Staying Engaged During the Week: The Effect of Off-Job Activities on Next Day Work Engagement

Abstract

Although studies on employee recovery accumulate at a stunning pace, the commonly used theory (Effort-Recovery model) that explains how recovery occurs has not been explicitly tested. We aimed to unravel the recovery process by examining whether off-job activities enhance next morning vigor to the extent that they enable employees to relax and detach from work. In addition, we investigated whether adequate recovery also helps employees to work with more enthusiasm and vigor on the next workday. On five consecutive days, a total of 74 employees (356 data points) reported the hours they spent on various off-job activities, their feelings of psychological detachment, and feelings of relaxation before going to sleep. Feelings of vigor were reported on the next morning, and day-levels of work engagement were reported after work. As predicted, leisure activities (social, low-effort, and physical activities) increased next morning vigor through enhanced psychological detachment and relaxation. High-duty off-job activities (work and household tasks) reduced vigor because these activities diminished psychological detachment and relaxation. Moreover, off-job activities significantly affected next day work engagement. Our results support the assumption that recovery occurs when employees engage in off-job activities that allow for relaxation and psychological detachment. The findings also underscore the significance of recovery after work: Adequate recovery not only enhances vigor in the morning, but also helps employees to stay engaged during the next workday. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).

Full text

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
Staying Engaged During the Week: The Effect of Off-Job
Activities on Next Day Work Engagement
Lieke L. ten Brummelhuis and Arnold B. Bakker
Online First Publication, July 16, 2012. doi: 10.1037/a0029213
CITATION
ten Brummelhuis, L. L., & Bakker, A. B. (2012, July 16). Staying Engaged During the Week:
The Effect of Off-Job Activities on Next Day Work Engagement. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0029213

Staying Engaged During the Week:
The Effect of Off-Job Activities on Next Day Work Engagement
Lieke L. ten Brummelhuis
Erasmus University Rotterdam/University of Pennsylvania
Arnold B. Bakker
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Although studies on employee recovery accumulate at a stunning pace, the commonly used theory
(Effort-Recovery model) that explains how recovery occurs has not been explicitly tested. We aimed to
unravel the recovery process by examining whether off-job activities enhance next morning vigor to the
extent that they enable employees to relax and detach from work. In addition, we investigated whether
adequate recovery also helps employees to work with more enthusiasm and vigor on the next workday.
On five consecutive days, a total of 74 employees (356 data points) reported the hours they spent on
various off-job activities, their feelings of psychological detachment, and feelings of relaxation before
going to sleep. Feelings of vigor were reported on the next morning, and day-levels of work engagement
were reported after work. As predicted, leisure activities (social, low-effort, and physical activities)
increased next morning vigor through enhanced psychological detachment and relaxation. High-duty
off-job activities (work and household tasks) reduced vigor because these activities diminished psycho-
logical detachment and relaxation. Moreover, off-job activities significantly affected next day work
engagement. Our results support the assumption that recovery occurs when employees engage in off-job
activities that allow for relaxation and psychological detachment. The findings also underscore the
significance of recovery after work: Adequate recovery not only enhances vigor in the morning, but also
helps employees to stay engaged during the next workday.
Keywords: leisure time activities, psychological detachment, recovery, relaxation, work engagement
Changes on and beyond the work floor have increased the
demands that are placed on employees (Halbesleben & Buckley,
2004). Nowadays, employees often need to deal with a heavy
workload and a considerable number of family tasks (Weer,
Greenhaus, & Linnehan, 2010). While juggling multiple demands,
employees may feel overburdened and risk losing motivation and
passion for their work (Peeters, Montgomery, Bakker, &
Schaufeli, 2005). Therefore, it is important that employees recover
after a workday (Sonnentag, 2001). Recovery from work refers to
the process during which an employee replenishes used personal
resources such as physical energy and attentive focus (Kaplan,
1995). The employee’s functioning then returns to the prestressor
level and further strain is reduced. This recovery process prevents
exhaustion and enables employees to reload for the next working
day (Meijman & Mulder, 1998).
Although our knowledge about recovery after work is accumu-
lating at a stunning pace, three questions have thus far remained
unanswered. First, the theoretical assumptions as to why some
off-job activities lead to recovery while others do not have not yet
been explicitly tested. Most commonly, recovery studies build on
the Effort-Recovery model (Meijman & Mulder, 1998), which
proposes that off-job activities contribute to recovery to the extent
that those activities enable employees to replenish personal re-
sources. The relationship between off-job activities and recovery is
described as a mediated process: Off-job activities lead to recovery
through relaxation and psychological detachment from work dur-
ing off-job time (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2006). Previous studies have
confirmed parts of this recovery process. Mostly, the direct effect
of off-job activities on recovery (x3y) has been investigated. For
instance, working during off-job time has been found to impede
recovery, while exercising fosters recovery (Bakker, Demerouti,
Oerlemans, & Sonnentag, in press; Rook & Zijlstra, 2006; Son-
nentag, 2001). Unfortunately, those studies do not reveal why
high-duty activities impede recovery while leisure activities foster
recovery. Support for the second part of the process (m3y) is also
abundant. Several studies have for instance shown that psycholog-
ical detachment and relaxation after work enhance morning recov-
ery (e.g., Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, 2008; Sonnentag, Kut-
tler, & Fritz, 2010). However, those studies do not reveal which
off-job activities enable psychological detachment and recovery.
In other words, previous research has tested the Effort-Recovery
model (Meijman & Mulder, 1998) in a piecemeal manner. The
complete relationship chain of the recovery process, whereby
off-job activities (the predictors) are first related to psychological
detachment and relaxation (the mediators), and then to recovery
(the outcome) has not been tested. Our first aim is to integrate
previous studies on the recovery process by examining this full
mediation process (x3m3y). In line with previous studies, we
Lieke L. ten Brummelhuis, Department of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands/
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania; Arnold B. Bakker, Depart-
ment of Work and Organizational Psychology, Erasmus University Rot-
terdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
We thank Senem Babacan for her excellent and thorough help with the
data collection.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lieke L.
ten Brummelhuis, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 3620
Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104. E-mail: lieke@wharton.upenn.edu
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology © 2012 American Psychological Association
2012, Vol. 00, No. 00, 000– 000 1076-8998/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0029213
1

