Linking Irrational Beliefs with Well-Being at Work: The Role of Fulfilling Performance Expectations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript focuses on the effects of secondary irrational beliefs on well-being at work and considers the mediation role of the subjective fulfillment of expectations. They found some interesting findings and the article was well written. I only have a few suggestions:

1. The secondary beliefs are the focus of this study. The researchers differentiated between the three secondary beliefs and examined the effect of self-depreciation, low frustration tolerance, and awfulizing on well-being at work separately. In this case, I would suggest that the authors elaborate more on the role of each secondary irrational belief for well-being at work, separately, instead of the whole irrational belief.

2. On page 11, the authors mentioned that they tested four nested models (one for each predictor) in which direct paths on well-being were added. They chose the model in Figure 2 as their final model. However, I don't seem to see the complete model fitness result for this model.

Minor issues：

Does “3.576 employees" should be 3,576 employees？ 

Author Response

RESPONSES TO REVIEWER 1’S COMMENTS

(Legend: R1.1 stands for Reviewer 1, comment 1, and A1.1 for our reply to this comment)

R1.0

The manuscript focuses on the effects of secondary irrational beliefs on well-being at work and considers the mediation role of the subjective fulfillment of expectations. They found some interesting findings and the article was well written. I only have a few suggestions:

A1.0

First and foremost, we would like to thank you for appreciating our work and helping us further improve the quality of our manuscript through your suggestions. Below you can find our responses and the modifications we have applied consistently with your feedback.

R1.1

The secondary beliefs are the focus of this study. The researchers differentiated between the three secondary beliefs and examined the effect of self-depreciation, low frustration tolerance, and awfulizing on well-being at work separately. In this case, I would suggest that the authors elaborate more on the role of each secondary irrational belief for well-being at work, separately, instead of the whole irrational belief.

A.1.1

Thank you for suggesting a more thorough elaboration of the role of each secondary irrational belief for well-being at work. In fact, there isn’t much differentiation between primary and secondary irrational beliefs within literature, and those studies that have investigated the different relationships of each irrational belief within the work context have not taken specifically well-being at work into consideration (for what we know, we are the firsts doing so). Moreover, these studies’ outcome are anxiety, depression and stress, which are indeed related to well-being but are not work-specific.  

In sum, the results we found in literature can only be interpreted in terms of the intensity of the relationship between each irrational belief and different outcomes. These results do not allow to draw significative conclusions of a pattern relationship between the variables. Moreover, these studies do not take into account the shared demandingness within secondary irrational beliefs, so their results could be biased because of this. 

We thank you again for your suggestion and below you can see the addition we have made to the first theoretical paragraph on this matter (please see p.4):

“To our current knowledge, the existing studies examining the distinct effects of irrational beliefs within the workplace context have consistently produced analogous results. While findings can be argued in terms of the strength of the relationship between each irrational belief and diverse outcomes, they fall short of identifying specific patterns in these associations. For instance, Turner et al. [14] identified significant negative correlations between self-depreciation, well-being, and life satisfaction, as well as between the other irrational beliefs and depression, anxiety, and anger. However, these relationships were not specifically explored within the confines of their study. Furthermore, Turner et al. [13, 14] and Popov et al. [15] have employed measures of trait depression and anxiety for the posited outcomes variables of their studies, which are not explicitly tailored to the working context. Despite their findings, these studies do not account for the shared substrate of demandingness within irrational beliefs, resulting in reported similarities in effects among irrational beliefs and various outcomes. Moreover, even though they have been conducted within organizational contexts, they do not specifically investigate work-related well-being.”

R.1.2

On page 11, the authors mentioned that they tested four nested models (one for each predictor) in which direct paths on well-being were added. They chose the model in Figure 2 as their final model. However, I don't seem to see the complete model fitness result for this model.

A.1.2

Thank you for noticing it, the fit of the final model has been added (see p. 11).

