Interpersonal Conflict and Employee Well-Being: The Moderating Role of Recovery Experiences

/13,".%3"3&.*5&12*38/13,".%3"3&.*5&12*38

 $)/,"1 $)/,"1

*22&13"3*/.2".%)&2&2 *22&13"3*/.2".%)&2&2



.3&10&12/.",/.;*$3".%-0,/8&&&,,&*.()&.3&10&12/.",/.;*$3".%-0,/8&&&,,&*.()&

/%&1"3*.(/,&/'&$/5&1870&1*&.$&2/%&1"3*.(/,&/'&$/5&1870&1*&.$&2

"*3,*...&-2+8

/13,".%3"3&.*5&12*38

/,,/63)*2".%"%%*3*/.",6/1+2"3)33020%72$)/,"1,*#1"180%7&%4/0&.!"$$&22!&3%2

&342+./6)/6"$$&223/3)*2%/$4-&.3#&.&:328/4

&$/--&.%&%*3"3*/.&$/--&.%&%*3"3*/.

&-2+8"*3,*....3&10&12/.",/.;*$3".%-0,/8&&&,,&*.()&/%&1"3*.(/,&/'&$/5&18

70&1*&.$&2

*22&13"3*/.2".%)&2&2

"0&1

)3302%/*/1(&3%

)*2)&2*2*2#1/4()33/8/4'/1'1&&".%/0&."$$&223)"2#&&."$$&03&%'/1*.$,42*/.*.*22&13"3*/.2".%

)&2&2#8"."43)/1*9&%"%-*.*231"3/1/' $)/,"1,&"2&$/.3"$342*'6&$".-"+&3)*2%/$4-&.3-/1&

"$$&22*#,&0%72$)/,"10%7&%4

Interpersonal Conflict and Employee Well-Being:

The Moderating Role of Recovery Experiences

Caitlin Ann Demsky

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

Psychology

Thesis Committee:

Charlotte Fritz, Chair

Leslie Hammer

Robert Roeser

Portland State University

Abstract

Recovery during nonwork time is essential for restoring resources that have been

lost throughout the working day (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). Recent research has begun to

explore the nature of recovery experiences as boundary conditions between various job

stressors and employee well-being (Kinnunen, Mauno, & Siltaloppi, 2010; Sonnentag,

Binnewies, & Mozja, 2010). Interpersonal conflict is an important work stressor that has

been associated with several negative employee outcomes, such as higher levels of

psychosomatic complaints (Pennebaker, 1982), anxiety, depression, and frustration

(Spector & Jex, 1998). This study contributes to recovery research by examining the

moderating role of recovery experiences on the relationship between workplace

interpersonal conflict and employee well-being. Specifically, it was hypothesized that

recovery experiences (e.g., psychological detachment, mastery, control, relaxation,

negative work reflection, positive work reflection, and social activities) would moderate

the relationship between interpersonal conflict and employee well-being (e.g., job

satisfaction, burnout, life satisfaction, and general health complaints). Hierarchical

regression was used to examine the hypotheses. Relaxation was found to be a significant

moderator of the relationship between self-reported interpersonal conflict and employee

exhaustion. Additional analyses found mastery experiences to be a significant moderator

of the relationship between coworker reported interpersonal conflict and both dimensions

of burnout (exhaustion and disengagement). Several main relationships between recovery

experiences and employee well-being were found that support and extend earlier research

on recovery from work. Practical implications for future research are discussed.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my committee for their insightful comments and suggestions that

have helped strengthen my thesis project. Without your input and expertise, this

document would not be what it is today. In particular, I would like to thank my advisor,

Charlotte Fritz, for providing me with invaluable assistance and advice over the course of

this project. I would also like to thank my cohort and classmates for their emotional

support, feedback, and help over the past year. Finally, I would like to thank my family

and friends for their continued support of my educational pursuits.

iii

Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... i

Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................. ii

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv

List of Figures .................................................................................................................... vi

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1

Interpersonal Conflict at Work ................................................................................3

Recovery from Work Demands ...............................................................................8

Specific Recovery Experiences..............................................................................17

Work-Related Well-Being .....................................................................................25

General Well-Being ...............................................................................................28

Interpersonal Conflict and Employee Well-Being .................................................29

Recovery Experiences as Potential Moderators .....................................................32

Method ..............................................................................................................................45

Procedure ...............................................................................................................45

Participants .............................................................................................................48

Measures ................................................................................................................48

Results ...............................................................................................................................54

Preliminary Analyses .............................................................................................54

Hypothesis Testing.................................................................................................56

Hypothesis 1...........................................................................................................57

Hypothesis 2...........................................................................................................57

Hypothesis 3...........................................................................................................58

Hypothesis 4...........................................................................................................59

Hypothesis 5...........................................................................................................59

Hypothesis 6...........................................................................................................60

Hypothesis 7...........................................................................................................60

Additional Analyses ...............................................................................................61

Discussion .........................................................................................................................64

Implications............................................................................................................70

Contributions and Limitations ...............................................................................71

Future Research .....................................................................................................75

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................77

Tables ................................................................................................................................78

Figures ...............................................................................................................................95

References .......................................................................................................................102

Appendix: Survey Items ..........................................................................................117

List of Tables

Table 1: Table of Variables and Measurement Scales ......................................................78

Table 2: Correlations between Study Variables ...............................................................79

Table 3: Hierarchical Regression Results for Psychological Detachment as a Moderator

of the Relationship between Interpersonal Conflict and Work-Related Well-Being ........81

Table 4: Hierarchical Regression Results for Psychological Detachment as a Moderator

of the Relationship between Interpersonal Conflict and General Well-Being .................82

Table 5: Hierarchical Regression Results for Relaxation as a Moderator of the

Relationship between Interpersonal Conflict and Work-Related Well-Being ..................83

Table 6: Hierarchical Regression Results for Relaxation as a Moderator of the

Relationship between Interpersonal Conflict and General Well-Being ...........................84

Table 7: Hierarchical Regression Results for Mastery Experiences as a Moderator of the

Relationship between Interpersonal Conflict and Work-Related Well-Being Outcomes .85

Table 8: Hierarchical Regression Results for Mastery Experiences as a Moderator of the

Relationship between Interpersonal Conflict and General Well-Being ...........................86

Table 9: Hierarchical Regression Results for Control as a Moderator of the Relationship

between Interpersonal Conflict and Work-Related Well-Being ........................................87

Table 10: Hierarchical Regression Results for Control as a Moderator of the

Relationship between Interpersonal Conflict and General Well-Being ...........................88

Table 11: Hierarchical Regression Results for Social Activities as a Moderator of the

Relationship between Interpersonal Conflict and Work-Related Well-Being ..................89

Table 12: Hierarchical Regression Results for Social Activities as a Moderator of the

Relationship between Interpersonal Conflict and General Well-Being ...........................90

Table 13: Hierarchical Regression Results for Positive Work Reflection (PWR) as a

Moderator of the Relationship between Interpersonal Conflict and Work-Related Well-

Being .................................................................................................................................91

Table 14: Hierarchical Regression Results for Positive Work Reflection (PWR) as a

Moderator of the Relationship between Interpersonal Conflict and General Well-Being

............................................................................................................................................92

Table 15: Hierarchical Regression Results for Negative Work Reflection (NWR) as a

Moderator of the Relationship between Interpersonal Conflict and Work-Related Well-

Being .................................................................................................................................93

Table 16: Hierarchical Regression Results for Negative Work Reflection (NWR) as a

Moderator of the Relationship between Interpersonal Conflict and General Well-Being

............................................................................................................................................94

List of Figures

Figure 1: Hypothesized Model of the Relationship between Relationships between

Interpersonal Conflict and Well-Being with Recovery Experiences as Moderators ........95

Figure 2: Relaxation as a Moderator of the Relationship between Self-Reported

Interpersonal Conflict and Exhaustion .............................................................................96

Figure 3: Additional Analyses: Mastery Experiences as a Moderator of the Relationship

between Coworker-Reported Interpersonal Conflict and Exhaustion ..............................97

Figure 4: Additional Analyses: Mastery Experiences as a Moderator of the Relationship

between Coworker-Reported Interpersonal Conflict and Disengagement ........................98

Figure 5: Additional Analyses: Psychological Detachment as a Moderator of the

Relationship between Coworker-Reported Interpersonal Conflict and Exhaustion

(Controlling for Age, Gender, and Job Status) ..................................................................99

Figure 6: Additional Analyses: Psychological Detachment as a Moderator of the

Relationship between Coworker-Reported Interpersonal Conflict and Disengagement

(Controlling for Age, Gender, and Job Status) ................................................................100

Figure 7: Additional Analyses: Relaxation as a Moderator of the Relationship between

Coworker-Reported Interpersonal Conflict and Life Satisfaction (Controlling for Age,

Gender, and Job Status) ...................................................................................................101

Interpersonal Conflict and Employee Well-Being:

The Moderating Role of Recovery Experiences

In today’s fast-paced society, it is common to interact with numerous individuals

throughout a workday, including supervisors, coworkers, and customers. While one may

hope that each of these interactions is pleasant and meaningful, this is not always the

case. For various reasons, employees who interact with a variety of people throughout the

workday may occasionally experience interpersonal conflict at work. Interpersonal

conflict at work is a common source of work stress that can be associated with adverse

outcomes for its victims. Most commonly, interpersonal conflict at work manifests itself

in petty arguments, spreading rumors, and gossiping (Spector & Jex, 1998). More

specifically, interpersonal conflict has been defined by researchers as an organizational

stressor consisting of disagreements between individuals in the workplace (Spector &

Jex, 1998). Conflict in the workplace can create hostile environments that add additional

demands for employees. Victims of interpersonal conflict at work often use emotion

regulation and rational thinking to cope with feelings of frustration and anger that arise

from the conflict. These strategies may leave them feeling drained and unable to cope

with additional demands at work or at home (Grandey, 2000).

Past research has indicated several negative outcomes associated with

interpersonal conflict at work. For example, experienced interpersonal conflict at work is

related to higher levels of anxiety, depression, frustration, and intention to quit (Spector

& Jex, 1998). These findings suggest that interpersonal conflict is associated with

substantial negative outcomes for employees. While it is important that organizations

address interpersonal conflict in the workplace, it is also essential that employees who

encounter conflict at work have strategies that facilitate their ability to cope with the

conflict. Much of the research surrounding interpersonal conflict has focused on

identifying antecedents and outcomes, however, few studies have offered suggestions for

possible strategies to ameliorate the negative impacts of interpersonal conflict at work. It

can be assumed that even in the case of an organization that has been proactive in

eliminating interpersonal conflict, these contentious encounters are often inevitable.

One possible way for employees to lessen potential negative impacts of

workplace stressors is to intentionally spend time recovering from work during nonwork

time. Several specific recovery experiences have been identified as ways for individuals

to recover from work stress (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). Through recovery from work

individuals are able to separate themselves from work demands, enabling them to return

to work feeling refreshed and rejuvenated. In the context of interpersonal conflict at

work, recovery may lessen the possible negative impacts of workplace conflicts. For

example, mentally distancing oneself from work may help individuals disengage from the

conflict they experienced at work that day. Similarly, spending time with others outside

of work may allow individuals to seek social support from friends and family.

The current study is an examination of the relationship between interpersonal

conflict and employee well-being outcomes. Specifically, I focus on well-being outcomes

that are both job-related (job satisfaction and burnout) and general (life satisfaction and

general health). In line with past research, I propose that there will be negative

relationships between interpersonal conflict and indicators of well-being. However, this

study moves beyond previous research by examining recovery experiences as possible

moderators of the relationship between workplace interpersonal conflict and employee

well-being. The results of this study will provide insights for individuals dealing with

interpersonal conflict at work, as well as for organizations seeking to implement

interventions to counteract the negative associations between interpersonal conflict and

employee well-being.

Interpersonal Conflict at Work

Job stressors. There is a substantial body of research dedicated to examining the

various employee-level effects of job stressors. Individuals monitor and appraise events

in their environment (Lazarus, 1991). Events that are seen as threats to well-being are

considered job stressors and may induce negative emotional reactions like anger or

anxiety (Spector, 1998). Various workplace conditions have been identified as job

stressors, including role conflict and ambiguity (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, &

Rosenthal, 1964), situational constraints (Peters & O’Connor, 1980), low autonomy

(Spector, 1986), and workload (Spector, 1987). These work stressors have been

associated with a variety of employee outcomes, including both job performance and

well-being. Additionally, as will be described below, interpersonal conflict is another job

stressor that has received attention in the research literature (Spector & Jex, 1998).

Workplace interpersonal conflict. Interpersonal conflict at work can manifest

itself in several ways, and can range in severity from spreading rumors to physical

assault. Conflict at work can consist of covert behaviors that are indirect and less

identifiable, or overt behaviors with very direct and obvious intentions (Spector & Jex,

1998). While a wide variation of interpersonal conflict may be found across and within

organizations, the majority of interpersonal conflicts include petty arguments and gossip,

and not actual physical attacks (Schat, Frone, & Kelloway, 2006). Regardless of the

interpersonal conflict manifestation, can elicit anger and frustration in employees who

encounter it (Keenan & Newton, 1985). As a result, employees who encounter

interpersonal conflict at work may have difficulties disengaging from thoughts of the

conflict and may ruminate about the experience even after leaving the workplace at the

end of the day. They may also be less engaged in their work out of fear of future

conflicts. Over time, these continued thoughts of the experienced conflict may lead to

detrimental outcomes for employees, such as higher levels of anxiety, frustration, and

burnout (De Dreu, Dierendonck, & Dijkstra, 2004b).

While the current study utilizes Spector and Jex’s (1998) explanation of

interpersonal conflict, it is important to consider other operationalizations of the

construct. Past research has examined various forms of conflicts in the workplace, using

terms such as incivility, bullying, aggression, and counterproductive work behaviors

(e.g., Schat et al., 2006; Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Barling, Dupre, & Kelloway, 2009;

Hershcovis & Barling, 2009; Hershcovis, 2011). Barki and Hartwick (2004) note that

even within studies pertaining explicitly to interpersonal conflict, researchers rarely agree

on one single definition of interpersonal conflict, or avoid defining the construct

altogether. Barki and Hartwick (2004) define interpersonal conflict as “a dynamic process

that occurs between interdependent parties as they experience negative emotional

reactions to perceived disagreements and interference with the attainment of their goals”

(p. 234). Additionally, they discuss three general themes used to describe conflict:

disagreement, interference, and negative emotion. Each of these three themes is thought

to represent cognitive, behavioral, and affective manifestations of conflict, respectively.

Disagreement occurs when parties involved think that a divergence of needs, thoughts,

opinions, or goals exists. Interference occurs when one party’s behaviors interfere with,

or oppose another party’s attainment of its own objectives, needs, or goals. Lastly,

negative emotions such as fear, jealously, anger, anxiety, and frustration have been used

to characterize interpersonal conflict.

Several organizational and individual factors have been linked to increased

incidents of interpersonal conflict in the workplace. The Dollard-Miller frustration-

aggression theory (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer & Sears, 1939) suggests that

frustration occurs when an instigated goal sequence or behavioral sequence is interrupted.

When this occurs an individual may respond with aggression, especially when a

substitute response for the prevented goal sequence is not available. Later research

expanded the theory by including the mediating presence of an emotional reaction

(Spector, 1978; Spielberger, Reheiser & Sydeman, 1995). In this expanded model, the

frustration of a task performance or personal goal by one of a number of possible sources

(e.g., supervisors, subordinates, coworkers, procedures, or formal structure) leads to an

emotional response of frustration or anger. These emotional reactions are associated with

behavioral outcomes, with severe frustration and no expectation of punishment being

linked to organizational and interpersonal aggression, as well as eventual withdrawal and

goal abandonment.

