SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İktisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 28

Core Self-Evaluations and Psychological Well-Being: A Moderated Mediation Model on Remote Workers

Temel Benlik Değerlendirmesi ve Psikolojik İyi Oluş: Uzaktan Çalışanlar Üzerine Durumsal bir Aracılık Modeli

Esra Aydın(İzmir Demokrasi Üniversitesi)0000-0003-3302-7691
Pages
852–865
Publication Date
2025-10-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Theoretical and practical implications, as well as future study directions, were suggested to enhance the psychological well-being of remote workers.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the mediating role of work-life balance in the relationship between core self-evaluations and psychological well-being, as well as the moderating role of social dominance orientation, within the frameworks of Conservation of Resources Theory and Social Dominance Theory.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Given that psychological well-being significantly affects critical organizational outcomes, identifying the factors that enhance the psychological well-being of remote workers has become both a theoretical and empirical necessity.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Theoretical and practical implications, as well as future study directions, were suggested to enhance the psychological well-being of remote workers.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Psikolojik iyi oluş · temel benlik değerlendirmesi · iş-yaşam dengesi

Abstract

This study examines the mediating role of work-life balance in the relationship between core self-evaluations and psychological well-being, as well as the moderating role of social dominance orientation, within the frameworks of Conservation of Resources Theory and Social Dominance Theory. Given that psychological well-being significantly affects critical organizational outcomes, identifying the factors that enhance the psychological well-being of remote workers has become both a theoretical and empirical necessity. Accordingly, data were collected via surveys from 589 remote employees and analyzed using statistical methods. Based on the results, a positive and significant association was found between core self-evaluations and the psychological well-being of remote workers. Additionally, work-life balance was found to mediate the relationship between core self-evaluations and psychological well-being. Furthermore, social dominance orientation was shown to have a moderating effect on the relationship between work-life balance and psychological well-being. Specifically, as social dominance orientation increases, the positive relationship between work-life balance and psychological well-being weakens. Theoretical and practical implications, as well as future study directions, were suggested to enhance the psychological well-being of remote workers.

Özet

Bu çalışma, kaynakların korunması kuramı ve sosyal baskınlık kuramı kapsamında temel benlik değerlendirmesi ile psikolojik iyi oluş arasındaki ilişkide iş-yaşam dengesinin aracı ve sosyal baskınlık yöneliminin düzenleyici etkisini ele almaktadır. Psikolojik iyi oluşun önemli örgütsel çıktılara etki etmesi nedeniyle uzaktan çalışanların psikolojik iyi oluş düzeylerini artıran faktörlerin belirlenmesi gerek kuramsal gerekse görgül olarak gereklilik haline gelmiştir. Bu kapsamda, 589 uzaktan çalışan katılımcıdan anket yoluyla veri toplanmış ve istatistiksel yöntemlerle veriler analiz edilmiştir. Analiz sonuçlarına göre, temel benlik değerlendirmesi ile uzaktan çalışanların psikolojik iyi oluşları arasında pozitif ve anlamlı bir ilişki tespit edilmiştir. Buna ek olarak, iş-yaşam dengesinin temel benlik değerlendirmesi ile psikolojik iyi oluş arasındaki ilişkide aracılık rolü üstlendiği saptanmıştır. Ayrıca, sosyal baskınlık yöneliminin iş-yaşam dengesi ile psikolojik iyi oluş arasındaki ilişkide düzenleyici bir etkiye sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Sosyal baskınlık yönelimi arttıkça iş-yaşam dengesi ile psikolojik iyi oluş arasındaki pozitif ilişki zayıflamaktadır. Uzaktan çalışanların psikolojik iyi oluşunun artması için gerek kuramsal ve yönetsel çıkarımlar gerekse gelecek çalışmalar için öneriler yapılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Aydın, E. (2025). Core Self-Evaluations and Psychological Well-Being: A Moderated Mediation Model on Remote Workers. İktisadi İdari ve Siyasal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 28, 852–865. https://doi.org/10.25204/iktisad.1741136

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (65)