categorize off-job activities into leisure activities, such as reading
a book, exercising, and having dinner with friends, and high-duty
activities, such as completing household chores, care tasks, and
work-related tasks (Demerouti, Bakker, Geurts, & Taris, 2009;
Sonnentag, 2001). This enables us to empirically test the common
implicit assumption that leisure off-job activities lead to recovery
because they allow for relaxation and psychological detachment,
while high-duty tasks diminish recovery because they impede
relaxation and detachment.
Second, the recovery literature has mainly focused on the res-
toration process, whereby employees cope with stress by replen-
ishing used personal resources (Meijman & Mulder, 1998). Re-
covery, in other words, is considered to be a coping strategy for
dealing with or preventing work exhaustion. From an expansion
perspective, however, one could argue that off-job time also offers
the opportunity to collect resources (Hobfoll, 2002). Engaging in
off-job activities then not only restores used personal resources but
may also increase one’s personal resource reservoir and boost
motivation for work. In line with this expansion perspective, we
use vigor in the morning as an indicator of state recovery. Vigor
refers to high levels of energy, resilience and motivation to under-
take activities (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, & 2006) and is
distinct from feeling recovered in the morning because it is an
active and energetic state (Russell, 2003), reflecting a surplus of
personal resources, rather than the mere replenishment of personal
resources (Binnewies, Sonnentag, & Mojza, 2010). Adopting an
expansion perspective on the recovery process, we test whether
off-job activities can be used to start a new workday in a state of
abundance of energy and motivation.
Third, we address the question whether this energized state in
the morning is strong enough to last at work, boosting work
engagement throughout the day. Previous studies that focused on
the recovery potential of weekends and vacations (e.g., Fritz &
Sonnentag, 2006; Ku¨hnel, Sonnentag, & Westman, 2009) revealed
that adequate recovery during short respites benefits work engage-
ment. We use a diary study design, testing within-person, between-
day differences. This design enables us to examine whether ben-
eficial effects for work engagement also hold for daily recovery
during the workweek and, if so, which off-job activities contribute
to and which ones impede next day work engagement.
Theoretical Framework
Recovery Models
The process of recovery from work is commonly explained by
resource theories such as the Effort-Recovery (ER) model (Meij-
man & Mulder, 1998) and Conservation of Resources (COR)
theory (Hobfoll, 1989). The general assumption of these theories is
that employees have a certain supply of personal resources. Per-
sonal resources are personal traits and energies that are instrumen-
tal for achieving goals during the workday (Hobfoll, 2002), in-
cluding cognitive resources (e.g., directed attention), physical
energy (e.g., positive-activated affect, health), and emotional en-
ergy (e.g., mental resilience). At the end of the workday, those
resources may be depleted (Meijman & Mulder, 1998). Recovery
after work is then necessary, and can be achieved in several ways.
First, recovery can occur when stressors cease and employees
refrain from using the same types of personal resources as used at
work. In contrast, when job demands (e.g., a heavy workload)
continue for a longer period of time, employees risk ending up in
a downward spiral whereby job demands accumulate (because one
is unable to effectively deal with job demands), and personal
resources further deplete (ten Brummelhuis, Ter Hoeven, Bakker,
& Peper, 2011). Second, off-job activities may contribute to re-
covery if they allow for replenishment of used personal resources.
For example, employees can take the time to rest after work,
allowing for the restoration of used physical and cognitive re-
sources (Kaplan, 1995).
The ER model and the earlier version of COR theory (Hobfoll,
1989) can be labeled as stress models. Both models aim to explain
human responses to stressors, and how certain coping strategies
may reduce strain caused by stressors. Later on, Hobfoll (2002)
extended the COR theory and used its original insights for a more
general theory on human development. The novel idea was that
resources appear to come in resource caravans: once obtained,
resources can generate new resources (Hobfoll, 2002). Hobfoll
argued that individuals who possess resources (e.g., knowledge,
resilience, and self-esteem) are better equipped to handle stressful
circumstances and are more likely to avoid problematic situations.
This allows them to invest in further resources instead of in
preventing resource loss. In addition, the influence of resources
tends to hold across time and different circumstances, enabling
individual to use resources multiple times. Finally, resources are
valued in their own right; the mere fact of possessing resources
makes people happier (Hobfoll, 2002). The idea of resource car-
avans is helpful for understanding how employees may use their
off-job time to prepare for the next workday. Employees may not
only use their leisure time for dealing with stressors (and prevent
stress accumulation), but also for seeking distraction and relax-
ation that allows them to start the next workday with a surplus of
personal resources (Ku¨hnel et al., 2009). Using these insights, we
examine whether employees use off-job activities to gain physical
and emotional energy for work, as reflected in high levels of
morning vigor.
Recovery Mechanisms
The ER model and COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989) provide two
specific explanations of why certain off-job activities contribute to
recovery while others do not. First, both models suggest that
recovery is most likely when stressors stop and no further calls are
made upon the personal resource supply that is used for work. This
can be established by distancing oneself both physically and men-
tally from work (Kaplan, 1995). Previous studies have underscored
the importance of psychological detachment from work, referred to
as an “individual’s sense of being away from the work situation”
(Etzion, Eden, & Lapidot, 1998, p. 579), for employee well-being
(for an overview, see Demerouti et al., 2009). For instance, em-
ployees who were better able to detach from work when they were
at home experienced more positive affect and lower fatigue at
bedtime (Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005). Based on the assumptions of
the ER model and COR theory, we suggest that psychological
detachment mediates the effect of off-job activities on vigor in the
morning.
We expect that work-related tasks (e.g., working overtime,
administrative tasks) and household tasks will impede detachment
from work. By doing work-related tasks, work stressors are still
2TEN BRUMMELHUIS AND BAKKER

