4.2 Article

Conservation of Resources Theory and Spirituality at Work: When a Resource Is Not Always a Resource

Journal

PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY
Volume 15, Issue 2, Pages 241-250

Publisher

EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING FOUNDATION-AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/rel0000416

Keywords

conservation of resources theory; spiritual resources; gain and loss spirals; professional efficacy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present study, based on the conservation of resources theory, explores the relationship between spiritual variables and professional efficacy. Using structural equation modeling, the results support the principles of the conservation of resources theory and identified the best-fit model for the data. This is the first study to examine the dynamic relationship between spirituality and personal resources from a conservation of resources perspective.
The conservation of resources (COR) theory is a broad motivational theory that holds significant explanatory power for the psychological study of religion and spirituality. The present study of 491 Australian vocational religious workers addresses relationships between spiritual variables and professional efficacy based on COR. Results from item level structural equation modeling using a full panel three-wave longitudinal design support COR tenets of gain spirals, loss spirals, and caravanning of resources. Specifically, a trimmed model representing reciprocal cross-lagged relationships among spiritual variables, and unidirectional relationships between spiritual variables and professional efficacy provided the best fit of the data. This is the first study to approach the dynamic relationships between predictors of growth and decline among individual dimensions of spirituality and personal resources from a COR perspective-a leading resource theory that has been successfully applied to numerous psychological domains.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available