The Role of Personal Resources in the Job

Demands-Resources Model
Despoina Xanthopoulou and Arnold B. Bakker
Erasmus University Rotterdam
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Evangelia Demerouti and Wilmar B. Schaufeli

Utrecht University

This study examined the role of three personal resources (self-efficacy, organi-
zational-based self-esteem, and optimism) in the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R)
model. The authors hypothesized that personal resources (1) moderate the
relationship between job demands and exhaustion, (2) mediate the relationship
between job resources and work engagement, and (3) relate to how employees
perceive their work environment and well-being. Hypotheses were tested among
714 Dutch employees. Results showed that personal resources did not offset the
relationship between job demands and exhaustion. Instead, personal resources
mediated the relationship between job resources and engagement/exhaustion
and influenced the perception of job resources. The implications of these findings
for the JD-R model are discussed.
Keywords: exhaustion, job demands-resources model, personal resources, work engagement

Influenced by dominant work psychological models, like Karasek’s

(1979) demand-control model, the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model
(Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker,
2004) attributes employee well-being to the characteristics of work environ-
ments. Previous studies have supported the underlying predictions of the

Despoina Xanthopoulou and Arnold B. Bakker, Department of Work and Organizational

Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands; Evangelia
Demerouti and Wilmar B. Schaufeli, Department of Social and Organizational Psychology and
Research Institute for Psychology and Health, Utrecht University, Netherlands.
We thank Anne Mäkikangas and Peter Winwood for their valuable comments on previous
drafts of this article. D. Xanthopoulou’s research was supported by a grant from the Greek State
Scholarships Foundation (IKY).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Despoina Xanthopoulou,
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Institute of Psychology, Department of Work and Organiza-
tional Psychology, Woudestein, T12-56, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
E-mail: xanthopoulou@fsw.eur.nl

121
International Journal of Stress Management Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association
2007, Vol. 14, No. 2, 121–141 1072-5245/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1072-5245.14.2.121
 122 Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, and Schaufeli

model, namely that job demands are the main predictors of negative job
strain (Bakker, Demerouti, Taris, Schaufeli, & Schreurs, 2003b; Bakker,
Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004), while job resources are the most important
predictors of work engagement (Hakanen, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2006).
However, studies on the JD-R model have been restricted to work charac-
teristics and, as a result, the role of employees’ personal resources, which
can be important determinants of their adaptation to work environments
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(Hobfoll, 1989; Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997), has been neglected. To
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

investigate the role of personal resources in the JD-R model, the present
study uses insights from conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll,
1989, 2002).

BACKGROUND

The JD-R Model

According to the JD-R model (Demerouti et al., 2001), the characteristics

of work environments can be classified in two general categories, job de-
mands and job resources, which incorporate different specific demands and
resources, depending on the context under study. Job demands are those
physical, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained
physical and/or psychological effort and are, therefore, associated with phys-
iological and/or psychological costs. Job resources are those physical, social,
or organizational aspects of the job that (a) are functional in achieving
work-related goals, (b) reduce job demands and the associated physiological
and psychological costs, and (c) stimulate personal growth and development.
These two categories of work characteristics evoke two relatively inde-
pendent psychological processes. According to the health impairment pro-
cess, high job demands, which require sustained effort, may exhaust employ-
ees’ resources and lead to energy depletion and health problems (see Caplan,
Cobb, French, Harrison, & Pinneau, 1975). For example, specific job de-
mands (e.g., workload or emotional demands) have been repeatedly found to
predict exhaustion (i.e., severe fatigue) among various occupational groups
(e.g., Bakker, Demerouti, & Euwema, 2005; Bakker, Demerouti, &
Schaufeli, 2003a).
By contrast, according to the motivational process, the availability of job
resources leads to organizational commitment and work engagement
(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Job resources, due to their (intrinsic and extrin-
sic) motivational potential, foster employees to meet their goals. In turn,
employees may become more committed to their job, because they derive
fulfillment from it (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Previous studies (Bakker et
 Personal Resources 123

al., 2003a; Hakanen et al., 2006) have shown that several job resources (e.g.,
support or coaching) lead to work engagement, defined as “. . . the positive,
fulfilling, and work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor,
dedication and absorption” (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004, p. 295). In addition to
these main effects, the JD-R model proposes that job resources buffer the
relationship between job demands and exhaustion. Under demanding work
conditions, employees who hold high levels of resources dispose more
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

supplies and, thus, are more capable of dealing with these demands. As a
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

result, they experience lower levels of exhaustion (Bakker et al., 2005).

Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory

According to COR theory, resources are defined as “. . . those entities

that either are centrally valued in their own right, or act as means to obtain
centrally valued ends” (Hobfoll, 2002, p. 307). Hobfoll (1989) recognizes
four types of resources, namely objects, conditions, personal characteristics,
and energies. The present study focuses on the two main assumptions of COR
theory. The first is that individuals invest their resources in order to deal with
threatening conditions and prevent themselves from negative outcomes
(Hobfoll, 1989). Second, individuals not only strive to protect these re-
sources, but also to accumulate them. Resources tend to generate other
resources, thus creating resource caravans, which may result in positive
outcomes like better coping and well-being (Hobfoll, 2002).
Taking the above assumptions into account, we identify some common
ground between COR theory and the JD-R model. First, both theories assume
a moderating role of resources in the relationship between threats/demands
and negative outcomes. Furthermore, if we implement the second assumption
of COR theory in the motivational process of the JD-R model, we would
expect that the availability of job resources would lead to an accumulation of
resources, and thus to more positive outcomes. Indeed, Llorens, Schaufeli,
Bakker, and Salanova (2007) found that task resources foster efficacy beliefs,
which in turn increase levels of engagement. In short, based on these two
basic presumptions of COR theory, it is suggested that personal resources
may play different roles in the JD-R model.