R.1.3

Minor issues:

Does “3.576 employees" should be 3,576 employees?

A.1.3

Thank you for noticing that typo, we corrected it as suggested.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.     The proposed paper deals with organizational environment. In this respect, it is suggested to specify upfront that research focus is on well-being at work (which is rather different than well-being in general).

2.     In addition, it is suggested to dedicate a few distinct paragraphs on the well-being concept.

3.     In the same line, it is suggested to analyze the option of splitting the current first section (1. Introduction) into two distinct parts: Introduction proper and Literature survey (dedicated specifically to hypotheses development).

4.     It is suggested to declare the significance of all statistics-specific abbreviations (e.g., p.7), as their first appearance in the text.

5.     As Jamovi 2.2.5 is not among the latest software versions, it does make sense twice to declare the full research circumstances (time of the research mainly; Italy province/s, companies’ size range, respondents’ job profiles maybe). It is recommended to do so.

6.     Was it a certain reason for selecting the first sub-sample company? How was this company selected?

7.     The research results are extensively discussed – as the last section (4. Discussion) contains also limitations and future studies as well as practical implications). It is suggested to add a “punchy” conclusive section (be it: Conclusion).

 

8.     As the paper is proposed for publication in the Sustainability journal, it is strongly recommended to revise the paper in this very light, and neatly highlight the sustainability implications of this research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is used properly.

 

Author Response

RESPONSES TO REVIEWER 2’S COMMENTS

(Legend: R2.1 stands for Reviewer 2, comment 1, and A2.1 for our reply to this comment)

R2.1

The proposed paper deals with organizational environment. In this respect, it is suggested to specify upfront that research focus is on well-being at work (which is rather different than well-being in general).

 

A2.1

In writing the article we had taken particular care to clarify how the literature on irrational beliefs is extremely new in the field of work psychology; even more are studies on irrational beliefs association with well-being. For this reason, we accounted for the strong body of evidence that has been consolidated over the years in other fields, such as general psychology and clinical psychology. We would like to thank you for your valuable suggestion that this element could be more effectively highlighted for the reader. We therefore emphasized the focus on the organizational environment and the difference between general well-being and well-being at work in the introduction (please see p. 2):

“This is relevant since well-being at work emphasizes the person's perception of well-being within the workplace and then differs from general well-being, which refers to the overall state of an individual's life. However, based both on the strong evidence in the wider field of general psychology and on the limited studies in the organizational one, it has been suggested that…”

 

R2.2

In addition, it is suggested to dedicate a few distinct paragraphs on the well-being concept.

 

A2.2

Thank you very much for your thoughtful comment. We fully understand that well-being is a multifaceted construct and that much can be said about the relationship between general well-being and its inherent facets in different spheres of human life and action. Well-being at work and general well-being are of course interconnected: for example, a positive work environment and job satisfaction can contribute to an individual's overall well-being; conversely, if someone is experiencing challenges or dissatisfaction at work, it may affect their general well-being. Nonetheless, we believe that the concept of occupational well-being is a very well circumscribed construct, and so that further exploration of the above may be distanced from the conceptual and core scope of the paper.

 

R2.3

In the same line, it is suggested to analyze the option of splitting the current first section (1. Introduction) into two distinct parts: Introduction proper and Literature survey (dedicated specifically to hypotheses development).

 

A2.3

Thanking you very much for your advice, we would like to try to explain why, although we understand the point, we opted not to make this change. The first distinctive contribution of the paper is the factorial structure and theoretical-conceptual measurement model of the construct of irrational thoughts, to which paragraph 1 is dedicated. The second is the mediation model we hypothesized, to which the second paragraph 2 is devoted. We understand that paragraph 1 does not present hypotheses development; nevertheless, it has a fundamental role in conceptually framing the core theme of the common and differential effects of irrational thoughts, going in continuity with the introduction and at the same time laying the premises for the hypotheses presented in the second paragraph.

