SPECIAL ISSUE PAPER

Vacation Effects on Behaviour, Cognition and Emotions of Compulsive and Non-compulsive Workers: Do Obsessive Workers Go ‘Cold Turkey’? Jessica de Bloom1,2*†, Mirjam Radstaak1 & Sabine Geurts1 1

Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands School of Social Sciences & Humanities, University of Tampere, Finland

2

Abstract Compulsive workers often face psychological and physical health disturbances because of working long hours and an obsessive preoccupation with work during off-job time. Prolonged respite episodes may either relief these employees from their daily stressors to recover or trigger withdrawal symptoms. Our research question was as follows: How do (1) work hours, (2) rumination and (3) affective well-being unfold for compulsive workers compared with non-compulsive workers across long vacations? In a longitudinal field study, work hours, rumination and affective well-being were assessed in 54 employees 2 weeks before, during and in the first, second and fourth week after a long summer vacation. Working compulsively was assessed 3 weeks before vacation. Work hours decreased during and increased after vacation. Levels of rumination dropped during vacation and remained below baseline until 2 weeks after vacation. Initial differences in rumination between obsessive and non-obsessive workers disappeared during and directly after vacation. Affective well-being rose during vacation and returned to baseline directly after vacation. Increases in affective well-being during vacation as well as decreases after vacation were greater in obsessive workers than in non-obsessive workers. Vacations seem to temporarily offset characteristic differences between obsessive and non-obsessive workers, decrease rumination and improve affective well-being. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 11 September 2013; Revised 17 June 2014; Accepted 26 June 2014 Keywords holiday; stress; rumination; workaholic; work hours *Correspondence Jessica de Bloom, School of Social Sciences and Humanities, FI-33014 University of Tampere, Finland. † Email: Jessica.de.Bloom@uta.fi Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/smi.2600

Introduction In societies where hard work is considered a virtue, employers may think that workaholic employees make eligible candidates for the employee of the month: working far beyond what is expected by their organization, dedicating an excessive amount of time, energy and effort to their job, and sacrificing their private life for work (Tabassum & Tasnuva, 2013). But in fact, the opposite is true. Employees with an obsessive– compulsive need to work often have difficulties to delegate work and pile up more work than they can handle, resulting in inferior work performance (e.g. Liang & Chu, 2009; Schaufeli, Taris, & Bakker, 2008; Shimazu, Schaufeli, & Taris, 2010). Moreover, people who work anytime and at any place (e.g. during social occasions, on weekends and holidays) neglect other important aspects of life, leading to poor social 232

functioning and work–family conflict (e.g. Bakker, Demerouti, & Burke, 2009; McMillan, O’Driscoll, & Brady, 2004). An obsessive inner drive to work also has serious adverse consequences for physical health and well-being. Research for example showed that workaholic employees often suffer from primary hypertension, diminished sleep quality and high rates of burnout (e.g. Burke, Richardsen, & Mortinussen, 2004; McMillan, O’Driscoll, & Burke, 2003; Schou Andreassen, Ursin, & Eriksen, 2007). Deficient and incomplete recovery processes may play an important role in the relation between workaholism and well-being (Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006; Taris, Geurts, Schaufeli, Blonk, & Lagerveld, 2008; Van Wijhe, Peeters, & Schaufeli, 2014). Surprisingly, however, there is no conclusive evidence linking preoccupation with work to recovery. Stress and Health 30: 232–243 (2014) © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. de Bloom, M. Radstaak and S. Geurts

Working compulsively and recovery processes In healthy, non-obsessive workers, load reactions built up at work can be undone by removing the work demands that acted on their psychobiological systems during the work day (see Allostatic Load Theory by McEwen, 1998, and Effort Recovery Model by Meijman & Mulder, 1998). Engaging in pleasant free-time activities enables workers to replenish their resources and to go back to work with renewed energy after the respite (Demerouti, Bakker, Geurts, & Taris, 2009). Workaholic employees often have the tendency to work excessively (i.e. they work long hours) and compulsively (i.e. they experience a strong, irresistible inner drive to work; Spence & Robbins, 1992). As a consequence, they will have fewer opportunities to relax and to fully recover from work (e.g. Erkmen, Cerik, Bozkurt, & Ozaslan, 2010). On the behavioural level, workaholic employees may simply lack the necessary time for recovery because of working long hours and the limited amount of free time at their disposal. On the cognitive level, workers with a tendency to work compulsively tend to think about work persistently and frequently during the few hours outside their office (Scottl, Moore, & Miceli, 1997). According to the Perseverative Cognition Hypothesis (Brosschot, Gerin, & Thayer, 2006) and the Cognitive Activation Theory of Stress (Ursin & Eriksen, 2004), rumination activates psychophysiological systems and consequently hampers unwinding (for recent findings, see also Radstaak, Geurts, Brosschot, Cillessen, & Kompier, 2011; Taris, Schaufeli, & Verhoeven, 2005). According to Geurts and Sonnentag (2006), deficient quantity and quality of recovery constitute the exploratory mechanisms underlying the relation between acute stress reactions and long-term well-being. Despite the plausible connection between workaholism, inadequate recovery and well-being, only very limited research attention has focused on the intriguing question how recovery proceeds in obsessive workers. Later, we will summarize the results of the three studies on this topic that have been carried out so far. In a 5-day diary study in 118 employees, Van Wijhe, Peeters, Schaufeli, and Ouweneel (2012) found lower levels of psychological detachment and relaxation in workaholic employees (compared with non-workaholic employees), although compulsive workers did not spend more time on work-related activities during evening hours at home. Moreover, negative emotions at the end of the workday were shown to impede recovery during the evening more strongly in workaholic than in nonworkaholic employees. A 9-day diary study in 85 employees suggests that workaholic workers benefit more than their nonworkaholic counterparts from avoiding work-related activities during evening hours and from engaging in leisure activities. The positive association between exercising and well-being and the negative association Stress and Health 30: 232–243 (2014) © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Workaholics Go Cold Turkey