  1. Alam, M. (2020). Organisational processes and COVID-19 pandemic: Implications for job design. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 16(4), 599-606. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-08-2020-0121
  2. Allen, T. D., Johnson, R. C., Saboe, K. N., Cho, E., Dumani, S. ve Evans, S. (2012). Dispositional variables and work–family conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.04.004
  3. Anderson, A. J., Kaplan, S. A. ve Vega, R. P. (2014). The impact of telework on emotional experience: When, and for whom, does telework improve daily affective well-being?. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 882-897. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.966086
  4. Anglim, J. ve Grant, S. (2016). Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: Incremental prediction from 30 facets over the Big 5. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(1), 59-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9583-7
  5. Bakker, A. B. ve Costa, P. L. (2014). Chronic job burnout and daily functioning: A theoretical analysis. Burnout Research, 1(3), 112–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2014.04.003
  6. Barrett, R. (2017). The values-driven organization: Cultural health and employee well-being as a pathway to sustainable performance. Taylor ve Francis. https://doi.org/10.9774/gleaf.9781315558530
  7. Bipp, T., Kleingeld, A. ve Ebert, T. (2019). Core self-evaluations as a personal resource at work for motivation and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 151, 109556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109556
  8. Bolino, M. C., Kelemen, T. K. ve Matthews, S. H. (2021). Working 9-to-5? A review of research on nonstandard work schedules. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(2), 188–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2440
  9. Chang, C. H., Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C. ve Tan, J. A. (2012). Core self-evaluations: A review and evaluation of the literature. Journal of Management, 38(1), 81-128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311419661
  10. Chuang, Y. T., Chiang, H. L. ve Lin, A. P. (2024). Information quality, work-family conflict, loneliness, and well-being in remote work settings. Computers in Human Behavior, 154, 108149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108149
  11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
  12. Crawford, J. (2022). Working from home, telework, and psychological wellbeing? A systematic review. Sustainability, 14(19), 11874. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141911874
  13. Delbosc, A. ve Kent, J. (2024). Employee intentions and employer expectations: A mixed-methods systematic review of “post-COVID” intentions to work from home. Transport Reviews, 44(2), 248-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2023.2259100
  14. Delecta, P. (2011). Work life balance. International Journal of Current Research, 3(4), 186-189. http://journalcra.com/sites/default/files/issue-pdf/579.pdf
  15. Demerouti, E. ve Bakker, A. B. (2023). Job demands-resources theory in times of crises: New propositions. Organizational Psychology Review, 13(3), 209-236. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221135022
  16. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542-575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
  17. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Biswas-Diener, R., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D.W. ve Oishi, S. (2009). New measures of well-being. E. Diener (Ed.), Assessing well-being: The collected works of Ed Diener (s. 247–266). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2354-4_12
  18. Dijkstra, T.K. ve Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 297-316. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26628355
  19. Felstead, A. ve Henseke, G. (2017). Assessing the growth of remote working and its consequences for effort, well‐being and work‐life balance. New Technology, Work and Employment, 32(3), 195-212. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12097
  20. Follmer, K. B. ve Jones, K. S. (2017). Stereotype content and social distancing from employees with mental illness: The moderating roles of gender and social dominance orientation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47(9), 492-504. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12455
  21. Fornell, C. ve Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
  22. Fuchs, R. M., Morales, O. ve Timana, J. (2022). Work–life balance and work values as antecedents of job embeddedness: The case of Generation Y. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 35(4), 501-515. https://doi/10.1108/arla-01-2022-0015
  23. Gibson, A. ve Hicks, R. E. (2018). Psychological capital and core self-evaluations in the workplace: Impacts on well-being. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 10(2), 15-24. https://doi/10.5539/ijps.v10n2p15
  24. Grandey, A. A. ve Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350 –370. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1998.1666
  25. Haar, J. M. (2013). Testing a new measure of work–life balance: A study of parent and non-parent employees from New Zealand. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(17), 3305-3324. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.775175
  26. Haartmans, A. H. F. (2020). Cross-sectional study about the relationship between flexible working, work life balance and health. Tilburg University. https://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=156895
  27. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. ve Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Pearson Education Limited.
  28. Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. ve Sarstedt, M. (2017), Primer on partial least square structural equations modeling (PLS-SEM), (2.baskı), Sage, Thousand Oaks.
  29. Halbesleben, J. R., Harvey, J. ve Bolino, M. C. (2009). Too engaged? A conservation of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1452-1465. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017595
  30. Halbesleben, J. R., Neveu, J. P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C. ve Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334-1364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527130
  31. Harris, K. J., Harvey, P. ve Kacmar, K. M. (2009). Do social stressors impact everyone equally? An examination of the moderating impact of core self-evaluations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 153-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9096-2
  32. Henry, M. S., Le Roux, D. B. ve Parry, D. A. (2021). Working in a post Covid-19 world: Towards a conceptual framework for distributed work. South African Journal of Business Management, 52(1), 2155. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v52i1.2155
  33. Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., Foels, R. ve Stewart, A. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO₇ scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033
  34. Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Levin, S., Thomsen, L., Kteily, N. ve Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2012). Social dominance orientation: Revisiting the structure and function of a variable predicting social and political attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 583-606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211432765