Fox and Spector (1999) proposed a theoretical model of counterproductive work

behaviors pertaining to interpersonal and organizational aggression, which is relevant in

the current context of interpersonal conflict. The work of Fox and Spector (1999)

expands the original Dollard-Miller frustration-aggression theory, by including both

emotional and behavioral reactions to frustration. In the work context, certain stressors,

such as situational constraints, may serve to block an intended organizational goal,

causing individuals to become frustrated (Peters & O’Connor, 1980). Behavioral

reactions to frustration on the job, pertinent to the current study, include lowered job

performance, absenteeism, turnover, and both organizational and interpersonal aggression

(Spector, 1978). Accordingly, Fox and Spector (1999) found that events in the workplace

(e.g., situational constraints) were related to organizational counterproductive behaviors

(including workplace aggression) and were mediated by affective responses to

frustration.

Spector and Jex (1998) conducted a meta-analysis of 13 studies utilizing the

Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale. The results of this meta-analysis demonstrated that

interpersonal conflict at work was most strongly related to several job stressors (e.g., role

conflict, role ambiguity, and low autonomy). This meta-analysis further supports the

model of frustration-aggression presented by Fox and Spector (1999), which suggests that

situational constraints as well as individual factors contribute to affective and behavioral

reactions, one of which is increased interpersonal aggression.

Affective events theory. Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) posited affective events

theory (AET) as an alternative explanation to theories that focus on satisfaction with

one’s job as an evaluative judgment process. Instead, Weiss and Cropanzano (1996)

argue that job satisfaction is a consequence of affective events in the workplace that

direct attention away from features of the work environment and toward events or

proximal causes of affective reactions. Additionally, they suggest that patterns of affect

will influence both overall feelings about one’s job as well as discrete work behaviors.

Importantly, AET also acknowledges the multidimensional nature of affect—employees

can feel angry, proud, frustrated, or joyful. Each of these different reactions has different

behavioral implications in the workplace.

At the core of AET are affective reactions, which occur in response to work

events. These affective reactions can be influenced by one’s disposition, and lead to both

attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Affective reactions to workplace events influence

work attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction). Behavioral outcomes are grouped into two

categories: affect driven behaviors and judgment driven behaviors. Affect driven

behaviors follow directly from affective reactions and are influenced by processes like

coping and mood management (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Judgment driven behaviors,

on the other hand, are mediated by satisfaction.

In the context of workplace interpersonal conflict, AET is useful for explaining

the potential linkage between interpersonal conflict and job satisfaction, one of the

several dependent variables in the current study. Experiencing conflict would be one

work event that would elicit an affective reaction. This affective reaction would in turn

lead to attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. The attitudinal outcomes may include

lowered levels of job satisfaction, frustration, or anger.

Recovery from Work Demands

Recovery from work refers to a process during which individual functional

systems that have been called upon during the workday return to their prestressor levels

(Meijman & Mulder, 1998). Recovery can be described as a psycho-physiological

process (Meijman & Mulder, 1998), and has been conceptualized as being the opposite of

the strain process, in which prolonged activation results in stress reactions. During

recovery from work (e.g., during evenings or weekends) employees are able to disengage

from work demands and focus on nonwork activities, which allow time for emotional and

cognitive systems that were activated during work to restabilize. One’s personal

resources (e.g., feelings of self-efficacy, energy, etc.) are depleted throughout the

workday in response to work demands. It is essential that employees engage in recovery

experiences during nonwork time so that resources exhausted throughout the workday

can be regenerated. Recovery is necessary for one’s health and well-being, as prolonged

exposure to stressors without sufficient recovery can lead to health deterioration

(McEwen, 1998). Recovery from work demands can be described in the context of

different theoretical frameworks. Several of these frameworks are described below.

Effort-recovery model. The effort-recovery model (Meijman & Mulder, 1998)

outlines the process of responding to cognitive demands. The model identifies three

determinants: work demands, work potential, and decision latitude. These three factors

together determine two specific outcomes: the work product, and short-term

physiological and physical reactions. The work product refers to the goods or services

that are a direct outcome of the work, while short-term reactions are seen as adaptive

responses at the physiological, behavioral, and subjective level, and are manifested as

lowered employee health. When exposure to work stressors ceases, the engaged

psychobiological systems stabilize at pre-stressor levels, a process described as recovery.

When these same systems are called upon outside of work, the opportunity for recovery

is significantly decreased. In these instances, individuals are required to engage in

compensatory mechanisms, further drawing upon reserves of resources. Extended

exposure to work demands without significant time for recovery is therefore assumed to

impair individual well-being.

Conservation of resources theory. Hobfoll’s (1989) conservation of resources

(COR) theory posits that individuals strive to maintain, build, and protect their resources.

Resources are defined as objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies that an

individual values or that serve as a means for obtaining further objects, energies,

conditions, or personal characteristics (Hobfoll, 1989). Psychological stress occurs in

response to three potential situations: (a) a threat to an individual’s resources, (b) actual

loss of resources, or (c) failure to gain resources after investment of resources.

The COR model identifies four types of resources. Object resources are valuable

due to their actual nature, or their potential to be used as a status symbol (e.g., luxury

items). Personal characteristics can also be seen as resources, in that they aid in the stress

resistance process (e.g., self-efficacy, positive sense of self; Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll &

Lilly, 1993). Building personal characteristic resources may also allow for the

development of more resources in other categories. Conditions are subjective resources,

in the sense that they are sought after and valued (e.g., marriage and job seniority).

Lastly, energies (e.g., time, money, and knowledge) are seen as resources in that they aid

in the quest for additional resources.

Resources may be viewed as more or less valuable depending on various

individual, group, and societal factors. Furthermore, various environmental factors may

threaten these resources. The actual or possible loss of resources is seen as a threat

because, at the most basic level, resources are instrumental to individuals, and because

individuals often find self-worth in the resources they have at their disposal. Hobfoll

(1989) argues that loss is central to many of the theories of psychological stress, and

points to numerous studies that have examined significant life events, specifically loss

events, that cause stress (Dohrenwend, 1978; Holmes & Rahe, 1967; Sarason, Johnson, &

Siegel, 1978). Additionally, more ambiguous life events can be seen as stressful in the

extent to which they are perceived as “undesirable.” Furthermore, research indicates that

the loss of resources is much more salient and detrimental to individuals than resource

gains (Hobfoll & Lilly, 1993).

The COR model predicts that those confronted with stress will seek to minimize

resource loss (Hobfoll, 1989), and those who are not presented with stress will seek to

build and develop new resources, so as to offset the possibility of future resource loss.

When people develop new resources, they may experience positive well-being (Cohen &

Wills, 1985). Those that are unable to build new resources, however, are particularly

vulnerable and may be more likely to develop self-protective styles in the hopes of

preventing future resource loss (Arkin, 1981; Cheek & Buss, 198l).

In the context of COR theory, engaging in recovery experiences outside of work

allows individuals to restore resources that were lost while at work. It is also possible that

some recovery experiences may allow one to build new resources, which is a key feature

of COR theory. For example, taking time to relax after work may allow individuals to

restore emotional energy that was depleted during a particularly trying day at work. The

same may be said for cognitive resources that were called upon during the workday.

While employees may feel exhausted at the end of the workday, which would signal a

decreased level of resources, taking time to relax, detach from work, or engage in social

activities with friends and family may leave one feeling rejuvenated by the end of the

evening. Additionally, particular recovery strategies entail engaging in learning

experiences (e.g., mastery experiences), which offer the opportunity for building new

resources. For example, learning a new language or rock climbing during nonwork time

may facilitate the development of a new skill or the increase of such personal resources

as self-efficacy and a positive sense of self.

Ego depletion model. Past research on recovery from work has also included the

concept of ego depletion. The theory of ego depletion assumes that the self’s various acts

of volition draw on a similar limited resource, such that acts of volition will have a

negative impact on subsequent acts of volition (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, &

Tice, 1998). Baumeister and colleagues (1998) found support for this explanation over

the course of four unique experiences. In each of these cases, individuals who were

required to exert self-control and conscious acts of volition were more likely to give up or

persist for a shorter period of time on subsequent tasks than those who were not required

to exert self-control. Additional support for the ego depletion model has been

demonstrated for cases in which participants are asked to regulate and suppress emotional

responses. Those who were asked to regulate and control their emotions were again

linked to subsequent decreases in physical stamina (measured by the length of time

participants could continuously squeeze a handgrip) and the ability to regulate further

emotional responses (Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998).

Ego depletion is relevant to the process of recovery from work, such that reacting

to work stressors may require conscious acts of volition (e.g., engagement in a work

task). The acts of volition in response to these stressors reduce one’s self-regulatory

resources, which in turn may impair subsequent acts of volition (e.g., decreased effort in

the second task). The lack in self-control may also impair individual well-being (e.g.,

increased levels of fatigue, burnout, etc.). By engaging in recovery experiences,

employees are able to rebuild the resources that were lost by engaging in multiple acts of

volition during the workday. For example, by relaxing or mentally distancing oneself

from work, an individual is able to regain self-regulatory resources necessary for work.

Mood regulation. Recovery from work also provides opportunities to restore

positive affect that may have been diminished during the workday as a result of various

work stressors. One’s ability to self-regulate mood is crucial to maintaining social

relationships, particularly under stressful situations. For example, Larsen (2000)

describes mood regulation as a series of control processes in which individuals act

directly to control their mood.

Some research has suggested that mood repair may be one of the core functions of

recovery (Fuller, Stanton, Fisher, Spitzmuller, Russell, & Smith, 2003). Individuals may

undertake various strategies in the process of mood regulation, including both cognitive

and behavioral approaches (Parkinson, Totterdell, Briner, & Reynolds, 1996; Thayer,

Newman, & McClain, 1994). Parkinson and Totterdell’s (1999) research on mood

regulation strategies provides insight into the ways in which individuals actively seek to

control their moods. Two particular types of strategies were suggested by Parkinson and

Totterdell (1999): diversionary and engagement strategies. Diversionary strategies

involve avoiding negative and stressful situations and seeking distractions from such

situations (e.g., relaxation-oriented, pleasure-oriented, or mastery-oriented experiences).

Engagement strategies involve actively confronting or accepting stressful situations. Both

of these forms of engagement strategies involve an affect-directed and situation-directed

component. Diversionary strategies appear to be most related to recovery experiences, as

they allow an individual to disengage from stressful experiences and regain lost

resources. In contrast, engagement experiences may keep individuals cognitively

occupied with stressors, which would lead to continued resource losses (Sonnentag &

Fritz, 2007). This framework is directly relevant to research on recovery from work, as an

active component of recovery is the process of regulating one’s mood and responses to

daily stressors, which will become apparent in employee well-being.

Recent research has demonstrated an association between recovery experiences

and emotional states. For example, Fritz, Sonnentag, Spector, and McInroe (2010a) found

that recovery experiences (e.g., psychological detachment, relaxation, mastery, and

control) during the weekend were related to affective states during the following work

week. Specifically, relaxation was associated with increased positive affect and decreased

negative affect during the following work week. Mastery was associated with higher

levels of positive affect at the end of the weekend, and psychological detachment was

associated with positive affective states both at the end of the weekend and at the end of

the following work week. Additionally, a recent diary study by Sonnentag, Binnewies,

and Mozja (2008) found an association between a lack of psychological detachment in

the evening and negative activation and fatigue the following morning. On the other

hand, evening relaxation was associated with morning serenity, and mastery experiences

in the evening were related to positive activation in the morning.

Mechanisms linking work and nonwork domains. While it is necessary to

discuss in detail the several theoretical frameworks used to support the notion of recovery

during nonwork time, it is also important to acknowledge work being done in the area of

work-family research that offers alternative explanations for the impacts of work on

home life. Edwards and Rothbard (2000) discuss several mechanisms that link the work

and family domains. They define a linking mechanism as “a relationship between a work

construct and a family construct. Linking mechanisms can exist only when work and

family are conceptually distinct” (p. 180). The six general categories of linking

mechanisms include: spillover, compensation, segmentation, resource drain, congruence,

and work-family conflict. These linking mechanisms are relevant to the research being

done on recovery from work, as several of these mechanisms may be useful for

explaining the necessity of recovery during nonwork time.

Spillover refers to effects of work and family on one another that generate

similarities between the two domains (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000), and consists of two

versions: one in which spillover is characterized as a similarity between a work domain

construct and a distinct but related family domain construct, and another version in which

spillover consists of experiences between domains. This spillover between domains can

be either positive or negative. Recovery from work may be increasingly necessary in

situations of negative spillover to prevent negative experiences in one domain from

affecting the other domain as well. For example, recovery after work may prevent

increased levels of fatigue due to work from negatively impacting one’s involvement in

family domain activities. In their recent chapter on the quality of work life, Hammer and

Zimmerman (2010) provide an overview of positive spillover and health outcomes.

Work-family positive spillover has been linked with lower risks of mental illness,

depression, and problem drinking. Furthermore, Hammer and Zimmerman point out

recovery from work as a new direction in the work-family field. While spillover is

particularly relevant to the concept of recovery from work, there are several other linking

mechanisms that may be important as well.

Compensation, another linking mechanism, consists of efforts to offset

dissatisfaction in one domain by seeking satisfaction in another domain, and comes in

two forms: the reallocation of importance, and supplemental compensation. Recovery

from work may be particularly relevant to this second type of compensation, in which

individuals seek to engage in recovery experiences as a way of offsetting less than

satisfactory work experiences. Segmentation refers to “an active process whereby people

maintain a boundary between work and family” (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000, p. 181).

This linking mechanism may be most relevant to the process of mentally and physically

distancing oneself from work during nonwork time in an attempt to disengage from work

demands. Resource drain is another linking mechanism that refers to the transfer of

personal resources (e.g., time, attention, energy) from one domain to another. Recovery

from work may decrease employees’ experience of resource drain, as engaging in

recovery experiences allows for the rebuilding of resources necessary for both work and

family domains. Congruence, another linking mechanism, refers to the “similarity

between work and family, owing to a third variable that acts as a common cause” (p.

182). For example, overarching life values or general aptitudes and intelligence may

affect both the work and family domains. Lastly, work-family conflict refers to a form of

interrole conflict in which the demands of work and family are incompatible, in which

meeting the demands of one domain makes it difficult to meet demands in the other

domain. Work-family conflict has been separated into three forms: time-based, strain-

based, and behavior-based (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). In this context, recovery from

work may be most relevant to forms of strain-based work-family conflict. Strain-based

work-family conflict refers to a process by which strain (e.g., dissatisfaction, anxiety,

fatigue) from one domain makes it difficult to meet demands of the other domain. By

engaging in recovery experiences during nonwork time, employees may be able to lessen

the detrimental outcomes associated with work demands, thereby allowing for increased

resources to be allocated to the family domain.

Specific Recovery Experiences

Various experiences outside of the work domain have been suggested to

contribute to recovery from work. Building on past research on recovery from work I will

focus on several specific recovery experiences that will be described in more detail

below.

Psychological detachment. Psychological detachment can be described as

physically and mentally separating oneself from the working environment. Detachment

can result from the simple physical act of leaving work and going home, or refraining

from thinking about work-related problems or issues while at home (Sonnentag & Fritz,

2007). In the context of the effort-recovery model, psychological detachment may help

individuals restore resources lost while at work. After work, it is important that the same

systems that were activated by work stressors are no longer called upon, so that an

individual’s psychobiological systems are able to return to prestressor levels. By

psychologically detaching from work, an individual is no longer exposed to the demands

of various work stressors, and is able to recover the resources that were lost in response

to the work demands of that day. Additionally, in accordance with the theory of mood

regulation, psychologically detaching from work can allow individuals to remove

themselves from work situations associated with negative emotions.