 

R2.4

it is suggested to declare the significance of all statistics-specific abbreviations (e.g., p.7), as their first appearance in the text.

 

A2.4

Thank you for this suggestion, we have revised this aspect as follows (please see p. 7):

“The appropriateness of model fit was established with (1) values of the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) higher than 0.90 [62], (2) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values of 0.08 or less with associated confidence intervals and (3) Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) […]. Then, we estimated the proportion of common variance explained by the general and the specific factors (i.e., Explained Common Variance, ECV; and Incremental Explained Common Variance, I-ECV) to assess their relative strength [65].”

 

A1.5

We thank you for making us acknowledge a typo in the text: the Jamovi version employed was actually 2.3.38, the penultimate one that has been released and the one recommended by the developers for most users. Besides correcting this (please see p.7, row 334), we were pleased to take up the suggestion to include some additional information about the sample, which allows the reader to contextualize and draw the boundaries of the results of our study (please see p. 6):

“… operating in the administrative and business services, and industry sectors. All companies are active throughout Italy and are large in size. Questionnaire administration was not simultaneous in the four companies but nevertheless close, covering a time period between February and November 2022.”

 

R1.6

Was it a certain reason for selecting the first sub- sample company? How was this company selected?

 

A1.6

Was decided to subsample in order to conduct validation analyses on a first sample (measurement model) and analyses of relationships between variables on a second (structure model). Then, the choice on how to sub-sample have been based on company characteristics, in terms of different types of industries. In fact, three of the four companies had a common pattern in the consulting administrative and business services focus and differ in this sense from the last one. Thanks to your suggestion we have been able to add this important detail information in the text (please see p. 7):

“Subdivision method was based on of companies’ characteristics, in terms of industry type. A first sub-sample consisted of just one of the four companies sampled (N = 1706 employees) being the only one that does not focus on consulting administrative and business services. This first sub-sample was employed to verify the psychometric properties of our measures”.

 

R2.7

The research results are extensively discussed – as the last section (4. Discussion) contains also limitations and future studies as well as practical implications). It is suggested to add a “punchy” conclusive section (be it: Conclusion).

 

A2.7

Thank you for this suggestion, we have indeed proceeded to add a Conclusion section (please see p. 15):

“5. Conclusion

In conclusion, our study unveiled the unique contributions of secondary irrational beliefs on well-being at work, highlighting the mediating role of individuals' perceptions of meeting performance expectations.

The present study not only advances irrational beliefs literature but also holds practical implications for organizations. By recognizing the potent impact on well-being, organizations can develop interventions grounded in Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT) that can contribute to the development of a positive organizational culture, in which well-being and therefore human sustainability within the workplace is prioritized.”

 

R2.8

As the paper is proposed for publication in the Sustainability journal, it is strongly recommended to revise the paper in this very light, and neatly highlight the sustainability implications of this research.

 

A2.8

Thank you for your suggestion. We have highlighted the importance of this research for human sustainability within organizational contexts throughout the paper as follows:

In the introduction: “Acknowledging individuals' vulnerabilities is essential for gaining a more holistic understanding of individual functioning. This awareness can pave the way for innovative approaches to promoting human sustainability within organizations, ensuring the long-term well-being and flourishing of individuals.”

In the discussion: “Overall, these results shed light on the importance of taking into consideration the aspects of vulnerability that characterize humans’ functioning: understanding and ad-dressing the impact of irrational beliefs on well-being becomes crucial for the well-being of human capital and its sustainability within the workplace.”

In the practical implications: “Organizations could use these findings to create interventions that help employees in managing irrational beliefs and their negative effects on well-being, with the ultimate goal of promoting and fostering human sustainability within the workplace.”

In the conclusion: “By recognizing the potent impact on well-being, organizations can develop interventions grounded in Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT) that can contribute to the development of a positive organizational culture, in which well-being and therefore human sustainability within the workplace is prioritized.”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf