Cited by 219Workaholism, burnout, and well-beingJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorStress and Burnout Research

Better together? Examining profiles of employee recovery experiences

Bennett, Andrew A., Gabriel, Allison S., Calderwood, Charles, Dahling, Jason J., Trougakos, John P.·2016·Journal of Applied Psychology

Abstract

Employees are exposed to a wide variety of job demands that deplete personal resources and necessitate recovery. In light of this need, research on work recovery has focused on how distinct recovery experiences during postwork time relate to employee well-being. However, investigators have largely tested the effects of these experiences in isolation, neglecting the possibility that profiles of recovery experiences may exist and influence the recovery process. The current set of studies adopted a person-centered approach using latent profile analysis to understand whether unique constellations of recovery experiences-psychological detachment, relaxation, mastery, control, and problem-solving pondering-emerged for 2 samples of full-time employees. In Study 1, which involved a single-time-point assessment, we identified 4 unique profiles of recovery experiences, tested whether job demands (i.e., time pressure, role ambiguity) and job resources (i.e., job control) differentiated profile membership, and evaluated whether each profile uniquely related to employee well-being outcomes (i.e., emotional exhaustion, engagement, somatic complaints). In Study 2, which involved 2 time points, we replicated 3 of the 4 profiles observed in Study 1, and tested 2 additional antecedents rated by employees' supervisors: leader-member exchange and supervisor support for recovery. Across both studies, unique differences emerged in regard to antecedents and outcomes tied to recovery experience profile membership. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/apl0000157

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bennett, A. A., Gabriel, A. S., Calderwood, C., Dahling, J. J., & Trougakos, J. P.
Affiliations
  • Old Dominion University (US)
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
  • The College of New Jersey (US)
  • University of Toronto Scarborough (CA)
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Published
2016-12
Volume
101
Issue
12
Pages
1635-1654
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
OpenAlex
W2519016542
Cited by
219
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 14
FWCI
27.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (435-2014-0693)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Workaholism, burnout, and well-being
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
Keywords
work recovery, psychological detachment, relaxation, mastery, control, problem-solving pondering, job demands, role ambiguity, time pressure, job control, emotional exhaustion, engagement, somatic symptoms, leader-member exchange, employee well-being
MeSH terms
Adult, Employment, Female, Humans, Male, Personal Satisfaction, Relaxation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review