What Are the Active Ingredients in Recovery Activities? Introducing a Dimensional Approach

Abstract

Although previous research suggests that off-job activities are generally important for recovery from work stress, a profound understanding of which aspects of recovery activities benefit the recovery process and why is still lacking. In the present work, we introduce a dimensional approach toward studying recovery activities and present a taxonomy of key recovery activity dimensions (physical, mental, social, spiritual, creative, virtual, and outdoor). Across four studies (total N = 908) using cross-sectional, time-lagged, and a diary design, we develop and validate the Recovery Activity Characteristics (RAC) questionnaire, a multidimensional measure of RAC. Results demonstrate its content validity, high scale reliabilities, and a strong factor structure. With a 10-day diary study involving two daily measurement occasions, we demonstrate the role of RAC for recovery experiences and downstream well-being outcomes. Findings underscore the importance of carefully differentiating the active ingredients of recovery activities as they differentially relate to same evening and next-morning exhaustion and vigor. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Full text

What Are the Active Ingredients in Recovery Activities?
Introducing a Dimensional Approach
Khalid M. Alameer
1, 2
, Sjir Uitdewilligen
1
, and Ute R. Hülsheger
1
1
Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Department of Work and Social Psychology, Maastricht University
2
Department of Psychology, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University
Although previous research suggests that off-job activities are generally important for recovery from work
stress, a profound understanding of which aspects of recovery activities benefit the recovery process and
why is still lacking. In the present work, we introduce a dimensional approach toward studying recovery
activities and present a taxonomy of key recovery activity dimensions (physical, mental, social, spiritual,
creative, virtual, and outdoor). Across four studies (total N=908) using cross-sectional, time-lagged, and a
diary design, we develop and validate the Recovery Activity Characteristics (RAC) questionnaire, a
multidimensional measure of RAC. Results demonstrate its content validity, high scale reliabilities, and
a strong factor structure. With a 10-day diary study involving two daily measurement occasions, we
demonstrate the role of RAC for recovery experiences and downstream well-being outcomes. Findings
underscore the importance of carefully differentiating the active ingredients of recovery activities as they
differentially relate to same evening and next-morning exhaustion and vigor.
Keywords: recovery activity, work stress, employee recovery, scale development
Given the widely recognized detrimental effects of work stress on
health and well-being (Ganster & Rosen, 2013;Nixon et al., 2011),
scholars are increasingly interested in understanding how indivi-
duals can optimally recover from work stress during their nonwork
time (for a review, see Sonnentag et al., 2022). In recent years, a
wealth of research has documented that the quality of recovery
experiences during nonwork time is key to successful recovery from
work stress (Sonnentag et al., 2017,2022). Recovery experiences
refer to the psychological states that people experience during their
nonwork time such as experiences of psychological detachment,
relaxation, mastery, and control (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007).
Evidence on the benefits of these recovery experiences is abundant;
it ranges from increased well-being at bedtime, better sleep, low
exhaustion, and positive-activated affect the next morning to
increased organizational functioning in terms of higher task
performance, proactive behaviors, and organizational citizenship
behaviors (for a review, see Sonnentag et al., 2022). In addition to
these recovery experiences, recovery activities, that is, what people
do during their nonwork time (Sonnentag, 2001), are key to
successful recovery from work. Recovery activities include but are
not limited to engaging in hobbies, physical exercise, or meeting
friends (Sonnentag et al., 2022). They are positively related to well-
being (e.g., Rook & Zijlstra, 2006;Sonnentag, 2001;Sonnentag &
Zijlstra, 2006) and organizational functioning (e.g., de Bloom et al.,
2018;ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012), likely because they are
proximal antecedents of recovery experiences with the latter
referring to “what people are experiencing while performing these
activities”(Sonnentag, 2018, p. 171; see also de Bloom et al., 2018;
Eschleman et al., 2014;Mojza et al., 2010).
Researchers have repeatedly called for a better understanding of
how favorable recovery experiences can be achieved (Sonnentag,
2018;Sonnentag et al., 2017). Considering the close connection
between recovery activities and experiences, a comprehensive
understanding of recovery activities is a key prerequisite in
furthering knowledge on how we can promote recovery experiences.
Yet, although recovery activities have a long history in recovery
research (e.g., Sonnentag, 2001), surprisingly, a profound under-
standing of the full range of possible recovery activities and of why
and how they differentially shape recovery experiences and well-
being is still lacking (cf. Sonnentag et al., 2022). This might, in part,
be driven by three key shortcomings in how recovery activities have
been conceptualized and operationalized in the literature. First,
recovery activities have predominantly been assessed with few,
rather broad categories (e.g., physical, social, low-effort activities;
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
Editor’s Note. Sharon Clarke served as the action editor for this
article.—SC
This article was published Online First July 6, 2023.
Khalid M. Alameer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2294-9116
Sjir Uitdewilligen https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7815-1579
Ute R. Hülsheger https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1069-7510
A previous version of this article was presented at the 15th European
Academy of Occupational Health Psychology Conference.
The authors would like to thank Michiel Vestjens for his help in setting up
Study 4. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Khalid M. Alameer played a lead role in data curation, investigation,
methodology, and writing–original draft and an equal role in conceptuali-
zation and formal analysis. Sjir Uitdewilligen played a supporting role
in formal analysis, investigation, and methodology and an equal role
in conceptualization, supervision, and writing–review and editing. Ute R.
Hülsheger played a supporting role in investigation and methodology
and an equal role in conceptualization, formal analysis, supervision, and
writing–review and editing.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Khalid
M. Alameer, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Department of Work
and Social Psychology, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD
Maastricht, The Netherlands. Email: k.alameer@maastrichtuniversity.nl
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
© 2023 American Psychological Association 2023, Vol. 28, No. 4, 239–262
ISSN: 1076-8998 https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000354
239

Sonnentag, 2001;Sonnentag & Zijlstra, 2006;ten Brummelhuis &
Bakker, 2012;ten Brummelhuis & Trougakos, 2014), each
subsuming a broad range of activities. For instance, the physical
activity category subsumes activities as varied as yoga, dancing,
cycling, basketball, or hiking. Similarly, the low-effort activity
category includes watching TV, sitting on the couch, and reading a
book. This category-based approach bears important disadvantages:
Some activities fall into multiple categories and are difficult to
assign (e.g., a team sport is physical and social). Moreover, very
different activities are lumped together and conceptually equated in
this category-based approach, although they vary in many respects.
