See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325093367

Psychological capital as a personal resource in the JD-R model

Article  in  Personnel Review · May 2018

DOI: 10.1108/PR-08-2016-0213

CITATIONS READS

83 5,133

5 authors, including:

Steven L. Grover Stephen T T Teo

Macquarie University Northumbria University
79 PUBLICATIONS   4,420 CITATIONS    144 PUBLICATIONS   3,454 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

David Pick Maree Roche

Curtin University The University of Waikato
80 PUBLICATIONS   939 CITATIONS    53 PUBLICATIONS   1,344 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Antecedents and Consequences of Workplace Bullying in Vietnam View project

COVID-19 and work outcomes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stephen T T Teo on 16 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

Psychological Capital as a Personal Resource in the JD-R Model

Cited as:

Grover, S.L., Teo, S.T.T., Pick, D., Roche, M., & Newton, C.J. (forthcoming).

Psychological Capital as a Personal Resource in the JD-R Model. Personnel

Review.
 2

Abstract

Purpose --The purpose of this article is to demystify the role of the personal resource of

psychological capital (PsyCap) in the job demands-Resources (JD-R) model. Theory suggests

that personal resources directly influence perceptions of job demands, job resources, and

outcomes. Alternatively, personal resources may moderate the impact of job demands and job

resources on outcomes.

Design/methodology/approach -- A survey of 401 nurses working in the Australian health

care sector explores the relations among PsyCap, job demands and resources, and

psychological wellbeing and work engagement.

Findings – The results suggest that PsyCap directly influences perceptions of job demands

and resources and that it directly influences the outcomes of wellbeing and engagement.

Furthermore, job demands and job resources mediate the relation of PsyCap with wellbeing

and engagement, respectively.

Research limitations/implications -- The moderation effect of PsyCap was not supported,

which suggests that PsyCap relates to perceptions as opposed to being a coping mechanism.

This finding therefore narrows the scope of personal resources in this important model.

Keywords: Psychological Capital, Job-Demands-Resources, engagement, nursing

 3

Psychological Capital as a Personal Resource in the JD-R Model

The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model robustly predicts how job demands

deplete individuals through an impairment process that results in stress and burnout and how

job resources bolster engagement through a motivational process (Bakker and Demerouti,

2016; Demerouti et al., 2001; Schaufeli and Taris, 2014). JD-R traditionally focusses on

characteristics of the job as demands and resources. However, recent research moves toward

considering the role of the individual as a “job crafter” (Bakker et al., 2012; Hakanen et al.,

2017; Petrou et al., 2017), because individuals bring personal resources to bear on the work

situation (Bakker et al., 2012; Grover et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2016; Xanthopoulou et al.,

2011). “Personal resources are aspects of the self that are generally linked to resilience and

refer to individuals’ sense of their ability to control and impact upon their environment

successfully” (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007, pp. 123-124). Hence, such personal resources inure

an ability in individuals to influence the job and therefore the demands, resources, and

outcomes to the job.

Despite recent research interest in personal resources, understanding of their

connection to job demands and resources is still not clear. Research shows that personal

resources may behave as other job resources in JD-R (Mayerl et al., 2016), affect perceptions

of job demands (Boudrias et al., 2011), moderate the influence of demands on outcomes

(Grover et al., 2016), or act as mediators (Huang et al., 2016; Xanthopoulou et al., 2011).

The present article contributes to conceptual clarity about personal resources within the JD-R

model by focusing on one particular personal resource – psychological capital (PsyCap).

PsyCap is a global personal resource representing a person’s “positive appraisal of

circumstances and probability for success based on motivated effort and perseverance”

(Luthans et al., 2007a, p. 550). As such, this construct captures the essence of future

motivation and feelings of capability that drive how individual workers interact with the
 4

constraints and opportunties of their jobs. Previous studies of personal resources in the JD-R

measure various aspects of PsyCap, such as optimism, hope, and self-efficacy (Xanthopoulou

et al., 2011) and ignored the fourth component of PsyCap – resilience. This omission is

surprising, firstly, because personal resources refers to individual sate resiliency, and

secondly, at least 66 published studies include PsyCap as a four dimensional construct in

other domains (Newman et al., 2014). The present study explores how PsyCap as a four-

component construct connects to positive outcomes predicted by the JD-R model.

This study makes two major contributions. The first is that it assesses various ways

that PsyCap affects perceptions and outcomes in the JD-R model. We compare the direct

effect of PsyCap on perceptions of job demands, job resources, and outcome variables and

compare it to the moderating, or buffering, impact of PsyCap. The second contribution of this

study is to measure global PsyCap by invoking its four components. This global construct

extends the notion of personal resources and captures both the positive attitude and the

propensity to be motivated to use that positive attitude, and such measurement has not, to our

knowledge, occurred in JD-R research.

Theoretical Foundation and Hypothesis Development

Job Demands: Impairment

Job demands and lack of job resources lead to strain and health impairment, such as

stress, and mental and physical ill-being (Schaufeli and Taris, 2014). Job demands are

“aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological (cognitive and

emotional) effort and are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or psychological

costs” (Bakker et al., 2004, p. 86). They occur in the form of work pressure, role overload,

and poor environmental conditions and operate through an impairment process to affect

psychological and physical health (Bakker et al., 2004). High and prolonged levels of job

demands impair health by drawing on resources beyond individual capabilities. High job
 5

demands and low job resources reduce wellbeing due to the disparity between the

“characteristics of a specific role and what is actually being achieved by the individual

currently performing the specific role” (Chang and Hancock, 2003, p. 156; Chen et al., 2007;

Garrosa et al., 2008; Örtqvist and Wincent, 2006).

Job Resources: Motivational

Job resources operate through a motivational process by helping people to bolster

core self-concept and to fulfil their work roles and achieve goals (Bakker and Demerouti,

2016). The corollary of this is that limited job resources such as reduced control create

difficulty for employees to fulfil their roles, resulting in greater role stress and lower levels of

work engagement (Barbier et al., 2013; Garrosa et al., 2011).

