This article was downloaded by: [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] On: 12 February 2013, At: 10:09 Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

Take a break?! Off-job recovery, job demands, and job resources as predictors of health, active learning, and creativity
Jan de Jonge , Ellen Spoor , Sabine Sonnentag , Christian Dormann & Marieke van den Tooren
a c a a a b

Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
b

Department of Psychology, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

c

Department of Work, Organizational and Economic Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany Version of record first published: 26 Jul 2011.

To cite this article: Jan de Jonge , Ellen Spoor , Sabine Sonnentag , Christian Dormann & Marieke van den Tooren (2012): Take a break?! Off-job recovery, job demands, and job resources as predictors of health, active learning, and creativity, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21:3, 321-348 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.576009

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sublicensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 2012, 21 (3), 321348

Take a break?! O-job recovery, job demands, and job resources as predictors of health, active learning, and creativity
Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

Jan de Jonge1, Ellen Spoor1, Sabine Sonnentag2, Christian Dormann3, and Marieke van den Tooren1
Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands Department of Psychology, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany Department of Work, Organizational and Economic Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany
The aim of this study is to investigate the moderating eect of matching job resources as well as matching o-job recovery (i.e., detachment from work) on the relation between corresponding job demands and psychological outcomes. Using the Demand-Induced Strain Compensation (DISC) Model as a theoretical framework, we conducted a cross-sectional survey study with 399 employees from three Dutch organizations. Results showed that (1) cognitive demands, resources, and lack of detachment are predictors of cognitive outcomes (i.e., active learning and creativity), (2) emotional demands and lack of detachment are predictors of emotional outcomes (i.e., emotional exhaustion), and (3) physical demands, lack of detachment, and lack of resources are predictors of physical outcomes (i.e., physical health complaints). Specically, cognitive detachment from work might have negative eects on learning and creativity, whereas emotional and physical detachment from work might have positive eects on employees health, and even on creativity. In conclusion, in order to cope with specic job demands, employees need corresponding job resources and detachment from work to balance health and performance-related outcomes.
3 2 1

Correspondence should be addressed to Jan de Jonge, Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, Human Performance Management Group, Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, Eindhoven, 5600 MB, The Netherlands. E-mail: j.d.jonge@tue.nl 2012 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business http://www.psypress.com/ejwop http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.576009

322

DE JONGE ET AL.

Keywords: Burnout; Creativity; Detachment from work; Job demands; Job resources; O-job recovery.

Many employees in todays working situations have to deal with high levels of job demands, which could have negative eects on their health and job performance (e.g., Parent-Thirion, Fernandez-Mac as, Hurley, & Vermeylen, 2005). In order to cope with these job demands, researchers have tried to identify job characteristics that buer against the adverse eects of job demands. For instance, it has been proposed that so-called job resources are able to moderate the relation between job demands and employee outcomes, such that high job demands result in poor health or low performance, unless employees have sucient job resources (such as job control and workplace social support) to cope with their demanding job (e.g., Demerouti, Bakker, de Jonge, Janssen, & Schaufeli, 2001; Karasek & Theorell, 1990). In this perspective, job resources can be broadly conceptualized as instrumental, psychosocial, assets at work that can be used as strategic options for action (cf. Hobfoll, 1989, 2002). Because job demands can often not be reduced, the idea to increase job resources instead to combat strain is appealing for todays working life. More recently, Sonnentag and Zijlstra (2006) noted that the process of recovering from job demands is equally important. Researchers have increasingly shown that o-job recovery is important to protect employees health and to optimize job performance (e.g., Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005; Fritz, Yankelevich, Zarubin, & Barger, 2010; Sonnentag & Niessen, 2008; Westman & Eden, 1997). Recovery refers to the process during which an individuals functioning returns to its prestressor level and in which strain is reduced (Craig & Cooper, 1992; Meijman & Mulder, 1998). Thus, recovery can be regarded as a process opposite to the strain process during which the detrimental eects of stressful situations are at least alleviated or even eliminated. Recovery occurs when no further demands are put on those aspects of an individuals functioning on which job demands have been put during the work process (Meijman & Mulder, 1998). If recovery is successful, an individuals health and performance improves. If o-job recovery is not successful, health and performance will be aected and the individual starts the next working day in a suboptimal state. This study investigates the relation between o-job recovery, job demands, and job resources in the prediction of psychological outcomes. Theoretical models such as Hobfolls (1989, 1998) Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory and the EortRecovery (E-R) Model (Meijman, 1989; Meijman & Mulder, 1998) explain the role of o-job recovery in the job stress process. More specically, exposure to job demands implies that some sort of eort has to be expended to meet those demands. According to

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

TAKE A BREAK?

323

Hockey (2000) as well as Zijlstra and Sonnentag (2006), eort expenditure during work draws on an employees internal resources, and may lead to resource depletion (see also Hobfoll, 2002). Enduring resource depletion will lead to fatigue and nally to a state of exhaustion. To avoid this situation, people need to rell their energy reservoirs, for instance by means of o-job recovery.

DEMAND-INDUCED STRAIN COMPENSATION MODEL

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013
The assocation between job demands, job resources, and o-job recovery in the prediction of health, active learning, and creativity will be tested using the Demand-Induced Strain Compensation (DISC) Model (de Jonge & Dormann, 2003, 2006). The DISC Model initially proposes that employee outcomes can be explained by two dierent work-related antecedents (i.e., job demands and job resources) and by two distinct processes. First, as far as these antecedents and outcomes are concerned, de Jonge and Dormann (2003, 2006) emphasize the need to recognize the multidimensionality of these concepts. In line with Hockey (2000), they propose that job demands, job resources, and job-related outcomes each contain cognitive, emotional, and physical elementsan assumption that has been empirically justied (e.g., de Jonge & Dormann, 2006; van den Tooren & de Jonge, 2008). Second, the DISC Model predicts that high job demands may have adverse eects on health and well-being that can best be counteracted through the availability and activation of functional, corresponding, kinds of job resources (also known as matchingcf. Daniels & de Jonge, 2010). For example, when emotional problems with clients arise (e.g., insolent patients), emotionally supportive colleagues as job resources are likely to be helpful. If emotionally supportive colleagues are unavailable, other job resources can be useful to some extent, for instance control at work to handle a particular problematic client. Based on functional, self-regulatory processes, de Jonge and Dormann (2006) propose that job demands are rstly dealt with using easily available matching job resources. If such matching job resources are not available or when they are depleted (cf. Hobfoll, 2002), employees will search for other job resources and will even use job resources that do not correspond to the kind of job demands. As a consequence, de Jonge and Dormann state that matching job resources are most often powerful in combating particular job demands, followed by less-matching or even nonmatching job resources. Recently, Daniels and de Jonge (2010) presented an overview of empirical evidence for the key assumptions in the DISC Model. Studies conducted to test the matching principle of the DISC Model show that results in general have been supportive. Specically, 15 out of 19 DISC studies (including two

324

DE JONGE ET AL.

2-wave panel studies and 16 cross-sectional studies) showed evidence in support of the model.