For instance, yoga, diving, and basketball all fall into the physical
activity category while knitting, reading a book, meditating, and
browsing the internet all fall into the low-effort activity category.
Yet, the implicit assumption that activities that fall into the same
category have a similar impact on recovery outcomes does not likely
hold. The use of broad categories may be one of the reasons that
previous findings have been inconsistent. For instance, studies have
documented positive (Sonnentag, 2001), negative (Rook & Zijlstra,
2006), and no relationship (Sonnentag & Zijlstra, 2006) between
low-effort activities and indicators of well-being and successful
recovery (see also Sonnentag et al., 2017).
Second, while the category-based approach allows to identify
which activities foster recovery experiences (e.g., physical activities
rather than low-effort activities), it provides limited insights into the
underlying mechanisms. The reason isthat specific activities can have
multiple underlying characteristics. For instance, a team sport is
physically effortful and social, while dancing is physically effortful
and creative. Moreover, people may watch TV or do yoga on their
own or in a group. A low-effort activity or physical activity may thus
involve different degrees of social interaction and this can vary from
person to person and from day to day. A category-based approach
does therefore not allow identifying the different mechanisms
driving effects of recovery activities because the underlying
mechanisms are masked and difficult to disentangle. We therefore
argue that it is not the activity per se that is of interest and should be
studied, but rather its standing on multiple underlying character-
istics, that is, the degree to which it involves, for instance, social
interaction, is physical, is effortful, creative, or spiritual.
Third, considering the wider, non-work-related leisure literature
suggests that the range of recovery activities individuals engage in is
likely much wider than physical, social, and low-effort activities
typically covered in the category-based approach (Hegarty, 2009;K.
Korpela & Kinnunen, 2010). For instance, individuals may also
engage in spiritual or in creative activities (e.g., handicraft, writing
poems), in playing computer games, or being in nature. With few
exceptions (e.g., Eschleman et al., 2014;Tuisku et al., 2016), such
additional activities have rarely been studied in the recovery literature
and systematic knowledge on the extent to which these alternative
activities help or hinder recovery experiences and employee well-
being is urgently needed (see a recent call by Sonnentag et al., 2022).
To overcome these shortcomings of the traditional category-
based approach, a comprehensive dimensional approach is needed
that (a) avoids lumping together diverse activities into broad
categories, (b) allows mapping the characteristics of recovery
activities (e.g., the degree to which an activity is social, physical,
creative, spiritual), and (c) addresses the question of why certain
activities are more powerful than others in promoting recovery.
The goal of the present study is therefore to develop a taxonomy
of key recovery activity characteristics (RAC) and a multidimen-
sional measurement tool, the RAC Questionnaire. In developing the
taxonomy, we draw from the recovery literature as well as from
adjacent fields (e.g., Collins & Cox, 2014;Eschleman et al., 2014;S.
Kim et al., 2017;K. Korpela & Kinnunen, 2010;Sonnentag, 2001).
Building on this taxonomy, we develop the RAC questionnaire,
test its psychometric properties, and explore personality traits
as antecedents of RAC. Finally, we illustrate that RAC are
differentially related to recovery experiences and downstream
well-being outcomes. In doing so, we focus on two indicators of
situational employee well-being that are key to the recovery
literature, that is, emotional exhaustion and vigor (Bennett et al.,
2016;Headrick et al., 2022;Isoard-Gautheur et al., 2018;Sonnentag
et al., 2010;ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012;ten Brummelhuis &
Trougakos, 2014). While exhaustion is the core component of job
burnout, vigor is the core component of work engagement (Maslach
et al., 1997;Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003).
The present work makes important contributions to the recovery
literature. With the dimensional approach, we introduce a new
perspective on recovery activities that focuses on characteristics of
recovery activities rather than on (broad) activity categories. In
doing so, we also respond to Sonnentag et al.’s (2022) recent call to
“broaden the scope of recovery activities”(p. 12.22) by incorporat-
ing aspects of leisure activities that have, to date, been largely
overlooked (e.g., the spiritual and virtual components). Mapping
RAC on recovery experiences and downstream well-being out-
comes, the present work will enrich our theoretical understanding of
why recovery activities differentially relate to recovery experiences
and downstream well-being outcomes. The present work also offers
a novel, multidimensional tool to reliably assess RAC in a variety of
settings, including evenings, work breaks, and weekends (Fritz et
al., 2010;S. Kim et al., 2017;Rook & Zijlstra, 2006). It thereby lays
the foundations and enables future work into the role of RAC in the
recovery process.
A Dimensional Approach to Study Recovery Activities
The dimensional approach rests on the assumption that each
recovery activity may be described by its standing on multiple
continuous dimensions. For instance, if an individual went for a walk
with a friend during leisure time, this activity may score medium on
being physically strenuous and high on being social but low on being
creative. If an individual went for a walk on their own, pondering
about the plotof a short story they are writing, it would score medium
on being physically strenuous, low on being social, but high on being
creative. This exemplifies that the same activity (going for a walk) can
have fundamentally different underlying characteristics, which likely
result in different recovery experiences and downstream well-being
outcomes. While it is relatively uninformative to know in which
specific activities someone engaged in during leisure time (going for
a walk, playing squash, doing tai chi or yoga), it is theoretically
informative to know to what extent these activities were, for example,
physically strenuous, social, or creative. The first goal of the present
study is therefore to develop a theoretical taxonomy of key RAC. As
such, our specific focus is on characteristics of recovery activities
conducted during nonwork time. Characteristics referring to work-
related activities or chores conducted during nonwork time will
therefore not be included.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
240 ALAMEER, UITDEWILLIGEN, AND HÜLSHEGER

Afirst step in building a model of RAC is to explore the
relationships between activity characteristics and other similar
constructs. Indeed, the construct bears resemblance to extant
constructs such as recovery experiences (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007)
and recovery motivations (Ohly & Latour, 2014;ten Brummelhuis
& Trougakos, 2014). This subsection addresses how the current
model relates to but differs from each of these constructs by
exploring key similarities and distinctions.
