The Role of Trait and State Perfectionism in Psychological Detachment From Daily Job Demands

Psychological detachment has been proposed to be a mediator of the relations between an individual's responses to stressful work-related experiences and mid- and long-term health. However, the number of studies that have specifically examined the role that personal characteristics play in these associations is considerably small. One personal characteristic that might specifically interfere with psychological detachment is perfectionism, which has been considered an important vulnerability factor for the development of psychological disorders. Hence, the goal of this registered report was to extend research on psychological detachment by introducing trait and state perfectionism as moderators of the aforementioned relations. We conducted an experience sampling study with three measurement occasions per day over the course of 3 working weeks (N = 158 employees; Mage = 41.6; 67% women). Multilevel path models showed that perfectionistic concerns consistently determined strain responses at between- and within-levels of analyses even after the effects of job demands (i.e., unfinished tasks and role ambiguity) and detachment were accounted for. However, we found no evidence for the proposed moderation effects. The theoretical implications for the understanding of the processes proposed in the stressor-detachment model are discussed

Moving from opposition to taking ownership of open science to make discoveries that matter.

Guzzo et al. (Reference Guzzo, Schneider and Nalbantian2022) argue that open science practices may marginalize inductive and abductive research and preclude leveraging big data for scientific research. We share their assessment that the hypothetico-deductive paradigm has limitations (see also Staw, Reference Staw2016) and that big data provide grand opportunities (see also Oswald et al., Reference Oswald, Behrend, Putka and Sinar2020). However, we arrive at very different conclusions. Rather than opposing open science practices that build on a hypothetico-deductive paradigm, we should take initiative to do open science in a way compatible with the very nature of our discipline, namely by incorporating ambiguity and inductive decision-making. In this commentary, we (a) argue that inductive elements are necessary for research in naturalistic field settings across different stages of the research process, (b) discuss some misconceptions of open science practices that hide or discourage inductive elements, and (c) propose that field researchers can take ownership of open science in a way that embraces ambiguity and induction. We use an example research study to illustrate our points

Workplace stress management

Sustainability encapsulates not only ecological and socio-economic dimensions, but also those dimensions focused on developing the quality of life of every human being (Di Fabio, 2017). As the global rise of work-place or work-related stress is now recognised for its interconnectedness with and impacts on other aspects of health such as depression and mortality and sustainable development more broadly, such as poverty, stress has become a significant sustainable development challenge (ILO, 2016; HSE, 2015; EU OSHA, 2014). Indeed, stress can be understood in a variety of ways, including biological or physiological stress (in terms of the pressures placed on the material body), experiential (in the sense of how those demands are perceived and made sense of), and a combination of these. In particular, work-related stress is the response people have when presented with work contexts, demands, and pressures that are not matched to their knowledge and abilities. Therefore, stress management encompasses a range of activities that are deployed by individuals, teams and organisations to manage the experience and impacts of stressors (ibid), and therefore has a role in the mitigation of the wider sustainable development impacts aforementioned