between work-related activities during evening hours and well-being were stronger in obsessive workers compared with non-obsessive workers (Bakker, Demerouti, Oerlemans, & Sonnentag, 2012). Snir and Zohar (2008) investigated differences between workaholics and non-workaholics in a 7-day diary study. In this study, 65 employees were randomly signalled four times a day in order to complete a paper– pencil booklet. Workaholic workers as opposed to nonworkaholic workers were more likely to prefer work over free-time activities, to experience positive affect during work time and to think about work during leisure time. There were no differences between the groups concerning the time they spent on work-related activities, the level of experienced physical discomfort or positive affect during the weekend. Summing up, the three studies described earlier suggest that unwinding processes from work unfold differently for employees who feel an inner drive to work hard compared with employees who do not experience this inner drive. It seems more difficult for the former group to mentally recover from their work during their limited off-job time. But the studies earlier all focused on relatively short respite periods like evening hours and weekends, and research has shown that short periods off work (i.e. meta recovery, as defined by Sluiter, Frings-Dresen, & Meijman, 2000) are often insufficient to undo the negative effects of job demands (e.g. Van Hooff, Geurts, Kompier, & Taris, 2007). So, how about longer respites? How do obsessive, compared with nonobsessive, workers recover during prolonged respites of more than one weekend (i.e. macro recovery according to Sluiter et al., 2000)? Recovery in obsessive and non-obsessive workers during and after long vacations In this study, we will focus on developments in obsessive versus non-obsessive workers before, during and after a long summer vacation on three levels: behavioural (work hours), cognitive (rumination about work) and emotional (affective well-being). Accordingly, our research questions were as follows: (1) How do work hours unfold for compulsive compared with non-compulsive workers across a vacation period? (2) How does rumination about work unfold for compulsive compared with non-compulsive workers across a vacation period? (3) How does affective well-being unfold for compulsive compared with non-compulsive workers across a vacation period? There are two antithetical perspectives on the relation between the tendency to work compulsively, long-term recovery processes and their effects. Vacations can be either seen as an excellent opportunity to relieve obsessive workers from their job demands and the harmful 233

Workaholics Go Cold Turkey

impact of working compulsively, or as a situation that gives rise to withdrawal symptoms. Vacation as relief From the viewpoint of recovery theories, it can be argued that a vacation from work relieves employees from their daily work demands and job stress. Therefore, vacations may be a last resort for complete recovery in compulsively working employees. In line with Ng, Sorensen, and Feldman’s (2007) argumentation regarding the importance of reinforcement of compulsive working behaviour by colleagues and supervisors in the pathogenesis of workaholism, it can be assumed that the absence from the office weakens the tendency to work and to think about work (Dart, 2006). So, the physical distance from the workplace may translate into mental distance as well. In addition, the different physical surrounding during vacations may offer numerous possibilities for distraction from work-related thoughts (Chen, Lehto, & Cai, 2013). Furthermore, situational constraints and different daily routines (e.g. lack of Internet connectivity, unavailability of work materials, vacation activities like sightseeing tours and children demanding attention) may force obsessive workers to refrain from working. While family members are accustomed to take a back seat during working weeks, they may insist on work abstinence during the families’ ‘holy days’. Accordingly, a vacation from work may be one of the rare opportunities for obsessive workers to terminate work, to engage in social and recreational activities and to reconnect with friends and family members. Based on this perspective, compulsively working employees can be assumed to work or ruminate less than usually during vacation (although some differences with non-compulsively working counterparts may persist). This change in behaviour and cognition should become apparent in improved levels of affective well-being. During and right after a long vacation, obsessive workers may resemble non-obsessive workers concerning behaviour, cognition and emotions. Vacation as withdrawal A controversial view can be deduced from the addiction viewpoint. As the term coined by Oates (1971) suggests, workaholism can be conceptualized as a behavioural addiction, because it shares defining features with traditional addictions like alcoholism, smoking or gambling. Like other addictions, workaholism is associated with short-term rewards and long-term costs (Griffiths & Karanika-Murray, 2012). In line with Porter (1996) and Spence and Robbins (1992), free time comprises a deprivation from their ‘drug’ (i.e. work) to obsessively working employees. It may be extremely difficult for them to resist the urge to work, even if situational constraints may render working impossible for them. As a result, workers who feel compelled to work may become stressed and even more obsessed with work 234