A construct closely related to recovery activities is recovery
experiences. Recovery experiences are the psychological states that
people experience during their nonwork time (Sonnentag & Fritz,
2007). Recovery experiences are described as psychological
mechanisms triggered by leisure activities that promote subjective
well-being. They are different from RAC in that they are subjective
emotions, feelings, and cognitive–affective appraisals that can result
from participating in a specific activity (Huta, 2016). In contrast,
RAC concern the features of the behaviors and situations that
characterize recovery activities themselves.
RAC should also be differentiated from individuals’motives to
engage in specific activities (ten Brummelhuis & Trougakos, 2014)
and the extent to which they fulfill specific motivational needs (e.g.,
Tinsley & Johnson, 1984). Motivations to engage in activities refer
to the personal reasons, values, and goals behind a person’s chosen
behaviors (Huta, 2016). For instance, people may pursue leisure to
detach or relax. In addition, scholars have categorized activities by
the extent to which they fulfill specific needs, such as the need for
belonging or self-expression (Tinsley & Eldredge, 1995). However,
with RAC, we refer to the actual behaviors and situational
characteristics that an individual engages in independent of the
motive to do so, the potential to fulfill a specific need, or the feelings
during or after the activity.
To develop a multidimensional taxonomy of RAC, we followed a
deductive approach by reviewing the work-related recovery literature
as well as adjacent fields in order to identify key dimensions that
characterize leisure activities and that are relevant to the recovery
process. We first extensively searched for existing articles describing
models or taxonomies of leisure activities by using the APA PsycInfo
database and Google Scholar and by cross-referencing articles.
Examples of entered keywords are “leisure activities”AND
“taxonomy”;“recovery activities”AND “categories”;“recovery
activities”AND “taxonomy”;and“recovery activities”AND
“categories”. Overall, these studies have either (a) clustered activities
based on their similarity in terms of having similar psychological
benefits to fulfill individuals’psychological needs (e.g., Tinsley &
Eldredge, 1995;Tinsley & Johnson, 1984), (b) categorized activities
based on the dominant characteristic (e.g., physical activities;
Sonnentag, 2001), or (c) focused on experiences or psychological
mechanisms that promote recovery or well-being (e.g., Newman et
al., 2014;Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). Yet, none of them focused on the
characteristics of the activities themselves, for an overview, see
Table 1. Therefore, in a second step, we extensively searched the
literature for articles that studied recovery activities, excluding those
that only focused on experiences or motives. We first looked at
previous reviews that summarized the recovery activity literature
(e.g., Demerouti et al., 2009;Sonnentag et al., 2017)andthen
searched for additional articles that studied specific recovery activities
by using APA PsycInfo and Google Scholar using keywords such as
“recovery activities”AND “work”. As can be seen in Table 2,
recovery activities have initially been studied primarily as off-job
activities—focusing on afterwork and weekend periods—whereas,
more recently, research on the role of activities in vacations and work
breaks is gaining momentum. Based on the different streams of
research in this overview and adhering to our definition of RAC as
“behaviors and situations that characterize recovery activities,”we
identified six key dimensions: physical, social, creative, mental,
virtual, and outdoor. From the off-job recovery studies, we inferred
the physical and social dimensions (e.g., Rook & Zijlstra, 2006;
Sonnentag, 2001;Sonnentag & Zijlstra, 2006;ten Brummelhuis &
Bakker, 2012). In addition, recently, researchers have identified the
role of creative activities in the recovery process (e.g., Eschleman et
al., 2014,2017). Moreover, computer scientists as well as social
psychologists have shed light on the impact of digital or virtual
activities onrecovery and well-being (e.g., Collins & Cox, 2014). The
work break recovery literature highlights the importance of cognitive
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
Table 1
Overview of Leisure/Recovery Models and Taxonomies Discussed in Previous Research
Study Purpose Focus Dimension used/identified
How they came up with these
dimensions/categories
Tinsley and Johnson
(1984)
Need satisfaction Needs Intellectual stimulation, catharsis,
expressive compensation, hedonistic
companionship, supportive
companionship, secure solitude, routine,
temporary indulgence, moderate
security, and expressive estheticism
Cluster analysis of 34 leisure
activities
Tinsley and Eldredge
(1995)
Taxonomy of leisure
activities based on their
need-gratifying properties
Needs Agency, novelty, belongingness, service,
sensual enjoyment, cognitive
stimulation, self-expression, creativity,
competition, vicarious competition, and
relaxation
Cluster analysis of 82 leisure
activities
Sonnentag (2001) Recovery activity categories Activity categories Physical, social, low-effort, work-related,
and household and childcare activities
Theoretical reasoning
Sonnentag and Fritz
(2007)
Recovery experiences Experiences Psychological detachment, mastery,
relaxation, and control
Theoretical reasoning
Newman et al. (2014) Psychological mechanisms
that promote subjective
well-being
Psychological
mechanism
Detachment–recovery, autonomy,
mastery, meaning, and affiliation
Theoretical reasoning
THE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN RECOVERY ACTIVITIES 241

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
Table 2
Overview of Recovery Activities Studied in Previous Research
Study Focus Activities/categories
Sonnentag (2001) Off-job Physical, social, low-effort, work-related, and household and childcare activities
Sonnentag and Natter (2004) Off-job Physical, social, low-effort, work-related, and household and childcare activities
Sonnentag and Bayer (2005) Off-job Physical, social, low-effort, work-related, and household and childcare activities
Rook and Zijlstra (2006) Off-job Physical, social, low-effort, work-related, and household and childcare activities
Sonnentag and Zijlstra (2006) Off-job Physical, social, low-effort, work-related, and household and childcare activities