Psychological Wellbeing

These relations are captured in the JD-R model, which connects job demands and job

resources to work outcomes such as employee health and engagement in their work. The

present study focusses on the influence of job resources and job demands on psychological

wellbeing and work engagement. Wellbeing is a broad term that incorporates both physical

and mental health (Witte, 1999), and the present study focuses on psychological wellbeing,

which is both the absence of symptoms of mental ill health and the presence of positive

affective and cognitive experiences. Work situations with high job demands are connected to

lower levels of employee psychological wellbeing (Bakker, 2011; Bakker and Demerouti,

2014). Work engagement on the other hand is a measure of the levels of vigor, dedication and

absorption in work among employees (Bakker, 2011) and it associates with employee

engagement and performance (Knight et al., 2016). Based in positive psychology, the two

elements of work engagement – vigor and dedication – are considered the opposite of

exhaustion and cynicism (symptoms of burnout), and the third element – absorption –

captures the state of being fully engrossed in work (Bakker et al., 2008; Knight et al., 2016).
 6

Research suggests that job demands are strongly connected to wellbeing while job

resources are markedly more connected to work engagement (for review, see Bakker and

Demerouti, 2016). This finding supports the original JD-R model as developed by Demerouti

et al. (2001), which postulates that an absence of job resources strongly correlates with

disengagement and job demands strongly correlates with exhaustion. However, other studies

suggest work engagement is associated with positive aspects of work in general and

employee wellbeing in particular (Schaufeli et al., 2006) and depends on the balance between

resources and demands (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007).

The present study explores how PsyCap influences job demand – resource

relationships and then job outcomes. To do this, we test a model (Figure 1) that proposes a

number of relationships between PsyCap and job demands and resources and then the

strength of these relationships to work outcomes of psychological wellbeing and work

engagement.

------------------------------------

Insert Figure 1 about here

------------------------------------

Psychological Capital

PsyCap refers to “an individual’s positive psychological state of development,”

characterized by: “(1) having confidence (efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort

to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about

succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary,

redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and

adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resilience) to attain success”

(Luthans et al., 2007b, p. 3). These psychological attributes positively contribute to job

satisfaction, commitment, and intention to stay (Luthans et al., 2007b). PsyCap is a personal
 7

resource concerning the degree to which people believe they can influence their jobs.

Recent research examining the impact of PsyCap on a variety of organizational

phenomena suggests that it has significant and enduring influence on how individuals are

affected by and affect their work environments. Empirical research shows that PsyCap

moderates the impact of authentic leadership such that the influence of authentic leadership

on individual performance is less for people high in PsyCap (Wang et al., 2014). PsyCap also

contributes directly to improvements in role performance and job satisfaction (Abbas et al.,

2014) as well as mental health and work satisfaction (Laschinger and Fida, 2014).

Furthermore, research evidence supports the contention that PsyCap plays a general role in

improving the work environment because people who possess higher levels of PsyCap relate

to one another in a more considerate manner and are able to focus better on work tasks

(Paterson et al., 2014).

The present study investigates the interaction between personal resources and job

demands and resources. The contribution of the paper is to consider PsyCap as a personal

resource and as such an individual characteristic. Previous PsyCap work shows that it

empowers people to have positive attitudes about their environment, specifically their work

environment (Laschinger and Fida, 2014; Paterson et al., 2014). At the same time, PsyCap

acts as a buffering mechanism in which people high in PsyCap are better able to cope with

environmental demands, thereby lessening the impact of the environment, whether those

environmental variables are captured by leadership or demands and resources of the job

(Avey et al., 2010a; Bakker and Demerouti, 2016; Cheung et al., 2011; Laschinger and Fida,

2014). In their recent review, Schaufeli and Taris (2014) theorize that personal resources such

as PsyCap may (1) directly influence perceptions of job demands and resources, (2) directly

influence outcomes such as wellbeing and engagement, (3) moderate the influence of job

demands and resources on the outcomes. Advancing knowledge of how personal resources
 8

affect job attitudes and wellbeing demands investigating the various roles they potentially

play. The present paper examines these roles of PsyCap in the JD-R model in order to more

fully understand the role of PsyCap as a complete construct in JD-R.

Direct effect of PsyCap on outcomes

Theory and research suggest that PsyCap directly influences desirable attitudes and

performance, the psychological wellbeing of employees (Avey et al., 2010a), and levels of

cynicism and anxiety (Avey et al., 2009). Employees with PsyCap are more satisfied in their

jobs and perform better (Avey et al., 2011), demonstrate more support and openness to

organizational change (Avey et al., 2008), have higher organizational commitment and less

absenteeism (Avey et al., 2006), and experience lower levels of stress (Roche et al., 2014).

PsyCap has positive influence because the characteristics of PsyCap – hope, optimism, self-

efficacy, and resiliency—allow people to flourish because they approach situations in a

positive fashion that supports this self-determination and hence self-worth (Paterson et al.,

2014) .

Hypothesis 1. PsyCap positively relates to psychological wellbeing (H1a) and work

engagement (H1b).

Direct effect of PsyCap on JD-R Perceptions

People with positive self-concept captured by PsyCap tend to view their work

environment, such as the level of demands and resources available to them, in a more positive

manner (Avey et al., 2011; Luthans et al., 2007b), because core self-evaluation influences

how people judge their environments (Judge and Bono, 2001; Judge et al., 2000). Higher

PsyCap facilitates a more positive outlook on life in general that carries over to views of their

work environments. In the JD-R model, this positive evaluation of job demands and job

resources leads to more positive outcomes. Since extant research has not yet tested all four
 9

dimensions of PsyCap as a personal resource within the JD-R model, we examine the extent

to which PsyCap positively relates to JD-R perceptions.

Hypothesis 2. PsyCap relates positively to perceptions of job resources (2a) and

negatively to perceptions of job demands (2b).

One of the main elements of the JD-R model is that job demands influence

psychological wellbeing and that job resources influence work engagement (Bakker and

Demerouti, 2016; Demerouti et al., 2001). JD-R research and theory establishes the link

between job demands and wellbeing and between job resources and work engagement

through the impairment and motivation processes. Job demands connect to wellbeing

negatively through an impairment process and job resources connect positively to

engagement through a motivational process (Bakker and Demerouti, 2016; Demerouti et al.,

2001).

Hypothesis 3a. Job demands negatively relate to psychological wellbeing.

Hypothesis 4a. Job resources relate positively to work engagement.

Placing these established JD-R relations together with the predictions of Hypotheses 1

and 2, we additionally predict that job demands and resources mediate the relation of PsyCap

to wellbeing and engagement as illustrated in Figure 1. The positive outlook properties of

PsyCap influence perceptions of job characteristics (Hypothesis 2). This positive view of the

demands placed on the individual worker, in turn, translate into a greater psychological

wellbeing. People higher in PsyCap perceive fewer job demands and therefore experience

greater psychological wellbeing due to less impairment.