BEYOND DISC: INTEGRATION OF DETACHMENT FROM WORK

One of the aims of the present study is to integrate o-job recovery as an additional explanatory factor into the DISC Model. Until now, the DISC Model mainly focused on processes occurring at work. However, it might not only be unfavorable features of the work situation (and a mismatch between job demands and job resources) that lead to negative health outcomes. Also experiences and events happening o the job may be related to health. Specically, research on recovery has shown that recovery experiences during nonwork time interact with job demands (Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, 2010) and job resources (Siltaloppi, Kinnunen, & Feldt, 2009) in the prediction of poor health and well-being. These studies, however, did not yet systematically test the interaction between job demands, job resources, and o-job recovery; nor they did not dierentiate between the cognitive, emotional, and physical aspects of demands, resources, and recovery. Thus, our extended DISC Model also goes beyond earlier research on recovery by describing specic combinations of job demands and resources on the one hand, and o-job recovery on the other. Gaining knowledge about how job demands, job resources, and o-job recovery are related to employee outcomes is highly relevant for both theory and practice. From a theoretical point of view, matching internal resources are most important to buer stress (cf. Daniels & de Jonge, 2010; de Jonge & Dormann, 2006). The DISC Model proposes that external resources (such as job resources) are utilized when matching internal resources are unavailable or depleted. The present research, while still acknowledging the usefulness of external resources, adds to the literature by investigating recovery as a strategy by which internal resources are rebuilt. In the present study, we will focus on the recovery concept of detachment from work. This concept can be seen as the most central diversionary strategy as far as job-related recovery is concerned (cf. Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007; Sonnentag & Geurts, 2009). Etzion, Eden, and Lapidot (1998) dened detachment from work as an individuals sense of being away from the work situation (p. 579). It is an experience of leaving ones work behind when returning home from work (i.e., switching o through o-job recovery). Low detachment from work implies that the functional bodily systems (e.g., neuroendocrine and cardiovascular systems) remain in a state of prolonged activation (e.g., Brosschot, Gerin, & Thayer, 2006). To recover from high job demands, it is important that employees engage in o-job activities that appeal to other systems or do not engage at all in eort-related activities (cf. Geurts &

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

TAKE A BREAK?

325

Sonnentag, 2006). For instance, a healthcare worker whose job requires high emotional eort would be better o avoiding engagement in o-job activities that put high demands on the same (i.e., emotional) systems. Similarly, a construction worker with a highly demanding physical job would be better o avoiding engagement in activities after work that put high demands on the same (i.e., physical) systems. In this context, Sonnentag and Niessen (2008) proposed that a full degree of o-job recovery is attained when the employee feels that both cognitive and physical as well as emotional systems called upon during work have returned to their baseline levels after work. So, we assume that detachment from work should encompass cognitive, emotional, and physical absence from work, which is in line with the three DISC dimensions. In line with Meijmans (1989) E-R Model and subsequent theorizing about the role of o-job recovery in the job stress process (Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006), we propose that detachment from work has an additional, moderating, eect in the relation between job demands, job resources, and employee outcomes. Furthermore, in line with DISC theory, we assume that detachment from work which matches particular demands will be most eective (e.g., emotional detachment in relation to emotional demands). However, before delineating our hypotheses, we will rst discuss the dierent functions of detachment from work in processes of health, active learning, and creativity. First, in unfavorable work situations (i.e., when job demands are high and job resources are low), detaching from work could have a positive eect on an employees health. These situations are high strain jobs in Karaseks (2008) terms, and phases of switching o through o-job recovery seem to be very important for employees facing these situations. Put dierently, being busy with job-related thoughts after work drains energy that will impair health. Cross-sectional, longitudinal, and daily-survey studies support this view (e.g., Siltaloppi et al., 2009; Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, 2008, 2010; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). For instance, in their panel study with a 1-year time lag, Sonnentag, Binnewies, and Mojza (2010) found a signicant negative association between Time 1 detachment from work and Time 2 exhaustion. Therefore, detachment could indeed support health in high strain jobs due to the restoration of internal resources (see also Sonnentag & Geurts, 2009). Second, though research on detachment and adverse health clearly seems to indicate negative assocations, research on detachment and learning and creativity outcomes is still in its infancy. Active learning and creativity usually do not occur without any cognitive demand placed upon the individual (e.g., Amabile & Mueller, 2008; Karasek, 2008). So, cognitive job demands are in principle useful to ignite active learning and creative behavior, but there are ramifying conditions that must be met. First,

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

326

DE JONGE ET AL.

learning and creativity at work are likely to occur when there is at least a slight surplus of available cognitive job resources (cf. de Jonge & Dormann, 2003). If these resources would be minimal, demands are probably be dealt with using already available cognitive strategies. Only when surpluses are available, is there room to think about existing problems and to develop new and innovative ways of how to handle the cognitive job demands. The question now is how this interplay between demands and resources is conditioned by detachment. At a rst glance, detaching from work means leaving cognitive job demands (and job resources) behind, which could mitigate active learning and creativity. In addition, due to higher boundaries between work and nonwork roles caused by high levels of detachment (cf. Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000), employees may need more time to return into their working mode. This implies that employees will not be as creative as they could have been when they spent some time prior to work thinking about work problems (cf. Fritz et al., 2010). Put dierently, not detaching from work during leisure time seems to be a prerequisite for continuous work-related problem-solving attempts. In cases of high cognitive job demands and resources, low detachment from work might lead to ecient problem solving and thus to increased learning and creative behavior. So, when individuals are exposed to active working conditions (i.e., high demands and high resources), detachment from work as a cognitive recovery strategy hampers active learning and creativity. To sum up these two dierent functions of detachment, we propose that in high strain jobs, high detachment from work represents an important source of o-job recovery, that particularly may foster health (i.e., rebuilding internal resources). In contrast, in active jobs, high cognitive detachment from work might be detrimental for processes of learning and creativity to occur, whereas low detachment could be particularly benecial to learning and creative behavior (i.e., some sort of prolonged activation of problem-solving thoughts). The following three hypotheses address the extent to which the three kinds of work-related antecedents predict health, active learning, and creativity. Based on the DISC matching assumption and respective reasoning about o-job recovery, we hypothesize that both job resources and detachment from work are moderators in the relation between job demands and psychological outcomes. In addition, we expect that matching job resources as well as matching detachment from work are most often powerful in combating particular job demands. Hypothesis 1: Emotional job resources and emotional detachment from work moderate the relation between emotional job demands and emotional exhaustion (three-way moderation). In more detail, this relation will be weaker for employees with both high emotional resources

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

TAKE A BREAK?

327

and high emotional detachment, than for employees lacking those resources and detachment. Hypothesis 2: Physical job resources and physical detachment from work moderate the relation between physical job demands and physical complaints (three-way moderation). Similarly, this relation will be weaker for employees with both high physical resources and high physical detachment, than for employees lacking those resources and detachment.

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

Hypothesis 3: Cognitive job demands are positively related to active learning and creativity, and this relation is moderated (i.e., strengthened) by cognitive job resources, as well as moderated (i.e., weakened) by cognitive detachment from work (three-way moderation). In more detail, the moderating/strengthening eect of cognitive job resources will be stronger for employees with low rather than high cognitive detachment.