J. de Bloom, M. Radstaak and S. Geurts

than usual during their holiday. These withdrawal symptoms are probably accompanied with low levels of positive affect (Griffiths, 2011; Griffiths & KaranikaMurray, 2012). Based on this perspective, obsessive employees can be expected to spend more hours working and thinking about their work during vacation than non-obsessive workers, and to show lower levels of affective well-being.

Method Participants To recruit participants, flyers were handed out around the location of Nijmegen, and ads were printed in two local newspapers. To encourage participation, three lottery prices were announced: a 1-week vacation in Austria, a long weekend vacation in the Netherlands and a €100 cheque. The more questionnaires participants completed, the higher would be the chance of winning. Persons who were interested to take part could fill in an online questionnaire in which inclusion criteria were checked (i.e. active command of Dutch, at least 24 h paid work a week (as work should constitute a substantial part of participants’ lives), Internet and email access at home, no objections to be called during vacation, and a vacation period of at least 2 weeks between June 15th and August 22nd 2010). Fifty-eight participants fulfilled these criteria and volunteered to take part in our study. During the study, four participants no longer wanted to take part because of personal reasons, resulting in a general response rate of 83% (N = 54). Mean age of the participants was 42.5 years (SD = 10.6), and half of them were female (N = 27). Of the sample, 53% had a college or university degree, 33% were medium educated (senior general secondary and university preparation education) and 13% were lower educated (lower secondary or junior secondary education). Of the sample, 28% were technicians and associate professionals (e.g. nurse and webmaster), 22% were legislators, senior officers or managers, 22% were professionals (e.g. doctor or consultant), 11% worked as clerical support workers, 11% as service and sales workers, and the remaining 6% had other occupations. Most of the participants had a permanent contract (65%). A minority had a temporary contract, worked freelance or was self-employed (35%). On average, the participants worked 35.2 h per week (SD = 7.2) with a minimum of 24 h and a maximum of 55 h a week. Most employees (80%, N = 37) went abroad during vacation, while 20% stayed in the Netherlands. Of the vacationers who spent their holiday abroad, 46% went to central and northern European countries (e.g. France, Austria and Germany) and 32% went to southern European countries (e.g. Italy, Croatia and Spain). Seven per cent of the sample went to countries outside the EU (e.g. United States and Africa), and 13% visited more than one destination. Vacation length varied from 15 to 34 days with an average of 23 days (SD = 4.2). Stress and Health 30: 232–243 (2014) © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. de Bloom, M. Radstaak and S. Geurts

Procedure Data were collected on 11 occasions: three times before, four times during and four times after vacation. Three weeks before the participating employees went on vacation, they were informed in detail about what the study entailed and got a tailor-made time schedule of their individual measurement occasions. At the same time, they filled in a general questionnaire, containing questions regarding demographics (e.g. age, marital status and education), basic job information (e.g. weekly work hours), vacation characteristics (e.g. vacation duration and destination) and workaholism (for the research design, see Figure 1). Before and after vacation, participants were asked to fill in online diaries for which they received an individual log-in code. To make sure that the participants would remember to fill in these diaries, they received an email on the day their measurement was scheduled. In addition, they received a text message around four o’clock in the afternoon on their cell phone. The participants were instructed to fill in all diaries right before going to bed. The baseline diary measurements before the vacation were scheduled on Tuesday and Thursday, 2 weeks prior to vacation. We deliberately chose for this moment in time, because earlier research suggests that measurements immediately before vacation may be biassed by either looking forward (Gilbert & Abdullah, 2002; Nawijn, Marchand, Veenhoven, & Vingerhoets, 2010) or prevacation work stress (DeFrank, Konopaske, & Ivancevich, 2000; Nawijn, De Bloom, & Geurts, 2013; Westman, 2005). We averaged these two measurements to reduce missing data and to get a reliable baseline measurement that is representative for general working time (Pre). Before the participants went on vacation, they received a cell phone with a prepaid SIM card so that they would not have to make any costs when being called during their vacation abroad. Participants also received an envelope containing four paper questionnaires to be filled in during vacation in case of technical problems, which they were instructed to open only upon request.

