Recovery as an explanatory mechanism in the relation between acute stress reactions and chronic health impairment.

By S. Geurts, Sabine Sonnentag. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 2006

863 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This contribution aims at shedding light on the mechanisms that may underlie the relationship between acute reactions to stressful work characteristics and employee health in the long run. Recovery, a process of psychophysiological unwinding after effort expenditure, is considered a vital link in this relationship. This link is explained on the basis of assumptions from theories on effort, recovery, and sustained activation. It is argued that recovery after work (external recovery) is particularly necessitated when recovery opportunities during worktime (internal recovery) are insufficient. It is further argued that two conditions may impede the recovery process by sustaining physiological activation, prolonged exposure to work demands (working long hours) and cognitive stress-related processes (such as rumination). These theoretical assumptions are substantiated by empirical support from previous laboratory and field research. It is concluded that the chronic situation of sustained physiological activation and incomplete recovery is an important pathway to chronic health impairment.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/83846cdfcff3f6a32b50b5a3c55b49f54cdddc65

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Smartphone Use, Work–Home Interference, and Burnout: A Diary Study on the Role of Recovery (2014, background): “In particular, prolonged exposure to work demands (e.g. daily overtime work) is a risk factor as a demand is made on the same psychophysiological systems that were already activated during normal work hours (Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006).”
Recovery experiences as moderators between psychosocial work characteristics and occupational well-being (2009, background): “Recovery is also seen as a decrease in physiological strain indicators (e.g. the excretion of adrenaline and cortisol or elevated heart rate; for example, Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006).”
Need for recovery after emotional labor: Differential effects of daily deep and surface acting (2018, result): “In line with the emotional labor (Grandey, 2000; Holman et al., 2008; Morris & Feldman, 1996) and recovery (Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015; Zijlstra et al., 2014) literatures and in agreement with the main assumptions of the work‐home resources model (Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker,…”
Workhours and worklife balance (2008, neutral): “14 SJWEH Suppl 2008, no 5 SJWEH Suppl 2008;(5):14–21”
Redesigning work through idiosyncratic deals (2014, background): “…to psychological wellbeing by better aligning work hours with individual preferences (e.g., desired shifts), fluctuations in the work situation (e.g., avoiding peak hours), and nonwork activities (Costa, Sartori, & Akerstedt, 2006; Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006; Härmä, 2006; Kattenbach et al., 2010).”
Daily recovery from work: The role of activities, effort and pleasure (2011, background): “During off-job time workers will ideally be free from their daily work demands, and psychophysiological systems that were activated during working will return to pre-demand levels (Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006; Meijman & Mulder, 1998).”
Need for recovery, home-work interference and performance: Is lack of concentration the link? (2007, background): “…physiological and psychological systems that were activated during daily work effort are re-activated subsequent to insufficient recovery, the employee must make additional, compensatory effort (Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006; Meijman & Mulder, 1998) in order to successfully complete their work tasks.”
Staying vigorous until work is over: The role of trait vigour, day-specific work experiences and recovery (2008, methodology): “Similarly, working for longer hours depletes energy resources more than working for shorter periods of time (cf. Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006).”
A low-dose mindfulness intervention and recovery from work: effects on psychological detachment, sleep quality, and sleep duration (2015, background): “Given the importance of recovery for the prevention of long-term health impairments (Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006) on the one hand and the scarcity of recovery management interventions (Hahn et al., 2011) on the other hand, the present study set out to investigate the effectiveness of a low-dose…”
Rumination for innovation? Analysing the longitudinal effects of work-related rumination on creativity at work and off-job recovery (2017, background): “Past research has already emphasised that recovery may be a key mechanism linking various workplace experiences to employee well-being (Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006; Kinnunen, Feldt, Siltaloppi, & Sonnentag, 2011; Sonnentag, Kuttler, & Fritz, 2010).”
The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. (2007, positive): “…lead to poor recovery experiences that in Table 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .91 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .51 .84 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .48 .45 .81 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .67 .57 .58 .89 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . turn negatively affect well-being (cf. Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006).”
Does work engagement increase after a short respite? The role of job involvement as a double-edged sword (2009, background): “However, when the job is cognitively present during the time off the job, work demands and potential stressors remain present (Brosschot, Pieper, & Thayer, 2005) and could lead to prolonged physical activation and to health complaints in the long run (for a review see Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006).”
Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress: An Integrative Theoretical Approach to Work Stress (2011, background): “Instead, occupational stress researchers need to consider the occupational or organizational features that would assist in adjusting the CATS model to the workplace environment.”