METHOD Procedure and participants

Cross-sectional surveys were distributed among 873 employees from three service organizations in The Netherlands; that is, 150 healthcare workers from a general hospital, 123 healthcare workers from an organization for residential elderly care, and 600 workers employed in a recreation resort. Organizations were selected by convenience sampling, but also because this kind of work poses cognitive, emotional, and physical demands on employees. In total 399 out of 873 people returned the questionnaire (46% response rate). Response rates per organization were 57%, 59%, and 40%, respectively. The somewhat lower response rate in the third organization might be caused by the relatively high number of temporary workers. Employees were well-informed about the survey, and could participate on a voluntary basis. A breakdown of the demographics showed that 80% of the employees were female (percentages per organization: 72%, 97%, and 78%, respectively). The mean age was 36.7 years (SD 12.6), and ranged from 16 to 62 years. Mean age for hospital workers was 41.1 years (SD 10.9), for elderly care workers 42.2 years (SD 9.1), and for recreation resort workers 33.5 years (SD 13.1). Mean organizational tenure per organization was 13.3 (SD 9.4), 5.9 (SD 6.8), and 6.5 (SD 6.2) years, respectively. Total mean organizational tenure was 7.9 years (SD 7.6). Fifteen per cent of all participants worked on a full-time basis, which means at least 36 hours per week (percentages per organization: 45%, 3%, and 8%, respectively). Finally, 76% of the participants reached a secondary

328

DE JONGE ET AL.

educational level (sometimes associated with additional healthcare education), whereas the remaining part had a bachelors or masters degree. These demographics do not substantially dier from other Dutch studies in these types of organizations (e.g., de Jonge, le Blanc, Peeters, & Noordam, 2008; Gevers, van Erven, de Jonge, Maas, & de Jong, 2010; van Veldhoven & Sluiter, 2009).

Measures
Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013
Variables included in the present study are cognitive, emotional, and physical job demands, job resources, and detachment from work on the one hand, and psychological outcomes on the other. Table 1 shows the psychometric properties of these measures (i.e., Cronbachs alphas or item intercorrelations on diagonal) as well as their means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations. Cognitive, emotional, and physical job demands and job resources. These were measured using a well-validated, shortened version of the DISC Questionnaire (DISQ-S), which was particularly developed for testing this theoretical model (e.g., van den Tooren & de Jonge, 2008; van de Ven, Vlerick, & de Jonge, 2008). Cognitive job demands primarily impinge on brain processes involved in information processing, e.g., Employee X will need to display high levels of concentration and precision at work. Emotional job demands can be dened as the eort needed to deal with job inherent emotions and/or organizationally desired emotions during interpersonal transactions, e.g., Employee X will have to display emotions (e.g., towards clients, colleagues, or supervisors) that are inconsistent with his/her current feelings. Physical job demands refer to static and dynamic physical exertion at work, e.g., Employee X will have to lift or move heavy persons or objects (more than 10 kg). Cognitive job resources refer to the opportunity to determine a variety of task aspects and to use problem solving skills, e.g., Employee X would have the opportunity to take a break when tasks require a lot of concentration. Emotional job resources refer to emotional support from colleagues or supervisors, e.g., Other people (e.g., clients, colleagues, or supervisors) would be a listening ear for Employee X when he/she has faced a threatening situation. Finally, physical job resources refer to instrumental support from colleagues and supervisors, or ergonomic aids at work, e.g., Employee X would receive help from others (e.g., clients, colleagues, or supervisors) in lifting or moving heavy persons or objects. All but one scale of the DISQ-S consist of three items that can be scored on a 5-point frequency scale, ranging from 1 (never or very rarely) to 5 (very often or always). Cronbachs alphas in this study vary from .55 to .87 (see Table 1).

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations of the measures

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Measure

SD

1. 2. 3. 4. .39**

0.80 36.70 4.16 0.15

0.40 12.63 .19** 1.51 7.18** 0.36 7.34**

.02 .06

5. .60** .24** .28** 7.09 .20** .03 .05 7.03 .02 7.06 .24** .17** .08 7.04 .02 .11 .20** .26** .06 7.05 7.04 .05 .17** 7.01 .12** .11* .04 .00 .04 .26** 7.08 7.03 7.13* 7.12* .28** 7.05 .07 7.06 .10 7.10 .23** 7.08 .24** .25** .05 7.01 .05 7.04 .08 .14** .87 .38** 7.02 .06 .10 .22** .10 .63 7.03 7.03 .07 .76b .51** .32** .71b .39** .21** .23** .16** .19* 7.22** .55 7.12* .10 .10 .12* .77 .14** 7.13* .25** .53** .74 .23** 7.08 .29** .71 .46** 7.25**

0.18 0.39

.23**

.21** 7.13* 7.17**

6.

0.22 0.41 7.14*

.18**

7.

3.76 0.74

.06

.22**

8.

2.67 0.79 7.04

.10

9. .19**

3.20 0.96

.09

.04

7.06

10.

3.05 0.78 7.04

7.03

11.

3.95 0.86

.18**

.07

7.03

12. .05 .09

3.26 0.76 7.03

7.03

7.09

13.

3.53 0.89

.07

.17**

14.

3.69 0.88 7.04

.08

.12* 7.01 7.16** 7.05

15. .11 .12*

3.71 0.80

.04

.01

7.01

.78b .22** 7.19** 7.13* 7.01 .09 7.06 7.02 .00 .87 .30** .90

TAKE A BREAK?

16.

2.34 0.67 7.04

7.13*

17.

Gender Age Education Employment status Recreation resorta General hospitala Cognitive demands Emotional demands Physical demands Cognitive resources Emotional resources Physical resources Cognitive detachment Emotional detachment Physical detachment Active learning Creativity

2.94 0.65 7.12*

.09

329
(continued overleaf )

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

330
DE JONGE ET AL.

TABLE 1 (Continued )
3 .05 7.10 7.09 7.04 .06 .04 .24** 7.07 7.05 7.09 7.03 .14** .27** .13* 7.08 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Measure

SD

2.27 0.82 7.04

7.06

7.13* 7.13* 7.12* 7.25** 7.33** 7.14* .04 .84 .12* 7.14* 7.08 7.03 7.13* 7.04 .02 .31** .73

18. Emotional exhaustion 19. Physical complaints

1.70 0.66

.16**

.06

7.07

Cronbachs alphas are on the diagonal). N 399. *p 5 .05 (two-tailed), **p 5 .01 (two-tailed). aReference group: organization for residential elderly care. bPearson intercorrelations.

TAKE A BREAK?