Workaholics Go Cold Turkey

During vacation, the participants were contacted for a telephone interview on the provided cell phone at least three times: on the 4th, 8th and 12th day after the start of vacation. Participants whose vacation lasted more than 15 days were also contacted on the 16th day. We averaged the first two measurements (i.e. Inter-1) and the last two measurements during vacation (Inter-2) to reduce missing data and to obtain reliable week indicators. Participants were called between 5 and 8 PM and answered questions regarding their work hours, levels of rumination about work and affective well-being. If participants could not be reached on the provided cell phone, a text message was sent to their own cell phone wherein they were asked to open the ‘emergency envelop’ and to fill in one of the paper–pencil questionnaires. On each measurement occasion, four or five participants made use of this possibility. Analyses demonstrated that there were no systematic differences between those participants and those who were interviewed by telephone. After vacation, the participants filled in an online diary on four different occasions: on their first work day, on the second last day of their first week of work resumption (averaged into Post-1), and on Tuesdays during the 2nd (Post-2) and the 4th week of work resumption (Post-3). The procedure was the same as before the vacation (i.e. vacationers received emails and text message reminders on their individually scheduled measurement days). After completion of the data collection, participants were thanked for their participation and informed about when preliminary results were expected, and winners of the lottery prices were announced. Measures Working compulsively Preoccupation with work was measured with the ‘Working Compulsively’ scale of the Dutch Work Addiction Scale (Schaufeli, Shimazu, & Taris, 2009) via the general questionnaire. Research has shown that

Figure 1 Research design Stress and Health 30: 232–243 (2014) © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

235

Workaholics Go Cold Turkey

J. de Bloom, M. Radstaak and S. Geurts

this scale, which is based on the Drive scale of the Workaholism Battery (Spence & Robbins, 1992), is a valid and reliable short measure of workaholism (Taris et al., 2005). The seven items were scored on a 4-point Likert scale [1 = (almost) never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, 4 = (almost) always]. Three example items are as follows: ‘I feel that there’s something inside me that drives me to work hard’; ‘I feel obliged to work hard, even when it’s not enjoyable’; and ‘I feel guilty when I take time of work’. The internal reliability of the scale was good (α = .82; Table I). A median split was used to create the groups ‘non-obsessive workers’ (N =33) and ‘obsessive workers’ (N = 21). Persons scoring exactly the median (i.e. 2.00) were classified as ‘non-obsessive workers’. Employees classified as obsessive workers reported significant higher levels of cognitive preoccupation with work (M = 2.67) than non-obsessive workers [M = 1.65; F(1) = 90.77, p < .001]. The mean score of the obsessively working group (M = 2.67) was higher than the Dutch cut-off value for working compulsively among middle and higher managers (M ≥ 2.57; Schaufeli & Taris, 2004).

two measurements during vacation (i.e. Inter-2) and the two measurements in the first week after vacation (i.e. Post-1) were averaged. The developments in work hours, rumination about work and affective well-being across a vacation period for obsessive and non-obsessive workers were tested in three separate repeated measures analyses (RM-ANOVA). Working obsessively (high versus low) constituted the between-subjects factor. In the first analysis, work hours were the dependent variable. In the second analysis, rumination about work constituted the dependent variable, and in the third analysis, affective well-being was the dependent variable. The repeated measurement of the dependent variables will be further referred to as ‘Time’. A significant effect of Time and a significant interaction effect (Working obsessively: high versus low * Time) were explored using Bonferroni post-hoc analyses. A significant between-subjects effect of Working obsessively (high versus low) was explored using ANOVA with Working obsessively (high versus low) as between-subjects factor and work hours, rumination about work or affective well-being as dependent variable per measurement occasion.

Work hours Before and after vacation, participants were asked how many hours they had worked on that specific day. During the vacation, participants reported how many hours they had devoted to work-related activities during the preceding four vacation days.

Results

Rumination about work Two items were used to measure rumination before, during and after vacation: ‘I worry about things that have to be done at work’ and ‘I ruminate about things that have happened at work’. Items were rated on a 10-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 10 = strongly agree). The reliability of the items was good (ranging from α = .77 to .97; Table I). Affective well-being Affective well-being was measured before, during and after vacation with three items that were rated on a 10-point Likert scale: ‘How happy did you feel today? (1 = extremely unhappy, 10 = extremely happy)’, ‘How satisfied do you feel about this day? (1 = extremely dissatisfied, 10 = extremely satisfied)’ and ‘How was your mood today? (1 = extremely down-hearted, 10 = extremely enthusiastic)’. These three emotions can be mapped using the circumplex model of emotions (Russell, 1980). The items showed good internal reliability (ranging from α = .77 to .93; Table I). Statistical analyses To retain as many cases as possible in our analyses (as every participant with a single missing value on any occasion would be discarded from analysis), the two measurements before vacation (i.e. Pre), the first two measurements during vacation (i.e. Inter-1), the last 236

