Int Arch Occup Environ Health (2007) 80:599–613 DOI 10.1007/s00420-007-0172-5 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Workdays, in-between workdays and the weekend: a diary study on eVort and recovery Madelon L. M. van HooV · Sabine A. E. Geurts · Michiel A. J. Kompier · Toon W. Taris Received: 10 April 2006 / Accepted: 12 January 2007 / Published online: 14 February 2007 © Springer-Verlag 2007 Abstract Results Compared to the low-eVort group, the high- Objectives EVort-recovery theory (Meijman and eVort group (1) engaged less often in active leisure Mulder in Handbook of work and organizational psy- activities during the week and worked more overtime chology, Psychology Press/Erlbaum, Hove, pp 5–33, in the weekend, (2) considered both work and home 1998) proposes that eVort expenditure may have activities as more eVortful, but not as less pleasurable, adverse consequences for health in the absence of suY- and (3) reported higher levels of sleep complaints cient recovery opportunities. Thus, insight in the rela- (weekdays only) and fatigue, more preoccupation with tionships between eVort and recovery is imperative to work (weekdays only) and lower motivation to start understand work-related health. This study therefore the next workweek during the weekend. focused on the relation between work-related eVort Conclusions Work-related eVort is associated with and recovery (1) during workdays, (2) in-between various aspects of work time and (potential) recov- workdays and (3) in the weekend. For these three time ery time in-between workdays and in the weekend. periods, we compared a group of employees reporting High levels of work-related eVort are associated relatively low levels of work-related eVort (“low-eVort with activity patterns that are less beneWcial in terms group”) and a group of employees reporting relatively of recovery, with higher eVort expenditure during high levels of work-related eVort (“high-eVort group”) and after work time, and with diminished health and with respect to (1) activity patterns, (2) the experience well-being. of these activity patterns, and (3) health and well-being indicators. Keywords EVort · Recovery · Diary study · Methods Data were collected among university staV University staV members. Participants (Nhigh-eVort group =24 and Nlow- eVort group = 27) completed a general questionnaire and took part in a 7-day daily diary study covering Wve Introduction weekdays and the following weekend. DiVerences between the two eVort-groups were examined by Much research has shown that high levels of job means of analysis of variance. demands are related to increased levels of physical and psychological health problems across time (e.g., De Lange et al. 2003). Despite this strong focus on the V M. L. M. van Hoo · S. A. E. Geurts · M. A. J. Kompier · relations between job demands and health, relatively T. W. Taris Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, little attention has been paid to the psychological and Radboud University , Nijmegen, The Netherlands physiological processes that may explain why health is adversely aVected by high job demands. One notable V & M. L. M. van Hoo ( ) exception is eVort-recovery (ER) theory (Meijman and TNO Quality of Life, P.O. Box 718, 2130 AS Hoofddorp, The Netherlands Mulder 1998; Geurts and Sonnentag 2006). ER theory e-mail: [email protected] argues that working inevitably requires eVort as an 123 600 Int Arch Occup Environ Health (2007) 80:599–613 appeal is made to workers’ abilities and their willing- The present study ness to dedicate these abilities to the work task. Expending eVort at work (“work-related eVort”) pro- EVort and recovery are nowadays salient research top- duces two kinds of outcomes: the tangible result of ics (Zijlstra and Sonnentag 2006). The present study work activities, i.e. a product or service, and the psy- builds on and extends this body of knowledge in at chological and physiological “costs” or load reactions least four regards: (e.g., fatigue) associated with working. These load Firstly, although the eVort-recovery process is reactions are usually short-lived and reversible: they assumed to unfold on a daily basis, there is only a lim- disappear after respite from work. However, under ited number of studies examining this process from certain circumstances the recovery process may be such a day-to-day perspective (e.g., Cropley et al. 2006; insuYcient or inadequate, and then short-term work- Meijman et al. 1992; Rook and Zijlstra 2006; Sonnen- related load reactions may turn into adverse and more tag 2001; Sonnentag and Zijlstra 2006; Totterdell et al. chronic health problems, such as prolonged fatigue, 1995). The majority of research in this area still focuses chronic tension, and sleep deprivation (Åkerstedt on either cross-sectional or on global long-term rela- 2006; Härmä 2006; Sluiter et al. 2001; Van HooV et al. tions between job demands, lack of recovery and 2005). health (e.g., Kompier 