《感觉好和做得好：心理资本和幸福感的关系-外文文献翻译.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《感觉好和做得好：心理资本和幸福感的关系-外文文献翻译.docx（10页珍藏版）》请在taowenge.com淘文阁网|工程机械CAD图纸|机械工程制图|CAD装配图下载|SolidWorks_CaTia_CAD_UG_PROE_设计图分享下载上搜索。
1、 Feeling Good and Doing Great: The Relationship Between Psychological Capital and Well-BeingMaura J. Mills , Satoris S. Culbertson , Clive J. FullagarJournal of Occupational Health Psychology,2010,15(4) :421433感觉好和做得好：心理资本和幸福感的关系Maura J. Mills , Satoris S. Culbertson , Clive J. Fullagar职业健康心理学杂志，201
2、0，15(4): 421433绪论这项研究旨在寻求确定心理资本和雇员的实现和快乐幸福感之间的关系。调查数据是在两周的期间内从102名外派人员那得到的。另外，日常调查数据从67名参加者中获取。两周后，经测量后的调查数据的结果表明心理资本和快乐论幸福感之间的关系是由实现论幸福感调节。从每日测量的结果发现日常实现论工作幸福感同日常积极的心态和生活满意度显著联系在一起，并且人们的心理资本预示着实现论工作幸福感的变动。关键词：心理资本 积极心理学 快乐论幸福感 实现论幸福感近年来,人们对采用一种积极的方法对组织和组织行为进行研究越来越感兴趣。相对于专注于如何预测个人和组织的负面结果（如,人员流动、职业倦
3、怠），研究人员已经开始寻找可以达到积极成果的方法和确定方便个人的蓬勃发展和健康的因素。更具体地说，积极组织行为学 (POB) 已定义为“以积极的以人力资源优势和心理能力为中心的研究与应用”（Luthans，2002b、 第 59 页）。在积极组织行为学研究中出现的一个重要的概念是心理资本（PsyCap），一个积极的高阶的心理要素包括效能，乐观，希望，和应变能力(Luthans，Avolio，Avey & Norman，2007)。就像Luthans，Youssef和Avolio所描述的，心理资本的特点是：“(a)拥有自信（自我效能感）加上必要努力成功完成具有挑战性的任务；(b)对当前和将来的成
4、功做积极归因(乐观)；(c)坚持目标，为了取得成功，在必要时能够重新选择实现目标的路线(希望)；(d)当遇到问题和困境时，能够坚持、很快恢复和采取迂回途径来取得成功” (pp. 3)。尽管积极组织行为学背后的主要推动力是了解这些因素并使个人能够茁壮成长, 很少有研究调查心理资本和幸福感的关系，而审查了这个关系的研究对幸福感概念的探讨也有限的(如，Avey，Luthans，Smith & Palmer，2010)。幸福感曾被定义为“最佳心理功能和经验” (Ryan & Deci, 2001, p. 142)，而且可以分为快乐论幸福感和实现论幸福感(Ryff & Keyes，1995；Ryan &
5、 Deci, 2001)。快乐论幸福感是幸福感的更加典型的操作性定义，包括主观幸福和开心的经历(Ryan & Deci，2001)。它通常用包括生活满意、积极的心态和缺乏消极心情在内的主观措施评估(Waterman, 2008)。总之，这些部分通常概括为幸福(Diener， 1984)。因此，为了方便，我们把快乐论幸福感作为在这篇文章中的幸福。最近，出现了一种把动机和行为部分引入幸福感的概念的趋势(Ryff，1989；Ryff & Keyes，1995)。从动机方面来说，实现论幸福感集中于力争自我实现(Waterman，2008)。在行为上，它包括最佳的积极功能和努力的行为(Ryff，1989
6、； Ryff & Singer，1998)。因此，实现论幸福感涉及到一个人的潜力，不归纳在幸福的概念中。另外，实现论幸福感更加基于认知：一个人主动地采取行动因为有这么一个基本的认知，对个体什么是最大的好处和他们的关于自己的整体正面感觉和想法。在Erickson(1959) and Maslow(1954)积极心理学理论的基础上，Ryff(1989)提出了实现论幸福感的多维概念，它包括（a）自我接纳，理解和接受自己的长处和弱点；（b）生活中的目标，给生命意义和方向；（c）个人的成长，一个人的技能和潜力得以实现和加强的信念；（d）与他人积极的关系，与他人保持密切并相互尊重；（e）环境的掌握，感觉能
7、掌握生活并可以管理生活的需求；和（f）自主，自我决定和拥有自己的行为。验证性因子分析已经证实了这个模型和它在建设实现论幸福感理论方面更高的要求(Ryff & Keyes，1995)。辨别心理资本和实现论幸福感是很重要的。尽管有些重叠（例如，心理资本的效能类似于Ryff的环境掌控），这两个理论是不同的。心理资本可以定义为个人心理能力和资源。同样地，心理资本有助于支持或引导个人如何去定义生活经历。相反，实现论幸福感被认为是最优积极功能的最好的思想一个被我们推测是心理资源影响的结果(即，心理资本)。尽管Ryff（1989）的实现论幸福感模型被发展为跟上文无关的东西，Van Horn，Taris，Sc
8、haufeli和Schreurs (2004)已经依据Ryff的研究来创建一个易于理解的幸福感模型来工作。这些作者指出Ryff的方法比其他工作幸福感的方法更详细，Ryff的方法集成了一个除了情感和动机方面之外的行为的组成部分。因此，我们有理由适应Ryff的工作成果的操作性。在方便和关注最佳的积极努力和功能的原则下，在下面的文章中我们将把实现论幸福感作为积极功能。研究显示，心理资本的各个组成元素与幸福感有关。这个调查支持这样一个观点，心理资本维度里固有的积极的认知资源跟幸福感的积极情感经历有关。然而，这样的调查是在忽略实现论幸福感的前提下研究快乐论幸福感的。例如Luthans, Avolio等
9、(2007)发现心理资本的综合运作跟工作满意度呈正相关。但是，作为幸福感的象征，工作满意度的概念是有限的，而且更全面的评估是必要的。积极组织行为研究者制定了一套包括结构的准则(Luthans 2002a，2002b；Luthans， Avolio等，2007)。这其中的一个准则认为结构应该以状态性为主而不是特征性。状态性结构随着情景的变化而变化并且对发展是开放的。要了解这些结构，依靠个体间代表性的构思是不够的。个体内部变化只能从纵向上获取。例如，多层次模型（如，阶层线性模式，或者HLM）允许调查者去分辨个体间和个体内部间要素的差异和去确定变量是否表现的更状态性或者特征性。另外，多层次模型允许对