  35. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources, a new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.44.3.513
  36. Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The Influence of culture, community, and the nested self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(3), 337-421. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062
  37. Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J. P. ve Westman, M. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 103-128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640
  38. Huppert, F. A. (2009). Psychological well‐being: Evidence regarding its causes and consequences. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 1(2), 137-164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01008.x
  39. Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C. ve Levy, P. E. (2008). Getting to the core of self-evaluation: A review and recommendations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(3), 391–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.514
  40. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E. ve Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self‐evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 303-331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00152.x
  41. Kaltiainen, J. ve Hakanen, J. J. (2024). Why increase in telework may have affected employee well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic? The role of work and non-work life domains. Current Psychology, 43(13), 12169-12187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04250-8
  42. Kaynak, B. D., Malatyalı, M. K. ve Hasta, D. (2021). Yeni sosyal baskınlık yönelimi ölçeği’nin (sby7) Türkçeye uyarlanması. Psikoloji Çalışmaları, 41(1), 301-330. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-0108
  43. Keyes, C. L., Shmotkin, D. ve Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 1007-1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.1007
  44. Kokt, D. ve Seqhobane, M. (2024). The impact of remote and hybrid work and psychological wellbeing on organisational citizenship behaviour: The moderating effect of psychological capital. Acta Commercii, 24(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.4102/ac.v24i1.1258
  45. Korkmaz, O. ve Erdoğan, E. (2014). İş yaşam dengesinin örgütsel bağlılık ve çalışan memnuniyetine etkisi. Ege Academic Review, 14(4), 541-557. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/560289
  46. Lyzwinski, L. N. (2024). Organizational and occupational health issues with working remotely during the pandemic: A scoping review of remote work and health. Journal of Occupational Health, 66(1), uiae005. https://doi.org/10.1093/joccuh/uiae005
  47. Matud, M. P., López-Curbelo, M. ve Fortes, D. (2019). Gender and psychological well-being. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(19), 3531. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193531
  48. McPhail, R., Chan, X. W., May, R. ve Wilkinson, A. (2024). Post-COVID remote working and its impact on people, productivity, and the planet: An exploratory scoping review. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 35(1), 154-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2023.2221385
  49. Neidlinger, S. M., Felfe, J. ve Schübbe, K. (2022). Should I stay or should I go (to the office)?—Effects of working from home, autonomy, and core self–evaluations on leader health and work–life balance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010006
  50. Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S. ve McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work‐family conflict and family‐work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400‐410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400
  51. Ni, C. ve Wang, Y. (2015). The impact of perceived organizational support and core self-evaluation on employee’s psychological well-being. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 3(2), 73-81. https://doi.org/10.4236/jhrss.2015.32011
  52. Park, R. ve Jang, S.J. (2017). Family role overload’s relationship with stress and satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 32(1), 61-74. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-01-2016-0020
  53. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J. ve Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1), 271-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280601055772
  54. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M. ve Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality And Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
  55. Sahin, S. G., Pal, S. ve Hughes, B. M. (2021). Core self-evaluations and psychological well-being: The mediating role of work-to-family enrichment. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 28(4), 1101-1119. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-06-2020-0340
  56. Schmitt, J. (2024). Employee well-being and the remote leader: A systematic literature review. Central European Business Review, 13(1), 27-42. https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.352
  57. Sidanius, J. ve Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043
  58. Sinclair, R. R., Britt, T. W. ve Watson, G. P. (2024). Psychological well-being and occupational health: Caught in the quicksand or standing on a firm foundation? L. E. Tetrick, G. G. Fisher, M. T. Ford ve J. C. Quick (Ed.), Handbook of occupational health psychology içinde (s.385–403). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000331-019
  59. Sirgy, M. J. ve Lee, D. J. (2018). Work-life balance: An integrative review. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 13, 229-254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-017-9509-8
  60. Sudha, K.S. ve Shahnawaz, M.G. (2013). Core self-evaluation as a correlate of subjective well-being among special educators. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 39(1), 83-90. https://jiaap.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/10-Kiran.pdf
  61. Şeşen, H. (2010). Öncülleri ve sonuçları ile örgüt içi girişimcilik: Türk Savunma Sanayinde bir araştırma (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Kara Harp Okulu, Savunma Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Ankara.
  62. Telef, B. B. (2013). Psikolojik iyi oluş ölçeği: Türkçeye uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(28-3), 374-384. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/87222
  63. Tesi, A. (2025). Social dominance orientation in a motivational framework: A focus on organizational settings. Trends in Psychology, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43076-025-00443-1
  64. Xie, X. N., Long, X. Y. ve Guo, Y. Y. (2024). Reproducing inequality through occupation: The mediating role of social dominance orientation in socioeconomic status and occupational choices. Current Psychology, 43(46), 35427-35437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-07003-3
  65. Zapata, L., Ibarra, G. ve Blancher, P. H. (2024). Engaging new ways of work: The relevance of flexibility and digital tools in a post-COVID-19 era. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 11(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-04-2022-0079