Several empirical studies have suggested that psychological detachment from

work during nonwork time is an important factor in recovery from work demands.

Psychological detachment from work has been linked to positive mood and low fatigue in

the evening before bedtime and the next morning (Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005; Sonnentag

et al., 2008). Psychological detachment has also been linked to lower levels of health

complaints, emotional exhaustion, depressive symptoms, need for recovery, and sleep

problems and higher levels of life satisfaction (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). A recent study

also found that higher levels of self-reported psychological detachment were associated

with higher levels of significant-other reported life satisfaction and lower levels of

emotional exhaustion (Fritz, Yankelevich, Zarubin, & Barger, 2010b). Additionally, low

levels of psychological detachment were associated with high levels of emotional

exhaustion and need for recovery, and also partially mediate the relationship between job

stressors and strain reactions (Sonnentag, Kuttler, & Fritz, 2010). Psychological

detachment during the weekend has also been associated with certain aspects of positive

affect during the following workweek (e.g., joviality and serenity; Fritz et al., 2010a).

Relaxation. Relaxation is associated with low activation and positive affect

(Stone, Kennedy-Moore, & Neale, 1995), and can result from various leisure activities,

including meditation, a light walk, or casual social activities. According to COR theory,

individuals strive to maintain, build, and protect their resources (Hobfoll, 1989).

Relaxation as a recovery experience is helpful for those individuals who are in need of

maintaining and protecting their resources, particularly after having lost resources at

work. In this case, relaxation may expedite the process by which systems that were

activated by work stressors return to prestressor levels. Relaxation may also foster mood

regulation, as engaging in relaxation after work may help reduce high activation negative

affect (e.g., anger) that may have resulted as a response to various work stressors.

Through relaxation experiences such as taking a walk or reading a book, an individual

may be able to both reduce negative mood as well as restore positive mood.

Relaxation during nonwork time has been linked to lower levels of health

problems, emotional exhaustion, need for recovery, and sleep problems and higher levels

of life satisfaction (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). In addition, Sonnentag and colleagues

(2008) showed that higher levels of relaxation in the evening were related to serenity the

following morning. Keeping in line with mood regulation theory, relaxation during the

weekend has also been associated with higher levels of joviality, self-assurance, and

serenity and lower levels of fear, hostility, and sadness at the end of the weekend as well

as at the end of the following work week (Fritz et al., 2010a).

Mastery. Engaging in mastery experiences is another form of recovery during

which an individual seeks to build new internal resources. This may be accomplished by

seeking out new and challenging activities and learning experiences (Sonnentag & Fritz,

2007). Mastery experiences are assumed to challenge the individual without overtaxing

his or her capabilities (Siltaloppi, Kinnunen, & Feldt, 2009). While these mastery

experiences may put additional demands on the individual, they also enhance recovery by

allowing for the development of new resources such as skills, competencies, and self-

efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Hobfoll, 1998). Mastery experiences would allow individuals to

build new resources of their own choosing. These additional resources are helpful in

confronting subsequent stressors, and in many cases, may increase an individual’s

feelings of self-worth and self-efficacy. Engaging in mastery experiences during nonwork

time may also allow individuals to regulate their mood, particularly in response to

negative affective states that may have been elicited by interpersonal conflicts at work.

Mood regulation theory posits that individuals are able to actively engage in strategies in

the process of mood regulation, and mastery experiences typify an engagement strategy

in which individuals select activities that will increase positive affect and feelings of self-

efficacy.

Mastery experiences during vacation have been found to be negatively related to

exhaustion after vacation (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2006). Mastery has also been shown to be

negatively related to emotional exhaustion, depressive symptoms, and need for recovery,

and positively related to life satisfaction (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). Furthermore, mastery

experiences during the weekend have been associated with higher levels of positive affect

(e.g., joviality, self-assurance, and serenity) at the end of the weekend (Fritz et al.,

2010a).

Nonwork control. Nonwork control refers to an individual’s ability to decide

what leisure experiences he or she will partake in during recovery from work (Sonnentag

& Fritz, 2007). Control over one’s recovery experiences may be particularly important

for mood regulation. As Parkinson and Totterdell (1999) describe, there are various

strategies individuals engage in to change their own moods in response to particular

situational experiences. As diversionary strategies have been suggested as being most

related to recovery experiences (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007), it is possible that engaging in

control over one’s recovery experiences will allow an individual to select activities that

elicit recovery experiences that will be most helpful in improving one’s mood. In

addition, while diversionary strategies should be most related to recovering from work

experiences, it is also possible that control is utilized to engage in other recovery

experiences that are more related to engagement strategies as a means of coping with the

negative outcomes of workplace stressors. As individuals strive to maintain and protect

resources, engaging in control over one’s experiences may allow an individual to target

specific resources for rebuilding, which will prevent future resource loss.

Control over one’s experiences allows for a positive reevaluation of potentially

stressful situations and has been found to be positively related to individual well-being

(Lazarus, 1966; Bandura, 1997). Conversely, low levels of control have been linked to

psychological distress and anxiety (Rosenfield, 1989). In situations of low control, one’s

ability to react to and influence the surrounding environment is diminished, which may in

turn lead to negative self-evaluations and lowered self-worth. For example, research by

Griffin, Fuhrer, Stansfeld, and Marmot (2002) indicates that women who had low levels

of control at home experienced higher levels of depression five years later than women

high in control. Similarly, men low in control at home showed higher depression and

anxiety levels than men with high levels of control (Griffin et al., 2002).

Control during leisure time may satisfy an individual’s need for control, and in

turn increase feelings of self-efficacy and competence (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). It is

also possible that control over leisure experiences allows individuals to select recovery

experiences that will be most helpful for the restoration of resources. Sonnentag and Fritz

(2007) demonstrated links between control and lower levels of health complaints,

emotional exhaustion, depressive symptoms, need for recovery, and sleep problems, and

higher levels of life satisfaction.

Social activity during nonwork time. Engaging in social activities includes

meeting new people and spending time with friends and family. Social activities offer an

opportunity to seek and receive social support from others (Sonnentag, 2001). Engaging

in social activities may allow individuals to halt the process of resource loss that occurs

in response to work stressors. Engaging in positive social activity may also allow

individuals to regain emotional resources through social support from friends and family.

This gain in resources will bolster reactions to future threats of resource loss. It is also

likely that various social activities result in the creation of new resources (e.g., self-

esteem, extended social network), which also helps individuals to cope with future

resource threats and losses. Furthermore, in line with mood regulation theory, engaging

in social activities with friends and family allows individuals to regulate their moods in

such a way that increases positive affect. Engaging in pleasant activities with social

contacts allows an individual to disengage from work and possible negative impacts of

interpersonal conflict at work.

Seeking social support is beneficial for individual health (Viswesvaran, Sanchez,

& Fisher, 1999), and can serve as a vehicle to replenish one’s depleted physical and

emotional resources (Westman, 1999). Research further suggests that engaging in social

activities with friends and family may call for less self-regulation than engaging in social

interactions with coworkers, supervisors, or customers (Grandey, 2000). Nonwork

experiences such as social activity have also been associated with positive individual

outcomes. Fritz and Sonnentag (2005) found positive relationships between social

activities on the weekend and well-being at the beginning of the following work week.

Engaging in social activities in the evening after work has also been associated with

higher levels of well-being before going to sleep (Sonnentag, 2001).

Work reflection. Reflecting on one’s work has been examined as another

potential recovery experience. Fritz and Sonnentag (2005) specifically examined positive

work reflection, which refers to reflecting on one’s job in a positive way during nonwork

time. Engaging in positive work reflection may act as a type of reappraisal of stressful

work situations (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In positively reappraising work, stress

reactions may be reduced, which leads to the restoration of resources. Additionally,

positively reflecting on one’s work allows an employee to focus on the positive aspects of

the job, and the things that one enjoys about their work. Thus, it may allow for the

creation of new resources, or the increase of existing resources. For example, thinking

about the work goals that one has already accomplished may lead to greater self-efficacy,

which in turn may be associated with increased well-being (Westman, 1999; Fritz &

Sonnentag, 2005). Positive work reflection may also be related to the development of

new goals concerning an individual’s work.

Fritz and Sonnentag (2005) found that positively reflecting on one’s work over

the weekend significantly and negatively predicted burnout at the beginning of the

following work week. The findings on positive work reflection suggest that it is not only

limited to the work or nonwork domain, but that it may have important implications for

both life domains (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005).

It may also be the case that individuals reflect negatively on their jobs while away

from work. Contrary to positive work reflection, negative work reflection entails thinking

about the undesirable aspects of one’s job, such as those aspects that are not enjoyable

(Fritz & Sonnentag, 2006). Thinking negatively about one’s job may in turn consume

resources or prevent necessary regeneration processes, which in turn may lead to

decreased well-being and performance (Etzion, Eden, & Lapidot, 1998; Sonnentag &

Bayer, 2005). Negative work reflection during vacation has been shown to be associated

with higher health complaints and exhaustion after vacation (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2006).

Related to negative work reflection, rumination is a particular response style in

which individuals repetitively think about their negative emotions, focus on their

symptoms, and worry about the meaning of their negative emotions (Lyubomirsky,

Caldwell, & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1998; Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991). Rumination appears to

contribute to feelings of hopelessness for the future and uncertainty. Engaging in negative

work reflection would be very similar to employees ruminating about their work

experience. In the context of mood regulation, negative and positive work reflection can

be seen as examples of engagement strategies. Though engagement strategies are less

indicative of recovery experiences, reflecting on work is an example of actively

confronting and accepting work stressors. Regarding positive work reflection, an

individual may actively accept work stressors as a challenge and use thoughts about work

to develop future work goals and strategies. Conversely, negative work reflection results

in the continued use of resources needed at work, instead of creating strategies or goals

for dealing with stressors, or disengaging from them altogether as with diversionary

strategies.

Work-Related Well-Being

As mentioned previously, I will view well-being variables as belonging to one of

two domains: work-related well-being and general well-being. Work-related well-being

will include job satisfaction and burnout, which will be discussed below.

Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is one of the most widely studied attitudes in

Industrial & Organizational Psychology (Kinicki, McKee-Ryan, Schriesheim & Carson,

2002), and is defined as a multidimensional attitudinal response to one’s job that has

cognitive, affective, and behavioral components (Smith, Kendall & Hulin, 1969; Hulin &

Judge, 2003). Weiss (2002) defined job satisfaction as “a positive (or negative) evaluative

judgment one makes about one’s job or job situation” (p. 175).

Both antecedents and outcomes of job satisfaction have been studied extensively.

For example, self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, internal locus of control, emotional

stability, and negative affect have been linked to job satisfaction (Judge & Bono, 2001;

Siu, Lu, & Cooper, 1999). In the work context, a variety of factors have been linked to

job satisfaction, such as specific job characteristics, pay (Brasher & Chen, 1999), and

justice perceptions (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Specifically, research has linked

each of the five core characteristics of job tasks (Hackman & Oldham, 1976): skill

variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and task feedback to job satisfaction.

Job satisfaction also seems to be related to more general indicators of well-being,

such as anxiety, depression, burnout, cardiovascular disease, subjective physical illness,

strain, higher levels of self-esteem and general mental health (Faragher, Cass, & Cooper,

2005) and sleep problems (Spector, 2006). A meta-analysis focusing on business

outcomes of job satisfaction showed relationships between job satisfaction and customer

satisfaction-loyalty, profitability, productivity, employee turnover, and safety outcomes

(Harder, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis indicated a

modest but significant relationship between job satisfaction and job performance (r = .20;

Judge, Thoreson, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006). Lastly,

several studies have demonstrated a link between job satisfaction and another outcome

variable of this study, life satisfaction. Generally, individuals who are more satisfied with

their jobs tend to be more satisfied with their life as well, and several possible

explanations (e.g., spillover, compensation, and segmentation) have been given for this

relationship (Spector, 2006).

Burnout. When individuals are exposed to work stressors over a significant

period of time without the opportunity to recover, burnout is often a likely outcome.

Maslach (1982) originally conceptualized burnout as a syndrome affecting service

workers, consisting of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal

accomplishment. Burnout, generally speaking, is a response to chronic work stressors, in

which individuals feel depleted and unable to further cope with work demands.

Subsequent research on burnout has identified two relevant dimensions of

burnout, namely, exhaustion and disengagement (Demerouti, Bakker, Vardakou, &

Kantas, 2003). While Maslach’s (1982) initial conceptualization of burnout had important

psychometric and theoretical limitations (Kalliath, 2001), Demerouti’s and colleagues’

(2003) revised conceptualization of burnout was not only applicable to a wide range of

occupations, but had stronger theoretical and psychometric properties (e.g., Halbesleben

& Demerouti, 2005). According to Demerouti and colleagues (2003), exhaustion is a

reaction to prolonged exposure to work stressors, and in this context refers to emotional,

physical, and cognitive forms of exhaustion. This definition of exhaustion is similarly

applicable to employees who engage in prolonged physical labor or information

processing. Disengagement is a physical and emotional response that can manifest itself

as distancing oneself from one’s work, or having negative feelings towards one’s work.

The relevant scale measuring disengagement refers to emotions toward the work tasks as

well as to a devaluation and mechanical execution of the work (Demerouti et al., 2003).

According to the effort-recovery model, burnout is a likely outcome of prolonged

activation, specifically when individuals are unable to regain resources that were lost to

dealing with work stressors.

For example, burnout has been found to be associated with a variety of work

stressors. Specifically, burnout has been linked to low levels of perceived control at work,

high levels of role conflict, and work overload (Spector, 2006). It is important to include

burnout in the conceptualization of employee well-being, as it is a likely outcome of

dealing with chronic work stressors, particularly if individuals are lacking an outlet in

which they are able to recover from such stressors.

General Well-Being

In addition to the domain of work-related well-being, I will also be addressing

more general indicators of well-being, including life satisfaction and general health

complaints. Both of these constructs will be discussed in more detail below.

Life satisfaction. Life satisfaction is a global indicator of an individual’s

perceptions of their quality of life, and is seen as a cognitive-judgmental aspect of

individual happiness. Each individual assesses his or her own quality of life with a

different and unique set of standards (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985),

meaning that different individuals may place varying levels of importance on different

aspects of life (e.g., health and finances).

Life satisfaction can be seen as a result of satisfaction across various domains, one

of which would include work. As such, it has been positively (Judge & Watanabe, 1993)

associated with job satisfaction. It is important to note that confirmatory factor analyses

did identify the two scales of satisfaction as separate constructs (Judge & Watanabe,

1993). Additionally, a meta-analysis (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998) found a negative

relationship between work-family conflict and life satisfaction further supporting the

notion that life satisfaction is affected by multiple domains. Accordingly, life satisfaction

was shown to be lower among dual-career couples suggesting work can have a significant

impact on one’s level of life satisfaction.

Health complaints. Past research indicates that prolonged exposure to stressors is

associated with decreased levels of physical health. Health complaints have been viewed

as an overall indicator of poor well-being and refer to physical symptoms of stress or

minor problems (Watson & Pennebaker, 1989) such as headaches and sleep disturbances.

Chronic work stress has been linked to a number of detrimental health outcomes, such as

heart disease, ulcers, headaches, cancer, and diabetes. Additionally, under high levels of

work stressors, individuals are more prone to engage in negative health behaviors such as

smoking, drug and alcohol use, and violence. Lastly, work stress has also been linked to

higher levels of family conflict, sleep disturbances, and depression (see Greenberg &

Baron, 2008 for a review).