10、上级的影响、下级的个体的倾向和日常的幸福感进行研究。在幸福感方面，有证据表明幸福和积极功能有状态性和特征性属性。研究表明个人有一种情感“设定点”(Heady & Wearing，1992)或者倾向性的情绪或者反应发生的态度水平。因此，尽管幸福感的日常运作是相似的，也可能走向一个更加稳定水平的集中。个人也可能有不同的最佳功能。Ilies，Morgeson和Nahrgang (2005)把积极功能比作Csikszentmihalyi的概念流完整参入一个活动以至于个体表面上忘记了所有事情除了对活动本身的感受最近的研究已经表明这种感受有日常的波动(Fullagar & Kelloway，2009)。积
11、极的功能是否也有类似的幸福设定值仍不清楚。目前的研究试图回答以下三个主要研究问题。首先，我们提出的问题：心理资本在以后的时间里以何种程度影响雇员的积极功能和幸福？和其他提出积极功能的影响结果的研究人员(如，Ryff & Singer，1998)一样，我们认为积极功能有助于提升幸福，而且心理资本和幸福的关系以积极功能为媒介。其次，我们想要确定日常积极功能和幸福共同变化的范围。最后，我们试图确定心理资本和日常积极功能的关系。我们认为积极功能跟日常情绪和生活满意度（幸福的标准）有关，无论是在个体之间还是个体内部。此外，我们假定积极功能的个体差异跟人的心理资本有关。讨论心理资本已被确定为积极组织行为学
12、领域的一项重要的基础建设(Luthans，Avey & Patera，2008；Luthans，Avolio等， 2007)。尽管研究组织行为的积极的心理方法的首要目标是了解最佳人类状态，还没有调查研究心理资本和个体幸福感的关系。目前的研究旨在通过研究心理资本和幸福感的两个不同的衡量指标（快乐论和实现论）的关系来填补这一空白。我们的研究结果表明，在两周的每一天里心理资本跟幸福感的两种类型都有关。此外，做实现论工作（即反映人的能力和优势）的个体更可能到体验积极情感和高生活满意度。这一发现支持了这样一种观点，积极功能比独自行乐更能带来高生活满意度(Peterson，Park，& Seligman,
13、，2005)。组织研究人员常常把职业性幸福感当作工作满意度。虽然心理资本与工作满意度联系在一起(如，Luthans，Avolio，等2007)，我们的研究结果表明，它也是一个可靠的有关幸福的更广泛的定义，更多的指人类幸福，繁荣，兴旺。如果研究人员要在从积极心理学到组织行为学应用领域中建立以心理资本为核心的概念，这是一个重要的关联。调查指出了心理幸福感和工作绩效等级之间的一种重要联系(如，Cropanzano & Wright，2001)，这表明组织可以通过提升员工幸福感来提高它们的效益。然而，怎么去实现这一目标还缺少引导。我们的研究结果表明，实现这一目标的一个方法就是提高员工的心理资本。心理资
14、本构成要素被认为是“状态性”的，因为他们可以改变和被开发(Luthans， Avolio等； 2007)。同样，致力于提升员工幸福感的组织被鼓励去提高雇员的希望、恢复力、效力和乐观。最近的研究表明，组织的干预可以改善心理资本(如，Luthans，Avey，Avolio，Norman & Combs，2006；Luthans等，2008)。Luthans等（2006）发现用一个小时的微观干预能够提升各个组织的管理培训生和管理者的心理资本。Luthans等(2008)基于互联网的干预的结果同样令人鼓舞。这样的项目将会在提升幸福感方面比传统干预更有时间和成本效益，如工作重新设计和组织行为矫正。目前的
15、研究结果也支持的这样一个说法，一个人的工作生活会蔓延到自己的个人生活中。特别地，我们发现积极功能与在家里时的情绪和生活满意度相关。鉴于目前研究的时序逻辑，我们可以有把握的说积极功能影响在家时的情绪和生活满意度，而不是其他方式。也就是说，在家里测验状态和最佳功能对工作时的情绪和满意度水平的影响将会很有趣。这种从一个人的工作生活到个人生活的外溢被Fredrickson的积极情绪的扩大与积聚理论（2001）所支持，这个理论指出积极的想法和幸福感创造出一个能产生更多的积极经历、想法和感觉的良性循环，它有利于提升最佳功能。这个理论为通过干预措施来改善心理资本和最终的幸福感的措施提供了支持。我们的研究结果
16、将从经验上支持这样一个观点，使个人在工作中体验到积极功能带来积极的情感状态。未来的研究需要进一步确定我们引出的幸福尤其是作为积极情绪幸福感是最佳个人和组织功能的重要媒介的前提条件。总之，经过两周的测量后，我们的研究结果表明，心理资本和幸福以积极功能为媒介。此外结果表明日常积极功能与日常积极情绪和日常生活满意度密切相关，并且心理资本预示团体间积极功能的变化。这些结果表明，致力于提升员工幸福感的组织应该谨慎地去规定员工心理资本的指标。IntroductionThis study seeks to determine the relationship between psychological ca
17、pital and an employees eudaimonic and hedonic well-being. Panel data were collected from 102 extension agents over a 2-week interval. In addition, daily surveys were collected from 67 of the participants. Results from the panel data indicated that the relation between psychological capital and hedon
18、ic well-being, measured two weeks later, is mediated by eudaimonic well-being. Results from the daily surveys found that daily eudaimonic work well-being was significantly associated with both daily positive mood and daily life satisfaction and that variance in eudaimonic work well-being was predict
19、ed by ones psychological capital. Keywords: psychological capital, positive psychology, hedonic well-being, eudaimonic well-beingIn recent years, there has been a growing interest in adopting a positive approach when examining organizations and organizational behavior. Rather than focus on ways to p