Hecht and Boies (2009) Off-job Volunteer activities, memberships activities, sports, recreation, and fitness activities
Trougakos et al. (2008) Work break Respite activities and chore activities
Tucker et al. (2008) Off-job A list of activities such as working at the workplace, working at home, household
work, caring for children/relatives, leisure activities, rest/sleep, spending time for
yourself, watching television, and so forth
K. Korpela and Kinnunen (2010) Off-job Work-related activities, household activities, low-effort activities, social activities,
exercise and being outdoors, activities in natural environments
Mojza et al. (2010) Off-job Volunteer activities
Fritz et al. (2011) Work break List of 22 micro-break activities (e.g., check email, make a phone call, clean the
office)
Park et al. (2011) Off-job The use of an array of communication technologies for work-related purposes at
home during nonwork hours
van Hooff et al. (2011) Off-job Household activities, doing odd jobs in or around the house, doing the groceries,
caregiving activities, businesslike (but not job-related) activities, physical
activities, creative activities, social activities, and low-effort activities
de Bloom et al. (2012) Vacation Work-related, physical, social, and passive activities
ten Brummelhuis and Bakker (2012) Off-job Physical, social, low-effort, work-related, and household and childcare activities
Bakker et al. (2013) Off-job Work-related activities, physical activities, social activities, and reading
de Bloom et al. (2013) Vacation Physical, social, and passive activities
Volman et al. (2013) Off-job Work-related activities, household activities and taking care of the children, and
physical activities
White et al. (2013) Off-job A list of 20 activities participants undertook during their visit to rural or urban
places
Eschleman et al. (2014) Off-job Creative activity
Collins and Cox (2014) Off-job Digital games
Lanaj et al. (2014) Off-job Smartphone use for work
Mathiassen et al. (2014) Work break (laboratory) Cognitive tasks
Kinnunen et al. (2015) Work break Work-related strategies, private micro-break strategies, and physical micro-break
strategies
de Vries et al. (2016) Off-job Physical activity
Hunter and Wu (2016) Work break Less effortful, preferred, and non-work-related activities
Tuisku et al. (2016) Off-job Receptive cultural activities (e.g., going to a concert or a theater performance) and
creative cultural activities (e.g., playing an instrument, writing)
von Dreden and Binnewies (2017) Work break Companionship during lunch break (alone, colleague, or supervisor) and content of
conversation during lunch break (work-related topics or private topics)
Eschleman et al. (2017) Off-job Work-related activities, household and childcare activities, social activity, low-effort
activities, physical activities, and creativity activities
Kim et al. (2017) Work break Relaxation, nutrition-intake, social, and cognitive activities
de Bloom et al. (2018) Off-job Physical, social, creative, and cultural activities
Garrick et al. (2018) Off-job Work-related activity, school-related activity, health promoting activities,
socializing, exercise, and hobbies/creative activity
Kim et al. (2018) Work break Relaxation, nutrition-intake, social, and cognitive activities
Sianoja et al. (2018) Work break Park walks and relaxation exercises
Hyvönen et al. (2018) Off-job Outdoor activities in nature
Collins et al. (2019) Off-job A digital game and mindfulness app
Zhu et al. (2019) Work break Relaxation break activities, nutrition-intake activities, social activities, and cognitive
activities
Bennett et al. (2020) Work break (laboratory) Manipulation of detachment, relaxation, and work-related activities
Chong et al. (2020) Work break Respite activities
Kuykendall et al. (2020) Off-job Watching TV, physical leisure activities, creative leisure activities, social leisure
activities, or cognitively stimulating leisure activities
Cheng and Cho (2021) Work break Social media break activities (social, cognitive, relaxation, and hedonic social media
activities) and nonsocial media break activities (social, cognitive, relaxation,
hedonic, nutrition-intake break activities)
H. Liu et al. (2021) Off-job Cyber activities
Nie et al. (2021) Work break Voluntarily respite activities. relaxation, social and cognitive activities, and
nutrition-intake activities
242 ALAMEER, UITDEWILLIGEN, AND HÜLSHEGER

activities—non-work-related activities that require exerting mental
efforts (e.g., Bennett et al., 2020;S. Kim et al., 2017,2018).
In addition to the previous six dimensions, leisure research
has investigated the importance of a spiritual component such as
meditation activities for recovery and well-being (Garrick et al.,
2008, as cited in Demerouti et al., 2009). Moreover, this literature
suggests that the novelty of an activity may be important for
recovery because of its positive relation with positive affect (Aron
et al., 2000;Tinsley & Eldredge, 1995). In summary, we therefore
propose a framework containing eight dimensions that represent
key underlying characteristics of recovery activities: physical,
social, creative, mental, spiritual, virtual, outdoor, and novelty.
Physical
The physical dimension represents to what extent an activity
includes physical effort. Physical effort reflects any bodily movement
produced by skeletal muscles that require energy expenditure (World
Health Organization, 2020). Physical effort can enhance the recovery
process through both psychological and physiological mechanisms.
Neurotransmitters, which have an antidepressant effect, are released
during exercise (Deslandes et al., 2009). In addition, completing
physically effortful tasks can foster self-efficacy and mastery
experiences (Demerouti et al., 2009). The category-based recovery
literature therefore suggests that physical activities (e.g., sport,
cycling, dancing) lead to positive outcomes. They were positively
related to situational well-being before going to bed (Sonnentag,
2001), they negatively related to needs for recovery (Sonnentag &
Zijlstra, 2006), and they increased next-morning vigor (ten
Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012). van Hooff et al. (2019) also showed
that more strenuous leisure time physical activity was associated
with higher recovery compared to less strenuous leisure time
physical activity. Therefore, the physical dimension is an important
characteristic to consider.