present and one is still occupied with work (Sonnentag & Bayer,
2005). Family responsibilities may impede detachment from work
because these tasks have a certain level of obligation and keep
employees in a work-modus. Kaplan (1995) explained that detach-
ment from work is most likely when one engages in fascinating
activities, referring to activities in which one easily engrossed
because the activity is interesting in itself. Although employees
may rate some family responsibilities as more enjoyable than
others, various family tasks (e.g., cleaning, picking children up
from school) may be perceived as routine tasks that are not highly
enjoyable (Hochschild, 1997; Poortman & Van der Lippe, 2009).
Employees then may still have intruding thoughts about work
while performing family tasks.
Leisure activities (social, low-effort, physical activities) can be
seen as meaningful and fascinating activities that give employees
the experience of being away from work (Kaplan, 1995). For
example, while watching TV one can feel being part of another
world, forgetting about work (Press, 1991). Exercising (e.g., out-
door running) and meeting with friends also provides the oppor-
tunity to stop intrusive thoughts and switch off one’s attention
from work-related matters (Cropley & Millward, 2009; Kaplan,
1995). Leisure activities, then, are expected to enable employees to
detach from work, contributing vigor in the morning.
Hypothesis 1a: Daily work-related, household, and childcare
off-job activities will be negatively related to next morning
vigor through diminished psychological detachment.
Hypothesis 1b: Daily social, low-effort, and physical off-job
activities will be positively related to next morning vigor
through increased psychological detachment.
The ER model and COR theory further assume that recovery
occurs when employees can reload their depleted personal re-
sources after work. Reloading is particularly established by relax-
ation, referring to a state in which a minimum of personal re-
sources are used (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2006). There is ample
empirical support for the positive relationship between relaxation
after work and employee well-being (for an overview, see Demer-
outi et al., 2009). For instance, using cross-sectional data, Son-
nentag and Fritz (2007) found that relaxation was negatively
correlated to health complaints, exhaustion, sleeping problems,
and need for recovery. Thus, we assume that relaxation is the
second mediating mechanism explaining why off-job activities
contribute to recovery.
Because high-duty tasks require effort and deplete personal
resources such as emotional and physical energy, we expect them
to be negatively related to relaxation. Various studies have shown
that working after work hours (Sonnentag, 2001; Sonnentag &
Natter, 2004), doing household chores (ten Brummelhuis, Van der
Lippe, & Kluwer, 2010b), and also care for children (ten Brum-
melhuis, Haar, & Van der Lippe, 2010a) increases fatigue, stress,
and feelings of time pressure. Leisure activities, such as having
dinner with friends, watching TV, and meditation are expected to
increase feelings of relaxation (Sonnentag, 2001). Leisure activi-
ties require low self-regulation, enabling employees to replenish
and gain personal resources instead of further depleting them
(Baumeister, Muraven, & Tice, 2000). Even physical activities,
which may induce an active psychological state of mind immedi-
ately afterward (Reed & Ones, 2006), have been found to contrib-
ute to feelings of tranquility and calmness during the night (Bodin
& Hartig, 2003; Sonnentag, 2001). Moreover, leisure activities are
more voluntary and less compelling than some other off-job ac-
tivities (e.g., childcare). While one can choose not to exercise, this
is less true for taking care of children, such as feeding a baby or
taking a child to a soccer game (ten Brummelhuis et al., 2010b).
Assuming that leisure activities are perceived as less obligatory,
those activities are more likely to induce feelings of relaxation
(Vallerand, 2007).
Hypothesis 2a: Daily work-related, household, and childcare
off-job activities will be negatively related to next morning
vigor through diminished relaxation.
Hypothesis 2b: Daily social, low-effort, and physical off-job
activities will be positively related to next morning vigor
through increased relaxation.
Recovery and Engagement at Work
Work engagement is an active and positive work-related state
that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption
(Schaufeli et al., 2006). Dedication is characterized by being
strongly involved in one’s work and experiencing a sense of
significance and enthusiasm. Absorption is the state of being fully
concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work (Bakker, 2011).
Engaged employees have high levels of energy and are enthusias-
tically involved in their work. Moreover, they are often fully
immersed in their work so that time flies (May, Gilson, & Harter,
2004). Work engagement is beneficial for both the individual and
the organization and has been related to several positive work
outcomes, including task performance, organizational citizenship
behavior, and customer satisfaction (Bakker, Demerouti, & Ver-
beke, 2004; Salanova, Agut, & Peiro, 2005).
Several theoretical arguments can be given for the hypothesis
that feeling vigorous in the morning fosters engagement at work.
According to COR theory (Hobfoll, 2002), individuals who pos-
sess personal resources (e.g., physical energy, directed attention,
and resilience) are better equipped to handle stressful circum-
stances, more likely to avoid problematic situations, and less
negatively affected when they need to expend effort because they
are able to draw on substitute resources (Hobfoll, 2002). This
implies that employees who feel optimistic and full of energy in
the morning are better able to cope with stressors at work, maintain
a vigorous work style, and have resilience to stay absorbed in work
tasks even when facing difficulties (Hobfoll, Johnson, Ennis, &
Jackson, 2003; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli,
2009). Vigor is also a positive emotion that, according to Broaden-
and-Build theory (Fredrickson, 2001), helps individuals be more
sensitive to opportunities at work and fosters a more proactive
work style. Finally, mood-spillover theory suggests that posi-
tive emotions have the tendency to persist across domains because
information is evaluated more positively and optimistically when
individuals are in a positive mood (Rusting & DeHart, 2003).
Thus, we expect that employees who feel vigorous in the morning
because of the activities they have undertaken in their leisure time
have more personal resources. They bring these personal resources
to work, which results in a happy, vigorous, and dedicated work
style during the workday.
3
STAYING ENGAGED DURING THE WEEK

Hypothesis 3a: Daily work-related, household, and childcare
off-job activities will be negatively related to next day work
engagement through reduced vigor in the morning.
Hypothesis 3b: Daily social, low-effort, and physical off-job
activities will be positively related to next day work engage-
ment through increased vigor in the morning.
Method
Sample and Procedure
This study was conducted among nurses from several health
institutions in the Netherlands. One-hundred randomly selected
employees were informed about the study via their managers.
Managers only approached nurses working during regular daytime
hours (excluding the night shift). Of these employees, 74 agreed to
participate (response rate 74%). In the week before the study,
employees were informed in person by the research coordinator
about the aim and the procedure of the upcoming survey. We
consulted the managers about the research design that would be
most practical and effective in this particular work setting. Ac-
cordingly, we chose for a paper version because the nurse occu-
pation does not entail frequent Internet use, and nurses are much
more familiar with keeping records on paper. On Monday morn-
ing, the respondents completed a general questionnaire that in-
cluded questions about demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gen-
der) and the trait variable of work engagement. In the afternoon,
after work (T0), employees completed the first diary questionnaire,
reporting work engagement experienced during the workday. On
Monday night, before going to sleep (T1), respondents completed
the second diary questionnaire, including daily measures of time
spent on off-job activities, feelings of psychological detachment,
and relaxation. All questions referred to the day that had just
finished. The third diary questionnaire was completed on Tuesday
morning (T2), reporting current feelings of recovery. T3 of the
model refers to the work engagement measurement of the workday
after the morning recovery measurement, in this example on Tues-
day after work. All three questionnaires (morning, afternoon, and
night) were repeated Tuesday through Friday (5 days). Respon-
dents reported the time at the start of each questionnaire, allowing
us to check whether they used the correct time slot for each
measurement. A research assistant on location reminded the re-
spondents twice a day (when arriving at work and while leaving
work) to fill in the diary. Fourteen employees worked on only four
of the weekdays, resulting in a total of 356 cases.
Eighty-two percent of the respondents were female and the
mean age of our sample was 32.36 years (SD ⫽5.38; range 22 to
48 years). The average amount of job experience was 10.85 years
(SD ⫽5.93). Most employees (82.4%) had a full-time contract
(⬎36 hr). The mean contractual weekly working hours were 37.57
(SD ⫽3.43). The majority (79.7%) of the respondents had lower
vocational education, while 20.3% of the respondents had a col-
lege degree. About half of the employees had a partner (56.7%),
and 60.8% of the respondents had children living at home.
Diary Measures
Work engagement. Daily work engagement was assessed
immediately after work with the daily 9-item version of the
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli et al., 2006),
which has been previously validated (Breevaart, Bakker, Demer-
outi, & Hetland, 2012). Example items are: “Today at my job I felt
strong and vigorous,” “Today, I was enthusiastic about my job,”
and “Today, I was immersed in my work.” All items were scored
on a 7-point rating scale ranging from 0 (never)to6(always).
Cronbach’s alpha varied over the 5 days between .87 and .90
(M⫽.89).
Morning vigor. We measured daily vigor in the morning
with a subdimension of the state, context-free version of the work
engagement scale (Schaufeli et al., 2006). Example items are:
“Right now, I feel strong and vigorous,” “Right now, I am enthu-
siastic,” and “Right now, I am inspired by the activities I am going
to undertake” (0 ⫽totally disagree,6⫽totally agree). Cronbach’s
alpha varied between .87 and .95 (M⫽.91), indicating good
reliabilities.
Off-job activities. Off-job activities were measured as the
daily time spent on various activities. We offered short descrip-
tions of six activity categories and a list of prototypical activities
within each category, which is common in recovery research (e.g.,
Sonnentag, 2001; Sonnentag & Natter, 2004). The six activities
within each category were: (a) work-related tasks, (b) household
tasks, (c) childcare tasks, (d) social activities, (e) low-effort activ-
ities, and (f) physical activities. Each day before going to sleep,
participants reported how much time in hours and minutes they
spent on activities within each category. Table 1 provides an
overview of the off-job activities, including several examples of
each activity.
Recovery mechanisms. The recovery mechanisms were
measured using the recovery experiences measures from Son-
nentag and Fritz (2007). The scale contains the subscales for
psychological detachment and relaxation, each of which contains
four items. The scales were adjusted for daily measurement by
Table 1
Overview of Off-Job Activities
Category Activity Examples
High-duty Work related tasks Administrative tasks, preparing for work, making the department’s time-table
Household tasks Cleaning, cooking, buying groceries
Childcare tasks Dressing children, bringing/picking up children
Leisure activities Social activities Visiting family, having dinner with friends, phone calls to catch up with family/friends
Low effort activities Reading a book, watching TV, sitting on the couch
Physical activities Sports, dancing, cycling, going for a hike/stroll
4TEN BRUMMELHUIS AND BAKKER

