Non-conformism as precursor for self-efficacy and well-being among schoolteachers in the Netherlands

The study addresses rising work pressure, burnout, and absenteeism among Dutch schoolteachers and their costs to schools and society. Drawing on Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theory, Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), and Self-Determination Theory (SDT), the authors focus on how self-efficacy and non-conformism relate to affective well-being (positive and negative emotions) and burnout (emotional exhaustion). They define non-conformity as behavior deviating from organizational norms to benefit the organization and argue that such behavior may enhance autonomy, a key determinant of well-being. The study aims to test a mediation model in which non-conformism is positively associated with self-efficacy and the links from non-conformism to burnout and affective well-being are fully mediated by self-efficacy, using a cross-sectional survey of 401 teachers in the Netherlands analyzed with SPSS and PROCESS.

Theoretical framing and hypotheses are grounded in:

• JD-R theory: Job demands and resources drive two processes—health impairment leading to burnout and motivational processes leading to engagement. A lack of resources and high demands increase burnout; autonomy, feedback, and social support are key resources.
• Burnout: Defined by exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy; emotional exhaustion is the primary component and the study’s operational indicator of burnout.
• Affective well-being: Well-being at work comprises emotions and moods; positive emotions relate to engagement, negative emotions to burnout. The study operationalizes affective well-being as positive and negative emotions.
• SCT and self-efficacy: Self-efficacy (belief in capabilities) is a personal resource linked to performance, engagement, well-being, and lower burnout.
• SDT and non-conformism: Autonomy and competence are fundamental needs. Non-conformity (including independence and anti-conformity) can signal autonomy and authenticity, potentially enhancing self-efficacy and well-being, but excessive conformity pressures may reduce engagement and innovation. Hypotheses: H1: Positive emotions negatively relate to emotional exhaustion. H2: Negative emotions positively relate to emotional exhaustion. H3: Self-efficacy positively relates to positive emotions. H4: Self-efficacy negatively relates to negative emotions. H5: Self-efficacy negatively relates to emotional exhaustion. H6: Non-conformism positively relates to self-efficacy. H7: Self-efficacy fully mediates the positive relationship between non-conformism and positive emotions. H8: Self-efficacy fully mediates the negative relationship between non-conformism and negative emotions. H9: Self-efficacy fully mediates the relationship between non-conformism and emotional exhaustion.

Design: Quantitative cross-sectional survey. Sample and procedure: N=401 Dutch schoolteachers completed an online questionnaire distributed via email using convenience and snowball sampling. Participation was voluntary with informed consent, anonymity, and secure data handling. Demographics: 84% women; age groups—Gen Y (19–33) 24.7%, Pragmatic (34–48) 42.9%, Gen X (49–63) 29.9%, Protest (>63) 2.5%. Highest education: secondary vocational 1.0%, Higher Professional Education (HBO) 85.53%, university 12.21%. Measures:

• Burnout (Emotional Exhaustion): UBOS-L (8 items), 7-point Likert 0=never to 6=always; Cronbach’s alpha=0.92.
• Affective well-being: Short JAWS with 6 positive and 6 negative emotions, 5-point Likert 1=never to 5=always; alphas: positive=0.90, negative=0.87, total=0.95.
• Self-efficacy: Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (10 items), 4-point Likert 1=completely false to 4=completely true; alpha=0.81.
• Non-conformism: Reversed 11-item conformity scale, 9-point Likert 0=strongly disagree to 9=strongly agree; alpha=0.91. Analysis: Descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, and multiple regressions using SPSS v25; mediation analyses with PROCESS v3.1. Control variables included gender, age, education level, years of experience, and school size.