Preliminary analyses Internal reliabilities for the scales, means and Pearson product moment correlations can be found in Table I. Cronbach’s alphas for the different constructs were sufficient and ranged between .77 (for rumination on Post-3 and affective well-being on Post-3) and .97 (for rumination on Inter-1). Autocorrelations for work hours, rumination about work and affective well-being on the different measurement occasions before, during and after vacation were strong, providing evidence for high test–retest reliability. Correlations between work hours, rumination and affective well-being on the same measurement occasion were generally not significant and low, demonstrating that the questionnaires discriminated well between the different concepts. Working compulsively did not correlate with the number of hours employees had worked before, during or after vacation. Working compulsively did correlate positively with rumination Pre, Post-2 and Post-3, but not with rumination during vacation and within the first week after work resumption. Furthermore, working compulsively was negatively related to affective well-being on Pre, Post-1 and Post-3, but not to affective well-being during vacation and on Post-2. Work hours were unrelated to rumination about work and affective well-being, while rumination and affective well-being were negatively related before and after vacation, but not during vacation. Research Question 1: How do work hours unfold for obsessive compared with nonobsessive workers across a vacation period? Table II depicts the descriptives of work hours across a vacation period for the two subgroups scoring relatively Stress and Health 30: 232–243 (2014) © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Stress and Health 30: 232–243 (2014) © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

(.82) .03 .16 .18 .11 .12 .05 .37* .22 .18 .27 .32* .47* .32* .17 .23 .51* .04 .40*

1. Working compulsively 2. Work hours Pre 3. Work hours Inter-1 4. Work hours Inter-2 5. Work hours Post-1 6. Work hours Post-2 7. Work hours Post-3 8. Rumination Pre 9. Rumination Inter-1 10. Rumination Inter-2 11. Rumination Post-1 12. Rumination Post-2 13. Rumination Post-3 14. Affect. well-being Pre 15. Affect. well-being Inter-1 16. Affect. well-being Inter-2 17. Affect. well-being Post-1 18. Affect. well-being Post-2 19. Affect. well-being Post-3 – .09 .08 .47* .43* .19 .04 .27 .16 .19 .22 .05 .18 .06 .10 .03 .08 .21

2 8.23 1.87 3.5 14.0 0–24

– .28* .03 .05 .21 .10 .41* .03 .20 .13 .05 .25 .15 .14 .04 .22 .16

3 0.40 1.45 0.0 9.5 0–24

– .08 .01 .23 .01 .34* .20 .20 .23 .30* .01 .12 .08 .05 .01 .14

4 0.19 0.45 0.0 2.0 0–24

– .69* .52* .04 .08 .10 .06 .05 .07 .08 .00 .12 .07 .02 .14

5 8.58 1.67 3.0 13.0 0–24

– .67* .02 .04 .07 .03 .10 .03 .01 .10 .02 .07 .10 .14

6 8.42 2.05 3.0 16.0 0–24

– .19 .33* .18 .25 .12 .19 .06 .03 .02 .05 .11 .01

7 8.60 1.92 5.0 16.0 0–24

(.78) .41* .36* .59* .59* .53* .54* .07 .22 .27 .24 .41*

8 5.12 1.85 1.5 10.0 1–10

Affect. well-being: affective well-being. Cronbach’s alphas are displayed in parentheses on the diagonal. *p < .05 two-tailed.

1 2.05 0.63 1.1 4.0 1–4

Variables M SD Min Max Possible range

Table I. Means, standard deviations and zero-order correlations between study variables

(.97) 57* .65* .55* .41* .51* .00 .13 .18 .21 .42*

9 2.12 1.99 1.0 9.0 1–10

(.90) .45* .29* .41* .16 .11 .27 .27 .11 .38*

10 2.31 2.02 1.0 7.5 1–10

(.87) .83* .61* .39* .14 .10 .30* .14 .34*

11 3.95 2.02 1.0 8.5 1–10

(.81) .62* .40* .10 .23 .28* .17 .32*

12 3.98 2.07 1.0 8.0 1–10

(.77) .23 .03 .16 .30* .06 .45*

13 4.27 2.31 1.0 8.5 1–10

(.90) .27* .37* .48* .70* .58*

14 7.02 1.17 4.2 9.0 1–10

(.81) .67* .45* .29* .32*

15 7.95 1.00 5.3 10.0 1–10

(.89) .54* .33* .37*

16 7.88 1.05 5.7 10.0 1–10

(.91) .38* .56*

17 7.16 1.25 3.5 9.7 1–10

(.93) .46*

18 7.13 1.43 1.7 9.7 1–10

(.77)

19 7.21 1.06 5.0 9.3 1–10

J. de Bloom, M. Radstaak and S. Geurts Workaholics Go Cold Turkey

237

Workaholics Go Cold Turkey

J. de Bloom, M. Radstaak and S. Geurts

Table II. Descriptives per measurement occasion for non-compulsive and compulsive workers Pre

Inter-1

Inter-2

Post-1

Post-2

Post-3

N

M (SD)

N

M (SD)

N

M (SD)

N

M (SD)

N

M (SD)

N

M (SD)

Work hours Non-compulsive workers Compulsive workers

33 19

8.08 (1.83) 8.49 (1.97)

32 21

0.25 (0.83) 0.64 (2.07)

32 30

0.14 (0.42) 0.29 (0.50)