Social
The social dimension refers to the extent to which the activity
involves interaction with other people. This is important for recovery
because it can provide an opportunity for social support, which
buffers or protects individuals from stressful events (Cohen & Wills,
1985). Social support was found to reduce job strain and to moderate
the stressor–strain relationship (Viswesvaran et al., 1999). In
addition, the social control hypothesis posits that social interactions
promote healthy behaviors, which, in turn, lead to long-term positive
health outcomes (Umberson, 1987), including cognitive functioning
(Kelly et al., 2017). Using the category-based approach, recovery
research has provided evidence for the benefits of social activities on
employee well-being, relating these to increased situational well-
being before going to bed (Sonnentag, 2001), to diminished need for
recovery (Sonnentag & Zijlstra, 2006), and to increased next-
morning vigor (ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012).
Mental
The mental dimension refers to the extent to which the activity is
cognitively demanding and requires the application of cognitive
resources for completion. Engaging in non-work-related activities
that require exerting mental efforts can facilitate recovery through
several mechanisms. First, it can distract people from work-related
thoughts and stop them from work-related activities (S. Kim et al.,
2017), leading to psychological detachment from work (Bennett et
al., 2020). Research shows that the prolonged load reactions caused
by extending work-related effort are diminished and fatigue decreases
even when individuals engage in effortful tasks (Hockey, 2011). For
instance, Bennett et al. (2020) found that fatigue reduced in
participantswho took a little break from a cognitively demanding task
to do another cognitively demanding task. Finally, exerting mental
effort on non-work-related activities can build personal resources that
benefit recovery from work stress (Demerouti et al., 2009). The
micro-break literature documented benefits of activities that require
exerting mental effort on non-work-related tasks. For example,
S. Kim et al. (2018) found an increase in positive-activated affect
and job performance after engaging in cognitively demanding
micro-breaks.
Creative
The creative dimension can be described as the extent to which an
activity involves inventing and making new things or simply being
creative. Similar to the mental dimension, creative engagement
requires cognitive efforts but it includes, in addition, producing work
that is novel, useful, and generative (Fink et al., 2009;Sternberg &
Lubart, 1996). Creative engagement can be beneficial for recovery as
it helps acquire new resources when one’s resources are depleted due
to work stressors, such as self-efficacy (Hobfoll, 1989;Sonnentag,
2003). Furthermore, creative engagement stimulates the pleasure/
reward brain center (Winwood et al., 2007) and fosters mastery
experience (Demerouti et al., 2009). Although activities involving
creativity have received limited attention in the recovery literature,
initial evidence suggests that creative engagement is positively
associated with recovery experiences and performance outcomes
(Eschleman et al., 2014).
Spiritual
The spiritual dimension refers to the extent to which an activity
involves spiritual or religious performance or actions. Spiritual
involvement can foster positive emotions (Y. Kim et al., 2004),
which can be very effective experiences to enhance recovery
(Oerlemans et al., 2014). Mindfulness is a good example of spiritual
involvement, and ample research suggests that mindfulness
meditation promotes recovery experiences and sleep (Hülsheger
et al., 2015;Michel et al., 2014). Furthermore, Bostock et al. (2019)
found that participants who followed a mindfulness meditation
program for 2 months showed significant improvement in their
stress level and well-being as compared with the control group. It is
important to note that spiritual involvement is not limited to what
individuals do when they practice religion or mindfulness but it can
be an element of many activities (Creighton-Smith et al., 2017).
Virtual
The virtual dimension reflects the extent to which the activity
involves using screens, computers, telecommunication devices, or
the internet. A wide range of activities can be performed via screens
such as surfing the internet, watching TV, playing video games, and
using social media. These activities differ in many aspects but share
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
THE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN RECOVERY ACTIVITIES 243

the virtual aspect, which has been shown to influence recovery in
either a good way or a bad way (Cheng & Cho, 2021;Collins & Cox,
2014). The uses and gratifications theory (Katz et al., 1973) indicates
that people engage in virtual activities for different reasons
including relaxation, entertainment, to pass time, as well as social
interaction (Whiting & Williams, 2013). In contrast, other research
asserts that screen time impairs sleep (Hale & Guan, 2015;
Lakerveld et al., 2016), and impaired sleep, in turn, impairs the
recovery process and decreases next-day work engagement (Barber
et al., 2013;Fritz & Crain, 2016;Kühnel et al., 2017). The
displacement hypothesis provides a simple explanation for the effect
of screen time on sleep. People, who spend more time in front of
screens, tend to have less time for sleep (Hale & Guan, 2015).
Moreover, bright light from screens can suppress melatonin, the
sleep-promoting hormone (Green et al., 2017). A few studies
investigated the effects of activities with virtual components on
recovery outcomes. For example, watching TV was found to be
related to experiencing relaxation (Kuykendall et al., 2020) and
video games reduced work-related fatigue, particularly for people
who receive less social support (Reinecke, 2009).
Outdoor
The outdoor dimension refers to the extent to which an activity is
conducted outdoor or in nature. Being outdoor can enhance recovery
by increasing positive affect, energy (Fuegen & Breitenbecher,
2018), relaxation, and various emotional parameters related to stress
relief (Corazon et al., 2019). The attention restoration theory
(Kaplan, 1995) suggests that being in outdoor environments restores
one’s cognitive resources by being exposed to fascinating subjects
that require effortless brain function. Much evidence indeed
suggests that being outdoor is beneficial for recovery. For example,
Hyvönen et al. (2018) found that people with high exposure to
nature reported higher engagement and lower levels of burnout than
people with low exposure. In addition, K. Korpela and Kinnunen
(2010) compared the effectiveness of various type of leisure
activities and found that exercise while being outdoor and time spent
in interaction with nature were the most effective activities for
recovery from work stress.
Novelty
The novelty dimension refers to the extent to which the activity is
new, original, or unusual. Engaging in novel activities provides
pleasure and enjoyment (Tinsley & Eldredge, 1995), and experienc-
ing these feelings plays a crucial role in enhancing recovery from
work stress (van Hooff et al., 2011). Novel activities can also enhance
positive affect (Aron et al., 2000), which is an indicator of well-being
and has been positively related to recovery (Steed et al., 2021). In
addition, engaging in novel activities requires active mental
processing of the activity throughout the engagement (Fritsch et
al., 2005); and it can thereby enhance psychological detachment by
distracting the individual from work-related thoughts.