Descriptives and correlations (selected):

• Positive emotions correlated negatively with emotional exhaustion (r = -0.61, p < 0.01) and with negative emotions (r = -0.56, p < 0.01).
• Negative emotions correlated positively with emotional exhaustion (r = 0.71, p < 0.01).
• Self-efficacy correlated positively with positive emotions (r = 0.41, p < 0.01) and negatively with negative emotions (r = -0.28, p < 0.01) and emotional exhaustion (r = -0.26, p < 0.01).
• Non-conformism correlated positively with self-efficacy (r = 0.28, p < 0.01) but was not significantly related to positive emotions, negative emotions, or emotional exhaustion. Regression and mediation:
• H6 supported: Non-conformism significantly predicted self-efficacy (B = 0.12, t = 4.78, p < 0.001), Model R2 = 0.10 (controls included).
• H3 supported: Self-efficacy predicted positive emotions (B = 0.71, p < 0.001), Model R2 = 0.19.
• H4 supported: Self-efficacy predicted negative emotions (B = -0.49, p < 0.001), Model R2 = 0.10.
• H5 supported: Self-efficacy predicted lower emotional exhaustion (B = -0.77, p < 0.001), Model R2 = 0.09.
• Indirect effects via self-efficacy were significant: non-conformism → self-efficacy → positive emotions (indirect effect = 0.09, BootLLCI 0.01, BootULCI 0.18); → negative emotions (indirect effect = -0.06, BootLLCI -0.10, BootULCI -0.03); → emotional exhaustion (indirect effect significant with BootLLCI -0.15, BootULCI -0.04). However, because direct paths from non-conformism to the outcomes were not significant, full mediation hypotheses (H7–H9) were not supported.
• H1 and H2 supported: Positive emotions negatively and negative emotions positively related to emotional exhaustion. Overall: Self-efficacy shows robust associations with higher affective well-being and lower burnout; non-conformism predicts self-efficacy but not directly emotions or exhaustion.

Findings confirm that teachers’ positive emotions are associated with lower emotional exhaustion and negative emotions with higher exhaustion, aligning with JD-R’s health impairment and motivational processes. Self-efficacy, consistent with SCT and its role as a personal resource within JD-R, is strongly linked to more positive and fewer negative emotions and lower emotional exhaustion. Non-conformism significantly predicts higher self-efficacy, suggesting non-conforming behavior may enhance perceived autonomy, authenticity, and control (per SDT), which in turn bolsters self-efficacy. Nonetheless, contrary to expectations, self-efficacy did not mediate links from non-conformism to affective well-being or exhaustion because non-conformism showed no direct relationships with those outcomes. The authors suggest measurement focus on perceived non-conformism, without considering others’ reactions or distinguishing independence vs. anti-conformity, may explain null direct effects. Theoretically, the results strengthen the integration of JD-R with SCT by highlighting self-efficacy’s central role in teachers’ affective states and burnout risk, and point to non-conformism as a potential personal resource that operates through self-efficacy rather than directly on well-being outcomes.

The study contributes evidence that teacher self-efficacy is a key determinant of affective well-being (more positive, fewer negative emotions) and lower burnout (emotional exhaustion). Non-conformism positively predicts self-efficacy, implying that enabling constructive non-conforming behavior may indirectly support well-being by strengthening self-efficacy. However, no direct effects of non-conformism on emotions or exhaustion were found, and hypothesized full mediation via self-efficacy was not supported. Practically, schools should foster environments balancing conformity with autonomy to enhance teachers’ self-efficacy and reduce burnout risk. Future research should employ longitudinal designs, incorporate perceptions of others and non-conformity subtypes, include broader sectors, and consider additional JD-R resources (e.g., social support) and refined burnout conceptualizations.

• Cross-sectional design prevents causal inference; longitudinal research is needed to test directionality and potential reverse causation among personal resources, demands, engagement, and burnout.
• Self-reported, single-source data may introduce common method bias despite anonymity and varied scales.
• Sector-specific sample (education) may limit generalizability to other occupations; replication in other sectors is recommended.
• Non-significant direct relationships between non-conformism and affective well-being/burnout may reflect measurement limitations (perceived non-conformism only; no distinction between independence vs. anti-conformity; lack of others’ perspectives).
• Conceptual and measurement issues around burnout and omission of social support within the JD-R variables may affect outcome interpretation.