
Л
ТЭ
<
я S£
> go cU-<D-aeuHCu^ùOÛ
< Suj oa
cU-PJCuCQ
S ^
3 Щл
Û Cu a,
¿ ^ ^

Ö Springer

This content downloaded from

31.46.251.120 on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:30:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 668 J Relig Health (201 1) 50:656-674

Table 3 Group means derived from K-means c

F stat df Self-protecting Failure accepting Success-oriented Overstriving

(3, 1 96) (N = 48) (N = 56) (iV = 41) (N = 55)

Adaptive cognition
Mast 40.75*** -.16 -.83 .68 .50

SE 13.69*** -.18 -.52 .58 .25

Value 26.08*** -.74 -.20 .68 .36

Impeding cognition
Anx 55.59*** .73 -.53 -.90 .57

FA 44.20*** .95 -.52 -.69 .21

UC 31.83*** .91 -.23 -.71 -.04

Adaptive behavior
Pers 20.42*** -.67 -.23 .58 .39
Plan 23.12*** -.48 -.46 .50 .54

TM 17.93*** -.44 -.41 .34 .57

Maladaptive behavior
Dis 42.09*** .93 -.12 -.58 -.35

SH 62.72*** 1.14 -.19 -.71 -.31

Means are of standardized variables.

20.95, P < .001

F stat F statistic from univariate ANOVAs, Mast mastery, Value valuing work, SE self-efficacy, FA failure
avoidance, Anx anxiety, UC uncertain control, Pers persistence, TM task-management, Plan planning, SH
self-handicapping, and Dis disengagement

Table 4 MIMIC model (standardized beta coefficients; success-oriented is reference category)

Self-protecting ( N = 48) Failure accepting ( N - 56) Overstriving ( N = 55)

Engagement
BUOY -.59*** _ 22*** _ 27***
PART -.35*** -.22*** -.11
ENJ -.43*** _22*** -.12
FUT -.42*** -.15* -.04
Burnout

DP .51*** .02 .13

EE .38*** .10 .16*
PA _ 19* 03

Fit: X2 = 1,413,
FUT positive futu
buoyancy, EE emo
* P < .05 and *** P < .001

significant differences on each of the four engagement and three burnout factors. Relative
to the success-oriented group, overstrivers reported lower buoyancy ( ß = -.27, P < .001
and higher emotional exhaustion (ß = .16, P < .01). Relative to the success-oriented
group, self-protectors reported lower levels of buoyancy (ß = -.59, P < .001), partici-
pation (ß = - .35, P < .001), enjoyment (ß = -.43, P < .001), future career plans
( ß = -.42, P < .001), and personal accomplishment (ß = -.46, P < .001) and higher

^ Springer

This content downloaded from

31.46.251.120 on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:30:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Relig Health (201 1) 50:656-674 669

Fig. 1 MIMIC model findings. Fit: yj = 1,413 , d

ease of presentation, only significant paths ( P < .0
accepting group, SO success-oriented group, OS overs
enjoyment of work, PART non-core role participa
depersonalization, and PA personal accomplishment

levels of depersonalization (ß = .51, P <

P < .001). Finally, relative to the success-ori
buoyancy (ß = -.22, P < .001), participat
-.22, P < .001), future career plans ( ß = -.
(/? = - .19, P < .001) but were not signific
( ß = .02, ns) or emotional exhaustion (ß =

Discussion

Findings of Note

The current research was a study of (a) the quadripolar framework among clergy using the
MEW factors as indicators for quadripolar groupings and (b) the role of these quadripolar
groupings in predicting burnout and engagement, two proposed indicators of workplace
well-being. The four hypothesized groups - success-oriented, overstriving, self-protecting,
and failure accepting - were successfully derived from cluster analysis, each reflecting
hypothesized balancing of motivation factors. These four groupings were then used to
predict workplace well-being as reflected by multidimensional burnout and engagement.
Results indicated that success-oriented individuals have the highest engagement and lowest
burnout levels, with the opposite pattern displayed by the self-protecting group. The

Ö Springer

This content downloaded from

31.46.251.120 on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:30:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 670 J Relig Health (201 1) 50:656-674

overstriving group was relatively similar to

more negative on burnout and engageme
nificantly lower on the critical construct o
Finally, the failure accepting group indic
tion and emotional exhaustion but had sig
structs and personal accomplishment in c