Development of Hypotheses
In the following sections, we first develop hypotheses on how these
recovery activity dimensions relate to constructs pertaining to a wider
nomological network. Specifically, we focus on personality traits that
may play a role in which RAC employees seek out. Subsequently, we
delineate how RAC relate to recovery experiences. Finally, we argue
that recovery experiences function as key mechanisms linking RAC
to employee well-being (i.e., emotional exhaustion and vigor) and
propose a number of mediating pathways. We note that with seven
1
recovery activity dimensions, four recovery experiences, and two
well-being outcomes, there is a large number of relationships that
could potentially be investigated and that might seem intuitively
plausible. However, for the sake of brevity and parsimony, we
focus only on those hypotheses that have strong theoretical support.
A conceptual overview is provided in Figure 1.
Personality Traits as Conceptual Antecedents of RAC
Person-related factorscan determine what RAC employees engage
in during their nonwork time. We discuss four personality traits, that
is, openness to experience, extraversion, need for affiliation, and need
for cognition, that are likely to be related to one or more recovery
activity dimensions due to conceptual proximity.
Openness to experience refers to “a continuum of individual
differences in processing experience”(McCrae & Costa, 1997, p. 826).
People high in openness to experience are reflective and thoughtful
about the ideas they encounter, and they actively engage in new and
varied experiences (McCrae & Costa, 1997). They are intrinsically
motivated to engage in creative tasks (Bennett et al., 2020). Research
found that participants high in openness to experience tend to spend
their leisure time engaging in creative activities (Benedek et al., 2020).
We therefore expect that people high in openness to experience tend
to engage in activities that involve creativity.
Hypothesis 1: Openness to experience will be positively related
to the creative dimension.
Extraversion is a personality trait that includes a variety of
characteristics such as sociability, assertiveness, high activity level,
positive emotions, and impulsivity (Smelser & Baltes, 2001).
Ashton et al. (2002) argued that the core feature of extraversion is
the tendency to behave in ways that attract social attention. That is,
extroverts engage in activities that involve social interactions to seek
social attention. Therefore, it has been found that extroverts are most
likely to engage in activities that involve social interaction, such as
socializing, partying, and team sport (Wilkinson & Hansen, 2006).
Need for affiliation, which also can be referred to as the need for
relatedness or the need for belongingness (Kuykendall et al., 2020;
Ryan & Deci, 2000), is defined as the desire to interact socially and
to be accepted by others (Heckert et al., 2000). People high in need
for affiliation tend to engage in activities that involve social
interaction with others (Heckert et al., 2000). Therefore, we expect
that people high in extraversion and need for affiliation will engage
more in activities that include social interactions.
Hypothesis 2: Both (a) extraversion and (b) need for affiliation
will be positively related to the social dimension.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
1
Because the novelty dimension was excluded from the model in the
validation phase, for the sake of parsimony, we did not include hypotheses on
this dimension.
244 ALAMEER, UITDEWILLIGEN, AND HÜLSHEGER

Need for cognition is the tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful
thinking and problem solving (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982;Lins de
HolandaCoelhoetal.,2020). Such a trait can enhance participation in
activities that involve mental and creative characteristics. People high
in need for cognition tend to engage in creative thinking, problem
solving, and the development of novel ideas (Pan et al., 2021).
Therriault et al. (2015) found that the higher people score on need for
cognition, the more they engaged in cognitively higher load activities
compared to cognitively lower load activities during their leisure
time. Therefore, we expect that need for cognition will be positively
related to both the mental and the creative dimensions.
Hypothesis 3: Need for cognition will be positively related to
(a) the mental dimension and (b) the creative dimension.
The Role of RAC for Recovery Experiences
Recovery experiences describe recovery-related psychological
states people experience during nonwork time (Sonnentag et al.,
2017). Recovery experiences and recovery activities are both
important elements of the recovery process, with recovery activities
fostering specific recovery experiences, which, in turn, benefit
employee well-being (Sonnentag et al., 2017). Four recovery
experiences (i.e., psychological detachment, relaxation, mastery,
and control; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007) have been identified to be
central in the recovery literature and have been shown to be related
to a range of well-being outcomes (Bennett et al., 2018;Steed et al.,
2021). In the following, we draw on Sonnentag and Fritz’s (2007)
recovery experiences framework and delineate how specific RAC
relate to specific recovery experiences. In so doing, our focus is on
detachment, mastery, and relaxation as these dimensions are
theoretically derived outcomes of one or more recovery activity
dimension. In contrast, the recovery experience of control is less
likely to depend on activity characteristics themselves but rather on
the autonomy people have in choosing what activity to pursue in and
on their motivation for choosing a certain activity (Sonnentag &
Fritz, 2007).
Psychological Detachment
Psychological detachment, mental disengagement from work
(Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007), is a crucial recovery experience
(Sonnentag, 2012). It is positively related to self-reported physical
and mental health, state well-being, and job performance (for meta-
analysis, see Wendsche & Lohmann-Haislah, 2017). Psychologi-
cal detachment is difficult to achieve (Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005),
yet participation in leisure activities can help individuals to
become distracted from work stressors and foster their experience
of being away from work (Kaplan, 1995;Yeung, 1996). The
distraction hypothesis suggests that activities can provide
cognitive respite or “time out”from worrisome thoughts and
daily stressors (Yeung, 1996). This hypothesis was originally
formulated for physical exercise, but it applies to other activities
that involve creative or mental efforts as well to the extent that such
activities require a strong focus on the task and therefore provide
opportunities to experience flow (Hegarty, 2009;Jackson &
Csikszentmihalyi, 1999). When individuals experience flow, they
are intensively engaged in and get fully absorbed by the activity
and forget everything around them (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).
