Employee Wellbeing: Evaluating a Wellbeing Intervention in Two Settings.

Alexis Keeman, Katharina Näswall, Sanna Malinen, Joana Kuntz
Author Information
  1. Alexis Keeman: Department of Psychology, University of CanterburyChristchurch, New Zealand.
  2. Katharina Näswall: Department of Psychology, University of CanterburyChristchurch, New Zealand.
  3. Sanna Malinen: Department of Psychology, University of CanterburyChristchurch, New Zealand.
  4. Joana Kuntz: Department of Psychology, University of CanterburyChristchurch, New Zealand.

Abstract

This research presents two studies conducted to evaluate the Wellbeing Game in two different contexts: In a student sample and in an organizational setting. Study 1 investigated the efficacy of the Wellbeing Game, in terms of its effect of wellbeing, stress, and an image valence test, among 60 university students. The results showed that after playing the Wellbeing Game, students reported a significant positive change in wellbeing compared to those who did not play the Wellbeing Game, but there was no decrease in stress or any change in classification of image valence. Study 2 evaluated the Wellbeing Game in an organizational context. Employees ( = 52) in a financial organization played the Wellbeing Game for 4 weeks and answered survey questions about wellbeing and stress at the beginning and end of this period. The results showed that after playing the Wellbeing Game, employees reported lower stress levels, and higher wellbeing levels for those who felt that it had helped them connect more with colleagues. The results from the two studies provide preliminary support that the Wellbeing Game may be an effective wellbeing intervention tool in both an organization and a non-organizational context.

Keywords

References

  1. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Apr;84(4):822-48 [PMID: 12703651]
  2. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Aug;85(2):197-216 [PMID: 12916565]
  3. J Occup Health Psychol. 2016 Jan;21(1):3-23 [PMID: 25894198]
  4. J Appl Psychol. 2003 Feb;88(1):160-9 [PMID: 12675403]
  5. Psychol Sci. 2002 Mar;13(2):172-5 [PMID: 11934003]
  6. Psychol Sci. 2002 Jan;13(1):81-4 [PMID: 11894851]
  7. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005 Jun;73(3):539-48 [PMID: 15982151]
  8. J Occup Environ Med. 2015 Sep;57(9):973-83 [PMID: 26340286]
  9. J Clin Psychol. 2008 Jul;64(7):840-62 [PMID: 18484600]
  10. Health Promot J Austr. 2007 Dec;18(3):221-8 [PMID: 18201165]
  11. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009 Feb 19;7:15 [PMID: 19228398]
  12. Health Promot Int. 2006 Dec;21(4):346-53 [PMID: 16880197]
  13. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995 Oct;69(4):719-27 [PMID: 7473027]
  14. J Occup Environ Med. 2005 May;47(5):523-32 [PMID: 15891532]
  15. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:141-66 [PMID: 11148302]
  16. Psychol Bull. 2005 Nov;131(6):803-55 [PMID: 16351326]
  17. J R Soc Med. 2013 Mar;106(3):76-8 [PMID: 23481424]
  18. Am Psychol. 2001 Mar;56(3):218-26 [PMID: 11315248]
  19. Psychol Res. 2015 Sep;79(5):861-71 [PMID: 25217447]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0WellbeingGamewellbeingstudiesstresstworesultsorganizationalStudyimagevalencestudentsshowedplayingreportedchangecontextorganizationlevelsresearchpresentsconductedevaluatedifferentcontexts:studentsamplesetting1investigatedefficacytermseffecttestamong60universitysignificantpositivecomparedplaydecreaseclassification2evaluatedEmployees=52financialplayed4weeksansweredsurveyquestionsbeginningendperiodemployeeslowerhigherfelthelpedconnectcolleaguesprovidepreliminarysupportmayeffectiveinterventiontoolnon-organizationalEmployeeWellbeing:EvaluatingInterventionTwoSettingschangesexperimentallongitudinalFiveWays

Similar Articles

Cited By