Implications of the Present Findings

These results have important substantiv

research shows the validity of the quad
profiles on key motivational factors that ca
clergy engagement and burnout. Indeed, th
potentially important steps in linking mot
Lazarus (1993). Importantly, the results not
effect on well-being but also support both
the importance of their integration.
Martin and Marsh (2003) proposed that
anxiety, uncertain control) precede behav
present findings seem to support this po
cognition than the success-oriented group b
In contrast, the self-protecting group, the
failure model, displayed more maladaptive
matched by lower levels of engagement a
also in line with transactional views of st
behaviors, but the cognitions which underl
well-being (Dewe and Trenberth 2004; Laza
were the most cognitively and behaviorall
than the self-protecting group - consiste
(1994). Taken together, these findings have
seeking to identify factors that might help
similar professions.
Following from this, another applied imp
intervention. As O'Mara et al. (2006) hav
intervention outcomes and closely match t
basis of the present research, there are clea
quadripolar groups. To sustain success-orien
balance of high adaptive cognition and be
adaptive behavior. However, to assist self
reducing levels of anxiety and failure avo
nitive factors of self-efficacy and valuing
best served by promoting a cognitive pat
valuing work in conjunction with interven
sistence, and task-management (see also D
This leads to two other important impli
aimed at lowering maladaptive/impeding
For overstrivers, for instance, focusing o
ranted as they already evince relatively h
2000). Second, this research suggests tha

Ö Springer

This content downloaded from

31.46.251.120 on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:30:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Relig Health (20 1 1 ) 50:656-674 67 1

strategies alone; cognition is also relevant to

(2003) suggested that maladaptive cognition
that are keys to understanding well-being. T
stress and coping which suggests that copi
appraisals (Dewe 1991; Dewe and Trenberth
for well-targeted multidimensional interven
demonstrated that the factors comprising t
do change when strategy specifically targe

Limitations and Future Directions

The present investigation points to the potential yields of further work with larger samples
and across multiple time waves. This will be important not only for testing the validity of
the findings, but also for allowing for an exploration of group transition and effects on
burnout and engagement over time. It is also important to recognize that the research
utilized self-report data. Many commentators, particularly in stress and well-being
research, have noted the limitations of such data (Dewe and Trenberth 2004; Guglielmi and
Tatrow 1998; Lazarus 2000; Schmitt 1989). These include concerns over participant bias,
mismatch between what a participant reports and what they actually do, and the issue of
measurement error (see Spector 1994 for a review). Hence, collection of data from other
sources (e.g., performance data, ratings from important others, behavioral observations) are
likely to be useful for confirming and extending upon the current research. Notwith-
standing this, where constructs of interest are predominantly intra-psychic (such as in the
present study), self-report measures are not only defensible but also logical (Crockett et al.
1987; Howard 1994; Schmitt 1994; Spector 1994). Exploration of models that outline the
relationships between motivational constructs is also likely to be important. Indeed, Buss
and Cantor's (1989) model of motivated behavior in which cognitive responses to envi-
ronmental contingencies give rise to motivated behavior, which then predict important
outcomes, represents a potentially important avenue for future research in this area.

Conclusion

The current research identified four motivational profiles among clergy that confirmed
patterns predicted by the quadripolar model of need achievement. In turn, these four
motivational profiles predicted differences in occupational well-being, operational ized by
multidimensional burnout and engagement factors. Findings have the potential to better
inform a motivational perspective on clergy well-being and hold a number of implications
for practitioners working with clergy and those in similar human services occupations.

References

Bakker, А. В., Schaufeli, W. В., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept
in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22, 187-200.
Boersma, K., & Lindblom, K. (2009). Stability and change in burnout profile overtime: A prospective study
in the working population. Work & Stress, 23, 264-283.
Buss, D., & Cantor, N. (1989). Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions. New York:
Springer.

â Springer

This content downloaded from

31.46.251.120 on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:30:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 672 J Relig Health (201 1) 50:656-674