Personal Resources in the JD-R Model

The central aim of our study was to expand the JD-R model by exam-
ining how personal resources operate in relation to the model’s processes.
Personal resources are aspects of the self that are generally linked to
 124 Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, and Schaufeli

resiliency and refer to individuals’ sense of their ability to control and impact
upon their environment successfully (Hobfoll, Johnson, Ennis, & Jackson,
2003). We include three typical personal resources, namely, self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1989), organizational-based self-esteem (Pierce, Gardner,
Cummings, & Dunham, 1989), and optimism (Scheier & Carver, 1985), all
of which have been recognized by Hobfoll (2002) as fundamental compo-
nents of individual adaptability.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Instead of focusing on situation-specific self-efficacy, the present study

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

examines a general dimension, which refers to individuals’ perceptions of

their ability to meet demands in a broad array of contexts (Chen, Gully, &
Eden, 2001). Accumulation of successes, as well as persistent positive
experiences, augments general self-efficacy (Chen et al., 2001). It has been
shown that generalized and specific efficacy beliefs are correlated, and that
the general tendency to feel efficacious may spill over into specific situations
(Yeo & Neal, 2006). Organizational-based self-esteem (OBSE) is defined as
“. . . the degree to which organizational members believe that they can satisfy
their needs by participating in roles within the context of an organization”
(Pierce et al., 1989, p. 625). Finally, optimism refers to the tendency to
believe that one will generally experience good outcomes in life (Scheier &
Carver, 1985), which increases the propensity to take action and deal with
threats (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997). In line with the core self-evaluations
theory (Judge et al., 1997), we conceptualize these three personal resources
as a unitary resiliency construct that plays a decisive role in employees’
functioning at work.
Previous studies have shown that these personal resources are not only
related to stress resilience, but also have positive effects on physical and
emotional well-being (Chen et al., 2001; Pierce et al., 1989; Scheier &
Carver, 1992). Although people’s perception of and adaptation to environ-
ments is variable, depending on their levels of personal resources, these
resource levels are cultivated by environmental factors (Bandura, 2000). In
other words, it is proposed that personal resources may function either as
moderators or as mediators in the relationship between environmental factors
and (organizational) outcomes, or they may even determine the way people
comprehend the environment, formulate it, and react to it (Judge et al., 1997).
Previous empirical studies have generally supported this triple role of the
three personal resources. In relation to the role of personal resources as
moderators, studies have mainly examined the relationship between unfa-
vorable work characteristics and negative outcomes. For example, Van
Yperen and Snijders (2000) have shown that general self-efficacy moderates
the relationship between job demands and psychological health symptoms.
Similarly, Pierce and Gardner (2004) concluded that OBSE offsets the effects
of demanding conditions (e.g., organizational changes, role ambiguity) on
depression, physical strain, and job dissatisfaction. Finally, under demanding
 Personal Resources 125

work conditions (i.e., high time pressure, high job insecurity, and poor
organizational climate), optimistic employees were found to report lower
levels of mental distress than their less optimistic colleagues (Mäkikangas &
Kinnunen, 2003). These studies suggest that employees with high levels of
personal resources have greater mastery that helps them to deal more effec-
tively with demanding conditions, and in turn prevent them from negative
outcomes (i.e., exhaustion). This suggestion combines COR theory (Hobfoll,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

2002) with the buffer hypothesis of the JD-R model (Bakker et al., 2005),
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

because it recognizes the potential moderating role of personal (and not only
job) resources in the model’s health impairment process.
Regarding the mediating role of personal resources, results of previous
empirical studies have shown that individuals generalize their work learning
experiences to their off-job situation (Kohn & Schooler, 1982). Specifically,
Kohn and Schooler found that structural imperatives of work (e.g., respon-
sibility) determine individuals’ personality characteristics (e.g., self-
directedness). Furthermore, Pierce and Gardner (2004) concluded that OBSE
mediates the relationship between resourceful work characteristics (e.g.,
influence, fairness, support) and employee motivation, attitudes (e.g., satis-
faction, commitment), and performance. In a similar vein, sense of coherence
(a concept close to optimism) mediates the relationship between organiza-
tional climate and job security on the one hand and occupational well-being
on the other (Feldt, Kinnunen, & Mauno, 2000). In line with the above,
Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman, and Combs (2006) showed that a resource-
ful work environment activates employees’ “psychological capital” (i.e.,
hope, optimism, efficacy, and resiliency development), which in turn may
bring financial profit. These findings suggest that the existence of environ-
mental (job) resources may activate personal resources and this, in turn, may
result in positive psychological and organizational outcomes. In relation to
the motivational process of the JD-R model, we expect that job resources,
such as control over the way and pace tasks are performed, and opportunities
for professional development will evoke a sense of significance to employ-
ees. Thus, employees with sufficient job resources will feel efficacious,
important to the organization, optimistic about their future, and, conse-
quently, stay engaged in their work.
Although the present study uses the JD-R model as a starting point, and
thus, primarily focuses on work characteristics as antecedents of personal
resources, exhaustion and work engagement, we also expect the reverse:
personal resources may be antecedents of job demands and resources, and
their respective outcomes (Judge et al., 1997). It can be argued that job and
personal resources are reciprocal, since individuals, through learning expe-
riences, can form stronger positive evaluations about themselves and in turn,
they comprehend or create more resourceful work environments (Kohn &
Schooler, 1982). In other words, not only may personal resources be pro-
 126 Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, and Schaufeli

moted by a manageable and comprehensive environment, but they may also

determine the way people perceive or formulate this environment and how
they react to it (Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000; Judge et al., 1997). If we apply
this perspective of reciprocity to the JD-R model, we may expect that
self-efficacious or optimistic employees will focus more on job resources
than on job demands, and as a result they will experience lower levels of
exhaustion and higher levels of work engagement.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