According to the effort-recovery model, if an individual is unable to recover after

prolonged activation due to work stressors, negative outcomes such as reduced well-

being and health are often the case. In the case of failing to recover, an individual

continually taxes the psychological and physiological systems that are called into action

as a result of dealing with such work stressors. When these systems fail to recover to

prestressor levels, compensatory mechanisms are often called upon, further draining

resource reserves. It is this continual activation and further taxation on one’s systems that

often leads to negative health outcomes for those dealing with chronic work stress. For

example, the depletion of one’s resources often becomes apparent in the form of

increased psychosomatic complaints (Pennebaker, 1982).

Interpersonal Conflict and Employee Well-Being

Research has demonstrated that interpersonal conflict is a work stressor that may

come in various forms, including overt and covert behaviors by coworkers (Spector &

Jex, 1998). Employees experiencing interpersonal conflict may experience a host of

negative outcomes as a response including impaired well-being (Stoetzer et al., 2009).

Conflict in itself is inherently stressful. Negative emotions, threatened self-esteem, and

heightened cognitive effort as a result of interpersonal conflict can impact an individual’s

physiological resources in a multitude of ways (De Dreu et al., 2004b). The ego depletion

model has been offered as a possible explanation for these relationships. Specifically,

research indicates that asking individuals to regulate and control their emotions is

associated with subsequent decreases in physical ability and the ability to regulate further

emotional responses (Baumeister et al., 1998; Muraven et al., 1998). For these reasons, it

is important to further examine the negative impacts of interpersonal conflict at work, and

to investigate factors that may help alleviate negative outcomes.

An overview of possible negative outcomes of interpersonal conflict at work

indicates that dealing with conflict at work is associated with higher levels of stress

hormones which deplete the physiological system (McEwen, 1998; De Dreu, Van

Dierendonck, & Best-Waldhober, 2004a). This depletion of one’s systems may become

manifest as psychosomatic complaints, such as persistent headaches and upset stomachs

(Pennebaker, 1982). Additionally, enduring conflict at work may lead to decreased

individual well-being through increased rumination, alcohol intake and low-quality sleep

(Cooper & Marshall, 1976; Danna & Griffin, 1999).

One meta-analysis (Spector & Jex, 1998) further indicates that interpersonal

conflict at work is associated with higher levels of anxiety, depression, frustration and

doctor visits. Workplace aggression, a similar construct, has also been linked to employee

health and well-being (Herschovis & Barling, 2009). Specifically, workplace aggression,

regardless of the source, was related to higher levels of emotional exhaustion and

depression and lower levels of physical well-being and general health. According to the

results of Hershcovis and Barling’s (2009) meta-analysis, supervisor, co-worker, and

outsider aggression were all related to general health, emotional exhaustion, depression,

and physical well-being. Supervisor aggression was shown to have stronger adverse

impact on general health than co-worker aggression. On the other hand, co-worker

aggression had a greater adverse impact than supervisor aggression on physical well-

being. In comparing co-worker aggression and outsider aggression, co-worker aggression

had a stronger adverse impact than outsider aggression on physical well-being. Lastly, in

comparing supervisor aggression to outsider aggression, supervisor aggression had a

stronger adverse impact on general health than outsider aggression.

In addition to the meta-analytic evidence for the detrimental consequences of

workplace interpersonal conflict and workplace aggression, a recent longitudinal study

also examined problematic interpersonal relationships at work and their effects on

employee depression levels (Stoetzer et al., 2009). This study examined a cohort of

Swedish employees over two years. In addition to looking at interpersonal conflict, the

researchers also examined social support, exclusion by superiors, and exclusion by co-

workers. All four of these variables, including conflict at work, were related to higher

levels of depression among employees. Previous depression was controlled for,

suggesting that interpersonal conflict is associated with subsequent lowered well-being,

above and beyond lowered well-being being a possible predictor of conflict. In summary,

interpersonal conflict at work has been associated with a variety of well-being outcomes,

which implies that it is an important workplace stressor that necessitates further study.

It is important to note that while this study conceptualizes interpersonal conflict at

work as leading to detrimental health outcomes, it is also possible that lowered levels of

well-being lead to workplace interpersonal conflict. In this case, employees would come

to work with lowered levels of resources, which would potentially result in a lowered

ability to engage in emotion regulation, and subsequently, higher levels of interpersonal

conflict. However, this process poses a separate and unique research question that could

potentially be addressed with longitudinal research designs. In the context of COR theory

(Hobfoll, 1989), it is possible that interpersonal conflict in the workplace is associated

with lowered well-being, and for those with lowered levels of resources, may set off a

‘loss spiral,’ which would in turn be associated with subsequent higher levels of

interpersonal conflict. For the purposes of the current study, interpersonal conflict will be

conceptualized as an antecedent to lowered well-being.

Recovery Experiences As Potential Moderators

As the previous section suggests, there have been numerous studies linking

interpersonal conflict at work to potential individual outcomes, including employee well-

being. Additionally, interpersonal conflict is only one of many work stressors, many of

which (including role conflict, role ambiguity, lack of control, and perceived workload)

have been examined in detail with respect to employee well-being outcomes (e. g.,

Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Spector, 1986; Spector, Dwyer, & Jex, 1988; Jex & Beehr,

1991; Spector & Jex, 1998). Recent research has also examined the benefits of various

recovery experiences outside of work on employee well-being and performance (Fritz &

Sonnentag, 2005; 2006; Sonnentag & Bayer, 2005; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). Only

recently, however, have particular recovery experiences been examined as possible

boundary conditions in the relationship between work stressors and well-being outcomes

(Siltaloppi et al., 2009; Kinnunen et al., 2010; Sonnentag et al., 2010).

A recent study examined the direct and moderator roles of psychological

detachment, relaxation, mastery, and control in the relationship between time demands,

job control, and justice of the supervisor and work-related well-being (Siltaloppi et al.,

2009). In this study, work-related well-being was measured as need for recovery, job

exhaustion, and work engagement. Psychological detachment and mastery were found to

moderate the relationship between job control and need for recovery; additionally,

relaxation was shown to moderate the relationship between time demands and job

exhaustion. More specifically, higher levels of detachment and mastery were associated

with lower need for recovery, both generally and particularly in a low control situation,

compared to those low in detachment. Secondly, job exhaustion was higher in situations

of high time demands and low relaxation. Employees high in relaxation expressed a

weaker negative association between time demands and job exhaustion.

Furthermore, a recent study examining recovery experiences as moderators of the

relationship between job insecurity and well-being outcomes indicated differential effects

of recovery experiences as buffers against the negative outcomes of work stressors

(Kinnunen et al., 2010). Specifically, across a sample of 527 employees from various

occupations, relaxation moderated the relationship between an insecure job situation and

need for recovery, such that individuals with low relaxation experienced higher need for

recovery in conditions of high job insecurity. Control was also found to moderate the

relationship between job insecurity and need for recovery. Individuals with high levels of

control experienced significantly lower need for recovery under conditions of low job

insecurity, though under conditions of high job insecurity, individuals with both high and

low control experienced similar levels of need for recovery. Lastly, psychological

detachment was found to moderate the relationship between job insecurity and vigor at

work, such that individuals with high psychological detachment experienced similar

levels of vigor at work under both low and high conditions of job insecurity, while those

with low psychological detachment experienced lower vigor at work under conditions of

high job insecurity. Job insecurity is just one of many daily stressors faced by employees,

and it is possible that recovery experiences will play differing roles as moderators

depending on the form of work stressor.

A recent longitudinal study by Sonnentag and colleagues (Sonnentag et al., 2010)

examined the role of psychological detachment during nonwork time as a moderator of

the relationship between job demands and psychological well-being and work

engagement. Among a sample of 309 human service employees, psychological

detachment was shown to moderate the relationship between job demands and

psychological well-being and work engagement, such that those with high levels of job

demands and low levels of psychological detachment experienced higher levels of

psychosomatic complaints and decreased levels of work engagement. In the present

study, various recovery experiences may buffer against negative outcomes of

interpersonal conflict at work. Thus, the current study seeks to extend recent research

examining recovery experiences as moderators, particularly by exploring interpersonal

conflict as the workplace stressor in question.

According to the effort-recovery model, extended effort at work requires a period

of recovery afterwards in order for an individual’s psychobiological systems to return to

the prestressor level. In the context of this study, interpersonal conflict at work acts as a

work stressor that will engage psychological and physiological processes. Over time, this

activation will be associated with impairments in well-being and health. Therefore,

recovery is necessary for alleviating the negative outcomes associated with work

stressors. In addition, specific recovery experiences outside of work may buffer against

the negative impacts of interpersonal conflict. Thus, though there may be detrimental

outcomes associated with interpersonal conflict at work, engaging in various recovery

experiences may help protect an individual’s systems that are called into action as a

response to this work stressor. The different recovery experiences (i.e., psychological

detachment, relaxation, mastery, control, social activities, and positive work reflection)

may affect the relationship between interpersonal conflict and employee outcomes to

varying degrees, though all except for negative work reflection are expected to reduce the

negative relationship. Negative work reflection, however, may exacerbate the negative

association between interpersonal conflict and well-being, because individuals are

expending more time and energy ruminating on negative work experiences. Specifically,

those recovery experiences that are primarily related to positive psychological or social

processes should be most effective in alleviating negative impacts of interpersonal

conflict. Thus, for employees with higher levels of positive recovery experiences, the

negative relationship between interpersonal conflict and well-being will be weaker than

for employees with low levels of recovery experiences. A visual depiction of the

following hypotheses can be found in Figure 1.

Psychological detachment as a moderator. Employees that are subject to high

levels of interpersonal conflict at work may ruminate about the experience even after

leaving the workplace, particularly if the interpersonal conflict is especially salient or

increasingly negative. They may continue to think about what they should have said in

response to a rude comment, or contemplate ways to retaliate against the perpetrator. For

these reasons, it may be especially important that victims of interpersonal conflict at work

seek to psychologically detach from work. Detaching from work in general, including

from any conflict that may have taken place during the day, will allow employees to more

effectively recover, thereby lessening any negative impacts of the conflict. As individuals

psychologically detach from work, the psychobiological systems that were activated as a

result of interpersonal conflict are no longer engaged. Psychological detachment—by

definition—limits rumination about a particular work conflict, and may allow employees

to focus on regaining emotional resources that were lost as a result of the conflict. This

assumption is in line with the effort-recovery model (Meijman & Mulder, 1998), which

states that recovery is necessary after extended effort at work. If recovery does not take

place, an individual may need to engage in various compensatory strategies that draw on

additional resource reserves.

On the other hand, those individuals who are unable to detach from work while at

home may have a more difficult time recovering, and will therefore experience higher

levels of negative outcomes associated with interpersonal conflict at work. By failing to

disengage from work stressors, particularly interpersonal conflict, an individual will

continue to use emotional and physical resources that were already called upon during the

time of the conflict. This resource loss will become apparent in impaired well-being and

health. Thus, I hypothesize that psychological detachment from work during nonwork

time will help reduce negative associations between interpersonal conflict at work and

employee well-being.

Hypothesis 1: Psychological detachment will moderate the negative relationship

between interpersonal conflict and employee well-being. Specifically, for

employees high in detachment, interpersonal conflict will be less strongly related

to well-being than for employees low in detachment.

Relaxation as a moderator. Interpersonal conflict at work often elicits anger and

frustration in employees (Keenan & Newton, 1985). Therefore, seeking out relaxing

activities after work should allow employees to manage the strong emotions they felt

while at work. Relaxation during nonwork time helps employees regulate their mood. In

accordance with mood regulation theory, relaxation serves as a diversionary strategy to

reduce negative affect that may have been elicited throughout the workday as a result of

interpersonal conflict. By engaging in relaxation experiences, negative affect (e.g., anger,

anxiety) is decreased and a lower activation positive affect (e.g., serenity) is elicited.

Drawing on the effort-recovery model, taking time to relax allows for the recovery of

resources that were lost while at work. Specifically, emotional and cognitive resources

that were lost while dealing with conflict are restored during relaxation.

Keeping with propositions of mood regulation theory and the effort-recovery

model, individuals who take time to relax after work will be more successful at restoring

lost resources, which will help reduce the negative relationship between interpersonal

conflict at work and well-being. In contrast, failing to relax after work hinders the

psychobiological systems that were called into action during work from recovering,

which is associated with continued resource loss. As individuals fail to recover, they are

less able to deal with subsequent interpersonal conflict at work. Therefore, those low in

relaxation during nonwork time should experience lowered levels of well-being as a

result of interpersonal conflict at work compared to those high in relaxation.

Hypothesis 2: Relaxation will moderate the negative relationship between

interpersonal conflict and employee well-being. Specifically, for employees with

high levels of relaxation, interpersonal conflict will be less strongly related to

well-being than for employees with low levels of relaxation.

Mastery experience as a moderator. According to the COR theory, emotional

and psychological responses to interpersonal conflict may deplete an individual’s

resources, becoming apparent in lower levels of well-being. Resource loss is particularly

salient to individuals. In keeping with COR theory, individuals attempt to gain resources

as a way to increase self-esteem and prevent future resource loss. Most, if not all,

individuals seek to avoid losing resources. To counteract this, engaging in activities that

build new resources or replenish existing ones may be helpful. In this respect, engaging

in mastery experiences may allow for the development of new resources, which in turn

can help counteract the loss of resources due to interpersonal conflict at work. By

engaging in mastery experiences, individuals may learn new skills, such as sewing or

rock-climbing. These new resources should help buffer against the negative outcomes of

future threats to resources or actual resource losses. Accordingly, I hypothesize that

individuals who engage in a higher level of mastery experiences outside of work should

experience fewer negative associations between interpersonal conflict at work and well-

being. In contrast, those low in mastery experiences will have fewer resources to utilize

when dealing with interpersonal conflict at work, and will therefore experience increased

negative associations between interpersonal conflict at work and well-being.

Hypothesis 3: Mastery experiences will moderate the negative relationship

between interpersonal conflict and employee well-being. Specifically, for

employees high in mastery, interpersonal conflict will be less strongly related to

well-being than for employees low in mastery.

Nonwork control as a moderator. In keeping with COR theory, control over

nonwork experiences allows an individual to independently select experiences that will

allow for the most gains in resources. In gaining resources, individuals will be more able

to handle future threats to their resources and actual resource losses. As a result, control

experiences should allow employees to offset possible negative outcomes associated with

interpersonal conflict.

Additionally, interpersonal conflict, in the sense that it is occasionally

unwarranted and thrust upon the victim, may leave the employee with feelings of

frustration concerning the lack of control they have in dealing with that particular

interaction. Therefore, control experiences outside of the workplace may offset the lack

of control one feels within the context of interpersonal conflict. According to Fox and

Spector’s (1999) model of frustration-aggression, workplace aggression is often the result

of thwarted workplace goals, which causes frustration within employees. If this

frustration does not have an outlet, it may result in further instances of interpersonal

conflict, either in the form of retaliation from the victim, or conflict perpetrated by the

victim towards another target. Utilizing control experiences outside of work may allow

victims of interpersonal conflict to deal with feelings of frustration associated with

workplace interpersonal conflict.

Thus, those individuals who are able to engage in a high level of control over their

recovery experiences should experience weaker negative associations between

interpersonal conflict and well-being because exercising control allows them to regain

many of their resources. Conversely, those individuals who are unable to exert control

over their recovery experiences will be less likely to regain their resources, and therefore

will experience stronger negative associations between interpersonal conflict and well-

being.

Hypothesis 4: Control will moderate the negative relationship between

interpersonal conflict and employee well-being. Specifically, for employees high

in control, interpersonal conflict will be less strongly related to well-being than

for employees low in control.

Social activities as a moderator. Social activities can be used as a way to

recover from work stressors. Additionally, engaging in social activities of one’s choosing

may allow for access to social support (Viswesvaran et al., 1999). Seeking out social

support from one’s family and friends may allow for the regeneration of emotional

resources that were called upon and lost while dealing with interpersonal conflict at work

(Sonnentag, 2001).

