Mindfulness or relaxation: What is more effective for work stress? Literature review

Objective. Work demands for productivity and flexibility are on the rise. In the last 20 years, hourly productivity has increased by 20 % (OECD, 2020). One of the adverse consequences of increased work demands is work stress (Quick & Henderson, 2016). There has been a growing need for organizations to reduce work stress, which is why stress management interventions (SMI) are quickly gaining popularity (Kröll et al., 2017). The aim of this paper is to introduce mindfulness and relaxation as approaches used in stress management interventions (SMI) in the work environment. Mindfulness is an ability we can cultivate with training and consists of two basic skills – monitoring of present-moment experience (based on attention and awareness) and attitude of acceptance and openness towards own experience. Accepting attitude has an essential role in stress management. Relaxation causes stress reduction in two ways: by promoting beneficial physiological processes (improved breathing rate, heart rate) and by focusing on pleasant, relaxing sensations. The paper characterizes these approaches, discussing their efficacy, specificities, differences, and circumstances that support their effectiveness. Method. The efficacy of the investigated approaches was evaluated through the most up-to-date meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Papers were searched through the Scopus database. Results. The results of the meta-analyses of mindfulness SMI agreed on satisfactory efficacy, showing a medium effect size. The findings of meta-analyses of relaxation SMI also demonstrated a medium effect size and suggested yoga-based interventions might be most effective. More importantly, both approaches are characterised by certain advantages and disadvantages. The advantages of the mindfulness approach include proven effectiveness in stress reduction and also other benefits in the work environment, such as improved creativity and problem-solving skills. However, practising mindfulness requires a lot of discipline, time and high commitment. The relaxation approach seems to offer stress reduction but no other benefits. Relaxation is also easier to learn and practice. Therefore, the mindfulness approach and the relaxation approach may be more appropriate for different groups of workers. For workers preferring straightforward instructions, easy-to-understand concepts, and less time-consuming interventions, relaxation is probably a more suitable alternative (Kaspereen, 2012). Highly motivated workers, willing to undergo more time consuming and harder-to-understand training, may benefit more from mindfulness interventions. Mindfulness interventions may also be more appropriate for workers whose jobs involve a lot of planning and mental work and who may suffer from rumination of negative thoughts (Jain et al., 2007). Therefore, if organisations plan to reduce workers’ stress, it is essential to identify workers’ preferences and carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Discussion. Mindfulness and relaxation SMI can both be considered as options for reducing stress in the workplace in certain circumstances. The key is to identify the preferences of the workers in question and ensure that the chosen intervention is implemented well and thoroughly. The article offers a new perspective on the topic of dealing with stress in the workplace. This information is beneficial not only for researchers but also for psychologists/managers seeking solutions for their organisations. The study is limited by the fact that mindfulness and relaxation SMI in the workplace are not researched to the same extent. Future researchers should consider an experimental comparison of quality yoga and mindfulnessinterventions, in different work settings

A comprehensive model for predicting populist attitudes

Populistic attitudes of voters are often one of the key factors deciding the outcome of elections and, therefore, which political representatives govern the country. The rise of populism in the last decades has fostered research on populist parties and attitudes (Fernández-Vázquez, 2022). However, most studies focus only on certain groups of predictors, such as psychological (Erisen et al., 2021; Pruysers, 2021) or socio-economic (Rico & Anduiza, 2019, Tsatsanis et al., 2018; Abadi et al., 2020). There are also a few studies emphasizing the role of affective factors (Rico et al., 2017; Abadi et al., 2020), social factors (Oliver & Rahn, 2016), and cognitive factors (Bruder et al., 2013). Based on the literature review and previous pilot studies, we propose a testable complex prediction model of populist attitudes

A Comprehensive Model for Predicting Populist Attitudes

Populist attitudes are multi-causal, but their determinants are often studied separately, in small groups, or in different samples. This study presents a comprehensive model for the prediction of populist attitudes using a single sample. We use an ideological approach and measure of populist attitudes as anti-elitism, popular sovereignty, and homogeneity, while the differences between the elite and the people are Manichean. Analyzing a sample based on a representative quota for gender, age, education and region of Slovakia (N = 254), it was found that relative deprivation, belief in simple solutions, external political efficacy, trust towards experts, and conspiracy mentality were significant predictors of populist attitudes after controlling for other variables. The effect of education and subjective income faded out after adding variables into the model. The model explained 54% of the variance in populist attitudes. The results are discussed in detail with respect to its limitations and country specifics

Modeling the effect of psycho-socio-economic consequences of COVID-19 on life satisfaction: The role of deviation from a balanced time perspective

This paper aims to study the role of deviation from a balanced time perspective in the broader context of COVID-19-related variables. We examined a structural model that depicted how the difficulty with adhering to COVID-19 restrictions and their psycho-socio-economic consequences were related to life satisfaction in a sample of 1423 participants. The results suggest that the difficulty with adhering to the anti-pandemic measures was associated with increased loneliness, decreased contentment with the authorities’ management of the pandemic situation and a worsened personal economic situation. These factors were related to higher levels of COVID-19-related stress and anxiety and lower levels of life satisfaction. Importantly, deviation from the balanced time perspective was one of the strongest predictors of overall life satisfaction within the model