STUDY HYPOTHESES

On the basis of the previous theoretical analysis, we hypothesized:

Hypothesis 1: Personal resources would moderate the relationship be-

tween four specific job demands (workload, emotional demands, emo-
tional dissonance, and organizational changes) and exhaustion. That is,
the effect of job demands on exhaustion will be weaker when personal
resources are high (vs. low).

Hypothesis 2: Personal resources would partially mediate the relation-

ship between four job resources (autonomy, social support, supervisory
coaching, and opportunities for professional development) and work
engagement.

Hypothesis 3: Job demands would partially mediate the relationship

between personal resources and exhaustion (3a), and job resources will
partially mediate the relationship between personal resources and work
engagement (3b).

Partial mediation was expected in Hypotheses 2 and 3 because our study

does not include all possible mediators of the processes under study (Hackman
& Oldham, 1980; Judge et al., 2000). The choice of the specific four job demands
and four job resources was based on two criteria. First, we included those
characteristics that are significant for the majority of jobs (e.g., workload and
autonomy; Lee & Ashforth, 1996). Second, after discussions with representatives
of the human relations department of the company, we traced other work
characteristics that are crucial for the particular occupational setting (i.e., orga-
nizational changes). Finally, we recognized that additional hypotheses might be
formed (e.g., personal resources may moderate the relationship between job
resources and work engagement; Brockner, 1988). However, we exclusively
focused on the theoretically most important effects that derive when integrating
the principles of COR theory in the JD-R model.
 Personal Resources 127

METHOD

Participants and Procedure

The present study was conducted among employees of six divisions of an

electrical engineering and electronics company in The Netherlands. All
employees in these divisions (N ⫽ 1.439) received an e-mail, in which the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

purpose of the project was briefly described, and in which they were re-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

quested to participate. The confidentiality and anonymity of their answers

was emphasized and assured. For those who wished to participate, a link to
an electronic questionnaire (posted on the company’s intranet) was included
in the e-mail. A total of 714 employees completed the questionnaire (50%
response rate). Response rates for the six divisions ranged from 42% to 73%.
The majority of the participants were men (N ⫽ 594; 83%). Their mean age
was 42 years (SD ⫽ 9.4), and their mean organizational tenure was 14 years
(SD ⫽ 10.2). Participants were well educated, with 71% holding a college or
university degree. The overwhelming majority of the participants (95%)
worked full-time.

Measures

Job Demands

Workload was assessed with a four-item scale developed by Bakker et al.

(2004). A typical item is “Do you have too much work to do?” Emotional
demands were measured with the six-item scale of Bakker et al. (2003a),
including “Do you face emotionally charged situations in your work?”
Emotional dissonance was assessed with five items from the scale of Zapf,
Vogt, Seifert, Mertini, and Isic (1999), such as “During your work, how often
do you have to express positive feelings toward your clients while you
actually feel indifferent?” Organizational changes were assessed with seven
items based on a scale developed by Bakker et al. (2003a). An example item
is: “Do you have to adjust to changes in the organization?” All job demands
items were scored on a five-point scale, ranging from (1) never to (5) always.

Job Resources

Autonomy was assessed with a three-item scale developed by Bakker et

al. (2004) (e.g., “Do you have flexibility in the execution of your job?”).
Social support was also measured with a three-item scale developed by
 128 Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, and Schaufeli

Bakker et al. (2004), including “If necessary, can you ask your colleagues for
help?” Supervisory coaching was assessed with a five-item Dutch adaptation
(Le Blanc, 1994) of Graen and Uhl-Bien’s (1991) Leader-Member Exchange
Scale (e.g., “My supervisor uses his or her influence to help me solve my
problems at work.”). Finally, opportunities for professional development
were assessed with three items from the scale constructed by Bakker et al.
(2003b). A typical item is “My work offers me the possibility to learn new
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

things.” All job resources items were scored on a five-point scale, ranging
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

from (1) never to (5) always, except for the opportunities for professional
development items, where the scale ranged from (1) totally disagree to (5)
totally agree.

Personal Resources

Self-efficacy was assessed with the generalized self-efficacy scale

(Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). The scale consists of 10 items, such as: “I
can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough.” Items
were scored on a four-point scale, ranging from (1) absolutely wrong to (4)
absolutely right.
Organizational-based self-esteem was assessed with a modified version
of the scale developed by Pierce et al. (1989). The scale consists of 10 items,
including: “I am important for the organization” (1 ⫽ totally disagree, 5 ⫽
totally agree). The wording “around here” that is used in the original scale
was replaced by the wording “for the organization,” in all items. Optimism
was measured with the Life Orientation Test–Revised (Scheier, Carver, &
Bridges, 1994). This 10-item scale is comprised of six items that measure
optimism and four filler items, which were excluded from the analyses. Out
of the six main items of the scale, three are positively phrased (e.g., “In
uncertain times, I usually expect the best”) and three are negatively phrased
(e.g., “I hardly ever expect things to go my way”), with answers ranging from
(1) totally disagree to (5) totally agree. All negative keyed items were
recoded so that higher scores refer to higher levels of optimism.
Exhaustion was measured with the subscale of the Dutch version
(Schaufeli & Van Dierendonck, 2000) of the Maslach Burnout Inventory–
General Survey (Schaufeli, Leiter, Maslach, & Jackson, 1996). This subscale
includes five items, such as “I feel emotionally drained from my work.”
Work engagement was measured with the nine-item version of the
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006). The
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale items reflect three underlying dimensions,
which are measured with three items each: vigor (e.g., “At my work, I feel
bursting with energy”), dedication (e.g., “My job inspires me”), and absorp-
 Personal Resources 129

