Workplace Stress and Psychological Well-Being among Young Professionals
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63345/Keywords:
Workplace Stress, Psychological Well-Being, Young ProfessionalsAbstract
Workplace stress has become an increasingly important psychosocial concern as young professionals enter digitally intensive, performance-oriented, and rapidly changing work environments. This study examines the relationship between multidimensional workplace stress and psychological well-being while proposing a digital-health framework capable of identifying patterns associated with reduced well-being.
The central research gap concerns the limited integration of conventional occupational stress factors with technology-related demands, work–life boundary disruption, and machine-learning-based risk modelling specifically among early-career professionals.
The proposed framework conceptualizes workload pressure, role ambiguity, digital interruption, perceived job insecurity, and after-hours work connectivity as interacting occupational stressors rather than isolated predictors. Psychological well-being is treated as a multidimensional outcome involving positive functioning, emotional stability, perceived competence, and general mental well-being.
References
1. World Health Organization. (2022). Guidelines on mental health at work. Geneva: World Health Organization. ISBN 978-92-4-005305-2.
2. World Health Organization & International Labour Organization. (2022). Mental health at work: Policy brief. Geneva: World Health Organization. ISBN 978-92-4-005794-4.
3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General. (2022). The U.S. Surgeon General's Framework for Workplace Mental Health & Well-Being. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
4. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands–Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115.
5. Berger, M., Schäfer, R., Schmidt, M., Regal, C., & Gimpel, H. (2024). How to prevent technostress at the digital workplace: A Delphi study. Journal of Business Economics, 94, 1051–1113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-023-01159-3.
6. Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 204–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204.
7. Llosa, J. A., Menéndez-Espina, S., Agulló-Tomás, E., & Rodríguez-Suárez, J. (2018). Job insecurity and mental health: A meta-analytical review of the consequences of precarious work in clinical disorders. Anales de Psicología, 34(2), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.34.2.281651.
8. Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine Learning, 45, 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324.
9. Fisher, A., Rudin, C., & Dominici, F. (2019). All models are wrong, but many are useful: Learning a variable's importance by studying an entire class of prediction models simultaneously. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 20, 1–81.
10. World Health Organization. (2024). Mental health at work. World Health Organization.
11. World Health Organization. (2022). WHO guidelines on mental health at work: Executive summary. Geneva: World Health Organization.
12. World Health Organization. (2022). Healthy and safe telework: Technical brief. Geneva: World Health Organization.
13. Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285–308.
14. Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(1), 27–41.
15. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.