Similarly, the positive, optimistic, resilient characteristics of PsyCap lead people to

experience more job resources. People high in PsyCap perceive the same situation as having

greater resources to get the job done and therefore they experience more of the motivational

process that keeps them engaged in their work. In essence, the mediation processes that we
 10

propose explain how PsyCap operates in the workplace and it is encapsulated in the following

two hypotheses.

Hypothesis 3b: Job demands mediate the impact of PsyCap on psychological

wellbeing.

Hypothesis 4b. Job resources mediate the impact of PsyCap on work engagement.

Moderation effect by PsyCap

As PsyCap increases, people might be able to develop greater ability to cope with

increased job demands. Higher job demands is associated with increased levels of stress, and

research suggests that employees who possess PsyCap in the form of resiliency, optimism,

self-efficacy, and hope are potentially more able to cope with these demands (Avey et al.,

2011; Luthans et al., 2007b). In other words, personal resources moderate the impact of

stress-inducing working conditions on employee wellbeing (Mäkikangas and Kinnunen,

2003; Pierce and Gardner, 2004; Van Yperen and Snijders, 2000). People with higher levels

of PsyCap tend to take initiatives that will assist them in meeting the demanding job

situations. The resiliency of PsyCap facilitates positive immediate reactions to the

impairment effect of job demands because they have the positive mental resources to cope

with the demands. PsyCap allows employees to cope better with increased job demands, thus

supporting the contention that PsyCap moderates the relation of job demands on stress.

PsyCap can thus be seen as a personal resource that aids in the search for additional

job resources (Avey et al., 2008). Previous research suggests that employees with high levels

of PsyCap have greater mastery that helps them to use resources in their environment and to

deal more effectively with work conditions (Bakker et al., 2005). This is a logical extension

of previous research which shows that PsyCap moderates the relationship between emotional

labor and burnout (Cheung et al., 2011), and the impact of subjective task complexity on

employee performance (Avey et al., 2011). In addition, Siu, Lu, and Spector (2007) find that
 11

general self-efficacy protects against stressful environments, Boudrias and colleagues (2011)

find that two sub-scales of PsyCap (resilience and optimism) moderate the effects of job

demands on distress, and Van den Broeck et al. (2008) find that basic need satisfaction

moderates job demands on burnout. We test and extend these research findings by including

all elements of PsyCap and testing for the moderation effects of PsyCap.

Hypothesis 5. PsyCap moderates the impact of job demands on wellbeing (H5a) and

the impact of job resources on engagement (H5b) such that their effects are weaker as

PsyCap increases.

Our proposed model (Figure 1) positions psychological wellbeing and work

engagement as outcomes of the influence PsyCap has on job demands and job resources.

Psychological wellbeing facilitates positive affect and motivation at work by helping people

generate the emotional energy required to experience work in a positive and vigorous way.

Previous research supports the association between employee wellbeing and job outcomes

such as job satisfaction and engagement (Brunetto et al., 2012; Judge and Watanabe, 1993;

Wright and Cropanzano, 2000).

Hypothesis 6: Psychological wellbeing relates positively to work engagement.

Lastly, the job demands and job resources as depicted in Figure 1 might be either

negatively or positively related to one another. As Bakker and Demerouti (2016) point out,

“Although both categories of working conditions covary with the work context, whether

these are positively or negatively related is basically an empirical question” (p. 5). In the

context of our study, the work environment of the sample of nurses we survey is one in which

workloads have increased over the past few years as structural changes continue to occur in

the health system (Department of Health, 2014). The nature of the JD-JR relation in our study

could be negative because the job resources available to nurses might not be able to keep

pace with workload increases.

 12

We contribute to theory by disentangling the position of PsyCap in the JD-R model.

To achieve this, we robustly test the various pathways articulated by Schaufeli and Taris

(2014) in the quickly changing working environment of nurses, a context where PsyCap is

particularly relevant.

Method

Procedure and Sample

The data were collected by online survey from a sample of nurses working in the

Australian health care sector. We employed a private research company to administer the

survey. They began by sending an email containing a link to our survey to their members

who matched the occupational and background requirements (nurses residing in Australia).

The electronic survey consisted of questions regarding demographic characteristics,

perceptions of changes to work organization, stressors, job demands and job resources, and

job-related attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction and engagement). Ethical approval was obtained

from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the administering university.

Overall, 401 useable responses equated to a rate of 30%. Of these, 331 (83%) were

women. Most of the respondents were full time employees (49.4%). The majority were

between 26 and 50 years old (62.4%). The majority were employed in local government, non-

profit and public sector organizations (71%) with the remainder in the private sector. The

majority of the respondents had greater than 10 years nursing experience, followed by those

with one to three years (25.9%), and three to less than five years (20%). The largest group of

respondents held an undergraduate degree in nursing (35.8%), followed by those with a

postgraduate qualification (19.6%). An independent t-test was conducted to determine if there

was any sectorial difference between public/non-profit and private sector respondents in

relation to the variables in the path model. The analysis showed that there was no sectorial

difference and they were combined for further analysis.

 13

Preliminary data analyses were conducted using IBM PAWS 20. These included

reliability, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and correlation analyses. AMOS v.22

was used to test the measurement and structural path models. A one factor model

confirmatory factor analysis was undertaken prior to conducting the path analysis.

Measurements

Job Demands. We used six items from Caplan and colleagues’ (1975) quantitative

job overload scale to operationalize job demands. The items were rated on 7-point Likert

scale, such that higher ratings indicated high level of job demands (sample item is, “How

often does your job require you to work very fast?”). One item was removed due to low

factor loading (χ2/df= 1.467, CFI= .999, TLI= .996, RMSEA = .034). This scale has a

composite reliability coefficient of 0.90.

Job Resources. We adopted five items of the job discretion scale from Karasek and

colleagues (1985). The items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (“1” strongly disagree to

“5” strongly agree). Sample item included “My job requires a high level of skill” (χ2/df=.968,

CFI= 1.000, TLI= 1.000, RMSEA = .000). This scale has a composite reliability coefficient

of 0.86.