tion (e.g., “I get carried away when I am working”). All items of the
exhaustion and the work engagement subscales were scored on a seven-point
scale, ranging from (0) never to (6) always.

Model Testing
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

In order to test the moderation effect of Hypothesis 1, we conducted

moderated structural equation modeling (MSEM) analyses (Mathieu,
Tannenbaum, & Salas, 1992). Because of the special treatment of the exog-
enous variables required in MSEM, these analyses could be only performed
for the specific part of the JD-R model that our hypothesis refers to, namely
the relation between job demands and exhaustion.
To Test Hypotheses 2 and 3 (a and b) we performed structural equation
modeling (SEM) analyses, to the whole JD-R model this time. The model for
these analyses included two exogenous latent factors, job demands and job
resources, each operationalized by four indicators. The indicators of the job
demands factor were workload, emotional demands, emotional dissonance,
and organizational changes. The indicators of the job resources factor were
autonomy, social support, supervisory coaching, and opportunities for pro-
fessional development. To test whether self-efficacy, OBSE, and optimism
could be represented as indicators of one personal resources latent factor, we
performed confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). Specifically, we compared an
uncorrelated, first-order CFA model, where self-efficacy, OBSE, and opti-
mism were represented as independent constructs, with a second-order
model. Results supported the representation of the three personal resources as
one general latent factor, since the second-order CFA model fitted better to
the data than the first-order model, ⌬␹2 (6) ⫽ 271.94, p ⬍ .001. Furthermore,
additional CFA clearly supported the distinction between the two types of
resources tested, since the two-factor measurement model distinguishing
between personal and job resources fitted significantly better to the data than
the one-factor model, ⌬␹2 (1) ⫽ 44.73, p ⬍ .001. Finally, the hypothesized
model also included two latent endogenous factors, exhaustion and work
engagement. The five items of the exhaustion scale were the indicators of the
latent exhaustion factor, while the indicators of the work engagement factor
were the vigor, dedication, and absorption scales.
The fit of the models was assessed with the ␹2 statistic, the Goodness-
of-Fit Index (GFI), and the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA). In addition, we used the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Incre-
mental Fit Index (IFI), and the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI). For each of
these statistics, values of 0.90 or higher are acceptable (Hoyle, 1995), except
for the RMSEA for which values up to 0.08 indicate an acceptable fit to the
 130 Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, and Schaufeli

data (MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996). Furthermore, we controlled

for the 90% confidence intervals around the RMSEA. A narrow confidence
interval is an indication for good precision of the RMSEA (MacCallum et al.,
1996).

RESULTS
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Descriptive Statistics

Means, standard deviations, and correlations between the variables, as

well as the internal consistencies of the scales are presented in Table 1.

Results of MSEM Analyses

In order to test the moderating influence of personal resources on the

relationship between job demands and exhaustion (Hypothesis 1), we carried
out MSEM analyses in a separate model. We tested a model that included
three exogenous (job demands, personal resources, and their interaction), and
one endogenous latent factor (exhaustion). Each latent exogenous factor had
only one indicator, namely its standardized factor score, obtained after
respective factor analyses. Specifically, the indicator of the job demands
factor was the factor score of all the job demands scales, that is, the
combination of the workload, emotional demands, emotional dissonance, and
organizational changes scales. Similarly, the indicator of the personal re-

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Internal Consistencies (Cronbach’s ␣s on the

Diagonal), and Correlations Among the Variables (N ⫽ 714)
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Workload 3.33 0.79 (0.86)
2. Emotional demands 2.37 0.60 0.48** (0.77)
3. Emotional dissonance 2.26 0.63 0.32** 0.66** (0.83)
4. Organizational changes 2.87 0.75 0.22** 0.23** 0.27** (0.82)
5. Autonomy 3.53 0.79 ⫺0.05 ⫺0.15** ⫺0.20** ⫺0.07 (0.81)
6. Social support 3.54 0.91 ⫺0.16** ⫺0.15** ⫺0.15** ⫺0.09* 0.33** (0.80)
7. Supervisory coaching 3.01 0.96 ⫺0.10** ⫺0.16** ⫺0.17** ⫺0.14** 0.38** 0.43**
8. OPD 3.37 0.81 ⫺0.04 ⫺0.16** ⫺0.22** ⫺0.08* 0.44** 0.32**
9. Self-efficacy 3.31 0.40 0.13** 0.09* .05 0.07* 0.21** 0.16**
10. OBSE 3.70 0.58 0.02 ⫺0.05 ⫺0.22** ⫺0.08* 0.34** 0.24**
11. Optimism 3.69 0.54 0.00 ⫺0.06 ⫺0.15** 0.00 0.24** 0.23**
12. Exhaustion 1.85 1.12 0.36** 0.41** 0.42** 0.27** ⫺0.22** ⫺0.27**
13. Vigor 3.47 1.03 0.03 ⫺0.04 ⫺0.17** ⫺0.09* 0.31** 0.31**
14. Dedication 3.76 1.16 0.09* 0.01 ⫺0.13** ⫺0.04 0.37** 0.33**
15. Absorption 3.21 1.14 0.11** 0.09* ⫺0.03 0.00 0.22** 0.22**
 Personal Resources 131