1988; Sluiter et al. 2001). Thus, in Recovery opportunities after work may be inade- order to obtain more insight in de day-to-day relations quate in terms of quantity (time) and/or quality. between eVort and recovery, the present study exam- Recovery time may be insuYcient in case of pro- ines the relation between work-related eVort and longed exposure to high demands, for instance, when recovery on a daily basis, both during and after work- workers continue to pursue job-related activities dur- ing time. ing non-work time (e.g., by working overtime) or Furthermore, although weekends may oVer impor- engage in other demanding (e.g., domestic) activities. tant opportunities for recovery, they are hardly Recovery is particularly at stake when during private included in previous studies. Exceptions are Fritz and time an appeal is made upon the same psychophysio- Sonnentag’s (2005) diary study, which showed that logical systems that were activated on the job. The well-being after the weekend was higher when individ- quality of recovery may be endangered when individ- uals had engaged in social activities during the week- uals’ psychophysiological systems show prolonged end. Also, Totterdell et al. (1995) reported that sleep, activation even if not exposed to any special demands mood and social satisfaction were worse on the Wrst during the recovery period. This may happen when rest day following work shifts in comparison with sub- workers have diYculty to relax at home after a stress- sequent rest days. In a study among shift-working ful working day. For example, Brosschot et al. (2005) nurses, Rook and Zijlstra (2006) found weekends to be showed that when workers worry in their private time important for recovery as well. To increase the under- about the past or upcoming working day, the psycho- standing of the weekend as potential recovery period, physiological systems that were activated on the job the present study also included the weekend. remain activated, thus impeding the recovery process Thirdly, only limited attention has been given to (cf. Ursin and Erikson 2004). Due to repeated or pro- actual activity patterns during work and non-work time longed activation of psychophysiological systems, in research on eVort and recovery until now (see for these systems are in danger of chronic overactivity, exceptions: Fritz and Sonnentag 2005; Sonnentag 2001; producing lasting changes in homeostatic mechanisms Sonnentag and Bayer 2005). This is remarkable, as sev- (i.e., allostatic load, McEwen 1998). Consequently, eral work psychological theories (e.g., action theory, these originally adaptive systems may start to mal- Frese and Zapf 1994; Taris and Kompier 2005) assume function by showing either hyperactivity (the systems that job characteristics aVect worker well-being fail to shut-oV) or hypoactivity (the systems are not through worker behavior: it is what people do that turned on when needed), constituting a serious health makes them feel tired or enthusiastic. Thus, in order to risk. For example, chronic stress may cause the fully understand eVort-recovery patterns during and in- immune system to be not sensitive enough (hypoac- between workdays, we must know how people spend tivity), allowing infectious agents (viruses and bacte- their time on work as well as on home activities. There- ria) to enter the body and cause infectious diseases. fore, the present study provided a detailed assessment Alternatively, the system may become overreactive of employees’ activity patterns during and in-between so that the immune system itself causes ill health working time. (such as autoimmune diseases and allergic diseases, Finally, what can be a burden for one individual Clow 2001). may constitute a pleasure to the other. Consequently, 123 Int Arch Occup Environ Health (2007) 80:599–613 601 insight in activity patterns in the work and private activities, and (c) health and well-being during the domain is insuYcient to fully understand workers’ workday? eVort-recovery patterns, and preferably workers’ expe- As the distinction between the two groups is based on rience of the time spent on (non)work activities must employees’ reports of work-related eVort, we expect be examined in this context (see also the recommenda- that the high-eVort group will also report to have tions by Sonnentag 2001). Until now, the extent to expended higher eVort on (at least some of) the speciWc which workers experience their daily work and home work activities compared to the low-eVort group activities as eVortful and/or pleasant has nonetheless (Hypothesis 1a). Support for this hypothesis is important remained largely ignored. Therefore, the present study from the perspective of validation of the eVort-measure provided a detailed assessment of how employees used to diVerentiate between the two eVort-groups. experience their activities during and in-between work- As the high-eVort group should have invested higher ing time in terms of eVort and pleasure.