331

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

To test the construct validity of the DISQ-S scales in the present study, we estimated a conrmatory factor analytical (CFA) model using LISREL 8.54 (cf. Jo reskog & So rbom, 1996). A six-factor model was estimated positing three factors representing cognitive, emotional, and physical demands, and three factors representing cognitive, emotional, and physical resources. Model tests were based upon the covariance matrix and used maximum likelihood estimation. Model t was assessed by a chi-square test with a nonsignicant test indicating a good t to the empirical data. However, because nonsignicant chi-square test values are rarely obtained in this kind of analysis, we also used other t indices such as the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), the nonnormed t index (NNFI), and the comparative t index (CFI) as recommended by Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010). Though the chi-square was signicant indeed, w2(120) 383.65, p 5 .001, the remaining t indices revealed that a six-factor model provided a good t to the data (RMSEA .07, NNFI .90, CFI .91). All factor loadings were signicant and ranged from .46 to .88 (completely standardized). Factor correlations ranged from 7.22 to .53. Detachment from work. This was measured using a new developed scale by the present authors, called DISQ-R, consisting of cognitive, emotional, and physical detachment after work has been done. All dimensions consist of two items each, which can be scored on a 5-point frequency scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Item correlations for all three dimensions were r .76, r .71, and r .78, respectively (all ps 5 .001). Items of each dimension are: After work, I mentally distance myself from work and After work, I put all thoughts of work aside (cognitive); After work, I emotionally distance myself from work and After work, I keep all emotions from work aside (emotional); After work, I physically distance myself from work and After work, I shake o the physical exertion from work (physical). To test the construct validity of the DISQ-R, again a CFA was conducted. Though the chi-square was signicant, w2(6) 40.24, p 5 .001, the remaining t indices revealed that a three-factor model provided a good t to the data (RMSEA .09, NNFI .91, CFI .96). Factor loadings were all signicant and ranged from .55 to .78 (completely standardized). Factor correlations ranged from .32 to .51. Furthermore, to test whether or not our proposed moderators (i.e., job resources and detachment from work) are conceptually independent, we conducted two additional CFAs. In the rst CFA model, we tested a sixfactor structure proposing three factors representing cognitive, emotional, and physical resources, as well as three factors representing cognitive, emotional, and physical detachment. The second CFA model assumed three general job resource factors on which all resource and detachment items

332

DE JONGE ET AL.

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

were loading on a respective cognitive, emotional, and physical dimension. Then, the two models were compared by means of a chi-square dierence test (Dw2; Bentler & Bonett, 1980), in which a signicant deterioration in t resulted in the rejection of the hypothesis of conceptually dependent constructs. The corresponding chi-square dierence test was signicant, Dw2(12) 736.31, p 5 .001, indicating that the hypothesis of conceptually dependent constructs should be rejected. Looking at the rst and valid CFA model, w2(75) 183.56, p 5 .001, t indices revealed that a six-factor model of three resource factors and three detachment factors provided a good t to the data (RMSEA .06, NNFI .93, CFI .95). This result is in line with the study of van Veldhoven and Sluiter (2009), who also found discriminative validity between job resources and recovery. Emotional exhaustion. Emotional exhaustion was measured by the well-validated Dutch version (Schaufeli & van Dierendonck, 2000) of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach & Jackson, 1986). The scale contained ve items with a 7-point response scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always, daily), with a Cronbachs alpha of .84. An example item is: I feel emotionally drained from my work. Physical health complaints. Physical health complaints refer to neck, shoulder, and back problems in the last 6 months and were measured with three items derived from a scale developed by Hildebrandt and Douwes (1991). The possible responses were 1 (no), 2 (sometimes), and 3 (yes). Cronbachs alpha is .73. Active learning. Active learning refers to the degree employees are enabled and stimulated to acquire new knowledge and skills, and to solve problems at their job. This scale (cf. Taris, Kompier, de Lange, Schaufeli, & Schreurs, 2003) consists of four items that can be scored on a 4-point frequency scale, ranging from 1 ((almost) never) to 4 ((nearly) always). Cronbachs alpha is .87. For example, At work, I learn new things. Employee creativity. Employee creativity can be dened as the generation of novel and useful ideas by employees. This work-related construct was assessed by a 7-item scale originally developed by George and Zhou (2001), and translated/backtranslated in a well-validated Dutch version (e.g., see de Jonge et al., 2008). The scale could be scored on a 5-point rating scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always), with a Cronbachs alpha of .90. Example items are: Comes up with new and practical ideas to improve performance and Exhibits creativity on the job when given opportunity to.

TAKE A BREAK?

333

Demographic characteristics. Finally, demographic characteristics such as gender (dummy coded: 0 male and 1 female), age (continuous variable), education (from 1 low degree to 6 high degree), and employment status (dummy coded: 0 part time and 1 full time) were included as control variables as their relation with this kind of variables is well-established (e.g., de Jonge et al., 2008; Sonnentag & Zijlstra, 2006). Further, we controlled for the three dierent types of organizations using two dummy variables (the reference group was the organization for residential elderly care).

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

Analytical strategy
Relations between demands, resources, and detachment on the one hand, and employee psychological outcomes on the other, were tested in a series of hierarchical regression analyses. No signicant violations of linear regression assumptions were detected. Variables involved in interactions were standardized in advance to avoid multicollinearity to a large extent (Aiken & West, 1991). In the rst step we entered the demographic characteristics and the dummies for type of organization. Next, the main terms of demands, resources, and detachment were included. In the third step, the moderating eects were entered using multiplicative interaction terms (Demands 6 Resources, Demands 6 Detachment, Resources 6 Detachment) of demands, resources, and detachment (cf. Aiken & West, 1991). In the fourth and nal step, the three-way interaction of demands, resources, and detachment was entered (Demands 6 Resources 6 Detachment). All regression models were stepwise compared to test whether the higher order models contributed signicantly in the prediction of the dependent variables, using an incremental F-test procedure (Finc; Jaccard, Turrisi, & Wan, 1990). It should be noted that all interactions were of cognitive, emotional, or physical kind according to the main assumption of DISC theory (cf. van de Ven et al., 2008), which implies that we had nine two-way interactions and three three-way interactions for each dependent variable.

RESULTS Emotional exhaustion and physical health complaints

Results of the hierarchical regression analyses with emotional exhaustion and physical complaints as health outcomes are depicted in Table 2. As can be seen, the work-related antecedents added substantially to the prediction of both types of adverse health indicators when gender, age, education, employment status, and type of organization were controlled for (R2s were .23 and .14, respectively). As regards emotional exhaustion, the table

334

DE JONGE ET AL.

TABLE 2 Hierarchical regression models of adverse health outcomes with job demands, job resources, detachment from work, and their matching interactions Outcomes Emotional exhaustion Model 1: Control variables (DR2) Gender Age Education Employment status Recreation resortb General hospitalb Model 2: Demands and resources (DR2) Cognitive job demands Cognitive job resources Cognitive detachment Emotional job demands Emotional job resources Emotional detachment Physical job demands Physical job resources Physical detachment Model 3: Two-way interactions (DR2) Cognitive demands 6 Cognitive resources Cognitive demands 6 Cognitive detachment Cognitive resources 6 Cognitive detachment Emotional demands 6 Emotional resources Emotional demands 6 Emotional detachment Emotional resources 6 Emotional detachment Physical demands 6 Physical resources Physical demands 6 Physical detachment Physical resources 6 Physical detachment Model 4: Three-way interactions (DR2) Cognitive demands 6 Resources 6 detachment Emotional demands 6 Resources 6 Detachment Physical demands 6 Resources 6 Detachment Best-tting model .02 7.05a 7.07 .07 7.09 7.01 7.07 .21 .08 7.08 .04 .19** 7.07 7.14* .08 7.04 7.24** Physical complaints .05 .11 .07 7.02 7.04 7.09 7.07 .09 .05 .02 7.04 7.03 .13* .03 .21*** 7.15* 7.13*

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

R2 .23 F(15, 325) 6.57 p 5 .001 (Model 2) Adjusted R2 .20

R2 .14 F(15, 325) 3.52 p 5 .001 (Model 2) Adjusted R2 .10

N 399. *p 5 .05 (two-tailed), **p 5 .01 (two-tailed), ***p 5 .001 (two-tailed). aStandardized coecients are shown. bReference group: organization for residential elderly care.

indicates that the model with main eects only t the data best (Model 2), F(15, 325) 6.57, p 5 .001. Specically, higher emotional demands were related to stronger feelings of exhaustion. In addition, employees who

TAKE A BREAK?