31 20

8.48 (1.72) 8.74 (1.62)

30 19

8.25 (1.69) 8.68 (2.56)

29 19

8.60 (1.69) 8.61 (2.28)

Rumination about work Non-compulsive workers Compulsive workers

33 20

4.59 (1.49) 6.00 (2.09)

32 21

1.73 (1.39) 2.71 (2.57)

32 20

2.02 (1.65) 2.79 (2.48)

33 20

3.59 (1.85) 4.54 (2.19)

33 20

3.59 (2.12) 4.63 (1.86)

30 20

3.47 (2.13) 5.48 (2.07)

Affective well-being Non-compulsive workers Compulsive workers

33 20

7.34 (0.96) 6.48 (1.30)

32 21

8.01 (0.95) 7.86 (1.09)

32 20

7.97 (1.03) 7.72 (1.08)

33 20

7.59 (0.92) 6.45 (1.42)

33 20

7.26 (1.40) 6.90 (1.50)

30 20

7.54 (1.04) 6.70 (0.90)

high and low on the ‘working compulsively’ scale. Of the 21 employees categorized as obsessive workers, nine persons (43%) worked during their holiday, while only six non-obsessive employees (18%) worked during their respite. RM-ANOVA for work hours as dependent variable revealed a significant effect for Time [F(5, 34) = 378.43, p < .001]. Bonferroni post-hoc analyses showed, not surprisingly, that the number of work hours decreased during the vacation [vacation effect; F(1) = 538.66, p < .001; see also Table II] and returned to pre vacation levels after resuming work [no vacation after-effect; F(1) = 1646.40, p < .001]. The between-subjects effect for Working obsessively (high versus low) [F(1, 38) = 1.01, p = .32] and the interaction effect between Working obsessively (high versus low) * Time [F(5, 34) = 1.06, p = .40] were not significant. This means that obsessive workers did neither work more hours nor showed another pattern of work hours across a vacation period than nonobsessive workers. Research Question 2: How does rumination about work unfold for obsessive compared with non-obsessive workers across a vacation period? Table II depicts the descriptives of rumination about work across a vacation period for obsessive and nonobsessive workers. RM-ANOVA for rumination as dependent variable revealed a significant effect for Time [F(5, 42) = 21.32, p < .001]. Bonferroni posthoc analyses showed that, in general, rumination about work decreased during the vacation [vacation effect; F(1) = 89.12, p < .001; see also Table II] and increased after resuming work [F(1) = 32.03, p < .001]. Although the level of rumination increased after the vacation, it still remained lower than before vacation during the first 2 weeks after vacation (Post-1: ΔM = 1.17, p = .001; Post-2: ΔM = 1.06, p = .004). Only 4 weeks after vacation, rumination had reached pre-vacation levels (Post-3: ΔM = .89, p = .08). 238

The between-subjects effect for Working obsessively (low–high) was significant [F(1, 44) = 5.38, p = .03], with obsessive workers showing generally higher levels of rumination than non-obsessive workers. ANOVAs demonstrated that employees with an inner drive to work hard ruminated more about work than employees without this drive on Pre [F(1) = 8.22, p = .006] and Post-3 [F(1) = 10.95, p = .002] but not during vacation and within the first 2 weeks after the holiday. Still, the interaction effect between Working compulsively (high versus low) * Time was not significant [F(5, 39) = 1.18, p = .34], meaning that obsessive workers did not show another pattern in rumination than non-obsessive workers across a vacation period. Research Question 3: How does affective well-being unfold for obsessive compared with non-obsessive workers across a vacation period? Table II depicts the descriptives of affective well-being across a vacation period for the two subgroups. RMANOVA with affective well-being as dependent variable revealed a significant effect for Time [F(5, 42) = 12.38, p < .001]. Bonferroni post-hoc analyses revealed that affective well-being increased during the vacation [vacation effect; F(1) = 40.91, p < .001] and returned immediately to pre vacation level after work resumption [no vacation after-effect; F(1) = 28.39, p < .001]. A significant between-subjects effect for Working compulsively (high versus low) was found [F(1, 46) = 6.36, p = .02]. ANOVAs demonstrated that obsessive workers generally experienced lower levels of affective well-being than non-obsessive workers on Pre [F(1) = 7.75, p = .008], Post-1 [F(1) = 12.62, p = .001] and Post-3 [F(1) = 8.74, p = .005]. The interaction effect between Working compulsively (high versus low) * Time was significant, indicating that affective well-being unfolded differently for obsessive and non-obsessive workers across a vacation period [F(5, 42) = 3.05, p = .02]. Compared with non-obsessive Stress and Health 30: 232–243 (2014) © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. de Bloom, M. Radstaak and S. Geurts