adding “Today in my free time after work . . .” Example items for
psychological detachment were: “I was able to distance myself
from my work” and “I could detach from my responsibilities”
(Cronbach’s ␣⫽.82; range .80 to .83). Relaxation included items
such as “I sat back and relaxed” (Cronbach’s ␣⫽.91; range .83 to
.94). All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from
1(totally disagree)to5(totally agree). An Exploratory Factor
Analyses showed the two factor structure in our data (Eigenvalue
⬎1).
General Measures
Controls. Trait work engagement was asked in the general
questionnaire, preceding the diary study to control for the fact that
some individuals may be more engaged at work than others in
general (Breevaart et al., 2012). We used the 9-item version of the
UWES (Schaufeli et al., 2006). Example items are: “At my job I
feel strong and vigorous,” “I am enthusiastic about my job,” and “I
find my work inspiring.” All items were scored on a 7-point rating
scale ranging from 0 (never)to6(always). Cronbach’s alpha was
.79. We included sex (coded as 0 ⫽male, 1 ⫽female), age (in
years), weekly work hours, and number of children living at home
as demographic control variables in the analyses. We took into
account T0 work exhaustion and work engagement of the same
day as the off-job activities, because daily work attitudes may
influence which off-job activities employees engage in (Son-
nentag, 2001). Daily work related exhaustion was measured with
a shortened subscale of Maslach Burnout Inventory–General Sur-
vey (Schaufeli, Maslach, Leiter, & Jackson, 1996). The scale
consisted of three items, such as “Today, I felt emotionally drained
because of my work.” Cronbach’s alpha varied between days from
.81 to .92 (M⫽.89). The control measure of daily work engage-
ment (as described above) concerns engagement experienced at
work before engaging in off-job activities.
Analysis
Our repeated measures data can be viewed as multilevel data,
with daily measurements nested within individuals. This leads
to a two-level model with days at the first-level (n⫽356 study
occasions) and the individual persons at the second-level (n⫽
74 participants). Multilevel analysis with the MLwiN program
(Rashbash, Browne, Healy, Cameron, & Charlton, 2000) was
applied. Predictor variables at the day-level (Level 1, e.g.,
relaxation) were centered to the individual mean, while person-
level (Level 2) predictor variables (e.g., age) were centered to
the grand mean.
To test mediated relationship in multilevel models, we followed
the Monte Carlo Method for assessing mediation as described by
Bauer, Preacher, and Gil (2006). For each mediated effect we
calculated the distribution of the specific mediation effect using
the estimate and the standard error of the effect of the predictor (x)
on the mediator (m), as well as the estimate and the standard error
of mon the outcome variable (y). The 0 hypothesis that mdoes not
significantly mediate the relationship between xand yis rejected
when the distribution of possible estimates for mlies above or
below zero.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Table 2 presents the means, SDs, and correlations among the
study variables. To examine the proportion of variance that is
attributed to the different levels of analysis, we calculated the
intraclass correlation for each day-level variable. Results showed
that most of the variance (89%) in morning vigor could be attrib-
uted to within-person variance, whereas only 11% of the variance
in recovery was attributable to between-person variations. Simi-
larly, 26% of the variance in work engagement was because of
between-person variance, while 74% was attributable to variations
within persons, between days. Thus, there were significant
amounts of variance to be explained by within-person fluctuations,
justifying our multilevel approach.
Mediation Models
Table 3 shows the multilevel analysis of the main effects of
off-job activities on next morning vigor. Work-related tasks were
significantly negatively related to vigor on the next morning, while
all three leisure activities (social, low-effort, and physical activi-
ties) were significantly positively related to next morning vigor.
Household tasks and childcare tasks did not have a significant
relationship with vigor. Table 3 also shows the effects of the
off-job activities on the two expected mediating variables (psy-
chological detachment and relaxation). While social, low-effort,
and physical activities were significantly positively related to the
mechanisms, work-related tasks and household tasks were signif-
icantly negatively related to psychological detachment and relax-
ation. Childcare tasks had no significant relationship with either
psychological detachment or relaxation. In the subsequent step, we
examined the effects of off-job activities on vigor in the morning,
while adding both mediators.
Psychological detachment. The bootstrap mediation test in-
dicated that five of the mediated pathways, relating the six off-job
activities to vigor through psychological detachment, were signif-
icant (see Table 3). In line with Hypothesis 1a, we found that work
related tasks and household tasks were negatively related to next
day vigor through diminished psychological detachment. No such
effect was found for childcare tasks. Social, low-effort, and phys-
ical activities enhanced next day vigor via increased psychological
detachment, confirming Hypothesis 1b.
Relaxation. The bootstrap results (see Table 4) confirmed
that relaxation significantly mediated the effects of work-related
tasks, household tasks, social activities, and low-effort activities on
next day vigor. Our results thus partially confirm Hypothesis 2a:
Work-related tasks and household tasks, but not childcare tasks,
diminished next day vigor through reduced relaxation. Hypothesis
2b was also partially supported: Unlike physical activities, social
activities and low-effort activities contributed to next day vigor
through enhanced relaxation. Note that the pathway from physical
activities to vigor via relaxation was marginally significant (sig-
nificance level of p⬍.10).
Remarkably, the relation between household tasks and morning
vigor became significant, and positive, when adding the mediators.
Although household tasks have a negative relation with next
morning vigor through decreased psychological detachment and
5
STAYING ENGAGED DURING THE WEEK