20、redict negative outcomes for individuals and organizations (e.g., turnover, burnout), researchers have begun to examine ways in which positive outcomes can be realized and to identify factors that facilitate individual flourishing and wellness. More specifically, positive organizational behavior (PO
21、B) has been defined as “the study and application of positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities” (Luthans, 2002b, p. 59).An important construct that has emerged from the POB movement is psychological capital (PsyCap), a higher-order constellation of positive psychologi
22、cal components that consists of efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience (Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007). As described by Luthans, Youssef, and Avolio (2007), PsyCap is “characterized by (a) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the nec- essary effort to succeed at challeng
23、ing tasks; (b)making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (c) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (d) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resilien
24、ce) to attain success” (pp. 3). Despite the main impetus behind POB being to understand those factors that enable individuals to thrive, little research has investigated the relation between PsyCap and well-being. Studies that have examined this relation (e.g., Avey, Luthans, Smith, & Palmer, 2010)
25、have used a limited conceptualization of well-being.Well-being has been defined as “optimal psychological functioning and experience” (Ryan & Deci, 2001, p. 142) and can be differentiated into hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being (Ryff &Keyes, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2001). Hedonic well-being is
26、the more typical operationalization of well-being, consisting of subjective happiness and the experience of pleasure (Ryan & Deci, 2001). It is typically assessed using subjective measures consisting of life satisfaction, the presence of positive mood, and the absence of negative mood (Waterman, 200
27、8). Together, these components are often summarized as happiness (Diener, 1984). Thus, in the interest of parsimony, we refer to hedonic well-being as happiness throughout this article.More recently, there has been a move to broaden the notion of well-being to include motivational and behavioral com
28、ponents (Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995). From a motivational perspective, eudaimonic well-being focuses on striving for self-realization(Waterman, 2008). Behaviorally, it includes optimal positive functioning and the act of striving (Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Singer, 1998). Thus, eudaimonic well-being inv
29、olves a sense of fulfillment of ones potential, aspects not subsumed in the conceptualization of happiness. Additionally, eudaimonic well-being is more cognition-based: An individual is arguably motivated to take actions because of an underlying cognition regarding what would be of greatest benefit