sources factor was the factor score of the personal resources scales, which
was the combination of the self-efficacy, OBSE, and optimism scales, and the
indicator of the interaction factor was the multiplicative result of the factor
score of the job demands and the factor score of the personal resources. The
model included direct paths from the three exogenous factors to the endog-
enous factor. The latent job demands and personal resources factors were
allowed to correlate, whereas correlations between job demands, personal
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

resources, and their interaction term were expected to be zero. Finally, the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

paths from the exogenous variables to their indicators were fixed using the
square roots of the scale reliabilities, while the error variances of each
indicator were set equal to the product of their variances and one minus their
reliabilities (Cortina, Chen, & Dunlap, 2001). For the calculation of the
reliability score of the interaction term, we refer to Cortina et al. (2001). A
significant interaction effect exists if the coefficient of the path from the latent
job demands ⫻ personal resources interaction factor to exhaustion is statis-
tically significant. Results of MSEM analysis showed that although the model
fits well to the data (␹2 ⫽ 56.03, df ⫽ 19, GFI ⫽ 0.98, RMSEA ⫽ 0.05,
LO90 ⫽ 0.04, HI90 ⫽ 0.07, CFI ⫽ 0.98, IFI ⫽ 0.98, NNFI ⫽ 0.97), the path
coefficient from the interaction term to exhaustion is nonsignificant (␥ ⫽
⫺.01; ns), thus rejecting Hypothesis 1. Personal resources did not moderate
the relationship between job demands and exhaustion. It is important to note
that the results were not different when we tested the interaction effects
between personal resources and each of the four job demands separately.

Table 1. (Continued)
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

(0.92)
0.44** (0.87)
0.14** 0.14** (0.86)
0.41** 0.45** 0.28** (0.88)
0.21** 0.28** 0.40** 0.36** (0.72)
⫺0.23** ⫺0.27** ⫺0.13** ⫺0.24** ⫺0.28** (0.88)
0.31** 0.38** 0.28** 0.39** 0.33** ⫺0.34** (0.83)
0.36** 0.52** 0.25** 0.40** 0.30** ⫺0.22** 0.70** (0.88)
0.22** 0.33** 0.19** 0.32** 0.18** ⫺0.08* 0.63** 0.73** (0.78)
Note. OPD ⫽ Opportunities for Professional Development; OBSE ⫽ Organizational–Based
Self-Esteem.
*
p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.
 132 Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, and Schaufeli

Results of SEM Analyses

In order to test the mediation effects formulated in Hypothesis 2 and 3 (a

and b), we followed Baron and Kenny’s approach (1986), according to which
there are four steps in establishing a significant mediation effect. First, there
must be a significant relationship between the predictor and the outcome.
Second, the predictor must be significantly related to the mediator. Third, the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

mediator should be significantly related to the outcome variable. Finally,

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

there is a significant mediation effect when the relationship between the

predictor and the outcome becomes significantly weaker (partial mediation)
or nonsignificant (full mediation), after the inclusion of the mediator. The
Sobel z test was used to examine the significance of the indirect effect.
Before testing whether personal resources are partial mediators of the
relationship between job resources and work engagement (Hypothesis 2), we
first checked for the three prerequisite conditions. Preliminary results indeed
showed that job resources were related to both work engagement (␥ ⫽ 0.63;
p ⬍ .001) and personal resources (␥ ⫽ 0.76; p ⬍ .001), and that personal
resources were related to work engagement (␥ ⫽ 0.57; p ⬍ .001), allowing
us to proceed with the test of Hypothesis 2. Therefore, as presented in Table
2, we compared the Full Mediation model (M1) with the Partial Mediation
model (this is M1 including an additional direct path from job resources to
work engagement; M2), to see which model fits better to the data (Frazier,
Tix, & Barron, 2004). Table 2 shows that the Full Mediation model (M1) has
a satisfactory fit to the data. However, results of the ␹2 difference test suggest
that the addition of the direct effect to M1 (Partial Mediation model; M2)
leads to a significant improvement of the fit, ⌬␹2 (1) ⫽ 18.53, p ⬍ .001.
Furthermore, the path coefficients of M2 from job resources to personal
resources (␥ ⫽ 0.76; p ⬍ .001), from personal resources to work engagement
(␤ ⫽ 0.26; p ⬍ .01), and from job resources to work engagement (␥ ⫽ 0.44;
p ⬍ .001) were all statistically significant and in the expected direction. Most
important, the addition of the personal resources factor in the model reduced
the magnitude of the direct association between job resources and work
engagement significantly (from y ⫽ 0.63 to ␥ ⫽ 0.44; z ⫽ 2.72; p ⫽ .007).
Taken together, these findings support the partial mediation effect of Hy-
pothesis 2.
Inspection of the modification indices suggested that the fit of the Partial
Mediation model (M2) could be further improved by including a path from
personal resources to exhaustion. Indeed, as can be seen from Table 2, the
inclusion of this path (Alternative Model; M3) significantly improves the fit
of M2, ⌬␹2 (1) ⫽ 60.68, p ⬍ .001. This additional path indicates that
personal resources also mediated the relationship between job resources and
exhaustion. In order to examine the nature of this mediation effect, we
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Personal Resources