relaxation, after having controlled for this, household tasks ap-
peared to have a direct positive relation to next morning vigor. We
will elaborate on this finding in the discussion.
Engagement During the Next Workday
Table 3 also provides the multilevel estimates for the relations
between the off-job activities and next day work engagement.
While controlling for the recovery experiences (psychological
detachment and relaxation), we found that work task had a nega-
tive relation with engagement on the next workday. Household
tasks, as well as the three leisure activities, had positive relation-
ships with next day work engagement. Childcare tasks were not
significantly related to engagement on the next workday. As ex-
pected, morning vigor was positively related to work engagement
during the day (see Table 3). When adding morning vigor as a
mediator, the relationships between work-related tasks, low-effort
activities, and physical activities on the one hand and work en-
gagement on the other, turned nonsignificant. Two direct relation-
ships were still significant. Household tasks and social activities
both had a positive relation with next day work engagement, even
after controlling for morning vigor. The bootstrap analyses con-
firmed that, except for childcare tasks, all indirect pathways (ac-
tivity 3morning vigor 3work engagement) were significant (see
Table 4). In addition, we ran a bootstrap for the mediated relations
of the two recovery mechanisms (psychological detachment and
relaxation) on work engagement through morning vigor. As can be
seen in Table 4, both mediated pathways were significant.
Our findings partially support Hypothesis 3a: Work-related
tasks were negatively related to next day work engagement
through decreased feelings of vigor in the morning. In contrast to
what we had expected, doing household chores in off-job time was
positively related to next day work engagement, through enhanced
feelings of vigor. Hypothesis 3b was supported, because social,
low-effort, and physical activities were positively related to next
day work engagement through enhanced feelings of vigor in the
morning.
Discussion
We aimed to contribute to our understanding of the daily recov-
ery process after work in several ways. To begin, we sought to
provide empirical evidence for the theoretical framework used in
recovery research (Meijman & Mulder, 1998), which suggests
that recovery occurs when employees stop calling upon the re-
source reservoir used during the workday (psychological detach-
ment) and replenish used personal resources (relaxation). Our
results confirmed that psychological detachment plays a key role
in the recovery process. Off-job activities that enable employees to
psychologically detach from work, including social activities, low-
effort activities, and exercising, enhanced vigor on the following
morning. By contrast, performing work-related and household
tasks diminished morning vigor because these high-duty tasks
hindered the opportunities for employees to distance themselves
from work. These findings suggest that persons who perform
high-duty tasks after work stay psychologically occupied with the
tasks even after finishing them, whereby personal resource deple-
tion continues (Cropley & Millward, 2009).
Table 2
Means, SDs, and Correlations of All Model Variables
MSD 12345678910111213141516
1. Work engagement (T3) 3.90 0.63
2. Vigor morning (T2) 4.11 0.71 .74
ⴱⴱ
3. Gender (female) 0.82 0.38 .06 .02
4. Age 32.36 5.37 .14
ⴱⴱ
.11
ⴱ
.31
ⴱⴱ
5. Number of children 2.02 1.03 .04 .04 .01 .21
ⴱⴱ
6. Weekly work hours 37.57 3.41 .17
ⴱⴱ
.08 ⫺.15
ⴱⴱ
⫺.14
ⴱⴱ
⫺.25
ⴱⴱ
7. Trait work engagement 4.81 0.40 .06 ⫺.03 .05 ⫺.12
ⴱ
⫺.08 .14
ⴱⴱ
8. Work exhaustion (T0) 2.17 1.11 ⫺.06 ⫺.10 .02 ⫺.05 .02 ⫺.09 ⫺.05
9. Work engagement (T0) 3.87 0.64 .33
ⴱⴱ
.18
ⴱⴱ
.02 .14
ⴱ
.04 .16
ⴱⴱ
.07 ⫺.49
ⴱⴱ
10. Work-related tasks (T1) 0.48 0.50 ⫺.32
ⴱⴱ
⫺.37
ⴱⴱ
⫺.03 .02 ⫺.06 ⫺.03 ⫺.14
ⴱ
⫺.09 .05
11. Household tasks (T1) 1.13 0.62 ⫺.06 ⫺.10 .28
ⴱⴱ
.13
ⴱ
.04 ⫺.04 ⫺.02 ⫺.07 .19
ⴱⴱ
.05
12. Childcare tasks (T1) 0.58 0.67 .12
ⴱ
.16
ⴱⴱ
.27
ⴱⴱ
.36
ⴱⴱ
.38
ⴱⴱ
⫺.40
ⴱⴱ
⫺.07 ⫺.06 .08 ⫺.07 .09
13. Social activities (T1) 1.50 0.79 .13
ⴱ
.27
ⴱⴱ
⫺.02 ⫺.12
ⴱ
.01 ⫺.19
ⴱⴱ
⫺.09 .13
ⴱ
⫺.25
ⴱⴱ
⫺.29
ⴱⴱ
⫺.20
ⴱⴱ
.05
14. Low-effort activities (T1) 1.91 0.81 .30
ⴱ
.48
ⴱⴱ
.05 ⫺.11 .04 ⫺.13
ⴱ
⫺.11 .05 ⫺.11 ⫺.30
ⴱⴱ
⫺.27
ⴱⴱ
.06 .50
ⴱⴱ
15. Physical activities (T1) 0.41 0.44 .16
ⴱ
.24
ⴱⴱ
⫺.46
ⴱⴱ
⫺.18
ⴱⴱ
⫺.16
ⴱⴱ
.11
ⴱ
⫺.08 .06 ⫺.06 ⫺.16
ⴱⴱ
⫺.30
ⴱⴱ
⫺.14
ⴱ
.15
ⴱⴱ
.11
16. Psychological detachment (T1) 3.47 0.67 .43
ⴱⴱ
.47
ⴱⴱ
⫺.01 .05 .07 ⫺.11 ⫺.03 ⫺.07 .08 ⫺.40
ⴱⴱ
⫺.25
ⴱⴱ
.21
ⴱⴱ
.28
ⴱⴱ
.41
ⴱⴱ
.25
ⴱⴱ
17. Relaxation (T1) 3.76 0.76 .46
ⴱⴱ
.55
ⴱⴱ
⫺.06 ⫺.04 ⫺.11 ⫺.03 .02 .02 ⫺.05 ⫺.45
ⴱⴱ
⫺.33
ⴱⴱ
.06 .46
ⴱⴱ
.62
ⴱⴱ
.29
ⴱⴱ
.56
ⴱⴱ
Note. N ⫽74 respondents, 5 days (lagged effects, 4 days).
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
6TEN BRUMMELHUIS AND BAKKER

Table 3
Multi-Level Analyses of Off-Job Activities on Recovery Experiences, Next Morning Recovery, and Work Engagement Next Workday
x, m 3y
Detachment T1 Relaxation T1 Vigor T2 Vigor T2 Engagement T3 Engagement T3
Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE
Intercept 3.600
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.104 3.988
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.099 4.138
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.115 4.136
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.155 3.890
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.101 3.878
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.106
Gender (female) ⫺0.084 0.116 ⫺0.158 0.110 ⫺0.051 0.128 ⫺0.052 0.128 0.003 0.113 0.026 0.118
Age 0.001 0.008 0.001 0.008 0.014 0.009 0.014 0.009 0.020 0.008 0.021
ⴱⴱ
0.008
Number of children 0.006 0.043 ⫺0.077
ⴱ
0.041 0.047 0.047 0.049 0.047 0.036 0.042 0.024 0.043
Weekly work hours ⫺0.029 0.013 ⫺0.018 0.013 0.022 0.015 0.024 0.015 0.026
ⴱ
0.014 0.027
ⴱ
0.014
Engagement (trait) 0.009 0.106 0.003 0.100 ⫺0.064 0.117 ⫺0.066 0.117 0.063 0.103 0.071 0.107
Work exhaustion (T0) ⫺0.076
ⴱ
0.036 ⫺0.045 0.036 ⫺0.011 0.049 0.001 0.046 0.061 0.040 0.057
ⴱ
0.030
Work engagement (T0) 0.081 0.067 ⫺0.035 0.067 0.032 0.091 0.007 0.086 0.006 0.074 ⫺0.003 0.056
Work-related tasks (T1) ⫺0.255
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.076 ⫺0.366
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.076 ⫺0.354
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.093 ⫺0.212
ⴱⴱ
0.090 ⫺0.163
ⴱ
0.080 ⫺0.025 0.062
Household tasks (T1) ⫺0.176
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.056 ⫺0.149
ⴱⴱ
0.056 0.085 0.076 0.145
ⴱ
0.072 0.164
ⴱⴱ
0.062 0.085
ⴱ
0.047
Childcare tasks (T1) 0.026 0.085 0.026 0.084 ⫺0.045 0.118 ⫺0.056 0.110 ⫺0.046 0.097 0.003 0.074
Social activities (T1) 0.129
ⴱⴱ
0.047 0.204
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.046 0.111
ⴱ
0.066 0.020 0.064 0.095
ⴱ
0.056 0.083
ⴱ
0.043
Low-effort activities (T1) 0.229
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.049 0.431
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.048 0.367
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.061 0.188
ⴱⴱ
0.066 0.137
ⴱⴱ
0.057 0.041 0.044
Physical activities (T1) 0.420
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.091 0.164
ⴱ
0.090 0.384
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.116 0.241
ⴱ
0.112 0.218
ⴱ
0.098 0.071 0.075
Psychological detachment (T1) 0.223
ⴱⴱ
0.074 0.180
ⴱⴱ
0.065 0.075 0.050
Relaxation (T1) 0.262
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.070 0.176
ⴱⴱ
0.061 0.036 0.048
Recovery morning (T2) 0.544
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.045
⫺2xLOG 0.081
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.021 0.069
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.019 0.088
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.027 0.097
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.027 0.077
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.021 0.106
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.022
Level 2 variance (persons) 0.225
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.019 0.223
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.019 0.265
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.026 0.230
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.022 0.168
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.017 0.096
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.010
Level 1 variance (days) 553.497 543.366 487.917 458.021 361.475 254.891
Note. N ⫽356 for detachment/relaxation models; N⫽282 (4 lagged days) for vigor and engagement models.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
7
STAYING ENGAGED DURING THE WEEK

Relaxation appeared to be another important mechanism in the
recovery process. Spending off-job time on social and low-effort
activities was positively related to relaxation in the evening, and
enhanced vigor on the following morning. The opposite was true
for spending off-job time on work-related tasks and household
tasks. On those days, employees felt less relaxed in the evening,
and felt less recovered on the following morning. Note that exer-
cising contributed to recovery in the morning, but only marginally
through feeling more relaxed. It is conceivable that several forms
of physical exercise, such as doing intensive sports, do not offer an
opportunity to relax physically. Nevertheless, those activities con-
tributed to recovery as they allow employees to forget about work.
Overall, our findings provide support for the ER model (Meijman
& Mulder, 1998) and COR theory (Hobfoll, 2002), specifying that
recovery occurs when employees engage in off-job activities that
allow them to detach from work or to relax.
Furthermore, our study showed that the recovery process not
only helps employees to recuperate from stress (Sonnentag &
Zijlstra, 2006), but can even lead to additional personal resources.
Employees who engaged in social, low-effort, and physical activ-
ities after work felt more vigorous in the morning. Thus, optimal
recovery seems to occur when employees use their leisure time for
replenishing and collecting personal resources, whereby they can
start the next day full of physical energy, enthusiasm, and resil-
ience. Our findings support the idea from COR theory (Hobfoll,
2002) that contextual resources (e.g., rewarding nonwork life)
generate an upward spiral that can lead to acquiring additional
personal resources. COR theory sheds a new light on the recovery
process, whereby recovery is not only seen as recuperating from
the past day, but also as anticipating the new workday.
We also examined whether recovery during off-job time had
consequences for one’s work attitude during the next day. Using a
lagged effect study design, our results showed that this was indeed
the case. Employees who had engaged in work-related off-job
activities on the previous day not only felt less vigorous in morn-
ing, but also reported less engagement at work. By contrast,
employees who had spent their off-job time on leisure activities
felt more vigorous, enthusiastic and absorbed at work on the next
day. Our findings extend the recovery literature, indicating that the
benefits of adequate recovery during off-job time are strong
enough to last throughout the next workday: Employees expend
more effort on the next workday once they have replenished
personal resources during off-job time.
Three additional findings are noteworthy. First, our results shed
more light on the effect of family responsibilities on recovery.
Previous studies generally failed to find significant relations be-
tween family responsibilities and recovery (Rook & Zijlstra, 2006;
Sonnentag, 2001; Sonnentag & Natter, 2004; Sonnentag & Bayer,
2005; Sonnentag & Zijlstra, 2006). As suggested by others, it is
possible that different types of family responsibilities have oppo-
site effects on recovery, weighing out a net effect. Indeed, we
found that childcare tasks did not influence relaxation and psycho-
logical detachment, while employees reported lower levels of
relaxation and psychological detachment when they performed
household chores. The work-family literature also underscores the
different nature of both family activities (Poortman & Van der
Lippe, 2009). Household chores mainly seem to drain emotional
and physical energy, while care tasks also provide worthwhile
resources such as fulfillment and skills (Ruderman et al., 2002; ten
Brummelhuis et al., 2010b). Our findings indicate that childcare
tasks at least do not impede recovery after work. Therefore, it
seems important to differentiate between household and childcare
tasks when examining their role in the recovery process.
Table 4
Bootstrap Intervals of Mediation Tests
x3m3y
95% confidence interval
Lower level Upper level p⬍.05
Work-related tasks 3psychological detachment 3vigor ⫺.115 ⫺.014
ⴱ
Household tasks 3psychological detachment 3vigor ⫺.080 ⫺.009
ⴱ
Childcare tasks 3psychological detachment 3vigor ⫺.034 .048 Ns
Social activities 3psychological detachment 3vigor .005 .062
ⴱ
Low-effort activities 3psychological detachment 3vigor .015 .095
ⴱ
Physical activities 3psychological detachment 3vigor .029 .176
ⴱ
Work-related tasks 3relaxation 3vigor ⫺.166 ⫺.038
ⴱ
Household tasks 3relaxation 3vigor ⫺.080 ⫺.009
ⴱ
Childcare tasks 3relaxation 3vigor ⫺.034 .054 Ns
Social activities 3relaxation 3vigor .021 .095
ⴱ
Low-effort activities 3relaxation 3vigor .052 .180
ⴱ
Physical activities 3relaxation 3vigor ⫺.002 .103
†
Work-related tasks 3vigor 3work engagement ⫺.163 ⫺.017
ⴱ
Household tasks 3vigor 3work engagement .033 .147
ⴱ
Childcare tasks 3vigor 3work engagement ⫺.113 .062 Ns
Social activities 3vigor 3work engagement .001 .103
ⴱ
Low-effort activities 3vigor 3work engagement .022 .128
ⴱ
Physical activities 3vigor 3work engagement .030 .209
ⴱ
Psychological detachment 3vigor 3work engagement .053 .191
ⴱ
Relaxation 3vigor 3work engagement .079 .210
ⴱ
Note.Ns⫽nonsignificant.
†
p⬍.10.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
8TEN BRUMMELHUIS AND BAKKER

