Fear of Relationship Loss: Attachment Style as a Vulnerability Factor in Job Burnout

Andreja Pšeničny; Mitja Perat

doi:10.2478/sjph-2020-0019

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

Fear of Relationship Loss: Attachment Style as a Vulnerability Factor in Job Burnout

Slovenian Journal of Public Health

Volume 59 (2020): Issue 3 (September 2020)

By: Andreja Pšeničny and Mitja Perat

Open Access

|Jun 2020

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Burnout risk groups.

Burnout risk	Performance-based self-esteem and/or workaholism

	Low	High
Low	Relaxed	Challenged
High	Wornout	Burnout

Table 2

Descriptive statistics for the testing results (mean scores and standard deviations).

Variable	M	SD
Burnout (ABSRa)	0.65	0.72
Performance-based self-esteem (PBS)	34.21	14.09
Workaholism (WORKHL)	56.59	17.98
Secure style (SEC-AS)	4.12	2.19
Preoccupied style (PRE-AS)	3.29	2.05
Avoidant style (AVO-AS)	3.63	2.24
Dismissing style (DIS-AS)	3.59	2.01

Table 3

Frequencies, descriptive statistics and differences in test scores by category “low level” and “high level” for burnout, performance-based self-esteem and workaholism.

		N	M	SD	t	*t-test df*	p
ABSCat	Low	1,130	0.06	0.11	−66.19	1778.04	0.00^**
ABSCat	High	1,190	1.22	0.58
PBSCat	Low	431	1.69	0.41	−60.15	120.50	0.00^**
PBSCat	High	2,694	3.74	0.66
WORKCat	Low	335	37.84	7.28	−41.21	133.521	0.00^**
WORKCat	High	1,225	67.85	12.77

** Statistically significant difference p<0.01

Notes: ABSCat=adrenal burnout syndrome categories; PBSCat=performance-based self-esteem categories; WORKCat=workaholism categories

Table 4

Descriptive statistics (mean scores and standard deviations) for performance-based self-esteem, workaholism and burnout by burnout risk group (ABSRi), and the results of the one-way analysis of variance.

		M	M	*F df(3.3389)*	p
Performance-based self-esteem	Relaxed	19.16	5.60	1,489.78	0.00^**
	Challenged	41.55	10.50
	Wornout	20.49	4.47
	Burnout	43.82	9.11

Workaholism	Relaxed	39.24	8.91	712.45	0.00^**
	Challenged	63.37	17.46
	Wornout	44.50	7.22
	Burnout	67.47	13.75

Burnout	Relaxed	.03	.08	1,686.04	0.00^**
	Challenged	.03	.02
	Wornout	.81	.29
	Burnout	1.29	.60

** Statistically significant difference p<0.01

Table 5

Participant classification into burnout risk groups (ABSRi variable).

	*Low ABSCat*	*High ABSCat*
Low PBSCat and WORKCa	Relaxed	Wornout
Low PBSCat and WORKCa	832 (35.9%)	328 (14.1%)
High PBSCat and WORKCat	Challenged	Burnout
High PBSCat and WORKCat	258 (11.1%)	902 (38.9%)

[i] Notes: ABSCat=adrenal burnout syndrome categories; PBSCat=performance-based self-esteem categories; WORKCat=workaholism categories

Comparison of attachment style mean scores (secure, preoccupied, avoidant and dismissing) between burnout risk groups (relaxed, challenged, wornout and burnout).

Table 6

Summary of one-way repeated measures analysis of variance: attachment style mean score (ASTYLES variable) by group (relaxed, challenged, wornout and burnout; (ABSRi variable).

Variability source	SS	df	MS	F	p
Between individuals
Cross section	464.632	3	154.877	56.215	0.00^**
Error	6,380.744	2,316	2.755
Within individuals
ASTYLES	1,482.684	2.627	564.354	108.028	0.00^**
*ASTYLESABSRi**	3321.341	7.882	421.400	80.664	0.00^**
Error	31,787.110	6,084.654	5.224

** Statistically significant difference p<0.01

Table 7

Comparison of the percentage of participants with secure and insecure attachment styles (ASTYLES variable) between burnout risk groups (ABSRi variable).

			Attachment styles (ASTYLES)

			Secure	Preoccupied	Avoidant	Dismissing
Burnout risk groups	Relaxed	N	446	56	34	296
	Relaxed	%	53.6%	6.7%	4.1%	35.6%
	Challenged	N	53	49	102	54
	Challenged	%	20.5%	19.0%	39.5%	20.9%
	Wornout	N	193	48	15	72
	Wornout	%	58.8%	14.6%	4.6%	22.0%
	Burnout	N	30	295	488	89
	Burnout	%	3.3%	32.7%	54.1%	9.9%

[i] Note: No cells (0.0%) have an expected number below 5. The minimum expected number is 49.82

Table 8

Testing the equality of centroids by burnout class (ABSCl).

Functions tested	*Wilks’s lambda*	χ²	df	p
1 / 3	0.12	4,921.07	12	0.00^**
2 / 3	0.80	507.64	6	0.00^**
3	0.95	11.53	2	0.00^**

** Statistically significant difference p<0.01

Table 9

Relative influence of predictors on the functions’ values (standardised coefficients) and the correlation between the “ASTYLES” variables and functions (structural matrix).

	*Standardised coefficientsFunctions*			*Structural matrixFunctions*

	1	2	3	1	2	3
Secure style	−0.42	−0.92	0.15	−0.38	0.92^*	−0.05
Preoccupied style	0.88	0.35	−0.61	0.34	0.31	−0.85^*
Avoidant style	0.94	0.40	0.47	0.57	0.12	0.78^*
Dismissing style	−0.03	0.06	0.27	−0.00	−0.01	0.41^*

* Maximum absolute correlations between each variable and individual discriminant function

Table 10

Percentages of appropriately classified members of individual burnout risk groups.

		*Predicted group members*

		*Relaxed*	*Challenged*	*Wornout*	*Burnout*
Original group members	Relaxed	86.3%	4.1%	9.6%	0.0
	Challenged	0.0	91.1%	8.9%	0.0
	Wornout	0.0	10.7%	89.3%	0.0
	Burnout	0.0	15.9%	2.7%	81.5%

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sjph-2020-0019 | Journal eISSN: 1854-2476 | Journal ISSN: 0351-0026

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English, Slovenian

Page range: 146 - 154

Submitted on: Feb 11, 2020

Accepted on: May 19, 2020

Published on: Jun 25, 2020

Published by: National Institute of Public Health, Slovenia

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

burnout,

wornout,

performance-based self-esteem,

Related subjects:

Hygiene and environmental medicine

© 2020 Andreja Pšeničny, Mitja Perat, published by National Institute of Public Health, Slovenia
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 59 (2020): Issue 3 (September 2020)

Fear of Relationship Loss: Attachment Style as a Vulnerability Factor in Job Burnout

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Figure 1

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Paradigm

My account