Table 2. Results of Structural Equation Modeling (Maximum Likelihood Estimates) for the Total Sample (N ⫽ 714): Personal Resources as
Mediators and as Antecedents in the Job Demands-Resources Model
Model ␹2 df GFI RMSEA LO90 HI90 CFI IFI NNFI
Hypothesis 2: Personal Resources as Mediators
M1 Full Mediation (JD3EX & JR3PR3WE) 700.02 147 0.91 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.90 0.90 0.88
M2 Partial Mediation (JD3EX & JR3PR3WE & JR3WE) 681.49 146 0.91 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.90 0.90 0.89
M3 Alternative Model (JD3EX & JR3PR3WE & JR3WE & PR3EX) 620.81 145 0.91 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.91 0.91 0.90
Hypothesis 3b: Personal Resources as Antecedents
M4 Full Mediation (JD3EX & PR3JR3WE) 698.41 147 0.90 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.90 0.90 0.88
M5 Partial Mediation (JD3EX & PR3JR3WE & PR3WE) 683.68 146 0.90 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.90 0.90 0.89
M6 Alternative Model (JD3EX & PR3JR3WE & PR3WE & PR3 EX) 612.57 145 0.92 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.92 0.92 0.90
Note. JD ⫽ job demands; EX ⫽ exhaustion; JR ⫽ job resources; PR ⫽ personal resources; WE ⫽ work engagement; GFI ⫽ goodness-of-fit index;
RMSEA ⫽ root mean square error of approximation; LO90 ⫽ low 90% confidence interval; HI90 ⫽ high 90% confidence interval; CFI ⫽ comparative
fit index; IFI ⫽ incremental fit index; NNFI ⫽ non-normed fit index.
133
 134 Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, and Schaufeli

compared M3 (which indicates full mediation) with a partial mediation model

(with an additional direct path from job resources to exhaustion). The ␹2
difference test showed that these two models fit equally well to the data, ⌬␹2
(1) ⫽ .06, ns. In addition, after including personal resources as mediators in
the relationship between job resources and exhaustion, the direct effect from
job resources to exhaustion became nonsignificant (from ␥ ⫽ ⫺.29, p ⬍ .001
to ␥ ⫽ ⫺.02, p ⫽ .80, ns, z ⫽ 5.25, p ⬍ .001). This indicates that personal
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

resources fully mediated the relationship between job resources and exhaus-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

tion.
In the next step, we tested the reversed relationships, namely whether job
demands partly mediated the relationship between personal resources and ex-
haustion (Hypothesis 3a), and whether job resources partly mediate the relation-
ship between personal resources and work engagement (Hypothesis 3b). Previ-
ous analyses regarding Hypothesis 2 showed that personal resources are
significantly related to both exhaustion and work engagement, as well as that job
demands are significantly related to exhaustion, and job resources to work
engagement. Furthermore, additional analyses showed that personal resources
are significant predictors of job resources (␥ ⫽ 0.77, p ⬍ .001), but not of job
demands (␥ ⫽ ⫺0.09, p ⫽ .08). This finding automatically rejected Hypothesis
3a, since it showed that job demands cannot mediate the relationship between
personal resources and exhaustion. However, preliminary analyses allowed pro-
ceeding with the test of Hypothesis 3b. Thus, we compared the Full Mediation
model (M4; Table 2) with the Partial Mediation model (M4 with an additional
direct path from personal resources to work engagement; M5). Results showed
that M5 fit significantly better to the data than M4, ⌬␹2 (1) ⫽ 14.73, p ⬍ .001;
Table 2. Furthermore, the addition of job resources as mediators in the model
significantly reduced the magnitude of the association between personal re-
sources and work engagement (from ␥ ⫽ 0.60 to ␥ ⫽ 0.34; z ⫽ 2.39, p ⬍ .05),
thus confirming Hypothesis 3b. Inspection of the modification indices showed
that in order to improve the fit of M5, we should add the path from personal
resources to exhaustion. Indeed, as can be seen from Table 2, the inclusion of this
path (Alternative model; M6) resulted in a significantly better fit, ⌬␹2 (1) ⫽
71.11, p ⬍ .001, which indicates that there was a strong direct relationship (␥ ⫽
⫺0.35) from personal resources to exhaustion. Figure 1 graphically represents
the main results of our analyses. The two final, best-fitting models (M3 and M6)
explain 44% and 42% of the variance in exhaustion and 46% and 47% in work
engagement, respectively.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of the present study was to expand the JD-R model (De-
merouti et al., 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) by testing the role of three
 Personal Resources 135

workload exhaustion 1
.54* .76*
.84* exhaustion 2
emotional .85*
demands Job .52* Exhaustion
.73* exhaustion 3
.75* Demands .71*
emotional exhaustion 4
dissonance .85*
.33*
error exhaustion 5
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

organizational
changes -.26* -.05
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

-.35* -.33*

error
autonomy .61* .37* vigor

.54* Job .43* Work

.78*
social support Resources Engagement dedication
.64*
.75* .29* .92*

supervisory .75*
Personal
Resources
.34* .78* absorption
coaching .72*

.69* .57* .45*

professional
development
OBSE* optimism self-efficacy

Figure 1. The expanded JD-R model (standardized path coefficients). Continuous lines indicate
final results regarding the mediating role of personal resources. Discontinuous lines indicate
final results regarding the role of personal resources as antecedents. OBSE ⫽ organizational-
based self-esteem. * p ⬍ .001.

personal resources with regard to the model’s basic assumptions. The study
makes a significant contribution to the theoretical development of the JD-R
model because it confirms its central hypotheses, but most importantly
expands the model, by specifying, for the first time, the various functions of
personal resources within its framework.

