Table 9.

2 Summary table of longitudinal WE studies in relation to antecedents

Authors and
publication year

De Lange, De
Witte &
Notelaers (2008)

Hakanen,
Perhonierni &
Toppinen-Tanner
(2008a)

Hakanen,
Schaufeli
& Ahola
(2008b)

Participants, design and

statistical analyses
Belgian employees with
heterogeneous
backgrounds
(n = 871, 53.5%
women, mean
age = 36.2 years)
Two-wave full
panel design with
16 months lag and
comparison groups as
follows: (1) "stayers" (no
work changes);
(2)"promotion makers"
(promotion or better job
with the same employer);
and
(3)external movers (new
job with
different employer)
SEM

Finnish dentists
(n = 2,555, 73.5%
women, mean
age = 45.5)
Two-wave full panel
design with 3-year lag
SEM

Finnish dentists
(n= 2,555, 73.5%
women, mean
age = 45.5)
Two-wave full panel
design with 3-year lag
SEM
Health impairment
path of the J.D--R
model was also
tested (burnout as an
outcome)

Work-related
variables

Job
resources:
Social support
from colleagues
Supervisor
support
Autonomy
Departmental
resources

Job resources:
Overall latent
factor including
craftsmanship.
pride in one's
profession. and
direct and longterm results
Others:
Personal
initiative
Job resources:
Overall latent
factor including
craftsmanship,
professional
contacts.
long-term and
immediate result
Job demands:
Overall latent
factor including
workload
work contents
stressfulness, and
physical work
environment
Others:
Home resources
and demands (for
example family/

Measurement of
WE

Overall mean
score

Overall latent
factor including
the dimensions
of vigor,
dedication and
absorption

Overall latent
factor including
the
dimensions of
vigor
and dedication

Main results in relation

to causality models
Traditional
causality model
supported:
Autonomy at Tl
predicted
WE at T2 (among
stayers)
Reverse causality
model supported:
WE at Ti predicted
social support from
colleagues (among
stayers and external
movers). supervisory
support
(among stayers). and
autonomy and
departmental resources
(among promotion
makers) at T2
Reciprocal causality
model supported:
Job resources and WE
were related reciprocally
and positively over time
WE and personal
initiative
were related reciprocally
and
positively over time

Traditional causality
model supported:
Job resources at
T1positively predicted
WE at T2:
Job demands at T1
negatively
predicted WE at T2

partner support,
quantitative
home demands)
Llorens,
Schaufeli,
Bakker &
Salanova (2007)

Lorente,
Salanova,
Martinez &
Schaufeli (2008)

Mauno,
Kinnunen &
Ruokolainen
(2007)

Schaufeli,
Bakker &
van Rhenen
(2009)

Spanish university students

(n = 110, 85% women,
mean age = 22.6 years)
Two-wave full panel
design with 3-week lag
SEM

Spanish secondary school

teachers
(n = 274, 57%
women, mean
age = 40) Two-wave panel
design with 8-month lag
Hierarchical
multiple regression
analysis (baseline of
dependent variable was
controlled for) Health
impairment path of the
JDR model was also
tested (burnout as an
outcome)

Finnish healthcare
personnel (n = 409, 88%
women, mean age = 46.4)
Two-wave panel design
with 2-year lag
Hierarchical regression
analysis (baseline of
dependent variable was
controlled for)

Dutch telecom
company managers
and executives
(n = 201 , 89% men,
mean age = 44.3)

Task/job
resources: Time
control Method
control
Job resources:
Autonomy
Support climate
Job demands:
Quantitative
overload Mental
and emotional
demands
Role ambiguity
Role conflict
(each predictor
analyzed
separately)
Others:
Personal
resources:
Mental
competence
Emotional
competence

Job resources:
Job control
Organizationbased selfesteem
Management
quality
Job demands:
Job insecurity
Time demands at
work
Work-to-family
conflict
(each predictor
analyzed
separately)

Job resources:
Overall latent
factor including
social support,
autonomy,

Overall mean
score including,
vigor and
dedication

Traditional causality
model supported.
Task resources at T I
predicted efficacy beliefs
at T2, which in turn,
predicted WE at T2
(lagged effect

Dimensionspecific analysis
for:
Vigor
Dedication

Traditional causality
model supported
Other causality models
were not tested
Role ambiguity at T1
negatively predicted the
dimension of dedication
at T2 Work overload
positively predicted the
dimension of dedication
at T2

Dimensionspecific analysis
for:
Vigor Dedication
Absorption

Traditional causality
model supported:
Other causality models
were not tested
Job control at T1
positively predicted
dedication at T2 Job
insecurity at T1
negatively predicted
dedication at T2

Overall latent
factor including
the
dimensions of
vigor

Reverse causality model

supported:
WE at T1 predicted an
increase in job resources
(between Ti and T2)

Two-wave full panel

design with 1-year lag
SEM
Health impairment
path of the JDR
model was also
tested (burnout as an
outcome)

Xanthopoulou,
Bakker,
Demerouti
& Schaufeli
(2009a)

Xanthopoulou,
Bakker,
Demerouti
& Schaufeli
(2009b)

Xanthopoulou,
Bakker, Heuven,
Demerouti
& Schaufeli
(2008)

Greek employees
working for a fast- food
company
= 42, 71% men,
mean age = 29 years)
A diary study over 5
consecutive workdays
Multilevel analysis

Employees working for an

engineering and electronics
company in the
Netherlands (n = 163,
800/A men, mean age
42 years)
Two-wave full panel
design with 18-month
lag
SEM
Flight attendants working
for a European airline
(n=44, 89% women, 25-44
years)
A dairy study over 3

learning
opportunities
and performance
feedback
Job demands:
Overall score of
work overload.,
emotional
demands and
workhome
interference
Others:
Sickness absence

Job resources at
day
level:
Autonomy
Supervisory
Coaching Team
climate
(each resource
analyzed
separately)
Others:
Day-level
financial
returns

Job resources:
Overall score
of autonomy,
social support
supervisory
coaching,
performance
feedback, and
opportunities V
for professional
development
Job resources:
Day level
Colleague
support
Others: day-level

and dedication

Day-level WE as
overall mean
score
of containing 3
dimensions

Overall mean
score containing
3
dimensions

Overall mean
score of day
level WE
containing 3
dimensions

which,
in turn, associated
positively
with WE at T2

Mediator model was

supportedi
Day-level job resources
had
an effect on day-level
WE \Ad
personal resources (selfefficacy, self-esteem and
optimism as mediators)
Traditional causality
model
supported:
Day-level coaching had a
direct positive effect on
daylevel WE, which in turn,
predicted daily financial
returns
Previous day's coaching
had a
positive lagged effect on
WE
the next day (via next
day's
optimism), and on
financial
returns the next day
Reciprocal causality
model
supported:
Job resources and WE
were
related reciprocally over
time

Traditional causality
model supported:
Colleague support was
associated with WE over
time, which, in turn, was

consecutive destinations
Multilevel analysis

work-related
self-efficacy
Job performance

Overall mean
score measured
before the dairy
study (that is,
WE as a traittype experience)

associated with higher

self-efficacy beliefs
Mediator model was also
supported:
Colleague support and
self-efficacy were related
to performance via
WE(mediator)