Search results

This chapter describes methodological issues that are relevant for research on recovery. We aim to provide an overview of methodological approaches that have been or can be used in recovery research, and to provide methodological guidelines that researchers may use in assessing the process of recovery. We argue that studies on recovery must be explicit about recovery settings, recovery processes (i.e., activities and experiences) and recovery outcomes. We describe typical operationalizations of these three perspectives and focus in more detail on potential measures of recovery outcomes. We give an overview of research designs including experiments and quasi-experiments, diary studies, and longitudinal field studies. We conclude by pointing to remaining challenges for researchers in the area of recovery.

For decades research on occupational stress and well-being has been dominated by studies that demonstrated the negative effects of job stressors and lack of resources on employee health and well-being. Although this body of research is highly important and informative, it offers only limited insight into the processes that offset and “undo” the stress process. During recent years, researchers have paid increasing attention to such processes that reduce and reverse the effects of stress (i.e., recovery processes). This 7th volume of Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being is devoted to this growing research area on job stress recovery. The volume includes seven excellent chapters that provide state-of-the-art overviews on this theme, identify research gaps, and provide inspiring suggestions for further research.

The purpose of the paper is to understand the detrimental effects of vocational delay of gratification (VDG) based on the ego-depletion perspective and to explore the specific mechanism in this dynamic process.

The study used experience sampling to survey 89 employees at 3 time points within each day over 10 days and built a 4-stage sequential mediation model.

Results revealed that, at the daily level, afternoon VDG had a positive effect on end-of-day work–family conflict through afternoon ego depletion. The work–family conflict continued the state of ego depletion to the next morning and led to poor job dedication the next morning.

The findings suggest organizations and employees should consider not only the benefits of delay of gratification (DG) but the costs as well.

The current study is the first to investigate a dark side of VDG and to explore its underlying mechanism.

The aim of this chapter is to provide a literature review on daily recovery during non-work time. Specifically, next to discussing theories that help us understand the process of recovery, we will clarify how recovery and its potential outcomes have been conceptualized so far. Consequently, we present empirical findings of diary studies addressing the activities that may facilitate or hinder daily recovery. We will pay special attention to potential mechanisms that may underlie the facilitating or hindering processes. Owing to the limited research on daily recovery, we will review empirical findings on predictors and outcomes of a related construct, namely need for recovery. We conclude with an overall framework from which daily recovery during non-work time can be understood. In this framework, we claim that daily recovery is an important moderator in the process through which job characteristics and their related strain may lead to unfavorable states on a daily basis.

Drawing from research on personal resources (e.g., Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998; Fredrickson, 1998) and the episodic nature of work (Beal, Weiss, Barros, & MacDermid, 2005), we examine research and theory relevant to the study of momentary recovery in the workplace. Specifically, we propose that the nature of within workday breaks influences the levels of psychological resources, which in turn influence various workplace outcomes. First, we discuss the momentary approach to studying workplace breaks and consequent resource levels. In doing so, we distinguish between two types of breaks, respites and chores; and we detail two types of psychological resources, regulatory and affective resources. Consequences of psychological resource levels on emotional exhaustion and performance are considered. We also explore possible moderators of the proposed relationships; we discuss job and individual characteristics, and motivation to perform. Finally, we conclude the chapter with a brief discussion on future research and possible applications of the momentary approach to work recovery in organizations.

Recovery seems to be one of the most important mechanisms explaining the relationship between acute stress reactions and chronic health complaints (Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006). Moreover, insufficient recovery may be the linking mechanism that turns daily stress experiences into chronic stress. Given this role recovery has in the stress process, it is important to ask in which contexts and under what circumstances recovery takes place.

Torbjörn Åkerstedt, Ph.D. in psychology, 1979, is professor of behavioral physiology at Stockholm University and director of the Stress Research Institute, affiliated to Karolinska institute. He has been President of the Scandinavian Research Society, the European Sleep Research Society, and Secretary General of the World Federation of Sleep Research and Sleep Medicine Societies. He has published more than 200 papers in peer-reviewed journals. The focus of his work has been on sleep regulation, sleep quality, sleepiness and risk, effects of shift work, and stress on sleep and sleepiness.

The purpose of this study is to address the relation between task and relationship conflicts at work and employee well‐being. It seeks to examine psychological detachment from work during off‐job time as a moderator in the relation between conflicts and well‐being.

In a field study, 291 white‐collar employees completed survey measures of task conflicts, relationship conflicts, psychological detachment from work during off‐job time, and well‐being. Control variables included workload and job control.

Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that employees experiencing high levels of task conflicts and high levels of relationship conflicts report poorer well‐being. As predicted, psychological detachment from work mitigated the negative relation between relationship conflicts and well‐being. Contrary to expectations, psychological detachment failed to moderate the relation between task conflicts and well‐being.

The study suggests that employees should be encouraged to disengage mentally from work during leisure time.

This study links research on workplace conflicts with research on recovery processes. It tests the moderator effect of psychological detachment from work on the association between workplace conflicts and well‐being.