30、to the individual and his or her overall positive feelings and thoughts regarding him or herself.Building on positive psychological theories of Erickson(1959) and Maslow(1954); Ryff(1989) developed a multidimensional conceptualization of eudaimonic well-being that includes (a) self-acceptance, under
31、standing and accepting ones strengths and weaknesses; (b) purpose in life, having objectives that give life meaning and direction; (c) personal growth, a belief that ones skills and poten-tial are being realized and enhanced; (d) positive relations with others, having close and valued interactions w
32、ith others; (e) environmental mastery, feeling in control of life and able to manage its demands; and (f) autonomy, being self-determined and owning ones actions. Confirmatory factor analysis has empirically confirmed this model and its indication of the higher order construct of eudaimonic well-bei
33、ng (Ryff & Keyes, 1995).It is important to distinguish between PsyCap and eudaimonic well-being. Despite some overlap (e.g., PsyCap efficacy is similar to Ryffs environmental mastery), these two constructs are theoretically distinct. PsyCap can be conceptualized as personal psychological capacities
34、and resources. As such, PsyCap may serve to support or guide individuals in how they conceptualize life experiences. Conversely, eudaimonic well-being is best thought of as optimal positive functioningan outcome we hypothesize is influenced by psychological resources (i.e., PsyCap).Although Ryffs (1
35、989) model of eudaimonic well-being was developed to be context free, Van Horn, Taris, Schaufeli, and Schreurs (2004) have drawn extensively on Ryffs research to create a comprehensive model of well-being specific to work. These authors note that Ryffs approach is more detailed and inclusive than ot
36、her approaches to work well-being in that it incorporates a behavioral component in addition to affective and motivational aspects. As such, we felt justified in adapting Ryffs operationalization to the work context. In the continued interest of parsimony and given its focus on optimal positive stri
37、ving and functioning, we refer to eudaimonic well-being as positive functioning for the remainder of this article.Research has demonstrated that the various constituent elements of PsyCap are related to well-being. This research supports the contention that positive cognitive resources inherent in t
38、he PsyCap dimensions are associated with the positive affective experience of well-being. However, such research has focused on hedonic, at the expense of eudaimonic, well-being. For example, Luthans, Avolio, et al. (2007) found that a composite operationalization of PsyCap was positively related to
39、 job satisfaction. However, the conceptualization of job satisfaction as indicative of well-being is limited, and a more comprehensive assessment is necessary.POB researchers have developed a set of criteria for including constructs (Luthans 2002a, 2002b; Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007). One of these