Being outdoor can also stimulate a sense of being away from work
because the fascinating objects that nature contains distract
individuals from work by bringing attention to other elements of
life (Kaplan, 1995). Evidence also shows that social activities can
help employees to abstain from work-related thoughts during
leisure time (ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012). Overall, this
evidence suggests that the more engrossing and thought capturing
an activity is, the more people will be distracted from work-related
thoughts. Therefore, we expect the extent to which individuals
engage in all of the activity characteristics’dimensions will be
positively related to the experience of psychological detachment
from work.
Hypothesis 4: The (a) physical, (b) social, (c) creative,
(d) mental, (e) spiritual, (f) virtual, and (g) outdoor dimensions
are positively related to psychological detachment.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
Figure 1
Overview of Possible Antecedents and Outcomes of Recovery Activity Characteristics
THE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN RECOVERY ACTIVITIES 245

Relaxation
Relaxation, a state of low activation and high positive affect, is
important for recovery because of its potential to reduce prolonged
activation and undo negative emotions, resulting from work
stressors (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). Accordingly, meta-analyses
have consistently revealed that relaxation is one of the most
powerful recovery experiences (Bennett et al., 2018;Steed et al.,
2021). Relaxation can be enhanced by activities that are not
demanding, that require little physical or mental energy expenditure,
and that have few challenges (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007;Tinsley &
Eldredge, 1995). Activities that require energy expenditure such as
physical and mental activities induce a state of high activation.
Although these activities can contribute to the relaxation experience
in the long run (ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012), we expect that
the immediate effect of engagement in these activities is likely to
reduce the experience of relaxation.
However, there are other activity characteristics that can be
expected to raise the relaxation experience. For example, spiritual
engagement involves a sense of calm, peace, meaning, and feeling
connected with a higher power, which fosters a relaxation experience
(Burke et al., 2017). This is in line with the meditation literature that
has discussed the critical role of spiritual engagement in relaxation.
For example, Wachholtz and Pargament (2005) found that spiritual
meditation led to a greater decrease in anxiety levels and more
positive moods than secular meditation. Being outdoor, especially in
restorative environments (e.g., nature, historical sites), may also
benefit relaxation as outdoor experiences enhance positive affect and
reduce stress (K. M. Korpela et al., 2002;Scopelliti et al., 2019).
Attention restoration theory (Kaplan, 1995)explainsthatnatural
environments reduce fatigue resulting from directed attention. It
thereby provides restorative experiences and promotes low activation
and positive affect (i.e., relaxation). Empirical studies have supported
the role of relaxation as a mediator in the relationship between
interaction with nature and recovery from work stress (K. Korpela &
Kinnunen, 2010). Finally, activities that mainly include social
interactions or virtual engagement are typically nondemanding and
pleasurable where people feel at ease with the company they chose or
things they watch. Therefore, we expect that engaging in activities
with social interaction or with virtual engagement will promote
relaxation experiences.
Hypothesis 5: The (a) outdoor, (b) social, (c) virtual, and (d)
spiritual dimensions are positively related to relaxation experi-
ences, while the (e) physical and (f) mental dimensions are
negatively related to relaxation.
Mastery
Mastery experience refers to the personal experience of success
when engaging in leisure activities (Bandura, 1977;Yeh et al.,
2019). Recovery research has documented the importance of
mastery experience through its negative associations with exhaus-
tion, psychological distress, and physical complaints and positive
associations with vigor at work and life satisfaction (Bennett et al.,
2018;Steed et al., 2021). Such experiences are fostered by activities
that provide opportunities for achievement and growth such as
learning something new or engaging in a demanding hobby, which
provide feelings of improvement, achievement, and success
(Sonnentag et al., 2017;Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). Engaging in
activities that require creative, mental, or physical efforts, such as
writing a novel, playing chess, and cycling, can be challenging and
provides learning opportunities, which develop individuals’abilities
and competencies such as improvement of one’s lexicon or body
strength (Eschleman et al., 2014;Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007).
Therefore, we expect that individuals will experience mastery
when they engage in activities that are rich in the physical, creative,
or mental characteristics.
Hypothesis 6: The (a) physical, (b) creative, and (c) mental
dimensions are positively related to mastery experiences.
The Mediating Role of Recovery Experiences in
the Relation Between Recovery Activities and
Well-Being Outcomes
As outlined by Sonnentag et al. (2022), recovery activities and
recovery experiences form the core of the recovery process.
Specifically, recovery activities foster recovery experiences, which,
in turn, relate to downstream well-being outcomes (Sonnentag et al.,
2010,2022). Thus, the link of the more tangible and observable
recovery activities with well-being outcomes can be explained by
the specific psychological recovery experiences they promote. In the
context of day-to-day recovery, it is important to investigate
immediate (i.e., in the evening) as well as delayed effects (i.e., on
the next morning) of afterwork recovery activities and experiences
(cf. Sonnentag et al., 2022). These may differ with immediate effects
typically being stronger than delayed effects occurring after a
restorative night (cf. Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015). In studying relations
of RAC with well-being outcomes, we therefore focus on emotional
exhaustion both in the evening and in the next morning. Emotional
exhaustion captures feelings of being overextended and emotionally
and physically depleted (Maslach et al., 2001). It is a key indicator of
work strain and core component of burnout (Maslach, 1998)and
lends itself to be assessed in the evening and in the morning. In
addition, we focus on next-morning vigor, a state capturing the extent
to which employees feel energetic toward and look forward to their
work (Schaufeli et al., 2006). It is an important indicator of work-
related pleasant activation and core component of work engagement
(González-Romáet al., 2006). As such, next-morning vigor is of
particular relevance as it forms the link to next-day work experiences
and behavior (ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012). Having a clear
forward-looking and work-related connotation,it is typically assessed
in the morning rather than in the evening after work (Clinton et al.,
2017;ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012).
Bennett et al. (2018) described two different pathways explaining
how recovery experiences relate to well-being outcomes. The first
pathway highlights the role of relaxation and detachment in reducing
the psychological load from work demands and thereby impeding
prolonged load reactions that may otherwise manifest in emotional
exhaustion. The second pathway is based on the conservation of
resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989) and emphasizes how building up
internal resources (skills, competencies, and self-efficacy) through
mastery experience fosters resource gain such as vigor (Sonnentag &
Fritz, 2007). Therefore, based on the abovementioned mechanisms,
we propose mastery experiences as the mediating mechanism
between recovery activity dimensions and vigor, and detachment
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
246 ALAMEER, UITDEWILLIGEN, AND HÜLSHEGER

and relaxation as mediating mechanisms between recovery activity
dimensions and exhaustion.