335

experienced low levels of both emotional and physical detachment reported higher levels of exhaustion. With regard to physical complaints, Table 2 shows also that the best-tting regression model was the main eects only model (Model 2), F(15, 325) 3.52, p 5 .001. In particular, employees reporting high physical demands, low physical resources, as well as low levels of physical detachment reported higher levels of physical complaints. In addition, low emotional job resources were related to more physical complaints.

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

Active learning
Results of the hierarchical regression analysis with active learning as a cognitive outcome are depicted in Table 3. As can be seen, the work-related antecedents added substantially to the prediction of active learning when gender, age, education, and type of organization were controlled for (R2 .25). In this case, the regression model with three-way interactions (Model 4) was the best-tting model according to the incremental F-test procedure, Finc(3, 310) 2.60, p 5 .05. More specically, we found a signicant matching three-way interaction in which both cognitive detachment and cognitive resources moderated the relation between cognitive demands and active learning. This interaction eect was graphically represented according to the method described by Aiken and West (1991). Values of the predictor variables were chosen one standard deviation below and above the mean. Four simple regression lines were then generated by entering these values in the equation: two lines in case of low detachment (Figure 1a) and two lines in case of high detachment (Figure 1b). Dawson and Richter (2006) noted that interaction plots do not allow inferences as regards the signicance of an individual slope. Therefore, a precise test of slope signicance of the respective simple regression lines was carried out (cf. Aiken & West, 1991). As hypothesized, Figure 1a shows that at low cognitive detachment, high cognitive demands were related to more active learning when cognitive resources were high (1SD; simple slope test), t 2.38, p 5 .05). Cognitive demands were not signicantly associated with active learning when cognitive resources were low (71SD; simple slope test), t 0.96, p ns. Figure 1b shows that at high cognitive detachment from work, cognitive demands were not signicantly related to active learning when cognitive resources were high (1SD; simple slope test), t 70.72, p ns. Cognitive demands were positively related to active learning when cognitive resources were low (71SD; simple slope test), t 2.14, p 5 .05. In the case of signicant three-way interactions, two-way interactions and main eects may be interpreted in terms of the average eect of a predictor across values of a moderator. This average eect usually will be a meaningful

336

DE JONGE ET AL.

TABLE 3 Hierarchical regression models of active learning and creativity with job demands, job resources, detachment from work, and their matching interactions Outcomes Active learning Model 1: Control variables (DR2) Gender Age Education Employment status Recreation resortb General hospitalb Model 2: Demands and resources (DR2) Cognitive job demands Cognitive job resources Cognitive detachment Emotional job demands Emotional job resources Emotional detachment Physical job demands Physical job resources Physical detachment Model 3: Two-way interactions (DR2) Cognitive demands 6 Cognitive resources Cognitive demands 6 Cognitive detachment Cognitive resources 6 Cognitive detachment Emotional demands 6 Emotional resources Emotional demands 6 Emotional detachment Emotional resources 6 Emotional detachment Physical demands 6 Physical resources Physical demands 6 Physical detachment Physical resources 6 Physical detachment Model 4: Three-way interactions (DR2) Cognitive demands 6 Resources 6 Detachment Emotional demands 6 Resources 6 Detachment Physical demands 6 Resources 6 Detachment Best-tting model .09 7.04a 7.15* 7.02 .16** .05 .10 .12 .14* .11 7.13* .02 .12* 7.09 7.06 .12 .07 .02 7.07 7.03 7.04 .03 7.07 .05 .04 7.07 7.06 .02 7.13* 7.05 .05 R2 .25 F(27, 313) 3.89 p 5 .001 (Model 4) Adjusted R2 .19 Creativity .07 7.13* .13* .09 .10 .02 7.22** .12 .19** .19** 7.09 .12 .11 .02 7.03 .00 .07 .06 .00 .09 7.15** .06 7.09 .12* 7.01 7.08 .07

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

R2 .25 F(24, 313) 4.30 p 5 .001 (Model 3) Adjusted R2 .19

N 399. *p 5 .05 (two-tailed), **p 5 .01 (two-tailed). aStandardized coecients are shown. Reference group: organization for residential elderly care.

piece of information as well (cf. Jaccard et al., 1990). As far as these lower order eects are concerned, ndings showed that both cognitive demands and emotional resources were positively associated with active learning, while cognitive detachment was negatively associated with active learning.

TAKE A BREAK?

337

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

Figures 1a1b. Three-way interaction between cognitive job demands, cognitive job resources, and cognitive detachment for active learning.

Employee creativity
Table 3 also shows the results of hierarchical regression analysis with regard to our second cognitive outcome; i.e., employee creativity. Again, the workrelated antecedents added substantially to the prediction of employee creativity controlling for demographics and type of organization (R2 .25). The regression model with two-way interactions was the best-tting model for this outcome measure (i.e., Model 3), Finc(9, 313) 2.66, p 5 .01. Table 3 shows that two two-way interaction eects were signicant: one for cognitive resources and cognitive detachment, and one for emotional resources and emotional detachment. As regards the cognitive interaction eect, Figure 2 shows that at low cognitive detachment from work (71SD), an increase in cognitive resources was related to more employee creativity

338

DE JONGE ET AL.

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

Figure 2. Two-way interaction between cognitive job resources and cognitive detachment for employee creativity.

(simple slope test), t 4.67, p 5 .01. Contrarily, cognitive resources were not signicantly associated with employee creativity when cognitive detachment was high (1SD; simple slope test), t 0.67, p ns. Figure 3 depicts the emotional interaction eect, and indicates that high emotional resources were related to more employee creativity in case of high emotional detachment from work (1SD; simple slope test), t 4.43, p 5 .01. In case of low emotional detachment (71SD), emotional resources were not associated with employee creativity (simple slope test), t 70.01, p ns. As far as main eects are concerned, results indicated that both cognitive demands and cognitive resources were positively associated with creativity.

DISCUSSION
This study examined the relation between o-job recovery (i.e., detachment from work), job demands, and job resources in the prediction of health, active learning, and creativity. We used the Demand-Induced Strain Compensation (DISC) Model (de Jonge & Dormann, 2003) as a heuristic framework. To our knowledge, this is the rst study that tested specic combinations of job demands and resources on the one hand, and o-job recovery on the other in the prediction of employee outcomes. Our study extends previous job stress and recovery research (e.g., Zijlstra & Sonnentag, 2006) by investigating the issue of optimal resourcing and optimal recovery. In other words, are dierent kinds of job resources and o-job recovery able to predict corresponding types of psychological outcomes? Based on the DISC matching principle and further reasoning about o-job recovery, we expected that in high strain jobs, high detachment from work represents an important source of o-job recovery, that particularly may foster health. In contrast, in active jobs, high cognitive detachment from work might be detrimental for processes of learning and creativity to occur, whereas low

TAKE A BREAK?