Personal Resources in the Health Impairment Process

Although previous studies have supported the moderator role of personal

resources in the relationship between adverse working conditions and well-
being (Mäkikangas & Kinnunen, 2003; Pierce & Gardner, 2004; Van Yperen
& Snijders, 2000), our results did not confirm such an effect. The rejection of
our first hypothesis may be partly attributed to the homogeneous nature of our
sample population. The fact that the study focused exclusively on highly
educated employees may have resulted in range restrictions (toward the
positive end) regarding the study variables. Such restrictions can lead to Type
II errors in the test of the moderation hypothesis and can be avoided with the
 136 Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, and Schaufeli

examination of heterogeneous samples of employees, who are exposed to a

wide range of the variables of interest (Kristensen, 1996).
The rejection of the hypothesis of moderation may be also attributed to
the nature of the specific personal resources included in the study. It may be
that these three personal resources operate mainly at an affective-cognitive
level and less at a behavioral-practical level, which may also be important for
the management of the specific job demands and the prevention of exhaus-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

tion. Consequently, different types of personal resources of a more practical

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

nature, such as individuals’ abilities to organize their time or the energy they
should invest in a given task could be investigated in future studies. For
example, Peeters and Rutte (2005) found that for teachers operating in an
environment of high job demands and low autonomy, those who were able to
manage their time well demonstrated lower levels of exhaustion than their
colleagues with low time-management abilities.

Personal Resources in the Motivational Process

The empirical evidence of the mediation of personal resources in the

relationship between job resources and work engagement contributes signif-
icantly in explaining the underlying psychological mechanisms of the moti-
vational process of the JD-R model. Traditionally, job resources are seen as
instrumental for employees to fulfill their work tasks, which consequently
keeps employees interested and engaged in their work (Hakanen et al., 2006;
Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). The present study goes one step further by
showing that the supply of job resources activates employees’ self-efficacy,
self-esteem, and optimism and makes them feel more capable of controlling
their work environment (Luthans et al., 2006). Presumably, as a result, they
are more confident and proud of the work they do, find meaning in it, and, in
turn, stay engaged (Hackman & Oldham, 1980).
The present findings also highlight another significant process, namely,
from job resources to exhaustion through personal resources. Previous stud-
ies in the context of the JD-R model that concerned the role of job resources
in the prevention of exhaustion mainly emphasized their moderating potential
in the model’s health impairment process (Bakker et al., 2005). However, our
findings suggest that job resources can play a more active role in the
prevention of exhaustion since, through the activation of employees’ resil-
iency beliefs, they can lead to more positive appraisals of stress situations
(see Mäkikangas, Kinnunen, & Feldt, 2004). In other words, employees who
work in a resourceful environment feel more capable to perform their tasks
without investing excessive effort, and as a result, it is likely that they will not
become overly fatigued. Generally, the above findings support the view that
 Personal Resources 137

personal resources are, up to a point, susceptible to environmental changes

(Luthans et al., 2006).

Personal Resources as Antecedents

Some researchers have argued that core self-evaluations, like personal

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

resources, may be the prime determinants of employees’ adaptation (Judge et

al., 1997), and empirical findings supported a reciprocal effect between
personal resources and job characteristics (Kohn & Schooler, 1982). In this
context, the results of the present study revealed that employees who hold
personal resources are confident about their capabilities and optimistic about
their future, and thus may identify or even create more aspects of their
environment that facilitate goal attainment. This capability leads to goal
confrontation and consequently to work engagement. Against the dominant
perception, our results showed that employees who dispose personal re-
sources do not perceive fewer job demands. Nevertheless, personal resources
do have a negative relationship with exhaustion suggesting that efficacious or
optimistic employees report lower levels of severe fatigue, meaning that they
might be more resistant to adverse conditions (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002).
In conclusion, the present study proposes that personal resources play a
significant role in the JD-R model since, together with job demands and job
resources, they contribute in explaining variance in exhaustion and work
engagement. These findings are also in accordance with the learning-
generalization model (Kohn & Schooler, 1982), which suggests that the
structural imperatives of work affect personal characteristics, and personal
characteristics may have important consequences for an individual’s percep-
tions of the work environment. One possible caveat, however, is that our
analyses indicated a very high relation between job and personal resources
(path coefficients of 0.75), which could suggest an overlap between the two
factors. However, CFA demonstrated their empirical distinction, while the
correlations among the four job resources and the three personal resources
were weak to moderate (from 0.14 to 0.45).

Limitations

The present study has certain limitations that need to be acknowledged.

While the SEM-technique used for the analyses informs about possible
direction of effects, the cross-sectional nature of the study limits conclusions
about the causal relationships among the variables. Moreover, even though
we have shown that job and personal resources may be reciprocal, the design
 138 Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, and Schaufeli

of the study precludes conclusions regarding the sequence of the effects.

Longitudinal designs are necessary in order to validate our findings over
time, and in order to provide insights regarding causality. Furthermore, the
present study was exclusively based on self-report measures that might lead
to common method variance problems. However, it can be argued that such
constructs as personal resources and work engagement are nearly impossible
to measure in any other way than by self-reports (Mäkikangas et al., 2004).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Finally, the study was conducted using a homogeneous sample of highly

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

educated professionals working in the same company. Therefore, it is im-

portant to further test the external validity of our findings for other working
populations.