According to COR theory, an individual will seek to protect and maintain their

resources, as well as build new resources. By engaging in social activities, individuals are

able to regain emotional and cognitive resources, which will halt the process of resource

loss, and bolster an individual against future resource losses. It is also possible that

certain social activities may result in the building of new resources. For example, when

individuals join a social group they expand their social network and in such cases build

new resources, which are known to be beneficial for feelings of self-worth (Hobfoll &

Lilly, 1993). Engaging in social activities may also serve as a diversionary strategy (in

line with mood regulation theory) that serves to distract an individual from interpersonal

conflict at work.

Thus, in the context of COR theory and mood regulation theory, individuals who

are able to engage in higher levels of positive social activities will be able to halt the

process of resource loss associated with interpersonal conflict, and will therefore

experience weaker relationships between interpersonal conflict and well-being. In

contrast, those that are less able to engage in social activities outside of work may have

more difficulty halting the process of resource loss and therefore experience stronger

negative associations between interpersonal conflict and well-being.

Hypothesis 5: Social activities will moderate the negative relationship between

interpersonal conflict and employee well-being. Specifically, for employees high

in social activities, interpersonal conflict will be less strongly related to well-

being than for employees low in social activities.

Work reflection as a moderator. Work reflection during nonwork time can be

either a positive or negative experience for an employee dealing with interpersonal

conflict at work. Positive work reflection allows an individual to focus on the aspects of

their job that he or she enjoys, which presumably would not include whatever instances

of interpersonal conflict that may have been encountered at work. Positively reflecting on

work may encourage individuals to set goals for themselves and focus on advancing at

work, while keeping negative aspects of the job in perspective. Therefore, positive work

reflection should weaken the negative relationship between interpersonal conflict and

employee well-being.

As positive work reflection may result in the creation of positive work-related

goals, it is possible that such an activity may be used as a way to gain new work-related

resources such as self-efficacy. This would be in line with COR theory, as individuals in

this case seek to gain new resources. It is also likely that positive work reflection may be

used as an engagement strategy of mood regulation in which an individual actively

confronts workplace issues, and in this case utilizes potential stressors to build new

resources and work-related goals. As such, those individuals who are able to focus on the

positive aspects of work will be less likely to experience negative associations between

interpersonal conflict and well-being.

Hypothesis 6: Positive work reflection will moderate the negative relationship

between interpersonal conflict and employee well-being. Specifically, for

employees high in positive work reflection, interpersonal conflict will be less

strongly related to well-being than for employees low in positive work reflection.

Negative work reflection, on the other hand, involves focusing on negative

aspects of the workplace that an individual is frustrated with, upset by, or would like to

change. With regard to interpersonal conflict, this would involve ruminating on the

experienced conflict and the emotions resulting from it. This rumination may not involve

any proactive strategies to confront and deal with interpersonal conflict at work, but

instead may be focused on the negative feelings the conflict elicits in the employee. As a

result, negative work reflection may actually call upon additional cognitive and emotional

resources, which would further exacerbate the negative association between interpersonal

conflict and well-being.

In the context of mood regulation theory, individuals who engage in negative

work reflection may in fact be utilizing an engagement strategy to change their mood.

However, unlike positive work reflection, negative work reflection is less likely to result

in increased positive affect and the creation of work goals. Instead, those who engage in

negative work reflection may continue to lose resources that were called upon while

confronting interpersonal conflict at work. By failing to halt this process of resource loss,

individuals who engage in negative work reflection are more likely to experience a

stronger negative relationship between interpersonal conflict at work and well-being.

Thus, I hypothesize that negative work reflection will moderate the relationship between

interpersonal conflict and employee well-being.

Hypothesis 7: Negative work reflection will moderate the negative relationship

between interpersonal conflict and employee well-being. Specifically, for

employees high in negative work reflection, interpersonal conflict will be more

strongly related to well-being than for employees low in negative work reflection.

Method

Procedure

This study utilized archival data collected as part of a larger study on recovery

experiences and employee well-being by Dr. Charlotte Fritz. Participants were recruited

from seven U.S. colleges and universities. Once schools agreed to participate in the

study, recruitment e-mails were sent to potential participants. Survey packets were sent

out to 299 non-academic employees and included an introduction letter, three surveys,

and three stamped, preaddressed return envelopes. A raffle flier was also included in the

packet, and participants were entered into a raffle for restaurant gift certificates for each

survey they returned, for a maximum of three raffle entries per participant.

Of the three surveys that were included in the packet, the participant was asked to

fill out one. The target employee reported information on their experience of

interpersonal conflict during work as well as on their own recovery experiences during

non-work time over the previous few weeks. The target employee was then asked to

choose one coworker who knew his or her work well and ask this coworker to fill out a

second survey pertaining to the target employee’s work environment (including

interpersonal conflict). Lastly, the third survey was to be given to the target employee’s

significant other or close friend, and pertained to the target employee’s well-being.

Thus, for the purposes of the current study, data were analyzed using the target

employee’s report of interpersonal conflict, the target employee’s report of recovery

experiences, and the significant other’s report of well-being. Additional analyses were

conducted using coworker-reported interpersonal conflict. These additional analyses

consisted of a replication of the current study’s hypotheses using coworker-reported

interpersonal conflict instead of self-reported interpersonal conflict. This was done to

determine if coworkers’ report of interpersonal conflict could potentially be useful in

predicting negative well-being outcomes. This particular data analysis strategy was used

to reduce issues relating to common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &

Podsakoff, 2003).

The target employee’s self-report of interpersonal conflict at work was seen as

being most appropriate for data analysis since it is often an individual’s own perceptions

of the severity of conflict that leads to detrimental health outcomes. Individual

differences may account for one employee reacting more strongly than another to the

same perceived conflict. In addition to the perceptions of the severity of conflict,

individuals may differ in their perceptions of whether or not a conflict actually occurred

at all. In examining the relationships between interpersonal conflict and employee well-

being, I am most interested in capturing workplace interpersonal conflict that the target

actually perceived as occurring, as these conflicts are most likely to impact their

subsequent well-being. The coworker’s report of interpersonal conflict levels may

potentially be useful as well, provided there is a match between the perceptions of the

coworker and that of the target employee. The types of interpersonal conflict being

measured in this study are directly observable, so in addition to being able to see overt

displays of conflict, such as arguments or rude comments, a coworker may also be able to

perceive and assess the target employee’s reaction to the conflict. It is possible that the

coworker may also not perceive that a conflict took place if the coworker does not see a

reaction from the target employee. As this latter analysis strategy is exploratory in nature,

these assumptions will need to be interpreted in light of the results of this study.

Regarding the measure of recovery experiences, the report of the target employee

will be used for analysis. Quality of recovery experiences vary across individuals, are

targeted at restoring internal resources, and thus, are very subjective experiences. Due to

the internal nature of such processes, it is difficult to assess the quality of these recovery

experiences using data from other sources.

Finally, the measures of employee well-being (job satisfaction, burnout, life

satisfaction, and general health) will be analyzed using significant other reports. Lowered

well-being (or conversely, high levels of well-being) should affect one’s relationships,

and in turn be noticeable to those especially close to the individual, which in this case

would include their significant other—especially given the focus on more “chronic”

levels of well-being in the current study. Similar data analysis strategies have been used

in recent recovery-related research. For example, Fritz and colleagues (2010b) used

significant other reports of emotional exhaustion and life satisfaction in their examination

of the role of psychological detachment during nonwork time. Specifically, they found

that higher levels of detachment (self-report) were related to lower levels of emotional

exhaustion and higher levels of life satisfaction (significant other report).

Participants

Of the 299 participants that were recruited, 172 returned surveys (57% response

rate), 65 of which were left out of the analyses due to missing data or missing significant

other or coworker reports. The final 107 participants consisted of 91 women (85%) and

16 men (15%). The average age of the participants was 45 years (SD = 10.71). Mean job

tenure was 10 years (SD = 8.96). Of the 107 participants, 45% held supervisory positions.

Some of the jobs included in the sample were administrative assistant, coordinator of

programs, director, web developer, and library associate. Regarding educational level,

39% were college graduates, 30% held a master’s degree, and 5% had earned a doctoral

degree.

Measures

A subset of the measures gathered as part of the larger study will be used for the

current study. A copy of those measures can be found in Appendix A. All of the measures

ask participants to refer to the past few weeks as a time frame for their responses. All

Cronbach’s alphas (see Table 1) refer to the scales as used in the current study.

Interpersonal conflict. The Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale (ICAWS;

Spector & Jex, 1998) was administered to target employees and coworkers to assess

target employees’ level of interpersonal conflict at work. The scale consisted of four

items on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (rarely) to 5 (very often). A sample item

from the scale was “How often did he/she get into arguments with others at work?” The

coworker report of this scale will be used for data analysis. Cronbach’s alpha for this

scale was .78.

Recovery experiences. Measures of recovery experiences were administered to

target employees. Psychological detachment, mastery, control, and relaxation were

measured with the Recovery Questionnaire (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). Each of these

subscales was measured with four items on a 5-point rating system, ranging from 1 (not

at all) to 5 (always). Psychological detachment measured a participant’s frequency of

mentally and physically distancing oneself from work, and included sample items such as

“I forgot about my work” (α = .84). Mastery items measured an individual’s engagement

in challenging activities and learning experiences. This subscale included sample items

such as “I learned new things” (α = .93). Control items measured an individual’s ability

to choose their own recovery experiences, and included items such as “I felt like I could

decide for myself what to do” (α = .79). Relaxation assessed an individual’s experience

of a low activation and positive affect state and was measured with items such as “I

kicked back and relaxed” (α = .82).

Positive work reflection, negative work reflection, and social activities were

measured using adapted measures from an earlier study by Sonnentag and Fritz (2005).

Each of these experiences was measured with three items on a 5-point rating scale,

ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (always). Positive work reflection measured the amount of

time an individual spent thinking about the positive aspects of their work. Items included:

“It became clear to me what I like about my work,” “I contemplated the positive sides to

my work,” and “I considered the positive aspects of my work” (α = .83). Negative work

reflection assessed how often individuals spent time thinking about negative aspects of

their work. Items included: “I considered the negative aspects of my work,” “I was aware

of what is negative about my work,” and “It became clear to me what I don’t like about

my work” (α = .88). Lastly, social activities assessed the amount of time individuals

spent engaging in social experiences with other individuals. Items included “I spent time

with nice people,” “I took care of my relationships,” and “I did things together with other

people” (α = .68).

Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction and all other well-being measures are

significant-other reports. The short version of the Job Satisfaction Scale (Brayfield &

Rothe, 1951; Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998) was used to assess job satisfaction.

The scale consisted of five items on a 5-point rating scale, ranging from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item from this scale was “Most days he/she was

enthusiastic about his/her work” (α = .76).

Burnout. The Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, &

Schaufeli, 2001) was used to assess emotional exhaustion and disengagement as two

dimensions of burnout. The scale consisted of sixteen items on a 4-point rating scale

ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 4 (totally agree). The exhaustion subscale consisted

of eight items. A sample item from this subscale was “After work, he/she needed more

time to relax than in the past to become fit again” (α = .84). The disengagement subscale

was also measured with eight items. A sample item from this subscale was “He/She

tended to think less during his/her work and just executed it mechanically” (α = .83). For

each of the subscales, four of the eight items were reverse coded.

Life Satisfaction. To measure life satisfaction, Diener and colleagues’ (1985) five

item scale was used with a 5-point rating scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5

(strongly agree). A sample item from this scale was “In most ways his/her life is close to

his/her ideal” (α = .87).

General Health. A short version of the Subjective Health Complaints Inventory

(Ursin, Endresen, & Ursin, 1988) was used to measure the participant’s level of general

health. The scale consists of 17 items on a 4-point rating scale ranging from 1 (not at all)

to 4 (serious). Sample items included “headache/migraine,” “anxiety,” and “sleep

problems/tiredness” (α = .68).

Control Variables. In the current study, age, gender, employee negative

affectivity, and job status (supervisory vs. nonsupervisory) will be used as control

variables. Each control variable was selected based on a theoretical rationale, however,

preliminary analyses were conducted in order to determine if each of the proposed

control variables were significantly related to the outcome variables in question.

Employee age was included as a control variable because of its established

relationships with several of the outcome variables. For example, older employees tend to

report higher levels of satisfaction with their jobs (Siu et al., 1999) and lower levels of

burnout (Brewer & Shapard, 2004). Age has also previously been positively correlated to

physical well-being (Siu et al., 1999). Age was assessed with one single-item measure.

Employee gender was also considered as a control variable based on past

literature. It may be that female employees have additional nonwork stressors (e.g.,

family responsibilities such as childcare) that lead to resource drain above and beyond

that caused by workplace interpersonal conflict. Additionally, at least one meta-analysis

has indicated possible gender differences in both life and job satisfaction, with women

often reporting higher levels of satisfaction than men (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). Employee

gender was assessed with one single-item measure, with males being coded as 1, and

females coded as 2.

Employee negative affectivity (NA) was considered as a control variable as well,

as it reflects stable and pervasive mood states. Individuals high in negative affectivity are

likely to consistently experience significant levels of distress and dissatisfaction. Watson

and Pennebaker (1989) demonstrated that NA is positively correlated with self-reports of

subjective health complaints, though uncorrelated with actual objective health outcomes.

This study controls for NA in an attempt to assess the negative impacts of interpersonal

conflict above and beyond those impacts interpreted by individuals high in trait NA.

Negative affectivity was measured with the ten-item negative affect scale taken from the

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Participants

were asked to rate the extent to which they generally experienced several mood states on

a five-point rating scale, ranging from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely).

Sample items include, “afraid,” “distressed,” and “hostile.”

Lastly, job status was considered as a control variable in the current study because

one’s status as a supervisor has the potential to protect them from becoming a victim of

interpersonal conflict at work. Lower level employees may be more likely to come into

conflict with coworkers because of the lack of power differential among these employees.

However, a supervisor may find themselves the victim of fewer direct workplace

conflicts. Job status was assessed with a single-item question, and was coded as 1 =

supervisory and 2 = nonsupervisory.

Results

Hierarchical regression analyses were used to test the proposed hypotheses. This

analysis is most appropriate for the current study, as it allows for the assessment of

whether or not the relationship between two variables varies according to the level of

some third variable (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2007).

Preliminary Analyses

Prior to hypothesis testing, preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure that the

data conformed to assumptions of multiple regression (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007),

including that no univariate and multivariate outliers were present. Data were found to

meet all assumptions of regression, and so no transformations were necessary. Means,

standards deviations, intercorrelations, and reliabilities can be found in Table 2.

Generally, both self-reported and coworker-reported interpersonal conflict were related to

decreased life and job satisfaction and increased burnout. Overall, recovery experiences

were associated with higher well-being. Psychological detachment, control, negative

work reflection, and social activities demonstrated the strongest correlations with well-

being outcomes.

In addition to checking that the assumptions of hierarchical regression were met,

preliminary analyses were conducted to assess whether or not any dependency existed in

the data due to job status (supervisory vs. non-supervisory). Independent-samples t tests

were conducted to evaluate whether or not differences existed between supervisors and

non-supervisors on all study variables. No significant differences were detected, and as a

result of these analyses, supervisors and non-supervisors were assessed together in further

analyses.

Additionally, preliminary analyses were conducted to determine the necessity of

each of the proposed control variables (age, gender, employee negative affectivity, and

job status). Control variables were retained based on their relationships with study

variables and their theoretical importance. An examination of correlations between all

study variables demonstrated that age and job status were not significantly related to

dependent variables, and gender (male = 1, female = 2) was only negatively associated

with job satisfaction. In terms of predictor variables, gender was associated with social

activities, while age was positively associated with positive work reflection and

negatively associated with self-reported interpersonal conflict. Employee negative

affectivity was associated with every study variable with the exception of relaxation.

These control variables were retained in further analyses given their theoretical

importance and use in past literature (e.g., Fritz et al., 2010b; Park, Fritz, & Jex, 2011), as

well as to account for the correlations mentioned. Education level was also considered as

a potential additional control variable, but was not included in further analyses as it was

not significantly associated with any dependent variables, and has not typically been

associated with the well-being outcomes included in the current study.

Hypothesis Testing

The current study hypothesized that recovery experiences would moderate the

relationships between workplace interpersonal conflict and employee well-being. Both

the independent variable (interpersonal conflict) and moderating variables (each of the

recovery experiences) were grand mean centered so as to avoid issues of multicollinearity

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Centering the variables also prevents the problem of

evaluating one main effect at an extreme value of the other main effect (Howell, 2010).

In an attempt to mitigate issues of sufficient power, all interactions were entered into

different regression models, rather than analyzing all interactions in the same model.

All seven hypotheses proposed that recovery experiences (psychological

detachment, relaxation, nonwork control, mastery experiences, social activities, positive

work reflection, and negative work reflection) would moderate the relationship between

workplace interpersonal conflict and employee well-being. A total of thirty five

regression analyses were conducted to test Hypotheses 1-7. Results of these regression

analyses can be found in Tables 3-16. For each analysis, the well-being outcome in

question was regressed onto interpersonal conflict and each recovery experience

individually. Control variables (i.e., age, gender, employee negative affectivity, and job

status) were entered into Step 1 of the regression analysis. The centered workplace

interpersonal conflict variable was entered in the second step, followed by the centered

recovery experience (e.g., psychological detachment) in Step 3. Finally, the interaction

term (e.g., psychological detachment x job satisfaction) was entered in the final step of

the regression model.

Results are discussed below by hypothesis. All results indicate findings after

controlling for age, gender, job status, and employee negative affectivity. Hypotheses 1-7

tested moderator relationships. Significant (p < .05) relationships are graphed.

Hypothesis 1

Overall, no significant moderator effects were detected for psychological

detachment, providing no support for Hypothesis 1. Psychological detachment was

shown to be significantly related to exhaustion, β = -.28, t(100) = -2.95, p = .004 and life

satisfaction, β = .28, t(104) = 2.92, p = .004. Psychological detachment explained a

significant proportion of variance in both exhaustion, ∆R

= .07, F(6, 93) = 6.52, p < .001

and life satisfaction, ∆R

= .07, F(6, 97) = 5.65, p < .001. Results of hierarchical

regression analyses are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Results for work-related well-being

outcomes (job satisfaction, disengagement, and exhaustion) are found in Table 3, while

results for general well-being outcomes (life satisfaction and health complaints) are found

in Table 4.

Hypothesis 2

As seen in Table 5, one significant moderator effect for relaxation was detected.

The interaction term between relaxation and interpersonal conflict was significant for

exhaustion, β = .23, t(99) = 2.28, p= .03. The interaction between relaxation and

interpersonal conflict explained a significant amount of variance in exhaustion, ∆R

= .04,

F(7, 92) = 5.37, p < .001. This interaction is graphed in Figure 2. Employees with low

levels of relaxation had similar levels of exhaustion regardless of the amount of reported

workplace interpersonal conflict. Those with high levels of relaxation had significantly

lower levels of exhaustion under conditions of low workplace interpersonal conflict than

those with low levels of relaxation. Interestingly, at high levels of workplace

interpersonal conflict, those with high levels of relaxation experienced slightly more

exhaustion than those with low relaxation.

No other significant moderator effects were detected for relaxation, thus, limited

support was found for Hypothesis 2. However, relaxation was significantly related to life

satisfaction, β = .31, t(104) = 3.56, p = .001. Relaxation also explained a significant

proportion of the variance in life satisfaction, ∆R

= .09, F(6, 97) = 6.51, p < .001. Results

are presented in Tables 5 and 6. Results for work-related well-being outcomes are found

in Table 5, while results for general well-being outcomes are found in Table 6.

Hypothesis 3

No significant moderator effects were detected for mastery experiences, providing

no support for Hypothesis 3. However, mastery experiences were significantly related to

disengagement, β = .24, t(91) = 2.46, p = .016 and health complaints, β = .27, t(96) =

2.93, p = .004. Mastery explained a significant amount of the variance in disengagement,

∆R

= .05, F(6, 84) = 5.68, p < .001 and health complaints ∆R

= .07, F(6, 89) = 6.38, p <

.001. Results are presented in Tables 7 and 8. Results for work-related well-being

outcomes are found in Table 7, while results for general well-being outcomes are found

in Table 8.

Hypothesis 4

No significant moderator effects were detected for nonwork control, providing no

support for Hypothesis 4. However, nonwork control was significantly related to

exhaustion, β = -.22, t(98) = -2.26, p = .026, and life satisfaction, β = .44, t(102) = 5.04, p

< .001. Nonwork control explained a significant amount of the variance in exhaustion,

∆R

= .04, F(6, 91) = 5.38, p < .001 and life satisfaction, ∆R

= .17, F(6, 95) = 8.93, p <

.000. Results are presented in Tables 9 and 10. Results for work-related well-being

outcomes are found in Table 9, while results for general well-being outcomes are found

in Table 10.

Hypothesis 5

No significant moderator effects were detected for social activities, providing no

support for Hypothesis 5. However, social activities were found to be significantly related

to exhaustion, β = -.20, t(100) = -2.03, p = .047 and life satisfaction, β = .30, t(104) =

3.07, p = .003. Social activities explained a significant proportion of the variance in

exhaustion, ∆R

= .03, F(6, 93) = 5.53, p < .001 and life satisfaction, ∆R

= .07, F(6, 97)

= 5.84, p < .001. Results are presented in Tables 11 and 12. Results for work-related

well-being outcomes are found in Table 11, while results for general well-being

outcomes are found in Table 12.

Hypothesis 6

No significant moderator effects were detected for positive work reflection,

providing no support for Hypothesis 6. Positive work reflection was found to be

significantly related to job satisfaction, β = .24, t(101) = 2.68, p = .009. Positive work

reflection explained a significant proportion of the variance in job satisfaction, ∆R

= .05,

F(6, 94) = 7.46, p < .001. Results are presented in Tables 13 and 14. Results for work-

related well-being outcomes are found in Table 13, while results for general well-being

outcomes are found in Table 14.

Hypothesis 7

No significant moderator effects were detected for negative work reflection,

providing no support for Hypothesis 7. Negative work reflection was found to be

significantly related to job satisfaction, β = -.38, t(102) = -3.90, p < .001, exhaustion, β =

.34, t(100) = 3.30, p = .001, and health complaints, β = .24, t(98) = 2.19, p = .031.

Negative work reflection explained a significant proportion of the variance in job

satisfaction, ∆R

= .10, F(6, 95) = 9.53, p < .001, exhaustion, ∆R

= .08, F(6, 93) = 6.99,

p < .001, and health complaints, ∆R

= .04, F(6, 91) = 5.60, p < .001. Results are

presented in Tables 15 and 16. Results for work-related well-being outcomes are found in

Table 15, while results for general well-being outcomes are found in Table 16.

Additional Analyses

Hypotheses 1-7 were re-analyzed using coworker reports of interpersonal conflict,

in an effort to understand whether or not coworkers’ reports of interpersonal conflict in

the workplace are useful in drawing associations with employee well-being. It is

interesting to note that coworker reports of workplace interpersonal conflict were only

moderately correlated with self-reports of workplace interpersonal conflict, r(106) = .38,

p < .001.

Using coworker reports of workplace interpersonal conflict provided slightly

different results than self-reported interpersonal conflict did in the current study. The

only recovery experience that appeared as a significant moderator of the relationship

between workplace interpersonal conflict and employee well-being was mastery

experiences. Mastery experiences were a significant moderator of the relationship

between workplace interpersonal conflict and both dimensions of burnout: exhaustion, β

= -.19, t(98) = -2.02, p = .046, and disengagement, β = -.29, t(91) = -3.32, p = .001. The

interaction term between mastery experiences and interpersonal conflict explained a

significant proportion of the variance in both exhaustion, ∆R

= .03, F(7, 90) = 4.62, p <

.001, and disengagement, ∆R

= .09, F(7, 83) = 6.69, p < .001. The results of these

hierarchical regressions can be found in Table 22. Interactions are graphed in Figures 3

and 4. For both exhaustion and disengagement, employees with high levels of mastery

experiences exhibited a negative relationship with disengagement—as workplace

interpersonal conflict increases, these employees show lower levels of disengagement

and exhaustion. Conversely, those employees with low levels of mastery experiences

show higher levels of disengagement and exhaustion as workplace interpersonal conflict

increases. Finally, the significant results from Hypothesis 2 (in which relaxation was a

significant moderator of the relationship between workplace interpersonal conflict and

exhaustion) were not replicated using coworker reports of workplace interpersonal

conflict.

In addition to conducting further analyses using coworker reports of interpersonal

conflict, all main analyses were conducted without controlling for employee negative

affectivity. As employee negative affectivity was significantly associated with every

study variable with the exception of relaxation, the additional analyses were conducted to

determine if its inclusion as a control variable was suppressing associations between

interpersonal conflict, recovery experiences, and employee well-being. Results of these

analyses included replications of two out of three of the significant interaction terms

utilizing both self and coworker reports of interpersonal conflict. These further analyses

did not replicate the findings concerning mastery experiences as a moderator of the

relationship between coworker-reported interpersonal conflict and employee exhaustion.

Three additional moderator effects were detected after removing employee

negative affectivity from analyses. These include: psychological detachment as a

moderator of coworker-reported interpersonal conflict and employee exhaustion, β = -.22,

t(101) = -2.13, p = .036 (Figure 5) and disengagement, β = -.25, t(94) = -2.29, p = .024

(Figure 6); and relaxation as a moderator of coworker-reported interpersonal conflict and

life satisfaction, β = .23, t(105) = -2.35, p = .021 (Figure 7).

Discussion

The current study provided an examination of the moderating role of recovery

experiences in the relationship between workplace interpersonal conflict and employee

well-being. Overall, limited support was found for the hypotheses presented in this study.

It was proposed that recovery experiences (i.e., psychological detachment, relaxation,

mastery, nonwork control, positive work reflection, negative work reflection, and social

activities) would moderate the relationships between workplace interpersonal conflict and

both general and work-related employee well-being. Relaxation during nonwork time

was found to buffer the negative relationship between workplace interpersonal conflict

and employee exhaustion; however, the specific nature of this relationship was somewhat

unexpected. Those employees who engaged in higher levels of relaxation outside of work

displayed lower levels of exhaustion than those who engaged in little relaxation outside

of work when workplace interpersonal conflict was low. This relationship is in line with

the current study’s hypotheses, and demonstrates that relaxation during nonwork time

may halt resource loss, as well as potentially encourage the restoration of lost resources

under low levels of work stressors. It is particularly interesting, though, that under high

levels of workplace interpersonal conflict, employees with high levels of relaxation

experienced similar exhaustion levels as those with low relaxation levels. It may be that

in cases of exceedingly high workplace interpersonal conflict, employees are actually

spending a portion of their relaxation time ruminating about how to resolve work

conflicts. An alternative explanation would be that employees who do spend more time

relaxing in these high conflict situations are failing to address the sources of conflict in an

attempt to resolve them. Hypotheses regarding psychological detachment, nonwork

control, mastery experiences, positive work reflection, negative work reflection, and

social activities as moderators of the relationship between workplace interpersonal

conflict and employee well-being were not supported.

Additional analyses using coworker reports of interpersonal conflict indicated that

mastery experiences moderated the negative relationship between interpersonal conflict

and both disengagement and exhaustion. Employees who engaged in low levels of

mastery experiences showed increased levels of both disengagement and exhaustion as

workplace interpersonal conflict increased. This is in line with earlier recovery research,

which suggests that failing to engage in mastery experiences outside of work is

associated with a lack of resources indicated by lower well-being (Sonnentag & Fritz,

2007). However, employees with high levels of mastery experiences showed a decrease

in both disengagement and exhaustion as levels of workplace interpersonal conflict

increased. This was contrary to the hypothesis that individuals high in recovery

experiences would demonstrate a weaker positive relationship between interpersonal

conflict and burnout than those low in recovery experiences. There are several possible

explanations for these results. It may be that more active recovery processes, such as

mastery experiences, are more effective in dealing with high levels of workplace

interpersonal conflict, a stressor related to anxiety, depression, and burnout (De Dreu et

al., 2004), than less active recovery processes such as psychological detachment. Under

high levels of workplace interpersonal conflict, employees may be drawing more heavily

upon their nonwork mastery experiences in order to make up for the resources lost at

work due to conflicts with coworkers, supervisors, or customers. It is also possible that

coworker reports of interpersonal conflict are capturing only a portion of those instances

of workplace interpersonal conflict assessed through self-reports. For example,

coworkers may not have been aware of every instance of conflict the target employee

experienced at work, or may have only been reporting on exceptionally salient instances

of conflict (e.g., ongoing arguments).

Surprisingly, under low levels of workplace interpersonal conflict employees with

high levels of mastery experiences experienced higher levels of disengagement and

exhaustion than those with low levels of mastery experiences. Further research should be

done in an attempt to replicate and examine the nature of these findings. The findings of

the current study run contradictory to earlier findings examining mastery as a moderator

(Siltaloppi et al., 2009; Kinnunen et al., 2010). These recent studies examined stressors

such as lack of job control and job insecurity, and have found that mastery experiences

buffered the negative associations between these stressors and employee well-being

outcomes. It may be that mastery experiences play a different role in the recovery process

when taking into account interpersonal conflict as the workplace stressor. In considering

possible explanations for the findings of the current study, it may be helpful to return to

the ego depletion model. Depending on the nature of the specific mastery experiences

undertaken, it may be that these mastery experiences are drawing upon, instead of

replenishing, the same internal resource taxed by workplace interpersonal conflict.

Though there were few moderator effects detected in the current study, several

main effects were detected that are in line with and support past research on recovery

from work. Specifically, psychological detachment and nonwork control were both

associated with lower levels of exhaustion and higher levels of life satisfaction.

Relaxation was also found to be positively associated with life satisfaction. These results

replicate earlier findings by Sonnentag and Fritz (2007). The current study also found

relationships between social activities and lower levels of exhaustion and higher levels of

life satisfaction. While social activity during nonwork time has previously been linked to

general well-being (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005), the current study links social activity to

additional measures of well-being. Positive work reflection was positively related to job

satisfaction, again providing an additional linkage to employee well-being. Lastly,

negative work reflection was associated with lower levels of job satisfaction and higher

levels of exhaustion and health complaints. Earlier findings have also linked negative

work reflection to higher health complaints and exhaustion (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2006).

While three significant moderating relationships were found, the rest of the

proposed hypotheses were not supported. There are several possible reasons for the

absence of significant findings for these additional relationships. First, there may be

insufficient power to detect the effects. The current study utilized a fairly small sample

size, which may have limited the ability to find significant moderator effects.

Alternatively, it may be the case that other processes are involved in the relationship

between interpersonal conflict and well-being. For example, an individual’s choice of

coping strategy may also play a role in terms of the outcomes they experience. The

amount of social support an individual experiences (distinct from the concept of social

activities) may also help to buffer the relationship between interpersonal conflict and

employee well-being. Additionally, it may be the case that certain recovery experiences

are more effective than others in alleviating negative outcomes associated with

interpersonal conflict.

As mentioned, it is likely that coping strategies also play a role in the relationship

between interpersonal conflict, recovery experiences, and well-being outcomes. In

validating the Recovery Experience Questionnaire, Sonnentag and Fritz (2007) point out

the similarities between coping and recovery experiences, though they conclude that the

concepts are not identical. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) have described coping as

“constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or

internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person”

(p. 141). Based on this definition, as compared to recovery experiences, coping refers to

the way an individual deals with stressors, while recovery refers to the way in which

internal resources are restored. Sonnentag and Fritz (2007) demonstrate that correlations

between coping styles and recovery experiences are generally low and mostly non-

significant. The results of the current study suggest that the proposed model may fit for

coping, though not for recovery. It may also be that different pathways exist between

coping and recovery experiences and well-being outcomes. For example, coping may be

designed to act as a buffer of these relationships, while recovery may impact well-being

more directly through the rebuilding of internal resources. This is consistent with the

current study’s demonstration of several significant relationships between recovery

experiences and employee well-being, which is in line with past recovery from work

research (e.g., Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005; 2006; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). It may also

offer an explanation for the lack of significant findings concerning recovery as a

moderator of the relationship between workplace interpersonal conflict and employee

well-being.

Furthermore, it is important to note that, to the author’s knowledge, this is the first

study to examine recovery experiences as a moderator of the relationship between

interpersonal conflict and well-being outcomes. The literature on recovery experiences as

moderators is quite limited to date, and existing studies include the examination of job

stressors such as a lack of job control (Siltaloppi et al., 2010) job insecurity (Kinnunen et

al., 2010), and job demands (Sonnentag et al., 2010). It may be that recovery experiences

play a different role in the experience of relationship-based work stressors such as

interpersonal conflict. The main effects of recovery experiences found in the current

study suggest that engaging in recovery during nonwork time does have an impact on

employee well-being. However, it may be that this relationship is occurring in addition

to, or outside of, the impacts of interpersonal conflict on employee well-being. It is also

possible that interpersonal conflict draws on another set of internal resources that are not

as readily replenished by recovery experiences. Finally, as mentioned previously, it may

be that additional mechanisms, such as coping strategies or social support, are playing a

role in the relationship between interpersonal conflict, recovery, and well-being.

Implications

In terms of practical implications, it would be premature to suggest specific

recovery-based interventions to lessen the effects of workplace interpersonal conflict,

particularly since several of the current findings run contrary to the expected relationships

between recovery experiences, workplace interpersonal conflict, and employee well-

being. That being said, numerous recent studies have demonstrated the positive impacts

of recovery from work (e.g., Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005; 2006; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007;

Fritz et al., 2010a; 2010b; Sonnentag et al., 2008; 2010) and the current study should not

be seen as discounting the impacts of this stream of research. Indeed, many of the main

effects found in the current study support and extend this line of research. For these

reasons, recovery experiences should be encouraged by organizations and sought after by

employees looking to increase both well-being and performance capabilities.

In terms of implications for research on recovery from work, the counterintuitive

findings presented in this study suggest that recovery experiences may have differential

outcomes depending on the type of work stressor. As mentioned in the general

discussion, few studies on recovery have focused on the role of recovery experiences as

moderators, and thus it would be wise to continue this line of research. Further research

in this area would be useful in identifying the unique contributions of recovery

experiences in lessening the impacts of various work stressors. As recovery research

turns towards examining the effects of recovery-based workplace interventions,

distinguishing the specific contributions of individual recovery experiences becomes

increasingly important. One recent quasi-experimental study examined the effects of a

recovery-based intervention and found beneficial effects for recovery experiences,

recovery related self-efficacy, sleep quality, perceived stress, and state negative affect

(Hahn, Binnewies, Sonnentag, & Mozja, 2011). While this study demonstrated effects of

a training program, work stressors prior to the intervention were not measured.

Incorporating results of the current study and previous studies of recovery experiences as

moderators (Siltaloppi et al., 2009; Kinnunen et al., 2010), would further extend this new

line of research on recovery based interventions by identifying work stressors most likely

to be affected by such interventions.

Contributions and Limitations

The current study offers several contributions to the literature on recovery from

work. Strengths of this study include an extension of previous recovery research,

including an answer to the call of Sonnentag and Fritz (2007) for further research on the

moderating role of recovery experiences. Several recent studies have begun work on this

direction of research (Siltaloppi et al., 2009; Kinnunen et al., 2010; Sonnentag et al.,

2010), though this is the first known study to examine the moderating role of recovery

experiences in the relationship between interpersonal conflict and employee well-being.

Interpersonal conflict has been identified as an important work stressor that is associated

with negative outcomes for its victims (Spector & Jex, 1998), though much of the

research on interpersonal conflict has focused on the antecedents and outcomes of this

work stressor without offering strategies for reducing its potential negative effects.

In addition to these contributions, coworker and significant other reports of study

variables were used in both an effort to alleviate issues of common method bias, but also

to extend the current literature on recovery and interpersonal conflict. Significant other

reports of well-being have been used successfully in recovery research (e.g., Fritz et al.,

2010b), and the current study provides an additional example of the use of this form of

survey data. By including coworker reports of interpersonal conflict, a comparison could

be made between self-report and coworker reports of this construct to contribute to the

understanding of whether or not coworker reports were a sufficient measurement of

employee interpersonal conflict. The results of the current study suggest that coworker

reports should not be discounted, though they may be identifying differing relationships

between work stressors, recovery, and well-being than those studies utilizing self-reports

of interpersonal conflict.

While this study does make several important contributions, it is important to also

consider its limitations. For example, the cross-sectional nature of the data does not allow

for inferences of causality. While past research (e.g. Stoetzer et al., 2009) would suggest

that increased interpersonal conflict leads to lower well-being, from the current data it is

also possible that lowered well-being may contribute to increased workplace

interpersonal conflict or lower levels of recovery experiences. The issue of reverse

causality is an important one, as it may be that employees with lower levels of well-being

have fewer resources available with which to regulate negative emotions, which in turn

may be associated with higher instances of conflict with coworkers. COR theory would

suggest that these individuals may experience loss spirals, in which resource losses lead

to continued future resource loss. If future longitudinal studies were to find that lowered

well-being was predictive of increased interpersonal conflict, these loss spirals may

contribute to the understanding of this process. Future studies should examine similar

processes with longitudinal designs so as to allow for a clearer understanding of possible

causal processes. The current study has adopted an “intervention” approach, in that the

primary focus lies in whether or not recovery experiences can lessen negative

associations between workplace interpersonal conflict and employee well-being.

However, if future longitudinal studies find that lower well-being also causes

interpersonal conflict at work, additional studies adopting a “prevention” approach would

be warranted, in which the aim would be to increase employee well-being, in hopes of

reducing the levels of interpersonal conflict at work.

On a related note, the measure of interpersonal conflict used in the current study

does not measure the source of the conflict. Instead, the levels of interpersonal conflict

can be seen as a composite score of any conflict the employee came into contact with

while at work, be it from supervisors, coworkers, or customers. Due to the inability to

separate sources of conflict from the data at hand, it is impossible to know whether or not

interpersonal conflict experienced with a certain group of people (e.g., supervisors) may

have impacted well-being outcomes more strongly than conflict with other individuals at

work. It is also possible that recovery experiences are particularly useful in mitigating

interpersonal conflict with certain individuals at work. In general, the sample utilized in

the current study had a relatively low base rate of workplace interpersonal conflict, which

may somewhat account for the lack of significant findings.

Additionally, the current study uses a relatively small sample size, which may

have resulted in lower than preferred statistical power. However, each hypothesis was

analyzed in separate regression models in an attempt to mitigate the issue of power.

Nevertheless, numerous models were analyzed, and as such, future studies would be wise

to consider utilizing larger sample sizes. Using larger sample sizes would allow for a

greater breadth of analyses, as well as the examination of more complex models.

The current sample consists of administrative university staff, which may have

unique job characteristics, such as the interdependence of work tasks, and differ in the

frequency of experienced interpersonal conflict from more service-based occupations. It

would be helpful to examine various occupations in order to explore the generalizability

of these findings to different populations. Finally, while the data was collected from

seven different institutions, grouping data was not available with which to test a possible

nested structure. Though several significant relationships were still detected assessing the

sample as one group, it is possible that testing for group differences across institutions

may have provided additional interpretations. For example, the amount of workplace

interpersonal conflict or recovery experiences may have differed across institutions due

to organizational climate or policies.

Future Research

In considering the contributions and limitations of the current study, several

recommendations can be made for future research in the area of recovery from work. As

the results of the current study differ somewhat from the recent findings regarding

recovery experiences as moderators (e.g., particularly concerning mastery experiences),

future studies examining the role of recovery experiences as moderators should take into

consideration the severity of the workplace stressor, as this may play a role in the types of

recovery experiences that are useful in buffering negative associations with well-being. In

doing so, it would be possible to determine whether certain recovery experiences are

more useful in lessening the effects of certain workplace stressors. This knowledge would

prove useful in furthering research designed to evaluate recovery-based interventions

(Hahn et al., 2011).

In considering the construct of interpersonal conflict, future studies should

explore whether or not the size of one’s work group could play a role in the effects of

interpersonal conflict. In large work groups, employees may be able to seek social

support from other coworkers, while those in small work groups may see stronger

negative impacts of interpersonal conflict with the few coworkers they have. Collecting

data on the size of participants’ work groups in future studies would help to address this

question. Additionally, collecting data on the source of conflict could prove fruitful, as

previous research has shown differential associations with well-being outcomes across

sources of conflict (Frone, 2000).

As mentioned in the limitations section, it would be helpful to employ

longitudinal designs in future research in order to further examine the directionality of

relationships between work stressors, recovery experiences, and employee well-being.

Additionally, future studies should consider using larger sample sizes and sampling from

a wide variety of occupations. In particular, it may be helpful to examine occupations

with higher base rates of workplace interpersonal conflict, such as customer-service

based occupations or nursing. Finally, research on recovery from work has traditionally

relied upon subjective measures of employee well-being. Future studies should consider

using objective measures of well-being, such as blood pressure, actigraphy data, or

cortisol levels.

Conclusion

The current study contributes to the literature on recovery from work by

examining the moderating role of recovery experiences in the relationship between

workplace interpersonal conflict and employee well-being. Both relaxation and mastery

experiences were found to act as moderators of the relationship between interpersonal

conflict and employee burnout, though the directions of these relationships warrant

further research. Many of the main effects detected in the current study both support and

extend the current recovery literature. As interpersonal conflict has previously been

linked to numerous negative well-being outcomes, it is important that future research

continue to examine possible strategies for helping employees cope with this stressor.

Continued research can result in practical recommendations to organizations for

providing interventions, policies, and practices that will address the impacts of

interpersonal conflict in the workplace.

Table 1

Table of Variables and Measurement Scales

Variable Author Number

Items

Scale

Cronbach’s

alpha

Job Stressor

, 2

Interpersonal Conflict

Recovery

Psychological

Detachment

Mastery

Control

Relaxation

Social Activities

Positive Work

Reflection

Negative Work

Reflection

Spector & Jex, 1998

Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007

Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005

1-5

.78

.84

.93

.79

.82

.68

.83

.88

Well-Being

Life Satisfaction

Burnout

Exhaustion

Disengagement

General Health

Job Satisfaction

Diener et al., 1985

Demerouti et al., 2003

Ursin, Endresen, & Ursin,

1988

Brayfield & Rothe, 1951

Judge et al., 1998

1-5

1-4

1-5

.87

.84

.83

.68

.76

Control Variable

Negative Affectivity

Watson, Clark, & Tellegen,

1988

1-5

.84

Self-report,

Coworker-report,

Significant Other-Report

Figure 1. Hypothesized model of relationships between interpersonal conflict and well-

being with recovery experiences as moderators.

Work Stressor

Interpersonal

Conflict

Recovery

Psychological detachment

Relaxation

Mastery

Nonwork control

Social activities

Positive work reflection

Negative work reflection

Well-Being

Work-related

Job satisfaction

Burnout

General

Life satisfaction

Health Complaints

Figure 2.

Relaxation as a Moderator of the Relationship between Self

Interpersonal Conflict and Exhaustion

Low IC

Relaxation as a Moderator of the Relationship between Self

Reported

Interpersonal Conflict and Exhaustion

Low IC

High IC

Reported

Figure 3.

Additional Analyses: Mastery Experiences as a Moderator of the Relationship

between Coworker-

Reported Interpersonal Conflict and Exhaustion

Low IC

Additional Analyses: Mastery Experiences as a Moderator of the Relationship

Reported Interpersonal Conflict and Exhaustion

Low IC

High IC

Additional Analyses: Mastery Experiences as a Moderator of the Relationship

Figure 4. Additional Analyses: Mastery Experiences as a Moderator of the Relationship

between Coworker-Reported Interpersonal Conflict and Disengagement

Low IC High IC

Disengagement

Low Mastery

High Mastery

Low IC High IC

Figure 5.

Additional Analyses: Psychological Detachment as a Moderator of the

Relationship between Coworker

(Controlling for Age, Gender, and Job Status)

Low IC

Additional Analyses: Psychological Detachment as a Moderator of the

Relationship between Coworker

Reported Interpersonal Conflict and Exhaustion

(Controlling for Age, Gender, and Job Status)

Low IC

High IC

Additional Analyses: Psychological Detachment as a Moderator of the

Reported Interpersonal Conflict and Exhaustion

Figure 6.

Additional Analyses: Psychological Detachment as a Moderator of the

Relationship between Coworker

(Controlling for Age, Gender, and Job Status)

Low IC

Additional Analyses: Psychological Detachment as a Moderator of the

Relationship between Coworker

Reported Interpersonal Conflict and Disengagement

(Controlling for Age, Gender, and Job Status)

Low IC

High IC

100

Additional Analyses: Psychological Detachment as a Moderator of the

Reported Interpersonal Conflict and Disengagement

Figure 7.

Additional Analyses: Relaxation as a Moderator of the Relationship between

Coworker-

Reported Interpersonal Conflict and Life Satisfaction (Controlling for Age,

Gender, and Job Status)

Low IC

Additional Analyses: Relaxation as a Moderator of the Relationship between

Reported Interpersonal Conflict and Life Satisfaction (Controlling for Age,

Low IC

High IC

101

Additional Analyses: Relaxation as a Moderator of the Relationship between

Reported Interpersonal Conflict and Life Satisfaction (Controlling for Age,

102

References

Arkin, R. M. (1981). Self-presentational styles. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression

management theory and social psychological research (pp. 311-333). New York:

Academic Press.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2004). Conceptualizing the construct of interpersonal conflict.

The International Journal of Conflict Management, 15, 216-244.

Barling, J., Dupre, K. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Predicting workplace aggression and

violence. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 671-692.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is

the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

74, 1252-1265.

Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the victim’s

perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 91, 998-1012.

Brasher, E. E., & Chen, P. Y. (1999). Evaluation of success criteria in job search: A

process perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72,

57-70.

Brayfield, A., & Rothe, H. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 35, 307-311.

103

Brewer, E. W. & Shapard, L. (2004). Employee burnout: A meta-analysis of the

relationship between age or years of experience. Human Resource Development

Review, 3, 102-123.

Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 41, 330-339.

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.

Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-

analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.

Cooper, C.L. & Marshall, J. (1976). Occupational sources of stress: a review of the

literature relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill health. Journal of

Occupational Psychology, 49, 11–28.

Danna, K. & Griffin, R.W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: a review and

synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management, 25, 357–84.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Van Dierendonck, D., & Best-Waldhober, M. D. (2004a) Conflict at

work and individual well-being. In M. J. Schabracq, J. A. M. Winnubst, & C. L.

Cooper (Eds.), The handbook of work and health psychology (pp. 495-515) . West

Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

De Dreu, C. K. W., Van Dierendonck, D., & Dijkstra, M. T. (2004b). Looking back,

looking ahead: Conﬂict at work and individual health and well-being.

International Journal of Conﬂict Management, 15, 1–18.

104

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job

demands–resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–

512.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Vardakou, I., & Kantas, A. (2003). The convergent validity

of two burnout instruments: A multitrait–multimethod analysis. European Journal

of Psychological Assessment,18, 296–307.

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life

scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.

Dohrenwend, B. S. (1978). Social status and responsibility for stressful life events. In

C. D. Spielberger & L. G. Sarason (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 5, pp. 25-42).

New York: Wiley.

Dollard, J., Doob, L.W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H. and Sears, R. R. (1939).

Frustration and Aggression,Yale University Press, New Haven.

Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family:

Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of

Management Review, 25, 178-199.

Etzion, D., Eden, D., & Lapidot, Y. (1998). Relief from job stressors and burnout:

Reserve service as a respite. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 577-585.

Faragher, E. B., Cass, M. & Cooper, C. L. (2005). The relationship between job

satisfaction and health: A meta-analysis. Occupational and Environmental

Medicine, 62, 105-111.

105

Fox, S. & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 20, 915-931.

Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Recovery, health, and job performance: Effects of

weekend experiences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 187-99.

Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2006). Recovery, well-being, and performance-related

outcomes: The role of workload and vacation experiences. The Journal of Applied

Psychology, 91, 936-45.

Fritz, C., Sonnentag, S., Spector, P., & McInroe, J. (2010a). The weekend matters:

Relationships between stress recovery and affective experiences. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 31, 1137-1162.

Fritz, C., Yankelevich, M., Zarubin, A., & Barger, P. (2010b). Happy, healthy, and

productive: The role of detachment from work during nonwork time. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 95, 977-983.

Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: Testing

a model among young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 246-

255.

Fuller, J. A., Stanton, J. M., Fisher, G. G., Spitzmuller, C., Russell, S. S., & Smith, P. C.

(2003). A lengthy look at the daily grind: Time series analyses of events, mood,

stress, and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 1019-1033.

106

Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way to

conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 95–

110.

Greenberg, J. & Baron, R. A. (2008). Behavior in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Prentice Hall.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family

roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88.

Griffin, J. M., Fuhrer, R., Stansfeld, S. A., & Marmot, M. (2002). The importance of low

control at work and home on depression and anxiety: Do these effects vary by

gender and social class? Social Science & Medicine, 54, 783-798.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of

a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.

Hahn, V. C., Binnewies, C., Sonnentag, S., & Mojza, E. J. (2011). Learning how to

recovery from job stress: Effects of a recovery training program on recovery,

recovery-related self-efficacy, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 16, 202-216.

Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Demerouti, E. (2005). The construct validity of an alternative

measure of burnout: Investigating the English translation of the Oldenburg

Burnout Inventory. Work and Stress, 19, 208-220.

107

Hammer, L. B., & Zimmerman, K. L. (2010). Quality of Work Life. In S. Zedeck (Ed.),

Handbook of I/O Psychology. Vol. 3. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Harder, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship

between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268-279.

Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes?

Meta-analytic comparison of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences.

Academy of Management Journal, 49, 305-325.

Hershcovis, M. S. (2011). Incivility, social undermining, bullying…Oh My! A call to

reconcile constructs within workplace aggression research. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 32, 499-519.

Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2009). Towards a multi-foci approach to workplace

aggression: A meta-analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 24-44.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of Resources: A New Attempt at Conceptualizing

Stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513-524.

Hobfoll, S. E., & Lilly, R. S. (1993). Resource conservation as a strategy for community

psychology. Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 128-148.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1998). Stress, culture, and community: The psychology and physiology of

stress. New York: Plenum Press.

108

Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of

Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218.

Howell, D. C. (2010). Statistical Methods for Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Hulin, C. L., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Job attitudes. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J.

Klimoski (Eds.): Handbook of Psychology, Volume 12, Industrial and

Organizational Psychology. New York: Wiley.

Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of

research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 16-78.

Jex, S. M., & Beehr, T. A. (1991). Emerging theoretical and methodological issues in the

study of work-related stress. Research in Personnel and Human Resources

Management, 9, 311-365.

Judge, T. A. & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-

esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with

job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 86, 80-92.

Judge, T. A., Thoreson, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-

job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review.

Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376-407.

Judge, T. A., & Watanabe, S. (1993). Another look at the job satisfaction-life satisfaction

relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 939-948.

109

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects

on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83, 17-34.

Kahn, R. L.,Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964).

Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.

Kalliath, T. J. (2001). Is the path to burnout and turnover paved by a lack of supervisory

support? A structural equations test. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 30, 72.

Keenan, A., & Newton, T. J. (1985). Stressful events, stressors, and psychological strains

in young professional engineers. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 6, 151-156.

Kinicki, A. J., McKee-Ryan, F. M., Schriesheim, C. A., & Carson, K. P. (2002).

Assessing the construct validity of the job descriptive index: A review and meta-

analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 14-32.

Kinnunen, U., Mauno, S., & Siltaloppi, M. (2010). Job insecurity, recovery, and well-

being at work: Recovery experiences as moderators. Economic and Industrial

Democracy, 31, 179-194.

Kossek, E. E. & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life

satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-

human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 139-149.

Larsen, R. J. (2000). Toward a science of mood regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 11,

129-141.

Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-

Hill.

110

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Psychological stress in the workplace. In P. L. Perrewe (Ed.),

Journal of Social Behavior and Personality: Vol. 6. Handbook on job stress

(special issue) (pp. 1–13). San Rafael, CA: Select Press.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York:

Springer.

Lyubomirsky, S., Caldwell, N. D., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1998). Effects of ruminative

and distracting responses to depressed mood on retrieval of autobiographical

memories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 166-177.

Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,

Inc.

McEwen, B.S. (1998). Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. Seminars in

Medicine of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 338, 171–9.

Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In P. J. D.

Drenth, H. Theirry, & C. J. Wolff (Eds.). Handbook of Work and Organizational

Psychology: Work Psychology. East Sussex: Psychology Press.

Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Self-control as limited resource:

Regulatory depletion patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,

774-789.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1991). Responses to depression and their effects on the duration of

depressive episodes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 569-582.

111

Park, Y., Fritz, C., Jex, S. M. (2011). Relationships between work-home segmentation

and psychological detachment from work: The role of communication technology

use at home. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 457-467.

Parkinson, B., Totterdell, P., Briner, R. B., & Reynolds, S. (1996). Changing moods: The

psychology of mood and mood regulation. London: Longman.

Parkinson, B., & Totterdell, P. (1999). Classifying affect-regulation strategies. Cognition

and Emotion, 13, 277–303.

Pennebaker, J.W. (1982). The Psychology of Physical Symptoms. New York: Springer-

Verlag.

Peters, L. H. and O'Connor, E. J. (1980). Situational constraints and work outcomes: The

influences of a frequently overlooked construct. Academy of Management Review

5, 391-397.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common

method bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and

recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

Rosenfield, S. (1989). The effects of women's employment: Personal control and sex

differences in mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 30, 77-91.

Sarason, I. G., Johnson, J. H., & Siegel, J. M. (1978). Assessing the impact of life

changes: Development of the Life Experiences Survey. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 46, 932-946.

112

Schat, A. C. H., Frone, M. R., & Kelloway, E. K. (2006). Prevalence of workplace

aggression in the U. S. workforce. In E. K. Kelloway, J. Barling, & J. J. Hurrell

(Eds.). Handbook of workplace violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Siltaloppi, M., Kinnunen, U., & Feldt, T. (2009). Recovery experiences as moderators

between psychosocial work characteristics and occupational well-being. Work

and stress, 23, 330-348.

Siu, O., Lu, L., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). Managerial stress in Hong Kong and Taiwan: A

comparative study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 6-25.

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement satisfaction in

work and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes. Chicago: Rand

McNally.

Sonnentag, S. (2001). Work, recovery activities, and individual well-being: A diary

study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 196–210.

Sonnentag, S., & Bayer, U.-V. (2005). Switching off mentally: Predictors and

consequences of psychological detachment from work during off-job time. Journal

of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 393-414.

Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2008). Did you have a nice evening? A

day-level study on recovery experiences, sleep, and work-relevant affect. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 93, 674-684.

113

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, 965-976. doi: 10.1037/a002003

Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: Development

and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 204-21.

Sonnentag, S., Kuttler, I., & Fritz, C. (2010). Job stressors, emotional exhaustion, and

need for recovery: A multi-source study on the benefits of psychological

detachment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 355-365.

Spector, P. E. (1978). Organizational frustration: A model and review of the literature.

Personnel Psychology, 31, 815-829.

Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies

concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 11, 1005-1016.

Spector, P. E. (1987). Interactive effects of perceived control and job stressors on

affective reactions and health outcomes for clerical workers. Work and Stress, 1,

155-162.

Spector, P. E. (1998). A control theory of the job stress process. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.),

Theories of organizational stress (pp. 153–169). Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press.

Spector, P. E. (2006). Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Research and Practice

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

114

Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. J., & Jex, S. M. (1988). Relation of job stressors to affective,

health, and performance outcomes: A comparison of multiple data sources. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 73, 11-19.

Spector, P. E. & Jex, S. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors

and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale,

quantitative workload inventory, and physical symptoms inventory. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 356-367.

Spielberger, C. D., Reheiser, E. C. and Sydeman, S. J. (1995). Measuring the experience,

expression, and control of anger. In: Kassinove, H. (Ed.) Anger Disorders:

Definitions, Diagnosis, and Treatment, Taylor & Francis, Washington, DC.

Stoetzer, U., Ahlberg, G., Johansson, G., Bergman, P., Hallsten, L., Forsell, Y.,

Lundberg, I. (2009). Problematic interpersonal relationships at work and depression:

A Swedish prospective cohort study. Journal of Occupational Health, 51, 144-151.

Stone, A. A., Kennedy-Moore, E., & Neale, J. M. (1995). Association between daily

coping and end-of-day mood. Health Psychology, 14, 341-349.

Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics: Fifth edition.

Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Thayer, R. E., Newman, J. R., & McClain, T. M. (1994). Self-regulation of mood:

Strategies for changing a bad mood, raising energy, and reducing tension. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 910–925.

115

Ursin, H., Endresen, I. M., & Ursin, G. (1988). Psychological factors and self-reports of

muscle pain. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational

Physiology, 57, 282-290.

Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social support in the

process of work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54,

314–334.

Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief

measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

Watson, D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Health complaints, stress, and distress:

Exploring the central role of negative affectivity. Psychological Review, 96, 234–

254.

Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs, and

affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 173-194.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical

discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at

work. In: B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.) Research in organizational

behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews, 18, 1-74.

Westman, M. (1999, August). Gain and loss spirals: Applying Hobfoll’s COR theory to

respite research. Paper presented at the Academy of Management meeting,

Chicago, IL.

116

Westman, M. & Eden, D. (1997). Effects of a respite from work on burnout: Vacation

relief and fade-out. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 516-527.

117

Appendix:

Survey Items

Negative Affectivity (Self-Report)

Instructions: Please rate the extent to which you experience the following moods in

general.

1. Afraid

2. Upset

3. Distressed

4. Jittery

5. Nervous

6. Ashamed

7. Guilty

8. Irritable

9. Hostile

10. Scared

Response options: (1 = Very slightly or not at all, 2 = A little, 3 = Moderately, 4 = Quite

a bit, 5 = Extremely)

Interpersonal Conflict at Work (Coworker-Report)

Instructions: During the past few weeks, how often did the following occur in your job?

1. How often did he/she get into arguments with others at work?

2. How often did other people yell at him/her at work?

3. How often were people rude to him/her at work?

4. How often did other people do nasty things to him/her at work?

Response options: (1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Quite Often, 5 =

Extremely often)

Recovery Experiences (Self-Report & Coworker-Report)

Instructions: Please tell us about your leisure time during the past few weeks. During off

work time in the past few weeks…

Psychological Detachment:

1. I forgot about work.

2. I didn’t think about work at all.

3. I distanced myself from work.

4. I got a break from the demands of work.

118

Relaxation:

1. I kicked back and relaxed.

2. I did things that were relaxing.

3. I used the time to relax.

4. I took time for leisure.

Mastery:

1. I learned new things.

2. I sought out mental challenges.

3. I did things that challenged me.

4. I did something to broaden my horizons.

Control:

1. I felt like I could decide for myself what to do.

2. I decided my own schedule.

3. I determined for myself how I spent my time.

4. I took care of things the way that I wanted them done.

Positive Work Reflection:

1. It became clear to me what I like about my work.

2. I contemplated the positive sides to my work.

3. I considered the positive aspects of my work.

Negative Work Reflection:

1. I considered the negative aspects of my work.

2. I was aware of what is negative about my work.

3. It became clear to me what I don’t like about my work.

Social Activities:

1. I spent time with nice people.

2. I did things together with other people.

3. I took care of my relationships.

Response Options: (1 = Not At All, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Most of the Time, 5 =

Always)

Well-Being (Significant Other Report)

Job Satisfaction:

Instructions: Please mark the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following

statements regarding how you felt about your job in the past few weeks:

1. Most days he/she was enthusiastic about my work.

2. He/She felt fairly satisfied with my present job.

119

3. Each day at work seemed like it would never end for him/her.

4. He/She found real enjoyment in his/her work.

5. He/She considered his/her job rather unpleasant.

Response Options: (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree Nor

Disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree)

Burnout:

Instructions: Please answer the following items (from 1 to 4) with regard to the past few

weeks.

Exhaustion:

1. There were days that he/she felt already tired before he/she went to work.

2. After his/her work, he/she now needed more time to relax than in the past to

become

fit again.

3. He/She could stand the pressure of his/her work very well.

4. During his/her work, he/she often felt emotionally drained.

5. After his/her work, he/she usually felt still totally fit for his/her leisure

activities.

6. After his/her work, he/she usually felt worn out and weary.

7. He/She could manage the amount of work well.

8. When he/she worked, he/she usually felt vital.

Disengagement:

1. He/She always found new and interesting aspects in his/her work.

2. It happened more and more often that he/she talked about my work in a

derogatory

way.

3. He/She tended to think less during his/her work and just execute it

mechanically.

4. He/She experienced his/her work as a real challenge.

5. He/She believes that, with the time, one loses the internal relationship with

one’s work.

6. Sometimes he/she felt really sick about his/her work tasks.

7. He/She could not imagine another occupation for himself/herself.

8. He/She got more and more engaged in his/her work.

Response Options: (1 = Totally Disagree, 2 = Somewhat Disagree, 3 = Somewhat Agree,

4 = Totally Agree)

120

Life Satisfaction:

Instructions: Using the 1-5 scale below, indicate your agreement with each item by

circling that item. Please be open and honest in your responding. Describe how satisfied

you were with your life during the past few weeks.

1. In most ways his/her life was close to his/her ideal.

2. The conditions of his/her life were excellent.

3. He/She was satisfied with his/her life.

4. So far he/she has gotten the important things he/she wanted in life.

5. If he/she could have lived his/her life over, he/she would change almost

nothing.

Response Options: (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree Nor

Disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree)

General Health:

Instructions: Please answer the following items (from 1 to 4) with regard to the extent to

which you experienced these symptoms during the past few weeks.

1. Cold, flu

2. Back pain

3. Arm pain

4. Leg pain

5. Headache/Migraine

6. Anxiety

7. Sadness/depression

8. Sleep problems/Tiredness

9. Extra heartbeats

10. Heat flushes

11. Dizziness

12. Stomach discomfort

13. Heartburn

14. Diarrhea/Constipation

15. Breathing difficulties

16. Allergies

17. Chest pain

Response Options: (1 = Not at All, 2 = A Little, 3 = Some, 4 = Serious)