40、 is that constructs should be predominantly state-like versus trait-like. State-like constructs vary situationally and are open to development. To understand these constructs, it is insufficient to rely on between-individual, cross-sectional designs. Within-individual variation can only be captured
41、longitudinally. For example, multilevel modeling (e.g., hierarchical linear modeling, or HLM) allows researchers to distinguish between-individual and within-individual components of variance and to ascertain whether variables are behaving more like states or traits. In addition, multilevel modeling
42、 allows for the study of the impact of higher-level, individual dispositions on lower-level, day-to-day well-being.In terms of well-being, there is evidence that happiness and positive functioning have state-like and trait-like properties. Research suggests individuals have an affective “set point”
43、(Heady & Wearing, 1992) or a dispositional mood or attitude level around which reactions occur. Thus, although daily fluctuations in well-being are likely, there may also be convergence toward a more stable level. Individuals also likely vary in their optimal functioning. Ilies, Morgeson, and Nahrga
44、ng (2005) have likened positive functioning to Csikszentmihalyis (1990) concept of flowthe feeling of complete involvement in an activity such that individuals seemingly forget everything but the activity itselfwhich recent research has shown to have daily fluctuations (Fullagar & Kelloway, 2009). W
45、hether positive functioning has a similar set-point as happiness remains unclear.The current research sought to answer three primary research questions. First, we addressed the question: To what extent does PsyCap contribute to an employees positive functioning and happiness at a later time? In line
46、 with other researchers (e.g., Ryff & Singer, 1998) who have proposed that affect can be considered an outcome of positive functioning, we proposed that positive functioning contributes to happiness and that the relation between PsyCap and happiness is mediated through positive functioning. Second,
47、we wanted to determine the extent to which daily positive functioning and happiness varied together. Third, we sought to ascertain the relation between PsyCap and daily positive functioning. We proposed that positive functioning is related to daily mood and life satisfaction (measures of happiness),
48、 both across and within individuals. Additionally, we posited that individual variance in positive functioning is associated with ones PsyCap.DiscussionPsyCap has been identified as an important underlying construct in the field of positive organizational behavior (Luthans, Avey, & Patera, 2008; Lut
49、hans, Avolio, et al., 2007). Despite the fact that the overarching aim of positive psychological approaches to organizational behavior is an understanding of optimal human flourishing, no research has investigated the association between PsyCap and individual well-being. The current research aimed to redress this by investigating the relation between PsyCap and two different of well-b