Practical Implications

Our findings highlight the fact that the mobilization of job resources may
be of value for employees to thrive. However, the initial merit of organiza-
tions should still be the avoidance of overwhelming job demands, since these
are the main predictors of exhaustion. Additionally, the empowerment of
employees’ personal resources may also be profitable. According to
Seligman (1991), employees who learn how to respond to adverse situations
with optimism have greater persistence, a requirement for successful adap-
tation. To conclude, the present study is of importance for the development
of job interventions that aim at maximizing engagement and reducing mal-
adaptive exhaustion, contributing to the development of a flourishing and
healthy work environment.

REFERENCES

Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. G. (1997). A stitch in time: Self-regulation and proactive coping.
Psychological Bulletin, 121, 417– 436.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job
demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 170 –180.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003a). Dual processes at work in a call
centre: An application of the job demands–resources model. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 12, 393– 417.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Taris, T., Schaufeli, W. B., & Schreurs, P. (2003b). A multi-
group analysis of the job demands-resources model in four home-care organizations.
International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 16 –38.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands-resources model
to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43, 83–104.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44,
1175–1184.
 Personal Resources 139

Bandura, A. (2000). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness. In

E. A. Locke (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp. 120 –136).
Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work: Theory, research, and practice. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Jr., Harrison, R. V., & Pinneau, S. R., Jr. (1975). Job
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences. Washington, DC:
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale.
Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62– 83.
Cortina, J. M., Chen, G., & Dunlap, W. P. (2001). Testing interaction effects in LISREL:
Examination and illustration of available procedures. Organizational Research Methods,
4, 324 –360.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499 –512.
Feldt, T., Kinnunen, U., & Mauno, S. (2000). A mediational model of sense of coherence in the
work context: A one-year follow-up study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21,
461– 476.
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in
counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115–134.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). The transformation of professionals into self-managing
and partially self-designing contributors: Toward a theory of leadership making. Journal
of Management Systems, 3, 25–39.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Hakanen, J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among
teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 495–513.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General
Psychology, 6, 307–324.
Hobfoll, S. E., Johnson, R. J., Ennis, N., & Jackson, A. P. (2003). Resource loss, resource gain,
and emotional outcomes among inner city women. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84, 632– 643.
Hoyle, R. H. (1995). The structural equation modelling approach: Basic concepts and funda-
mental issues. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modelling: Concepts, issues and
applications (pp. 1–15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The
mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 237–249.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job
satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19,
151–188.
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for
job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308.
Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. (1982). Job conditions and personality: A longitudinal assessment
of their reciprocal effects. American Journal of Sociology, 87, 1257–1286.
Kristensen, T. S. (1996). Job stress and cardiovascular disease: A theoretic critical review.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 246 –260.
Le Blanc, P. M. (1994). De steun van de leiding: Een onderzoek naar het Leader Member
 140 Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, and Schaufeli

Exchange model in de verpleging [Leader’s support: A study of the Leader Member

Exchange model among nurses]. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.
Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the three dimensions of
burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 123–133.
Llorens, S., Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Does a positive gain spiral
of resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement exists? Computers in Human Behavior, 23,
825– 841.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Norman, S. M., & Combs, G. M. (2006). Psychological
capital development: Toward a micro-intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

27, 387–393.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determi-
nation of sample size for covariance structure modelling. Psychological Methods, 1,
130 –149.
Mäkikangas, A., & 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, 35, 537–557.
Mäkikangas, A., Kinnunen, U., & Feldt, T. (2004). Self-esteem, dispositional optimism, and
health: Evidence from cross-lagged data on employees. Journal of Research in Person-
ality, 38, 556 –575.
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (1992). Influences of individual and situational
characteristics on measures of training effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal,
35, 828 – 847.
Peeters, M. A. G., & Rutte, C. G. (2005). Time-management behavior as a moderator for the
job demand-control interaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 64 –75.
Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2004). Self-esteem within the work and organizational context:
A review of the organizational-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management, 30,
591– 622.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organizational-based
self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management
Journal, 32, 622– 648.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
25, 293–315.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work
engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psycho-
logical Measurement, 66, 701–716.
Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). Maslach Burnout
Inventory–General Survey. In C. Maslach, S. E. Jackson, & M. P. Leiter, (Eds.), The
Maslach Burnout Inventory-Test manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psycholo-
gists Press.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Van Dierendonck, D. (2000). Maslach Burnout Inventory: Nederlandse
Versie [Maslach Burnout Inventory: Dutch version]. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets &
Zeitlinger.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping and health: Assessment and
implications of generalised outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219 –247.
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and physical
well-being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and Research,
16, 201–228.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from
neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A re-evaluation of the Life
Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063–1078.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S.
 Personal Resources 141

Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal
and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor, United Kingdom: NFER-NELSON.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1991). Learned optimism. New York: Random House.
Van Yperen, N. W., & 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, 5, 182–190.
Yeo, G. B., & Neal, A. (2006). An examination of the dynamic relationship between self-
efficacy and performance across levels of analysis and levels of specificity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91, 1088 –1101.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Zapf, D., Vogt, C., Seifert, C., Mertini, H., & Isic, A. (1999). Emotion work as a source of
stress: The concept and development of an instrument. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 8, 371– 400.

Future Meetings Related to Stress Management

8th INTERNATIONAL STRESS MANAGEMENT ASSN.

(ISMA) CONFERENCE

This meeting will be held July 9 –13, 2007, at the Université du

Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Canada. The theme of the meeting is
“The Globalization of Stress: Is Your Stress Like My Stress?” For
information go to the website: http://www.isma-usa.org/events.htm