Hypothesis 7: Psychological detachment mediates the negative
relationship between the (a) physical, (b) social, (c) creative,
(d) mental, (e) spiritual, (f) virtual, and (g) outdoor dimensions
and evening exhaustion.
Hypothesis 8: Relaxation mediates the negative relationship
between the (a) social, (b) spiritual, (c) virtual, and (d) outdoor
dimensions and evening exhaustion and the positive relation-
ship between the (e) physical and (f) mental dimensions and
evening exhaustion.
Hypothesis 9: Psychological detachment mediates the negative
relationship between the (a) physical, (b) social, (c) creative, (d)
mental, (e) spiritual, (f) virtual, and (g) outdoor dimensions and
next-morning exhaustion.
Hypothesis 10: Relaxation mediates the negative relationship
between the (a) social, (b) spiritual, (c) virtual, and (d) outdoor
dimensions and next-morning exhaustion and the positive
relationship between the (e) physical and (f) mental dimensions
and next-morning exhaustion.
Hypothesis 11: Mastery mediates the positive relationship
between the (a) physical, (b) creative, and (c) mental dimensions
and next-morning vigor.
Method
Scale Development and Item Generation
To create a valid and reliable measure of RAC, we followed a
stepwise approach based on Hinkin (1998).
We started by generating items using a deductive method, that is,
based on the theoretical definitions of the proposed constructs
described in the theory section (Hinkin, 1995). Fifty-six English items
were generated to represent the initial pool for measuring eight
dimensions. In addition to these dimensions, we created four items to
measure the extent to which activities were work-related. As we are
interested in the pure effects of characteristics of recovery activities
performed during leisure time, it is important to be able to control for
work-related activities during leisure time people might have engaged
in. Items were either newly developed or adapted from other existing
measures. In developing and adapting items, we followed recom-
mendations to avoid wordy, double-barreled, complicated, and
ambiguous formulations (DeVellis, 2016). We also abstained from
using reverse-scored items because of their detrimental impact on
psychometric properties (Harrison & McLaughlin, 1991).
As a first step of establishing content validity of our initial item
pool, we provided 21 experts, researchers in organizational
psychology familiar with scale development, a list of RAC, and
their definitions. We then asked them to evaluate the constructs and
the items and to assign each item to the best-fitting construct
(Anderson & Gerbing, 1991). Based on their suggestion, we
deleted one item related to the novelty dimension. In addition, two
indices—the proportion of substantive agreement (P
sa
) and the
substantive validity coefficient (C
sv
)—were calculated to assess
the substantive validity of the each subscale (Colquitt et al., 2019).
The P
sa
represents the proportion of respondents who allocated an
item to its intended construct, ranging from 0 to 1, where 1 indicates a
very strong substantive validity. The C
sv
assesses the extent to which
respondents assign an item to its intended construct more than to any
other construct, ranging from −1 to 1, where 1 again indicates very
strong substantive validity (Colquitt et al., 2019). As a result, only one
item was removed (related to the creative dimension) because it
showed a lack of substantive validity (P
sa
=0.38; C
sv
=−0.19),
whereas all other items showed strong to very strong substantive
validity, with P
sa
values ranging from 0.90 to 1, and C
sv
values
ranging from 0.81 to 1 (Colquitt et al., 2019). This pool of 54 items
was the starting point of a comprehensive scale validation process
encompassing four studies.
Overview of Validation Phases and Associated Studies
Following Hinkin’s (1998) recommendations, we first sought to
provide further evidence on the content validity of the generated items
(Study 1). Subsequently, we took a first step toward establishing
the instrument’s factor structure and to reduce the number of items
to keep the instrument as short as possible (Study 2). To assess
psychometric properties (i.e., confirmatory factor analysis [CFA] and
reliabilities) of the newly developed questionnaire, assess antecedents
and criterion-related validities, we conducted Studies 3 and 4. A brief
description of each study is provided below (see also Table 3). All
measures used across the four studies can be found in Table 4.The
local ethical review committee approved all four studies (codes:
ERCPN-FPN-166_07_04_2016 and OZL_231_145_12_2020, Fac-
ulty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University).
Study 1
The purpose of this study was to assess the content validity of the
RAC Questionnaire. This is a crucial step to make sure that the scale
content adequately reflects its constructs (Colquitt et al., 2019). We
followed Colquitt et al. (2019) recommendations to use the Hinkin
and Tracey (1999) approach to assess the content validity. Based on
Hinkin and Tracey (1999) recommendations to recruit lay people for
this approach, we recruited participants using Prolific(https://www
.prolific.co), an online research participant recruitment platform.
Participants were asked to indicate how well each newly developed
item of the RAC questionnaire matched the construct’sdefinition on
a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 =item does an extremely bad
job of measuring the bolded concept provided above to 6 =item
does a very good job of measuring the bolded concept provided
above. Each item had to be evaluated on all dimensions. Items were
presented in English. To minimize participant fatigue, each
participant rated six to seven items referring to all dimensions of
the scale. A total of 263 individuals completed the survey, but only
data from 186 individuals were analyzed as 51 individuals either
were not employees or failed more than one attention check. Each
participant received 1.30 Pound Sterling for their participation. Of
the participants, 47.8% were female and 52.2% were male with an
average age of 30.51 (SD =8.81; range =18–62). The sample
consisted for 79.6% of full-time employees and 20.4% were part-
time employees with an average 36.83 (SD =11.46) hr per week,
and they had worked 4.35 years in their current position (SD =8.79).
For more information about this sample, see Table 3.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Content may be shared at no cost, but any requests to reuse this content in part or whole must go through the American Psychological Association.
THE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN RECOVERY ACTIVITIES 247