workers, workers with a strong urge to work hard showed a higher increase in affective well-being during the vacation [F(1) = 6.32, p = .02] and a higher decrease in affective well-being upon returning home and resuming work [F(1) = 6.29, p = .02]. Post-hoc analyses We repeated all analyses, adding the number of vacation days as a covariate. The effects across time, between-subjects and interaction effects remained the same as reported earlier. To assess whether our results were robust for and applicable to workers with truly high scores on working compulsively, we also repeated our analyses in more extreme groups of obsessive and non-obsessive workers. The more extreme group of obsessive workers included workers with scores higher than the 75th percentile on the ‘working compulsively scale’ (N = 14, M = 2.87). The mean score of this group was much higher than the Dutch cut-off value for working compulsively among middle and higher managers (M ≥ 2.57; see Schaufeli & Taris, 2004). We compared this group to workers with scores lower than the 25th percentile on the ‘working compulsively scale’ (N = 15, M = 1.39). The results and the development across time in the different groups were virtually the same as reported earlier, except for the fact that obsessive and non-obsessive workers no longer differed in their levels of affective well-being (probably because of the small sample sizes of the two extreme groups). Nevertheless, the interaction effect between Working compulsively (high versus low) * Time remained significant, indicating that the increases in affective well-being during vacation and the decreases in affective well-being after vacation were also significantly greater for the more extreme obsessive workers as opposed to the non-obsessive workers. We also reanalyzed our data in order to investigate the relation of the second component of workaholism, i.e. working excessively, with daily work hours, rumination about work and affective well-being. So, we created two subgroups on the basis of long work hours (i.e. median split based on weekly overtime reported in the general questionnaire). In general, our participants hardly worked long hours. For instance, maximum weekly overtime was 15 h (reported by only three employees), one third of our participants (32%) reported no overtime at all and 50% of the sample worked less than 6 h beyond their weekly contractual hours. Employees who reported relatively many overtime hours weekly (the ‘overtime work’ group, N = 24; on average, 6.9 h overtime per week) also worked more hours on day level compared with the ‘non-overtime work’ group. The development in work hours across a vacation did not differ between the two subgroups. There were neither differences between the two subgroups concerning their level of rumination and affective well-being before, during and after vacation, nor on their ‘working compulsively’ score in the general questionnaire (M = 2.13 versus 1.98). Stress and Health 30: 232–243 (2014) © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Workaholics Go Cold Turkey

Discussion The aim of this study was to assess long-term recovery processes in employees with an obsessive–compulsive tendency to work in comparison with non-obsessive workers in order to shed light on the supposed link between workaholism, recovery and well-being. While several studies have shown that vacationing enables recovery and positively affects well-being in healthy working populations (e.g. Chen et al., 2013; De Bloom, Geurts, & Kompier, 2010; Fritz & Sonnentag, 2006), to our knowledge, this is the first study that focused on behavioural, cognitive and emotional changes in compulsively working employees before, during and after a prolonged time off. In theory, both improvements (i.e. relief perspective) and deteriorations in well-being (i.e. withdrawal perspective) seemed plausible for obsessive workers. On the behavioural level, i.e. the time spent on workrelated activities, we found no differences between obsessive and non-obsessive workers before, during and after vacation. Although this finding may seem counterintuitive, it matches the results from Van Wijhe et al. (2012) and Snir and Zohar (2008) who also found no difference in work hours between workers scoring high or low on workaholism, respectively. It seems that work hours do not discriminate well between workaholic and nonworkaholic employees in general. Our post-hoc analyses underscore this point as well. As working excessively was not related to behaviour, cognition and emotions, overtime workers may work relatively long hours for reasons that are not per se due to a compulsive inner drive, such as economic motives, organizational culture or supervisory pressure (Brett & Stroh, 2003; Shimazu, Sonnentag, Kubota, & Kawakami, 2012). As it seems that an obsessive inner drive is the core characteristic of a work addict (for argumentation, see also McMillan & O’Driscoll, 2006), compulsive tendencies can be measured in order to identify workaholic employees (Taris et al., 2005). This is especially true in samples with part-time workers. For instance, if a person who should work 24 contractual hours per week, works 40 h per week, he or she almost doubles his or her work time. However, in absolute terms, working 40 h per week may not be considered excessive working hours. Moreover, both workaholic and engaged workers tend to work long hours, while their work motivation is fundamentally different (Burke & Matthiesen, 2004; Taris et al., 2008). Therefore, we agree with Wojdylo, Baumann, Buczny, Owens, and Kuhl (2013) who state that workaholism should be conceptualized as unhealthy, obsessive–compulsive work symptoms and that long work hours should not necessarily be considered an indicator of workaholism. On the cognitive level, our findings suggest that vacations favourably affect rumination about work. This applies to both obsessive and non-obsessive workers. Levels of perserverative cognition declined during the 239