Second, we found that carrying out household chores after work
partially impeded and partially improved the recovery process.
While household chores impeded relaxation and psychological
detachment, indirectly diminishing vigor in the morning, we also
found a direct positive relation with morning vigor and engage-
ment during the workday. Apparently, performing household
chores has some beneficial side effects that contribute to recovery
and work engagement. It is possible that such tasks result in
feelings of self-efficacy, self-esteem, or skills that are useful for
work such as planning (Ruderman et al., 2002). An increase in
such personal resources (Xanthopoulou et al., 2009) may explain
why employees who engage in household tasks feel more vigorous
in the morning and more engaged at work. Our findings also
indicate that the term ‘high-duty’ tasks may not be very suitable
for family responsibilities. Childcare tasks did not impede the
recovery process, and household tasks even partially contributed to
work engagement on the following day.
A final noteworthy finding was the direct positive relation
between social off-job activities and next day work engagement.
Again, this direct relationship may be explained by the fact that
certain activities produce other personal resources beyond feeling
vigorous, such as enhanced self-esteem, advice, and positive affect
(Bakker, 2011). For instance, spending time with one’s family may
bring about positive affect, and receiving advice from friends may
increase one’s positive self-evaluation. People who experience
such positive emotions have been found to be more sensitive to
opportunities at work, more confident, and better able to become
absorbed in the work role (Bakker, 2011; Fredrickson, 2001).
Limitations, Future Directions, and
Practical Implications
A merit of our study was the use of a diary design with three
measurements per day, which enabled us to study the daily process
of recovery from work in detail. Such a design diminishes causal-
ity issues that are common in cross-sectional studies. However,
some limitations need to be mentioned. The use of self-reports may
have led to bias because of common method variance. Momentary
circumstances (e.g., mood) may have affected how respondents
perceived feelings of detachment, relaxation, vigor, and work
engagement. We note, however, that this type of bias is less likely
in our study design because we used different points in time for the
measurement of our predictor and outcome variables. Moreover,
we controlled for the trait variable of work engagement and the
state levels of exhaustion and engagement reported before employ-
ees engaged in off-job activities.
Our study was also limited to a specific sample of employees
from a single occupation, working on a fixed day schedule. It is
possible that employees in other occupations actually benefit from
working in evening hours, because this enables them to combine
work and care tasks (Glass & Finley, 2002). More research is
needed to examine the generalizability of our findings to other
occupational groups and employees working on more flexible
hours. Furthermore, while experienced quality of off-job activities
has been reported to foster recovery (Sonnentag & Zijlstra, 2006),
we had no information on the enjoyment that employees derived
from their off-job activities. Future studies could examine whether
recovery particularly occurs when employees engage in activities
that they enjoy.
Our study provides several other leads for future studies. A first
suggestion is to investigate long-term consequences of the recov-
ery process. For instance, the types of activities that individuals
engage in during leisure time (e.g., watching TV vs. doing exer-
cise) may affect health, work, and family differently in the long
run (Frey, Benesch, & Stutzer, 2007; Hancox, Milne, & Poulton,
2004). More research is needed to reveal other reasons why certain
off-job activities lead to recovery, such as increased self-esteem
and learning skills at home. Others have pointed at the importance
of sleep for recovery (e.g., Rook & Zijlstra, 2006). Future studies
could examine whether sleep quality mediates the effects of off-
job activities on morning vigor. Another suggestion is to examine
whether personality, motivation for off-job activities, and control
over activities moderate the effects of off-job activities on the
recovery process. For instance, recovery may particularly occur
when people feel in control over their leisure time (Sonnentag &
Fritz, 2007). In addition, a more finely grained measurement of
types of activities within each category is necessary because ac-
tivities may vary in their recovery potential (e.g., a formal work
reception vs. having drinks with friends; cooking vs. cleaning).
Finally, we encourage researchers to use a diary design with three
different measurement points in time, testing lagged mediation
effects of off-job activities at T1, on recovery at T3 through
psychological detachment, and relaxation at T2. Such a design
depicts the longitudinal process of recovery even more precisely.
Our results have practical relevance as they shed more light on
the factors that facilitate or undermine the recovery process. Em-
ployees seem to recover most from their work when they pursue
leisure activities during off-job time, in contrast to work-related
activities. It does not seem to particularly matter which leisure
activities are done: social, low-effort, and physical activities all
enhance next day recovery. In addition, employees may strive to
limit work-related tasks as much as possible as these activities
impede relaxation and psychological detachment from work.
Given the detrimental consequence of working after regular work
hours for work engagement during the next workday, reducing the
time allocated to work during off-job time seems a rational choice.
Supervisors may have an important role here by discouraging
employees from working after regular hours. In addition, organi-
zations could support employee recovery and facilitate work en-
gagement by creating a work climate in which working overtime is
not the standard.
References
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Oerlemans, W., & Sonnentag, S. (in press).
Workaholism and daily recovery: A day reconstruction study of leisure
activities. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Early View, doi:10.1002/
job.1796
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job
demands-resources model to predict burnout and performance. Human
Resource Management, 43, 83–104. doi:10.1002/hrm.20004
Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 265–269. doi:10.1177/
0963721411414534
Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and
testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel
models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods,
11, 142–163. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.142
Baumeister, R. F., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Ego depletion: A
9
STAYING ENGAGED DURING THE WEEK

