Cited by 187Sleep and related disordersWorkaholism, burnout, and well-beingSleep and Work-Related Fatigue

Zeigarnik’s sleepless nights: How unfinished tasks at the end of the week impair employee sleep on the weekend through rumination

Syrek, Christine J., Weigelt, Oliver, Peifer, Corinna, Antoni, Conny H.·2017·Journal of Occupational Health Psychology

Abstract

It is almost common sense that work stress leads to sleep impairment, but the question of how work-related stressors impair employee sleep remains open. This study focuses on the role of rumination as the underlying mechanism for sleep impairment. Specifically, the authors contribute to recent research differentiating affective rumination from problem-solving pondering and examine the impact of both forms of rumination on the stressor-sleep relationship. Following theories of rumination and the Zeigarnik effect, they focus on unfinished tasks as a key onset for rumination. Unfinished tasks have received much research attention in the memory context but have been neglected as a stressor that can impact recovery. Drawing on theory, differential indirect links between unfinished tasks and sleep through affective rumination versus problem-solving pondering are examined. Further, the number of unfinished tasks extending over a 3-month period may impair employee sleep more than unfinished tasks within the acute phase. In this study, intraindividual links in a diary study supplemented by depicting between-person effects of unfinished tasks over a period of 3 months are examined. The authors matched 357 Friday and Monday observations over a 12-week interval for 59 employees. The results of the multilevel analysis suggest that the within-person relationship between unfinished tasks and sleep is mediated by affective rumination. Although problem-solving pondering was negatively related…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/ocp0000031

Cites

80 of 80 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

1 of the 81 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Syrek, C. J., Weigelt, O., Peifer, C., & Antoni, C. H.
Affiliations
  • Universität Trier (DE)
  • FernUniversität in Hagen (DE)
  • Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
Venue
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
Published
2017-04
Volume
22
Issue
2
Pages
225-238
ISSN
  • 1076-8998 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1307
OpenAlex
W2338866585
Cited by
187
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 3
FWCI
18.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Occupational Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Workaholism, burnout, and well-being
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Keywords
unfinished tasks, Zeigarnik effect, affective rumination, problem-solving pondering, sleep disorders, occupational stress, employee recovery, weekend sleep, occupational stressors
MeSH terms
Work Performance, Adult, Attitude, Cognition, Female, Germany, Humans, Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders, Male, Middle Aged, Problem Solving, Surveys and Questionnaires, Stress, Psychological, Work, Multilevel Analysis, Young Adult

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