Byrne, B. M. (1991). The Maslach Burnout inven

intermediate, secondary and university educa
Byrne, B. M. (1999). The nomological network
validated model. In R. Vandenberg & A. Hub
burnout. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clatworthy, J., Buick, D., Hankins, M., Weinman, J., & Horné, R. (2005). The use and reporting of cluster
analysis in health psychology: A review. British Journal of Health Psychology , 10, 329-358.
Covington, M. V. (1985). The role of self-processes in applied social psychology. Journal for the Theory of
Social Behavior, 15, 355-389.
Covington, M. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Covington, M. V. (1998). The will to learn: A guide for motivating young people. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annual
Review of Psychology, 51, 171-200.
Covington, M., & Beery, R. (1976). Self-worth and school learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1981). As failures mount: Affective and cognitive consequences of
ability demotion in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73 , 796-808.
Covington, M., & Roberts, B. (1994). Self-worth and college achievement: Motivational and personality
correlates. In P. R. Pintrich, D. R. Brown, & C. E. Weinstein (Eds.), Students motivation, cognition,
and learning (pp. 157-188). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Coyne, J., & Racioppo, M. (2000). Never the twain shall meet? Closing the gap between coping research
and clinical intervention research. American Psychologist, 55, 655-664.
Crockett, L., Schulenberg, J., & Petersen, A. (1987). Congruence between objective and self-report data in a
sample of young adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 2, 383-392.
Deppe, R., & Harackiewicz, J. (1996). Self-handicapping and intrinsic motivation: Buffering intrinsic
motivation from the threat of failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70, 868-876.
Dewe, P. (1991). Primary appraisal, secondary appraisal, and coping: Their role in stressful work
encounters. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 331-351.
Dewe, P. (1992). Applying the concept of appraisal to work stressors: Some exploratory analysis. Human
Relations, 45, 143.
Dewe, P., & Trenberth, L. (2004). Work stress and coping: Drawing together research and practice. British
Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 32, 143-156.
Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological
Review, 95, 256-273.
Fives, H., Hamman, D., & Olivarez, A. (2007). Does burnout begin with student-teaching? Analyzing
efficacy, burnout, and support during the student-teaching semester. Teaching and Teacher Education,
23, 916-934.
Foster, J. J. (2000). Motivation in the workplace. In N. Chmiel (Ed.), Introduction to work and organiza-
tional psychology: A European perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.
Francis, L. J., Louden, S. H., & Rutledge, C. J. F. (2004). Burnout among Roman Catholic parochial clergy
in England and Wales: Myth or reality? Review of Religious Research, 46, 5-19.
Friedman, I. A. (2000). Burnout in teachers: Shattered dreams of impeccable professional performance.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 595-606.
Grayson, D. A. (2004). Some myths and legends in quantitative psychology. Understanding Statistics, 3,
101-134.

Grosch, W. N., & Olsen, D. С. (2000). Clergy burnout: An integrative approach. Journal of Cli
Psychology, 56, 619-632.
Guglielmi, R., & Tatrow, K. (1998). Occupational stress, burnout, and health in teachers: A methodologi
and theoretical analysis. Review of Educational Research, 68, 61-99.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between empl
satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Appl
Psychology, 87, 268-279.
Howard, G. (1994). Why do people say nasty things about self-reports? Journal of Organizational Behav
15, 399-404.
Jöreskog, К. G. & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.80. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Kaldor, P., Dixon, R., Powell, R., Bellamy, J., Hughes, В., Moore, S., et al. (1999). Taking stock: A profile of
Australian church attenders. Adelaide: Onen book.
Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Theory-based stress measurement. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 3-13.

40 Springer

This content downloaded from

31.46.251.120 on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:30:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 J Relig Health (201 1) 50:656-674 673

Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Coping theory and research: Pa