339

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

Figure 3. Two-way interaction between emotional job resources and emotional detachment for employee creativity.

cognitive detachment could be particularly benecial to learning and creative behaviour. In terms of the types of interactions found, the current study detected one out of four (or 25%) hypothesized matching three-way interactionsthe interaction between cognitive demands, cognitive resources, and cognitive detachment on active learning. So, we found some supportive evidence for Hypothesis 3. However, we did not nd any supportive evidence for Hypotheses 1 and 2: Neither emotional job resources/detachment nor physical resources/detachment moderated the relation between their corresponding dimensions of job demands and adverse health outcomes. Nevertheless, the overall pattern of our ndings suggests that matching job resources and matching detachment from work are indeed relevant for employees outcomes. More specically, results showed in general that (1) cognitive demands, resources, and lack of detachment are predictors of cognitive outcomes (i.e., active learning and creativity), (2) emotional demands and lack of detachment are predictors of emotional outcomes (i.e., emotional exhaustion), and (3) physical demands, lack of detachment, and lack of resources are predictors of physical outcomes (i.e., physical health complaints). Next to these within-domain associations, a few cross-domain eects of emotional resources and emotional detachment in the prediction of cognitive and physical outcomes were detected. The total amount of variance explained (ranging from R2 .14 to R2 .25) was satisfying, given methodological considerations as well as the multicausal aetiology of jobrelated psychological outcomes (cf. Semmer, Zapf, & Greif, 1996).

Predictors of emotional exhaustion and physical health complaints

Emotional job demands, emotional detachment, and physical detachment from work were important predictors for burnouts key component

340

DE JONGE ET AL.

emotional exhaustion. This nding adds to the literature on burnout. More recent research on burnout has shown that emotional job demands may lead to emotional exhaustion (cf. de Jonge et al., 2008; Zapf & Holz, 2006). Although research on emotional job demands has been proliferating throughout the last decade (cf. de Jonge et al., 2008; Zapf & Holz, 2006), the question remains in what way o-job recovery plays a signicant role. Based upon our main-eects model ndings (Model 2 in Table 2), burnout (in terms of emotional exhaustion) seems to be a response to emotionally demanding tasks, which will be further amplied in case both emotional and physical detachment from work are absent as well (i.e., depletion of energy). This nding also adds to recent recovery research (e.g., Fritz et al., 2010; Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, 2010), and suggests that both emotional and physical detachment from work are powerful o-job recovery experiences (i.e., rebuilding internal resources) in case of professional burnout. This is in line with the matching principle. Finally, with regard to the emotion regulation literature (e.g., Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002), emotional detachment resembles the coping strategy of surface acting, but might also incorporate aspects of deep acting. Analyses on physical health complaints revealed that physical job demands, physical and emotional job resources, and physical detachment from work were important predictors. Although only the main-eects model was signicant (i.e., Model 2 in Table 2), these ndings pointed to the hypothesized direction and were also in line with the matching principle: high physical demands, lack of physical job resources, as well as lack of physical detachment from work were all associated with more physical health complaints. So, next to the positive role of physical job resources, our study shows that physical detachment from work is equally important in the prevention of physical health complaints. A nal note should be made on the role of emotional job resources. Our ndings indicate that this variable is important for physical health complaints. The question is, however, why emotional job resources (whether or not in combination with emotional job demands) are not important for emotional exhaustion. Empirical results of de Jonge et al. (2008) showed that emotional job resources were eective only in case of more specic measures of emotional job demands, and not in case of more general measures of emotional job demands (as is the case here). Evidence suggests that being engaged in several demanding tasks simultaneously may decrease the chance of success at each of them if an employee is using the same, limited, job resource (Vohs, Baumeister, & Ciarocco, 2005). Given this idea, it could be that employees eectively use (limited) emotional job resources in case of specic emotional job demands rather than in case of more general emotionally demanding tasks.

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

TAKE A BREAK?

341

Predictors of active learning and employee creativity

As hypothesized, cognitive job demands, cognitive job resources, and cognitive detachment from work were indeed important for the cognitive outcomes; that is, active learning and employee creativity. In more detail, a three-way interaction of these variables in the prediction of active learning was found in such a way that the proposed moderating/strengthening eect of cognitive job resources on the relation of cognitive job demands and learning was only present in case of low cognitive detachment from work. An identical eect of cognitive detachment was found in case of employee creativity: an increase in cognitive job resources was only related to more employee creativity in case of low cognitive detachment from work. These results point to some sort of paradoxical situation: cognitive detachment from work seems to have negative eects on these cognitive outcomes. Ashforth and colleagues (2000) theorizing with regard to boundaries between work and nonwork domains can be helpful in explaining associations between detachment from work and active learning and creativity. High levels of segmentation (i.e., high levels of detachment) can hinder performance-related behavior as employees may need longer to get back into working mode. Indeed, an empirical study by Fritz and associates (2010) showed lower levels of job performance at very high levels of detachment from work. Furthermore, it could be that a lack of cognitive detachment from work is more inclined to positive work reection (cf. Binnewies, Sonnentag, & Mojza, 2009). Positive work reection involves a positive reappraisal of work experiences and includes thinking about successfully accomplished tasks and pleasurable events at work. A longitudinal study by Fritz and Sonnentag (2005) showed that thinking about ones job in a positive way (which should be more likely if one has an active job) during the weekend was positively associated with pursuit of learning after the weekend. This is also in line with studies on ruminative thinking (e.g., Cropley, Dijk, & Stanley, 2006; Cropley & Millward, 2009). The pondering on a problem aspect of rumination may also have a positive impact on people. In other words, thinking about ones work during o-job time fosters being creative (i.e., the development of new ideas and plans, or active problem solving), and also a persons willingness to actively engage in learning when back at the workplace. A nal explanation stems from a recent study by Baas, de Dreu, and Nijstad (2008). They examined whether, when, and why moods and motivational states inuence creativity. Their meta-analysis showed that conventional ideas about when and how creativity is achieved are not correct. People are not more creative when they are relieved and relaxed (three studies, N 750, r .01, p ns), which is in line with our results.

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

342

DE JONGE ET AL.

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

In contrast, the eects of emotional detachment from work on our two cognitive outcomes were not completely in line with our predictions: An increase in cognitive job resources was associated with more creativity in case of high emotional detachment from work. An explanation could be that emotional detachment from work has to do with eective recovery (i.e., restoration of internal resources) from emotionally laden, negative, work reections. Negative work reections are assumed to be resource-consuming experiences (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2006), and might lead to negative sustained activation in the human brain (Brosschot et al., 2006). This could block employee creativity to a large extent. From a dierent perspective, one could also argue that emotional detachment from work may give way for an increase in positive aect that is known to foster creativity (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005).

Limitations
This rst study on the integration of the o-job recovery concept into the DISC Model is not without limitations. A rst limitation concerns its crosssectional design as well as its reliance on only self-report measures. Although we suggested a particular causal order of the variables, other causal directions or even reciprocal relations could be possible as well. For instance, Cropley et al. (2006) mentioned that employees who perceive their jobs as challenging and stimulating may also nd themselves continuously thinking about work issues during leisure time. In addition, a two-wave longitudinal panel survey by Binnewies et al. (2009) showed that creativity was related to a decrease in feeling recovered during leisure time over time. Future multiwave longitudinal studies should investigate this kind of associations more profoundly. Added to this, common method variance might have played a role, although recent studies showed that this inuence is not as high as could be expected (cf. Spector, 2006). For instance, recent studies (de Jonge & Peeters, 2009; Fritz et al., 2010; Sonnentag, Kuttler, & Fritz, 2010) showed that self-reports and other-reports (i.e., co-workers or spouses) converged signicantly on the presumed associations, chipping away at the assumption that self-report of these types of job characteristics and outcome measures necessarily results in systematic bias and inated relations. A second concern is that our study might suer from power problems due to the large number of predictors compared to sample size. Related to this is the modest amount of variance explained by the interaction terms (DR2 46%). However, this does neither negate the theoretical importance nor mean that the, interactive, eects have little substantive signicance. The results are important indeed because the size of any interaction eect is attenuated by measurement error when interaction terms are formed by

TAKE A BREAK?