resource model of volition, self-regulation, and controlled processing.
Social Cognition, 18, 130 –150. doi:10.1521/soco.2000.18.2.130
Binnewies, C., Sonnentag, S., & Mojza, E. (2010). Recovery during the
weekend and fluctuations in weekly job performance: A week-level
study examining intra-individual relationships. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 83, 419 – 441. doi:10.1348/
096317909X418049
Bodin, M., & Hartig, T. (2003). Does the outdoor environment matter for
psychological restoration gained through running? Psychology of Sport
and Exercise, 4, 141–153. doi:10.1016/S1469-0292(01)00038-3
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Hetland, J. (2012). The
measurement of state work engagement: A multilevel factor analytic
study. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. Advance online
publication. doi:10 –1027/105–5759/a000111
Cropley, M., & Millward, L. J. (2009). How do individuals ‘switch-off’
from work during leisure? A qualitative description of the unwinding
process in high and low ruminators. Leisure Studies, 28, 333–347.
doi:10.1080/02614360902951682
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Geurts, S. A. E., & Taris, T. W. (2009).
Daily recovery from work-related effort during non-work time. In S.
Sonnentag, P. L. Perrewe´ , & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Current perspectives
on job-stress recovery: Research in occupational stress and well being
(Vol. 7, pp. 85–123). Bingley, United Kingdom: JAI Press.
Etzion, D., Eden, D., & Lapidot, Y. (1998). Relief from job stressors and
burnout: Reserve service as a respite. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
577–585. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.577
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive
psychology. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Amer-
ican Psychologist, 56, 218 –226. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
Frey, B. S., Benesch, C., & Stutzer, A. (2007). Does watching TV make us
happy? Journal of Economic Psychology, 28, 283–313. doi:10.1016/
j.joep.2007.02.001
Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2006). Recovery, well-being, and performance-
related outcomes: The role of workload and vacation experiences. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 91, 936 –945. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.91.4.936
Glass, J. L., & Finley, A. (2002). Coverage and effectiveness of family-
responsive workplace policies. Human Resource Management Review,
12, 313–337. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00063-3
Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). Burnout in organizational
life. Journal of Management, 30, 859 – 879. doi:10.1016/
j.jm.2004.06.004
Hancox, R. J., Milne, B. J., & Poulton, R. (2004). Association between
child and adolescent television viewing and adult health: A longitudinal
birth cohort study, The Lancet, 364, 257–262. doi:10.1016/S0140-
6736(04)16675-0
Hobfoll, S. E., Johnson, R. J., Ennis, N., & Jackson, A. P. (2003). Resource
loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 632– 643. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.632
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at con-
ceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. doi:10.1037/
0003-066X.44.3.513
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation.
Review of General Psychology, 6, 307–324. doi:10.1037/1089-
2680.6.4.307
Hochschild, A. R. (1997). The time bind. New York: Holt.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative
framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169 –182. doi:
10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2
Ku¨ hnel, J., Sonnentag, S., & Westman, M. (2009). Does work engagement
increase after a short respite? The role of job involvement as a double-
edged sword. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
82, 575–594. doi:10.1348/096317908X349362
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological
conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engage-
ment of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Orga-
nizational Psychology, 77, 11–37. doi:10.1348/096317904322915892
Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload.
In P. J. D. Drenth & H. Thierry (Eds.), Handbook of work and organi-
zational psychology: Vol. 2. Work psychology (pp. 5–33). Hove, Eng-
land: Psychology Press.
Peeters, M., Montgomery, A., Bakker, A., & Schaufeli, W. (2005). Bal-
ancing work and home: How job demands and home demands are
related to burnout. International Journal of Stress Management, 12,
43– 61. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.12.1.43
Poortman, A. R., & van der Lippe, T. (2009). The gendered division of
household labor: A matter of taste? Journal of Marriage and Family, 71,
526 –541. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00617.x
Press, A. L. (1991). Women watching television: Gender, class, and
generation in the American television experience. Philadelphia, PA:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Rashbash, J., Browne, W., Healy, M., Cameron, B., & Charlton, C. (2000).
MLwiN (version 1.10.006): Interactive software for multilevel analysis.
London: Multilevel Models Project, Institute of Education, University of
London.
Reed, J., & Ones, D. (2006). The effect of acute aerobic exercise on
positive activated affect: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 7, 477–514. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.11.003
Rook, J. W., & Zijlstra, F. R. H. (2006). The contribution of various types
of activities of recovery. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 15, 218 –240. doi:10.1080/13594320500513962
Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., Panzer, K., & King, S. N. (2002). Benefits
of multiple roles for managerial women. Academy of Management
Journal, 45, 369 –386. doi:10.2307/3069352
Russell, J. A. (2003). Core Affect and the Psychological Construction of
Emotion. Psychological Review, 110, 145–172. doi:10.1037/0033-
295X.110.1.145
Rusting, C. L., & DeHart, T. (2000). Retrieving positive memories to
regulate negative mood: Consequences for mood-congruent memory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 737–752. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.737
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiro, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational
resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer
loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 90, 1217–1227. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1217
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement
of work engagement with a brief questionnaire: A cross-national study.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716. doi:
10.1177/0013164405282471
Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). The
Maslach Burnout Inventory–General Survey. In C. Maslach, S. E. Jack-
son, & M. P. Leiter, MBI Manual (pp. 22–26). Palo Alto, CA: Consult-
ing Psychologists Press.
Sonnentag, S., & Bayer, U. V. (2005). Switching off mentally: Predictors
and consequences of psychological detachment from work during off-
job time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 393– 414.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.393
Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2008). “Did you have a nice
evening?” A day-level study on recovery experiences, sleep, and affect,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 674 – 684. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.93.3.674
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,
204 –221. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204
Sonnentag, S., Kuttler, I., & Fritz, C. (2010). Job stressors, emotional
exhaustion, and need for recovery: A multi-source study on the benefits
10 TEN BRUMMELHUIS AND BAKKER

of psychological detachment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 355–
365. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.005
Sonnentag, S., & Natter, E. (2004). Flight attendants’ daily recovery from
work: Is there no place like home? International Journal of Stress
Management, 11, 366 –391. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.11.4.366
Sonnentag, S., & Zijlstra, F. R. H. (2006). Job characteristics and off-job
activities as predictors of need for recovery, well-being, and fatigue.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 330 –350. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.91.2.330
Sonnentag, S. (2001). Work, recovery, and individual well-being: A diary
study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 196 –210. doi:
10.1037/1076-8998.6.3.196
ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Haar, J. M., & Van der Lippe, T. (2010a).
Crossover of distress due to work and family demands in dual-earner
couples: A dyadic analysis. Work & Stress, 24, 324 –341. doi:10.1080/
02678373.2010.533553
ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Ter Hoeven, C. L., Bakker, A. B., & Peper. B.
(2011). Breaking through the loss cycle of burnout: The role of moti-
vation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84,
268 –287. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02019.x
ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Van der Lippe, T., & Kluwer, E. S. (2010b).
Family involvement and helping behavior in teams. Journal of Manage-
ment, 36, 1406 –1431. doi:10.1177/0149206309350778
Vallerand, R. J. (2007). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and
physical activity. A review and a look at the future. In G. Tenenbaum &
R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 59 – 83). New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Weer, C. H., Greenhaus, J. H., & Linnehan, F. (2010). Commitment to
nonwork roles and job performance: Enrichment and conflict perspec-
tives. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 306 –316. doi:10.1016/
j.jvb.2009.07.003
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B.
(2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the
role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational and Orga-
nizational Psychology, 82, 183–200. doi:10.1348/096317908X285633
Received September 29, 2011
Revision received May 30, 2012
Accepted May 31, 2012 䡲
11
STAYING ENGAGED DURING THE WEEK