Psychological Capital. PsyCap was measured with the 12-item short-form

Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) developed by Luthans et al. (2007a). The items

were rated on “1” strongly disagree to “5” all the time. It has four sub-scales: efficacy (e.g.,

“I feel confident analyzing a long-term problem to find a solution”), hope (e.g., “If I should

find myself in a jam at work, I could think of many ways to get out of it”), resiliency (e.g., “I

usually manage difficulties one way or another at work”) and optimism (e.g., “When things

are uncertain for me at work, I usually expect the best”). Four items were removed from

further analysis due to low discriminant reliability. These four sub-scales were used to form a

second order composite factor, PsyCap. This second order composite factor exceeds the
 14

minimum requirement for goodness of fit (χ2/df= 1.497, CFI= .995, TLI= .991, RMSEA =

.035) as noted in the literature (Byrne, 2009). Following Luthans et al. (2007a), we created a

higher order composite factor to operationalize PsyCap (composite reliability = 0.91).

Psychological Wellbeing. We used the 12 item GHQ-12 (Goldberg and Williams,

1988) to measure psychological wellbeing. The items were rated on “0” not at all to “3” all

the time. Two sub-dimensions of GHQ-12 were used in this model, comprising six items of

positively worded items (sample item “Been able to concentrate on whatever you're doing”)

and six items negatively worded items (sample item “Lost much sleep over worry”).

Negatively worded items were reverse-coded such that high ratings indicate high

psychological wellbeing. CFA confirmed the two factor structure (χ2/df=1.925, CFI=.976,

TLI=.966, RMSEA .048). It has high internal reliability (composite reliability = 0.80).

Work Engagement. Work engagement was operationalized using the 9-item

shortened Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9) developed by Schaufeli et al. (2006).

The items were rated on a seven point Likert scale, ranging from “1” strongly disagree to “7”

strongly agree. Confirmatory factor analysis resulted in two items being removed from

further analysis (χ2/df= 1.456, CFI= .998, TLI= .995, RMSEA = .034). Sample items include

“I feel happy when I am working intensely” and “At my work, I feel bursting with energy”.

Two items were removed from further analysis due to low discriminant validity (composite

reliability= 0.93).

Validity and reliability

Prior to further analysis, we performed several checks for discriminant validity. In the

first instance, a single factor confirmatory factor analysis was undertaken with all of the

constructs. This analysis showed that the data were not a good fit to the model (χ2/df=3.647,

CFI= .759, TLI= .692, RMSEA = .081). We tested a series of nested models (see Table 1) in

order to determine the best fit model for this study. Model 1 comprised of the five factors in
 15

the study and it was used to compare with a series of nested models, ranging from 1 to 4

factors. A chi-square difference test showed the five factor model had the best goodness of fit

and discriminant validity exists (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). We also used the average

variance explained to check for discriminant validity by following the Fornell and Larcker’s

(1981) test. Results of the tests satisfied the minimum guidelines required for path analysis

(Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

------------------------------

Insert Table 1 about here

-------------------------------

Finally, we conducted Harman’s single factor test and incorporated a method factor

into the path model in order to check for the effect of common method bias (see Podsakoff et

al., 2003). This analysis resulted in seven factors with an eigenvalue of greater than 1.0, of

which the single largest factor explained 25.4% of the variance. All of these analyses showed

that common method bias is of no major concern.

We determined the adequacy of the measurement model by undertaking a

confirmatory factor analysis of all of the constructs in the model (χ2/df= 1.944, CFI =.941,

TLI=.933, RMSEA=.048, SRMR=.066). These were then used to test the structural model.

We then used Hayes’ (2016) PROCESS macro to conduct mediation analysis. Moderation

analysis was conducted within the structural model, following the procedure in Petrou et al.

(2017).

Results

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations are reported in Table 2. As shown in the

table, psychological wellbeing is negatively correlated with organizational type (i.e., private

sector nurses had more psychological wellbeing). Job demands were negatively correlated
 16

with both job resources and work engagement. Psychological wellbeing had a positive

correlation with work engagement.

------------------------------

Insert Table 2 about here

-------------------------------

The hypotheses were tested in a structural equation model (SEM) analysis that

included all the paths considered in the hypotheses as shown in Figure 1. The results are

illustrated in Figure 2 and show that the structural model had a good fit with the data whereby

it explained 60% of the variation in work engagement (χ2/df=1.930, CFI=.941, TLI=.933,

RMSEA=.0.048, SRMR=.067). The results of the SEM showed that PsyCap positively

relates to psychological wellbeing and employee engagement, supporting Hypothesis 1.

PsyCap was also positively associated with perceptions of job resources and negatively with

job demands, supporting Hypothesis 2.

Job demands were significantly and positively related to wellbeing (Hypothesis 3a),

and job resources were positively related to engagement, supporting Hypothesis 4a. As

shown in Table 3, the mediation effects of job demands and job resources were significant for

wellbeing and work engagement, supporting Hypotheses 3b and 4b. The indirect mediating

effect for PsyCap  Job Demands  Psychological Wellbeing  Work Engagement was

also significant (β=-.09, .95% BootLLCI -.16, .95% BootULCI -.04). Specifically, nurses

high in PsyCap report lower job demands and, in turn greater wellbeing and work

engagement.

The moderation hypothesis was tested by including the interaction term of “PsyCap x

job demands” with a path to wellbeing “PsyCap x job resources” with a path to engagement

(Petrou et al., 2017). Neither of these paths is statistically significant, and therefore they are
 17

not shown in the Figure 2. The moderation hypothesis 5 was not supported. Lastly, wellbeing

was positively related to work engagement (Hypothesis 6).

---------------------------------------------

Insert Figure 2 and Table 3 about here

---------------------------------------------

Discussion

This paper explores the various roles that the personal resource of PsyCap plays in the

JD-R model as theorized by Shaufeli and Taris (2014). The results show that nurses who

possess high levels of PsyCap have a more positive outlook that affects how they perceive the

milieu of their jobs, including job demands and resources. PsyCap directly influences how

nurses perceive job resources, job demands, and levels of psychological wellbeing and work

engagement. PsyCap did not moderate the impact of job demands or resources on stress.

Instead, PsyCap influences perceptions of job demands and job resources that mediate the

impact of PsyCap on wellbeing and engagement. The contribution of the study is in showing

how the holistic construct of PsyCap directly influences perceptions of the job and its

outcomes and does not moderate, or buffer, the effects of job demands or resources on

wellbeing or work engagement. These results have a number of implications, including re-

thinking the importance of environmental factors in the JD-R model compared to personal

resources in challenging, difficult conditions. In the following sections we explain the

findings, then the implications for theory against the backdrop of previous research, and,

finally, the practical implications and limitations.

Explanations

PsyCap predicts nurses’ wellbeing because people high in PsyCap have positive self-

concepts that allow them to maintain a joyous outlook concerning the demands and resources

of their jobs. The characteristics of optimism, hope, resilience, and self-efficacy work
 18

together to form a virtuous cycle of building a positive self-concept (Judge and Bono, 2001;

Judge et al., 1998). PsyCap promotes employees’ psychological wellbeing, optimism and

self-efficacy that also promote and support the development of a positive self-concept among

employees (Avey et al., 2009). In turn, the direct influence of PsyCap on how people view

their work environment was the major influence on wellbeing and engagement.

This overall positive view of work influences perceptual processes compared to a

moderating effect. Perceptions of the job are the driving force for nurses to experience more

wellbeing and engagement, which supports and strongly supplements the JD-R model. The

direct effects of PsyCap on perceptions suggests that the positive orientation of people high in

PsyCap helps them to perceive job demands in a more positive fashion that promotes

wellbeing. This finding is further supported by the mediation analysis that shows PsyCap

influences job resource perceptions and subsequently engagement. This explanation contrasts

with the moderation explanation that PsyCap helps people to muster the resources to deal

with the demands of work. Furthermore, this finding is consistent with previous findings that

show that more positive people have more positive views of the job demands and resources

available to them (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007; Zapf et al., 1996).

Theoretical Implications

The present findings contribute to our understanding of the growing role of PsyCap in

organizational behavior generally and the JD-R model specifically. Previous research

demonstrates that elements of PsyCap contribute to wellbeing (Avey et al., 2010b; Avey et

al., 2011) and engagement (Boamah and Laschinger, 2015). These findings are supported in

our study with PsyCap as the higher order construct. Furthermore, our research incorporates

PsyCap as a personal resource and examines the extent to which, and how, it functions within

the JD-R model.

 19

We found that PsyCap levels influence positive thought by employees about their

work in general, which reflects the direct effect on perceptions as theorized by Shaufeli and

Taris (2014). The implication of direct effects versus moderation of PsyCap is that people

who embrace their work lives in a positive way perceive fewer job demands and more job

resources which is consistent with Xanthopoulou et al. (2007).

The present study makes a contribution beyond Xanthopoulou et al. (2007). Their

results show that personal resources influence the motivation process by affecting job

resources. The present results extend that to the impairment process, showing that PsyCap

affects perceptions of job demands and in turn wellbeing and engagement. Therefore, the

present findings support and advice the work of Xanthopoulou et al. (2007). It supports the

idea that PsyCap influences perceptions of job resources and job demands and does not act as

a buffer. It advances to show that both job demand and job resource perceptions are affected.

The present result of no moderation contrasts with previous studies that have found

forms of moderation. For example, Van den Broeck et al. (2011) found a moderation effect of

personal resources. However, they operationalized personal resources as basic needs

satisfaction using intrinsic-extrinsic motivation, finding that the relation of job resources to

work engagement was enhanced by greater intrinsic motivation. Despite both being

operationalized as personal resources, intrinsic motivation is a quite different variable than

PsyCap, which is arguably much closer to the definition of personal resources as “aspects of

the self that are generally linked to resiliency and refer to individuals’ sense of their ability to

control and impact upon their environment successfully” (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007, pp. 123-

124). PsyCap completely captures the powerful sense of being able to control one’s

environment.

These findings begin to unravel the role of PsyCap specifically, and personal

resources generally, in the JD-R model. The interesting thing about the difference in these
 20

operationalizations is that PsyCap predicts a fundamental approach to the work situation, and

therefore people high in PsyCap enjoy the positive work environment as noted through its

impact on attitudes toward job demands and resources and, in turn, the outcomes. In contrast,

those variables such as basic needs satisfaction are secondary and predict how people can

react to their environment. Comparing these effects defines boundary conditions for personal

resources in the JD-R model.

While previous studies have utilized the optimism and efficacy dimensions of PsyCap

as a personal resource (Gillespie et al., 2007; Luthans et al., 2007a), the present study tested

the higher order composite construct of PsyCap. PsyCap, as a higher order composite of

hope, optimism, self-efficacy and resiliency, associates with reduced role stress and enhanced

work engagement. Luthans and colleagues (2007a) found that the PsyCap construct as a

constellation including all the components predicts performance and satisfaction better than

the individual sub-dimensions alone. The present study further extends this concept to show

the holistic construct influences the experience of stress in the fast changing environment of

nursing.

Even though Luthans and colleagues (2007a) show the importance of the composite

construct, most studies consider the individual components of PsyCap as opposed to the

holistic construct (e.g., Barbier et al., 2013; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). The present findings

extend Boamah and Laschinger’s (2015) finding that the PsyCap constellation influences

work engagement of nurses. We extend these findings to illustrate how PsyCap affects

engagement. Boahma and Laschinger (2015) only found that PsyCap relates to engagement.

We extend that finding by showing (1) that it reduces job demands perceptions and (2) that its

mediation through job demands and psychological wellbeing promotes work engagement.

These two contributions are shown by the mediation path of PsyCap  job demands 

wellbeing  engagement. This mediation finding further explains why PsyCap relates to
 21

engagement. The resilience and optimism of PsyCap allows people to view their job demands

in a more positive light which, in turn, leads to more psychologically healthy wellbeing and

allows them to enjoy energy, vitality, and enthusiasm for their work. Similarly, hope and

efficacy provided the positive psychological resources needed for nurses to deal with an

increasing level of job demands in the context of healthcare reform in Australia. This central

finding also has managerial implications.

Managerial and Practical Implications

The main practical implication of these findings is that PsyCap positive. It positively

influences how nurses imagine their jobs and the healthy psychological outcomes from it.

Therefore, supporting PsyCap among the population of nurses should have a positive

influence on those individual workers: Boosting PsyCap lifts their overall view of the world

in general and work life in particular. Nurses do incredibly important work and therefore it

seems reasonable that hospitals – and in fact anyone who might be a patient someday –

wants them to have work experiences. Therefore, interventions of any sort that promote

PsyCap should positively benefit the individual nurses as well as the institution (and hence

patients) as well.

PsyCap interventions have been shown to elevate PsyCap (Luthans et al., 2006;

Luthans et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2014). We encourage hospitals to consider offering such

interventions. Interventions boost participants’ awareness of the underlying PsyCap

components of optimism, hope, resilience, and efficacy. Typical interventions highlight each

component and then provide exercises to personalize it for the participant. Highlighting the

concept of goals reinforces the as is the importance of making challenging and achieving

goals. Continuing in the face of thwarted goal-attainment is then considered. In order to

personalize the training, participants are generally asked to consider goals that have been

frustrated in the past and then to develop strategies for re-engaging with those goals. This
 22

brings the concepts closer to the individual participants and helps them to reorient in a way

that boosts their resilience, efficacy, and optimism.

These interventions can be offered in a variety of different ways. Luthans et al.

(2008) developed a web-based training programme, which has the advantage that it can be

offered to essentially to anyone from anywhere. Much of that programme draws on the

strengths of traditional class-based training by interspersing video discussion by a facilitator

along with self-focussed exercises. Other ways of offering interventions include Zhang and

colleagues’ (2014) reading-based intervention. Simply in a different format, this intervention

teaches people about goals and how to achieve them in the face of adversity, thus building a

forward-thinking, positive, and resilient participant.

Hospitals and other organisations can be advised that, of course, placing some effort

on employees by offering training that focuses on the self will be seen as positive by those

employees. In addition, employees trained using these kinds of PsyCap interventions develop

greater resiliency and optimism that translate into a host of engagement and other positive

outcomes (Grover et al., 2016; Luthans et al., 2006; 2008; Zhang et al., 2014). Such

interventions can be done inexpensively, which seems like wise investment for forward-

looking enterprises.

Nurses and others working in healthcare and other high-stress occupations should

particularly benefit from PsyCap interventions. PsyCap is a way of coping with the stress

directly (Grover et al., 2016), and as shown in the present study, influences how nurses view

the world, both in terms of how they view the demands and opportunities of their immediate

jobs, and also how they experience work in terms of engagement and wellbeing. The very

essence of these positive attitudes comes to life in these high stress, demanding occupations,

and it seems organisations that fail to at least attempt to boost this in their employees are

missing a great opportunity.

 23

Limitations and Future Research Implications

The cross-sectional design has potential common method variance because

respondents’ mood states and disposition potentially relate to wellbeing (Podsakoff et al.,

2003). While the current study has undertaken several procedural and statistical checks to

ensure common method bias is limited (Podsakoff et al., 2003), future research should collect

longitudinal data to better understand the causal effects of personal resources on job demands

and how that, in turn, affects employee attitudes across at least three different time points.

Multi-wave data could also be collected from supervisors on objective assessment of

employees’ work engagement attitudes. These two designs would specifically incorporate the

temporal effect of change into the research (Kelloway and Francis, 2013).

A more critical aspect of the present design is that it cannot differentiate reverse

causation, particularly between PsyCap and job demands and resources. Our theoretical

reasoning is that people with a more positive outlook captured by PsyCap view similar job

demands and resources more positively, that they diminish the negative demands and see the

resources as available to them. An alternative reasoning articulated by Schaufeli and Taris

(2014) is that resources and demands influence PsyCap. Having the appropriate resources to

meet demands and not having too many demands make people feel self-efficacious and

optimistic and hopeful. In fact, Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) suggest that the personal resources

of organizationally based self-esteem, optimism, and self-efficacy act as mediators between

job resources and work engagement. However, neither their cross-sectional design nor ours

allows true differentiation between these different mediation models because neither has a

time differential between measurements. Future studies could differentiate personal

resources, JD-R variables, and outcomes at points in time to analyze this sequence in a more

exact manner.
 24

The present findings concerning PsyCap require triangulation. Few studies have

seriously considered the impact of personal resources on the JD-R model. Clearly,

characteristics or features of organizational participants as active beings influence the way

they perceive their environment and the subsequent positive and negative effects. Future

work should center on this clearly to determine the boundary conditions and effective

interventions.
 25

References

Abbas, M., Raja, U., Darr, W. and Bouckenooghe, D. (2014), "Combined effects of perceived

politics and psychological capital on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and

performance", Journal of Management, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 1813-1830.

Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), "Structural equation modeling in practice: A

review and recommended two-step approach", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No.

3, pp. 411-423.

Avey, J.B., Luthans, F. and Jensen, S.M. (2009), "Psychological capital: A positive resource

for combating employee stress and turnover", Human Resource Management, Vol.

48 No. 5, pp. 677-693.

Avey, J.B., Luthans, F., Smith, R.M. and Palmer, N.F. (2010a), "Impact of positive

psychological capital on employee well-being over time", Journal of Occupational

Health Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 17-28.

Avey, J.B., Luthans, F. and Youssef, C.M. (2010b), "The additive value of positive

psychological capital in predicting work attitudes and behaviors", Journal of

Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 430-452.

Avey, J.B., Patera, J.L. and West, B.J. (2006), "The implications of positive psychological

capital on employee absenteeism", Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,

Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 42-60.

Avey, J.B., Reichard, R.J., Luthans, F. and Mhatre, K.H. (2011), "Meta-analysis of the

impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and

performance", Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 127-152.

Avey, J.B., Wernsing, T.S. and Luthans, F. (2008), "Can positive employees help positive

organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant

attitudes and behaviors", Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 44, pp. 48-70.
 26

Bakker, A.B. (2011), "An evidence-based model of work engagement", Current Directions

in Psychological Science, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 265-269.

Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), "The job demands-resources model: State of the art",

Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-328.

Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2014) "Job demands-resources theory", in Chen, P.Y. and

Cooper, C.L. (eds.), Work and wellbeing: Wellbeing: A complete reference guide,

Wiley, London, pp. 37-64.

Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2016), "Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and

looking forward", Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, DOI:

10.1037/ocp0000056.

Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2005), "The crossover of burnout and

work engagement among working couples", Human Relations, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp.

661-689.

Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Verbeke, W. (2004), "Using the job demands-resources

model to predict burnout and performance", Human Resource Management, Vol. 43,

pp. 83-104.

Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P. and Taris, T.W. (2008), "Work engagement: An

emerging concept in occupational health psychology", Work & Stress Vol. 22 No. 3,

pp. 187-200.

Bakker, A.B., Tims, M. and Derks, D. (2012), "Proactive personality and job performance:

The role of job crafting and work engagement", Human Relations, Vol. 65 No. 10,

pp. 1359-1378.

Barbier, M., Hansez, I., Chmiel, N. and Demerouti, E. (2013), "Performance expectations,

personal resources, and job resources: How do they predict work engagement?",
 27

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 750-

762.

Boamah, S. and Laschinger, H. (2015), "Engaging new nurses: The role of psychological

capital and workplace empowerment", Journal of Research in Nursing, Vol. 20 No.

4, pp. 265-277.

Boudrias, J.-S., Desrumaux, P., Gaudreau, P., Nelson, K., Brunet, L. and Savoie, A. (2011),

"Modeling the experience of psychological health at work: The role of personal

resources, social-organizational resources, and job demands", International Journal

of Stress Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 372-395.

Brunetto, Y., Teo, S.T.T., Shacklock, K. and Farr-Wharton, R. (2012), "Emotional

intelligence, job satisfaction, well-being and engagement: Explaining organisational

commitment and turnover intentions in policing", Human Resource Management

Journal, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 428-441.

Byrne, B. (2009) Structural equation modeling with amos: Basic concepts, applications, and

programming, 2nd edition., Routledge, New York.

Caplan, R.D., Cobb, S., French, J.R.P., Jr., Harrison, R.V. and Pinneau, S.R., Jr. (1975) Job

demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences, U. S.

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C.

Chang, E. and Hancock, K. (2003), "Role stress and role ambiguity in new nursing graduates

in australia", Nursing & Health Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 155-163.

Chen, Y.-M., Chen, S.-H., Tsai, C.-Y. and Lo, L.-Y. (2007), "Role stress and job satisfaction

for nurse specialists", Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 497-509.

Cheung, F., Tang, C.S.-k. and Tang, S. (2011), "Psychological capital as a moderator

between emotional labor, burnout, and job satisfaction among school teachers in

china", International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 348-371.

 28

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001), "The job demands-

resources model of burnout", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 499-

512.

Department of Health (2014) Nursing workforce sustinability, improving nurse retention and

productivity.Canberra.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), "Evaluating structural equation models with

unobservable variables and measurement error", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.

18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.

Garrosa, E., Moreno-Jiménez, B., Liang, Y. and González, J.L. (2008), "The relationship

between socio-demographic variables, job stressors, burnout, and hardy personality in

nurses: An exploratory study", International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 45 No.

3, pp. 418-427.

Garrosa, E., Moreno-Jiménez, B., Rodríguez-Muñoz, A. and Rodríguez-Carvajal, R. (2011),

"Role stress and personal resources in nursing: A cross-sectional study of burnout and

engagement", International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 479-489.

Gillespie, B.M., Chaboyer, W., Wallis, M. and Grimbeek, P. (2007), "Resilience in the

operating room: Developing and testing of a resilience model", Journal of Advanced

Nursing, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 427-438.

Goldberg, D.P. and Williams, P. (1988) A user's guide to the general health questionnaire,

NFER-Nelson, Berkshire, UK.

Grover, S.L., Teo, S.T.T., Pick, D. and Roche, M. (2016), "Mindfulness as a personal

resource to reduce work stress in the job demands-resources model", Stress and

Health, DOI: 10.1002/smi.2726.

 29

Hakanen, J.J., Seppälä, P. and Peeters, M.C.W. (2017), "High job demands, still engaged and

not burned out? The role of job crafting", International Journal of Behavioral

Medicine, DOI: 10.1007/s12529-017-9638-3, pp. 1-9.

Hayes, A. (2016) Process macro for spss and sas (version 2.16)[computer software].

Huang, J., Wang, Y. and You, X. (2016), "The job demands-resources model and job

burnout: The mediating role of personal resources", Current Psychology, Vol. 35 No.

4, pp. 562-569.

Judge, T.A. and Bono, J.E. (2001), "Relationship of core self-evaluations traits-self-esteem,

generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability-with job

satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis", Journal of Applied Psychology,

Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 80-92.

Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E. and Locke, E.A. (2000), "Personality and job satisfaction: The

mediating role of job characteristics", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 2,

pp. 237-249.

Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A., Durham, C.C. and Kluger, A.N. (1998), "Dispositional effects on

job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations", Journal of Applied

Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 17-34.

Judge, T.A. and Watanabe, S. (1993), "Another look at the job satisfaction-life satisfaction

relationship", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 6, pp. 939-948.

Karasek, R.A., Gordon, G., Pietrokovsky, C., Frese, M., Pieper, C., Schwartz, J., Fry, L. and

Schirer, D. (1985) Job content instrument: Questionnaire and user's guide, University

of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.

Kelloway, E.K. and Francis, L. (2013) "Longitudinal research and data analysis", in Sinclair,

R.R., Wang, M. and Tetrick, L.E. (eds.), Research methods in occupational health

psychology: Measurement, design and data analysis Routledge, London, pp. 374-394.
 30

Knight, C., Patterson, M. and Dawson, J. (2016), "Building work engagement: A systematic

review and meta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of work engagement

interventions", Journal of Organizational Behavior, DOI: 10.1002/job.2167.

Laschinger, H.K.S. and Fida, R. (2014), "New nurses burnout and workplace wellbeing: The

influence of authentic leadership and psychological capital", Burnout Research, Vol.

1 No. 1, pp. 19-28.

Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Avolio, B.J., Norman, S.M. and Combs, G.M. (2006),

"Psychological capital development: Toward a micro-intervention", Journal of

Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 387-393.

Luthans, F., Avey, J.B. and Patera, J.L. (2008), "Experimental analysis of a web-based

training intervention to develop positive psychological capital", Academy of

Management Learning & Education, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 209-221.

Luthans, F., Avolio, B.J., Avey, J.B. and Norman, S.M. (2007a), "Positive psychological

capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction", Personnel

Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 541-572.

Luthans, F., Youssef, C.M. and Avolio, B.J. (2007b) Psychological capital: Developing the

human competitive edge, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Mäkikangas, A. and Kinnunen, U. (2003), "Psychosocial work stressors and well-being: Self-

esteem and optimism as moderators in a one-year longitudinal sample", Personality

and Individual Differences, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 537-557.

Mayerl, H., Stolz, E., Waxenegger, A., Rásky, É. and Freidl, W. (2016), "The role of personal

and job resources in the relationship between psychosocial job demands, mental

strain, and health problems", Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 7, pp. 1214.

Newman, A., Ucbasaran, D., Zhu, F. and Hirst, G. (2014), "Psychological capital: A review

and synthesis", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35, pp. 120-138.

 31

Örtqvist, D. and Wincent, J. (2006), "Prominent consequences of role stress: A meta-analytic

review", International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 399-422.

Paterson, T.A., Luthans, F. and Jeung, W. (2014), "Thriving at work: Impact of psychological

capital and supervisor support", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35 No. 3,

pp. 434-446.

Petrou, P., Demerouti, E. and Xanthopoulou, D. (2017), "Regular versus cutback-related

change: The role of employee job crafting in organizational change contexts of

different nature", International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 62-

85.

Pierce, J.L. and Gardner, D.G. (2004), "Self-esteem within the work and organizational

context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature", Journal of

Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 591-622.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), "Common method

biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended

remedies", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.

Roche, M., Haar, J.M. and Luthans, F. (2014), "The role of mindfulness and psychological

capital on well-being of leaders", Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol.

19, pp. 476-489.

Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Salanova, M. (2006), "The measurement of work

engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study", Educational and

Psychological Measurement, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 701-716.

Schaufeli, W.B. and Taris, T.W. (2014) "A critical review of the job demands-resources

model: Implications for improving work and health", in Bauer, G.F. and Hammig, O.

(eds.), Bridging occupational, organizational and public health: A transdisciplinary

approach, Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 43-68.

 32

Siu, O.-L., Lu, C.-Q. and Spector, P.E. (2007), "Employees’ well-being in greater china: The

direct and moderating effects of general self-efficacy", Applied Psychology, Vol. 56

No. 2, pp. 288-301.

Van den Broeck, A., Van Ruysseveldt, J., Smulders, P. and De Witte, H. (2011), "Does an

intrinsic work value orientation strengthen the impact of job resources? A perspective

from the job demands–resources model", European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 581-609.

Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H. and Lens, W. (2008), "Explaining the

relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic

psychological need satisfaction", Work & Stress, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 277-294.

Van Yperen, N.W. and Snijders, T.A.B. (2000), "A multilevel analysis of the demands–

control model: Is stress at work determined by factors at the group level or the

individual level?", Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp.

182-190.

Wang, H., Sui, Y., Luthans, F., Wang, D. and Wu, Y. (2014), "Impact of authentic leadership

on performance: Role of followers' positive psychological capital and relational

processes", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 5-21.

Witte, H.D. (1999), "Job insecurity and psychological well-being: Review of the literature

and exploration of some unresolved issues", European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 155-177.

Wright, T.A. and Cropanzano, R. (2000), "Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as

predictors of job performance", Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 5

No. 1, pp. 84-94.

 33

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2007), "The role of

personal resources in the job demands-resources model", International Journal of

Stress Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 121-141.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2011), "A diary study

on the happy worker: How job resources relate to positive emotions and personal

resources", European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 21 No.

4, pp. 489-517.

Xanthopoulou, D., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2009), "Reciprocal relationships

between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement", Journal of

Vocational Behavior, Vol. 74, pp. 235–244.

Zapf, D., Dormann, C. and Frese, M. (1996), "Longitudinal studies in organizational stress

research: A review of the literature with reference to methodological issues", Journal

of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 145-169.

Zhang, X., Li, Y.-L., Ma, S., Hu, J. and Jiang, L. (2014), "A structured reading materials-

based intervention program to develop the psychological capital of chinese

employees", Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, Vol. 42 No.

3, pp. 503-515.
 34

Table 1. Results of Nested Model Comparison

χ2 DF χ/DF CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR χ2 test difference

Baseline: 5 factor model
Model 1 899.120 465 1.9336 0.941 0.933 0.048 0.0662 Preferred Model
(JD, JR, PCQ, GHQ, EE)
4 factor model Δχ2(4)=370.88
Model 2 1270.000 469 2.7079 0.891 0.877 0.065 0.1069
(JD + JR, PCQ, GHQ, EE) p < 0.001
3 factor model Δχ (7)=1021.643
2
Model 3 1920.763 472 4.0694 0.803 0.779 0.088 0.1021
(JD + JR + PCQ, GHQ, EE) p < 0.001
2 factor model Δχ (9)=1064.042
2
Model 4 1963.162 474 4.1417 0.797 0.774 0.089 0.1113
(JD + JR + PCQ + GHQ, EE) p < 0.001
1 factor model Δχ (10)=1357.007
2
Model 5 2256.127 475 4.7497 0.757 0.73 0.097 0.1144
(JD + JR + PCQ + GHQ + EE) p < 0.001

Note: Proposed 5 factor model has the best fit

GHQ: GHQ-12 Psychological wellbeing
 35

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations

M SD AVE 1 2 3 4 5
1. Org type (“1” Public/Non-profit vs “0” Private) 0.71 0.45 --

2. Psychological Capital (PsyCap) 2.98 0.59 .75 .04

3. Job Demands 2.05 0.87 .62 .02 -.21***

4. Job Resources 2.51 0.60 .67 -.07 .69*** -.41***

5. Psychological Wellbeing 0.68 0.14 .66 .10* .55*** .31*** .27***

6. Work Engagement 3.96 1.05 .70 .07 .76*** -.21*** .70*** .67***

N=401
AVE=average variance estimates
***p<.001
 36

Table 3 Results of Hypothesis Testing

Path coefficient

H1a. PsyCap positively relates to psychological wellbeing .44***

H1b. PsyCap positively relates to work engagement .37***

H2a. PsyCap relates positively to perceptions of job

.54***
resources

H2b. PsyCap relates negatively to perceptions of job

-.20***
demands.

H3a. Job Demands relate negatively to Psychological

.28**
wellbeing.
.07
H3b. Job demands mediate the impact of PsyCap on
(95% Boot CI:
psychological wellbeing.
.028, .136)

H4a. Job Resources relate positively to Work engagement .36***

.40
H4b. Job demands mediate the impact of PsyCap on work
(95% Boot CI:
engagement.
.307, .518)
H5. PsyCap moderates the impact of job demands on
ns
psychological wellbeing (H5a) and work engagement (H5b)
such that their effects are weaker as PsyCap increases.
H6. Psychological wellbeing relates positively to Work
.26**
Engagement

Job Demands negatively relates to Job Resources -.26**

Notes:
ns not significant
**p<.01
***p<.001

View publication stats