343

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

multiplying variables to form cross-product terms as is required in regression analysis (Aiken & West, 1991). A third concern is the somewhat lower alpha for cognitive resources. However, as the scale showed higher alphas in other studies (alphas 4 .70), and could not be improved in the current study by deleting items, we decided to keep the current scale to make future replication studies possible. A nal limitation is that the present study addressed the matching principle in a subset of conditions only. Though we tested eight nonhypothesized three-way interactions (e.g., Cognitive demands 6 Cognitive resources 6 Cognitive detachment in the prediction of emotional exhaustion), we did not explicitly test for nonmatching three-way interactions, merely due to power problems as well as the huge amount of nonmatching interactions to be tested (i.e., 96 nonmatching three-way interactions). Future studies should at least check1 all possible conditions to enable full support for the matching hypotheses to be obtained (cf. de Jonge & Dormann, 2006).

Implications for future research and practice

A rst avenue for further research is the long-term relation between o-job recovery, job demands, and job resources in the prediction of health and performance-related outcomes. Longitudinal studies covering large and multiple time intervals are badly needed (cf. Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006; Sonnentag, Kuttler, & Fritz, 2010). Another level of analysis concerns shortterm eects, for instance dierentiating between acute and enduring situations where there is some level of match of job resources (e.g., Gevers et al., 2010), or day-level research on the issue of short-term matching job resources and short-term matching o-job recovery (e.g., Spoor, de Jonge, & Hamers, 2010). A nal level of analysis stems from vacation research which shows that detachment from work is also relevant during longer respites (e.g., de Bloom et al., 2009; Fritz & Sonnentag, 2006). Therefore, the role that time plays deserves further attention. A second avenue for future research is concerned with the particular type of nonwork-time activities in this type of research (i.e., passive or active recoverycf. Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006). For instance, physical detachment does not imply that a person should abstain from all physical activities, such as sports or gardening. In line with DISC theory, it could be that nonwork-time behaviors that require other types of eort than those at
Based upon the acting editors and reviewers suggestions, we did check all remaining nonmatching three-way interactions. It appeared that four out of 96 (or 4.2%) nonmatching three-way interactions were signicant, which is a lower percentage than the one out of four (or 25%) signicant matching three-way interactions.
1

344

DE JONGE ET AL.

work are more signicant in maximizing detachment from work than is commonly recognized (see also Winwood, Bakker, & Wineeld, 2007). A third and nal avenue for more research attention could be given to the specic detachment concepts. For example, with respect to emotional detachment it would be interesting to relate emotional detachment to the emotion regulation literature. Possibly, emotional detachment might be achieved by processes similar to surface and deep acting (see also Brotheridge & Lee, 2002). Although causal interpretations of our data are tentative, the study ndings suggest promising directions for todays practice. First, organizations should provide those job resources that correspond to particular job demands in order to stimulate health, active learning, and creativity. Second, it is important to notice that detachment from work seems to be associated with health and performance-related outcomes, although in dierent ways. Both supervisors and employees should pay attention to detachment from work as a double-edged sword: Cognitive detachment from work might have negative eects on learning and creativity, whereas emotional and physical detachment from work might have positive eects on employees health, and even on creativity. For that very reason, supervisors should be refrained from making the right type of detachment impossible to serve both job performance and employee health. They can also act as role models, showing how detachment can be most eective. With respect to performance-related outcomes, organizations and supervisors should encourage employees to give themselves sucient time to change between work and nonwork modes (Ashforth et al., 2000). Recent research showed that detachment can be learned (Hahn, Binnewies, Sonnentag, & Mojza, 2011), indicating that employees can inuence the way and degree they detach from work. This means that employees should also take care of their own o-job recovery for their personal health by learning and improving adequate cognitive, emotional, and physical distraction techniques. For instance, this can be conducted by attention switching and thought stopping (Cropley & Millard Purvis, 2003), adequately separating their work and nonwork life (cf. Sonnentag et al., 2008), and active involvement in nonwork-time behaviors such as playing sports and gardening, which require other types of eort than those at work (cf. Winwood et al., 2007).

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

CONCLUSIONS
Modern organizations want healthy and productive employees. In order to cope with specic job demands, employees need corresponding job resources and detachment from work to balance health and performance-related outcomes. For organizational and performance purposes, it seems to be

TAKE A BREAK?

345

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

benecial for employees to think about ones work during o-job time (i.e., eective problem solving, and the development of new ideas and plans), and also to enhance a persons willingness to actively engage in learning when back at the workplace. When working in a highly enjoyable and stimulating context, and the pondering on a problem aspect of rumination may appear eectual, detachment might not be needed. In the long term, however, the continual emphasis on work at the cost of no detachment at all might lead to health problems (Cropley et al., 2006, Siltaloppi et al., 2009; Sonnentag, Kuttler, & Fritz, 2010). So, the importance of appropriately detaching from work (either actively or passively) for an employees health should not be ignored in this respect. Therefore, the ultimate benets for both employees and organizations seem to lie in a healthy balance between dierent types of detachment from work. An interesting avenue for future research would be to examine the precise conditions under which detachment from work is most benecial and when it might even have negative eects.

REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Aect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367403. Amabile, T. M., & Mueller, J. S. (2008). Studying creativity, its processes, and its antecedents: An exploration of the componential theory of creativity. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 3364). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a days work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25, 472491. Baas, M., de Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of research on mood and creativity. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 739756. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Signicance tests and goodness of t in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588606. Binnewies, C., Sonnentag, S., & Mojza, E. J. (2009). Feeling recovered and thinking about the good sides of ones work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 243256. Brosschot, J. F., Gerin, W., & Thayer, J. F. (2006). The perseverative cognition hypothesis: A review of worry, prolonged stress-related physiological activation, and health. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 60, 113124. Brotheridge, C. M., & Grandey, A. A. (2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two perspectives of people work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 1739. Brotheridge, C. M., & Lee, R. T. (2002). Testing a conservation of resources model of the dynamics of emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 5767. Craig, A., & Cooper, R. E. (1992). Symptoms of acute and chronic fatigue. In A. P. Smith & D. M. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of human performance (Vol. 3, pp. 289339). London, UK: Academic Press. Cropley, M., Dijk, D. J., & Stanley, N. (2006). Job strain, work rumination, and sleep in school teachers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 181196.

346

DE JONGE ET AL.