234-247.
Lazarus, R. S. (2000). Toward better research on stress and coping. American Psychologist, 55, 665-673
Little, L., Simmons, В., & Nelson, D. (2007). Health among leaders: positive and negative affect,
engagement and burnout, forgiveness and revenge. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 243-260.
Lorr, M. (1983). Cluster analysis for social scientists. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Luthans, F., & Martinko, M. (1987). Behavioural approaches to organizations. In C. L. Cooper & I. T
Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology. Chichester: Wiley.
Madlensky, L., Natranajan, L., Flatt, S. W., Faerber, S., Newman, V. A., & Pierce, J. P. (2008). Timing of
dietary changes in response to a telephone counseling intervention: Evidence from the WHEL study.
Health Psychology, 27 , 539-547.
Martin, A. J. (2002). Motivation and academic resilience: Developing a model for student enhancement
Australian Journal of Education, 46, 34-49.
Martin, A. J. (2004a). Perplexity and passion: Further consideration of the role of positive psychology in the
workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 24, 203-205.
Martin, A. J. (2004b). The role of positive psychology in enhancing satisfaction, motivation, and produc
tivity in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 24, 1 13-133.
Martin, A. J. (2005). Exploring the effects of a youth enrichment program on academic motivation and
engagement. Social Psychology of Education, 8, 1 79-206.
Martin, A. J. (2007). Examining a multidimensional model of student motivation and engagement using
construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 413^440.
Martin, A. J. (2008a). Motivation and engagement in diverse performance settings: Testing their generality
across school, university /college, work, sport, music, and daily life. Journal of Research in Person-
ality, 42, 1607-1612.
Martin, A. J. (2008b). Enhancing student motivation and engagement: The effects of a multidimensiona
intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 239-269.
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2003). Fear of failure: Friend or foe? Australian Psychologist, 38, 31-38.
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2006). Academic resilience and its psychological and educational correlates
A construct validity approach. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 267-282.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001). A quadripolar need achievement representation of self-
handicapping and defensive pessimism. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 583-610.
Maslach, С., & Leiter, M. (1999). Teacher burnout: A research agenda. In R. Vandenberghe & A. M
Huberman (Eds.), Understanding and preventing teacher burnout (pp. 295-303). Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Maslach, С., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach Burnout inventory (M BI) ( 3 ed.). Palo Alto
University of California: Consulting Psychology Press.
Maslach, С., Schaufeli, W. В., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397
422.
McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit.
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 247-255.
Meek, K. J., McMinn, M. R., Brower, С. M., Burnett, T. D., McRay, B. W., Ramey, M. L., et al. (2003).
Maintaining personal resiliency: Lessons learned from evangelical Protestant clergy. Journal of Psy-
chology and Theology, 31, 339-347.
Miner, M. H. (2007). Burnout in the first year of ministry: Personality and bellet style as important
predictors. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 10, 17-29.
Nias, J. (1987). Teaching and the self. Cambridge Journal of Education, 17, 178-185.
Nias, J. (1999). Teachers' moral purposes: Stress, vulnerability, and strength. In R. Vandenberg & A.
Huberman (Eds.), Understanding and preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook of international
research and practice (pp. 223-237). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O'Mara, A. J., Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & Debus, R. L. (2006). Do self-concept interventions make
difference? A synergistic blend of construct validation and meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist,
41, 181-206.
Parker, P., & Martin, A. (2009). Coping and buoyancy in the workplace: Understanding their effects on
teachers' work-related well-being and engagement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 68-75.
Parker, P. D., Dowson, M., & Mclnerney, D. (2007). Standards for qualitative research in diverse socio-
cultural settings. In D. Mclnerney, S. Van Etten, & M. Dowson (Eds.), Standards in education (pp.
315-330). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Press.
Pines, A. M. (2000). Treating career burnout: A psychodynamic existential perspective. Journal of Cluneal
Psychology, 56, 633-642.

Ö Springer

This content downloaded from

31.46.251.120 on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:30:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 674 J Relig Health (201 1 ) 50:656-674

Randall, K. J. (2004). Burnout as a predictor of l

Research, 46 , 20-26.
Richardson, P. W., & Watt, H. M. G. (2006). Who c
motivations across three Australian universities.
Sanna, L., & Mark, M. (1995). Self-handicapping, e
positive and attenuating the negative. Organiza
84-102.
Schaufeli, W., & Enzman, D. (1998). The burnout companion to study and practice. Philadelphia: Taylor
and Francis.
Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. (2002). The measurement of engagement
and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3 ,
71-92.
Schaufeli, W., Taris, T., & van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of
a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Applied Psychology, 57, 173.
Schmitt, N. (1989). Editorial. Journal of Applied Psychology , 74 , 843-845.
Schmitt, N. (1994). Method bias: The importance of theory and measurement. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 15 , 393-398.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Somerfield, M., & McCrae, R. (2000). Stress and coping research: Methodological challenges, theoretic
advances, and clinical applications. American Psychologist, 55, 620-625.
Spector, P. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controvers
method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 385-392.
Steinley, D., & Brusco, M. (2008). A new variable weighting and selection procedure for K-means clust
analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 43, 77-108.
Taris, Т., Сох, T., & Tisserand, M. (2008). Engagement at work: An emerging concept. Work & Stress, 22,
185-186.
Thompson, T. (2004). Failure-avoidance: Parenting, the achievement environment of the home and strat-
egies for reduction. Learning and Instruction, 14, 3-26.
Troup, C., & Dewe, P. (2002). Exploring the nature of control and its role in the appraisal of workplace
stress. Work & Stress, 16, 335-355.
Turton, D. W., & Francis, L. J. (2007). The relationship between attitude toward prayer and professional
burnout among Anglican parochial clergy in England: Are praying clergy healthier clergy? Mental
Health, Religion and Culture, 10, 61-74.
Vogel, W., Baker, R., & Lazarus, R. (1958). The role of motivation in psychological stress. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 56, 105-112.
Vogel, W., Raymond, S., & Lazarus, R. (1959). Intrinsic motivation and psychological stress. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 58, 225-233.
Weaver, A. J., Samford, J. A., Kline, A. E., Lucas, L. A., Larson, D. В., & Koenig, H. G. (1997). What do
psychologists know about working with the clergy? An analysis of eight APA journals: 1991-1994.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 471-474.
West, S., Finch, J., & Curran, P. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and
remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications
(pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

^ Springer

This content downloaded from

31.46.251.120 on Tue, 16 Feb 2021 18:30:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms