Wellbeing at Work and the Lie Scale

Andrew P Smith,Hugo N Smith

doi:10.31014/aior.1994.02.01.18

Abstract

This article describes the “Wellbeing Process” model which is based on the Demands-Resources-Individual Effects (DRIVE) approach developed in occupational stress research. This model requires measurement of many variables and this is often not practical with established questionnaires due to their length. In order to remove this problem a short questionnaire (the Wellbeing Process Questionnaire, WPQ) was developed and validated. This enabled the well-being process to be evaluated and established predictors of positive and negative appraisals and outcomes defined. Results using this measuring instrument in a range of samples from different occupational sectors will be described. One issue with measures of wellbeing at work is that they may be influenced by the extent to which the person aims to present a socially desirable profile or lie about their wellbeing. This was examined in the study presented here. The results showed that measures related to negative outcomes were associated with scores on the lie scale. In contrast, positive outcomes and “the good job score” (the difference between positive appraisals/outcomes and negative appraisals/outcomes) were not correlated with scores on the lie scale. This result demonstrates the suitability of the WPQ for investigating wellbeing at work.

Highlights

Our approach to wellbeing at work has been to consider it as a process
The following measures were derived from the survey: Ø Negative job characteristics Ø Positive job characteristics Ø Positive personality Ø Negative coping Ø Positive outcomes Ø Negative outcomes Ø Difference between positive and negative outcomes Ø Lie scale score
The first logistic regression carried out used negative outcomes as the dependent variable

Summary

Introduction

Our approach to wellbeing at work has been to consider it as a process This was based on occupational stress research and the development of the Demands-Resources-Individual Effects (DRIVE) model (Mark & Smith, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2018a, 2018b). A major feature of the model was that it is relatively easy to add new variables This has led to the inclusion of positive outcomes, such as life satisfaction, positive affect and happiness (Smith, 2011a, 2011b; Smith & Wadsworth, 2011; Smith, Wadsworth, Chaplin, Allen, & Mark, 2011; Wadsworth, Chaplin, Allen, & Smith, 2010). These analyses were carried out for both positive and negative outcomes independently and combined into a single “good job” score (the difference between the positive outcomes/appraisals and the negative outcomes/appraisals)

Methods

Measures

Results

Discussion