Cropley, M., & Millward, L. J. (2009). How do individuals switch-o from work during leisure? A qualitative description of the unwinding process in high and low ruminators. Leisure Studies, 28, 333347. Cropley, M., & Millward Purvis, L. J. (2003). Job strain and rumination about work issues during leisure time: A diary study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 195207. Daniels, K., & de Jonge, J. (2010). Match making and match breaking: The nature of match within and around job design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 116. Dawson, J. F., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope dierence test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 917926. De Bloom, J., Kompier, M., Geurts, S., de Weerth, C., Taris, T., & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Do we recover from vacation? Meta-analysis of vacation eects on health and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health, 51, 1325. De Jonge, J., & Dormann, C. (2003). The DISC Model: Demand-Induced Strain Compensation mechanisms in job stress. In M. F. Dollard, H. R. Wineeld, & A. H. Wineeld (Eds.), Occupational stress in the service professions (pp. 4374). London, UK: Taylor & Francis. De Jonge, J., & Dormann, C. (2006). Stressors, resources, and strains at work: A longitudinal test of the Triple Match Principle. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 13591374. De Jonge, J., le Blanc, P. M., Peeters, M. C. W., & Noordam, H. (2008). Emotional job demands and the role of matching job resources: A cross-sectional survey study among health care workers. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45, 14601469. De Jonge, J., & Peeters, M. C. W. (2009). Convergence of self-reports and coworker reports of counterproductive work behavior: A cross-sectional multi-source survey among health care workers. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 699707. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., de Jonge, J., Janssen, P. P. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and control. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and Health, 27, 279286. Etzion, D., Eden, D., & Lapidot, Y. (1998). Relief from job stressors and burnout: Reserve service as a respite. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 577585. Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Recovery, health, and job performance: Eects of weekend experiences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 187199. Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2006). Recovery, well-being, and performance-related outcomes: The role of workload and vacation experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 936 945. Fritz, C., Yankelevich, M., Zarubin, A., & Barger, P. (2010). Happy, healthy and productive: The role of detachment from work during nonwork time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 977983. George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 513524. Geurts, S. A. E., & Sonnentag, S. (2006). Recovery as an explanatory mechanism in the relation between acute stress reactions and chronic health impairment. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 32, 482492. Gevers, J. M. P., van Erven, P. M. J. N. L., de Jonge, J., Maas, M., & de Jong, J. (2010). Eect of acute and chronic job demands on eective individual teamwork behaviour in medical emergencies. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66, 15731583. Hahn, V. C., Binnewies, C., Sonnentag, S., & Mojza, E. J. (2011). Learning how to recover from job stress: Eects of a recovery training program on recovery experiences, recovery-related self-ecacy and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 202216.

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

TAKE A BREAK?

347

Hair, J. F., Black, B., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Hildebrandt, V. H., & Douwes, M. (1991). Lichamelijke Belasting en Arbeid: Vragenlijst Bewegingsapparaat [Physical demands and work: Motion questionnaire]. Voorburg, The Netherlands: Dictoraat-Generaal van de Arbeid. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempts at conceptualizing stress. The American Psychologist, 44, 513524. Hobfoll, S. E. (1998). The psychology and philosophy of stress, culture, and community. New York, NY: Plenum Books. Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6, 307324. Hockey, G. R. J. (2000). Work environments and performance. In N. Chmiel (Ed.), Introduction to work and organizational psychology: A European perspective (pp. 206230). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., & Wan, C. K. (1990). Interaction eects in multiple regression. Newburry Park, CA: Sage. Jo reskog, K. G., & So rbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: Users reference guide (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Scientic Software International. Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York, NY: Basic Books. Karasek, R. A. (2008). Low social control and physiological deregulationthe stressdisequilibrium theory, towards a new demand-control model. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and Health, 6, 117135. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1986). Maslach Burnout Inventory: Manual (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychological Press. Meijman, T. F. (Ed.). (1989). Mentale belasting en werkstress, een arbeidspsychologische invalshoek [Mental load and workstress: A work psychological approach]. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum. Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In P. J. D. Drenth, H. K. Thierry, & Ch. J. de Wol (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology: Vol. 2. Work psychology (pp. 533). Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Parent-Thirion, A., Fernandez-Macias, E., Hurley, J., & Vermeylen, G. (2005). Fourth European Working Conditions Survey. Dublin, Ireland: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Schaufeli, W. B., & van Dierendonck, D. (2000). Utrechtse Burnout Schaal (UBOS): Handleiding [Utrecht Burnout Scale: Manual]. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Semmer, N., Zapf, D., & Greif, S. (1996). Shared job strain: A new approach for assessing the validity of job stress measurements. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 293310. Siltaloppi, M., Kinnunen, U., & Feldt, T. (2009). Recovery experiences as moderators between psychological work characteristics and occupational well-being. Work and Stress, 23, 330 348. Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2008). Did you have a nice evening? A daylevel study on recovery experiences, sleep, and aect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 674684. Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2010). Staying well and engaged when demands are high: The role of psychological detachment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 965976. 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, 204221.

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

348

DE JONGE ET AL.

Downloaded by [Narodna Biblioteka Srbije] at 10:09 12 February 2013

Sonnentag, S., & Geurts, S. (2009). Methodological issues in recovery research. In S. Sonnentag, P. L. Perrewe, & D. C. Ganster (Eds.), Current perspectives on job stress recovery (pp. 136). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Sonnentag, S., Kuttler, I., & Fritz, C. (2010). Job stressors, emotional exhaustion, and need for recovery: A multi-source study on the benets of psychological detachment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 355365. Sonnentag, S., & Niessen, C. (2008). Staying vigorous until work is over: The role of trait vigour, day-specic work experiences and recovery. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 435458. Sonnentag, S., & Zijlstra, F. R. H. (2006). Job characteristics and o-job activities as predictors of need for recovery, well-being, and fatigue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 330350. Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221232. Spoor, E., de Jonge, J., & Hamers, J. P. H. (2010). Nu even niet . . . ! Of toch wel . . . ? Een dagboekstudie naar detachment en creativiteit [Not right now . . . ! Or just right now . . . ? A daily-survey study on detachment and creativity]. Gedrag und Organisatie, 23, 296315. Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., de Lange, A. H., Schaufeli, W. B., & Schreurs, P. J. G. (2003). Learning new behaviour patterns: A longitudinal test of Karaseks active learning hypothesis among Dutch teachers. Work and Stress, 17, 120. Van den Tooren, M., & de Jonge, J. (2008). Managing job stress in nursing: What kind of resources do we need? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 63, 7584. Van de Ven, B., Vlerick, P., & de Jonge, J. (2008). The interplay of job demands, job resources and cognitive outcomes in informatics. Stress and Health, 24, 375382. Van Veldhoven, M. J. M. P., & Sluiter, J. K. (2009). Work-related recovery opportunities: Testing scale properties and validity in relation to health. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 82, 10651075. Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Ciarocco, N. J. (2005). Self-regulation and self-presentation: Regulatory resource depletion impairs impression management and eortful self-presentation depletes regulatory resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 632 657. Westman, M., & Eden, D. (1997). Eects of a respite from work on burnout: Vacation relief and fade-out. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 516527. Winwood, P. C., Bakker, A. B., & Wineeld, A. H. (2007). Investigation of the role of nonwork-time behavior in buering the eects of work strain. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 49, 862871. Zapf, D., & Holz, M. (2006). On the positive and negative eects of emotion work in organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 128. Zijlstra, F. R. H., & Sonnentag, S. (2006). After work is done: Psychological perspectives on recovery from work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 129138. Original manuscript received May 2010 Revised manuscript received March 2011 First published online July 2011