Workaholics Go Cold Turkey

holiday and remained low for 2 weeks after work resumption. In line with De Bloom, Geurts, Taris, et al.’s definition (2010), this can be considered a vacation after-effect. In general, vacation after-effects are rare, and most positive effects of vacationing fade out within the first week of work resumption (De Bloom et al., 2009). Lower levels of rumination about work may be one of the few precious longer lasting effects of taking a vacation. Furthermore, a vacation seems to temporarily offset the initial differences in rumination about workrelated issues in workers with varying degrees of compulsive working tendencies. During vacation and until 2 weeks after vacation, obsessive workers and nonobsessive workers resemble each other concerning their low tendency to engage in unpleasant, perseverative thoughts, although a difference in rumination between the groups remains. On the emotional level, this study showed that workers who are mentally preoccupied with their work experience a steeper increase in affective well-being during vacation as well as a sharper decrease after work resumption compared with workers with low preoccupation with work. During vacation, the major difference in affective well-being that usually exists between obsessive and non-obsessive workers disappeared. Therefore, in terms of affective well-being, vacationing seems to be a double-edged sword for compulsively working employees. Their gain is greater than for non-obsessive workers, but their loss is greater as well. Within the first week of work resumption, obsessive workers bounce back to their baseline level of affective well-being, and the difference in affective well-being between obsessive and non-obsessive workers becomes apparent again. Theoretically, the conceptualization of vacation as a period of relief (e.g. Westman & Eden, 1997) seems to fit the data better than the withdrawal perspective (e.g. Griffiths, 2011). During a long respite from work, obsessive workers do not have the tendency to work or ruminate more than their non-obsessively working counterparts. While daily recovery processes may be impaired in obsessive workers (Van Wijhe et al., 2012), it seems that most obsessive workers are able to recover from work during a longer period off work. The improvement in affective well-being is contrary to the idea that people obsessed with their work may experience withdrawal symptoms if they are unable to work (Griffiths & Karanika-Murray, 2012). This finding also underscores the importance of external influences on the expression of workaholic cognition and behaviour with its detrimental consequences for wellbeing. Vacation as a period without behavioural reinforcement for excessive working through supervisory pressure or environmental cues (e.g. computer and other work material within easy reach during free time) provides compulsive as well as non-compulsive workers with an opportunity to fully recover from stressful work periods. 240

J. de Bloom, M. Radstaak and S. Geurts

Practical implications In the evening hours after work, workaholic employees ruminate more about their work than non-workaholic employees, and they generally report lower levels of well-being (Van Wijhe et al., 2012). This can have serious consequences for the well-being of the workaholic workers themselves, their colleagues and subordinates, and their partner, family and friends (Balducci, Cecchin, Fraccaroli, & Schaufeli, 2012; Robinson, Carroll, & Flowers, 2001; Robinson & Kelley, 1998; Shimazu et al., 2010). Our study has shown that a vacation period can temporarily wipe away the typical differences between obsessive and non-obsessive workers. During a long summer holiday, obsessive workers seem to be able to forget their work—something that is quite difficult for them during shorter respites like regular evening hours after work or weekends (Kubota, Shimazu, Kawakami, & Takahashi, 2012). Moreover, they can also catch up with non-obsessive workers concerning affective well-being during a holiday. Consequently, a vacation from work may constitute an excellent opportunity for compulsively working employees to ease the symptoms of their strong inner drive to work incessantly. The greatest challenge, however, awaits obsessive workers upon returning home and resuming work. As obsessive workers tend to ‘relapse’ quickly after work resumption, it is essential to continue working on strategies to find a healthy work–life balance (see also Shimazu & Schaufeli, 2009). A study by Kühnel and Sonnentag (2011) suggests that in order to prolong positive vacation effects, it is crucial to reduce job demands and overtime work, and to increase leisure time relaxation in the first weeks after returning home from a holiday. This may be especially effective—although also exceptionally difficult—in compulsive workers. Relaxation could be achieved by engaging in relaxing activities like reading a book or taking a sauna bath, or structured relaxation exercises like mindfulness meditation or progressive muscle relaxation (for reviews, see Grossman, Niemann, Schmidt, & Walach, 2004; McCallie, Blum, & Hood, 2006). Physical exercise and other activities that provide mental distraction, a sense of accomplishment and/or meaning in life (e.g. hobby’s, social activities or volunteering) are beneficial leisure activities in general and may in particular assist workaholic employees in preventing rumination about work-related issues (see also Bakker et al., 2012; Mojza, Sonnentag, & Bornemann, 2011). On an organizational and societal level, a major rethink is required. Being chained to the desk should no longer be considered a ‘respectable addiction’ that instils admiration in colleagues and supervisors (Berglas, 2004). An important step to achieve this is to introduce and/or improve vacation policy. The right on and sufficient opportunities for regular, longer time outs from work (i.e. longer than a regular weekend) may point the way to a healthier lifestyle. Supervisors who take regular vacations and leave the office in time profit themselves Stress and Health 30: 232–243 (2014) © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. de Bloom, M. Radstaak and S. Geurts

and may also act as role models for their supervisees and co-workers, promoting a healthy balance between work and private life (Koch & Binnewies, 2013). Limitations and future research directions A number of limitations need to be considered, and from these shortcomings, directions for future research become apparent. Firstly, our small sample size reduced the statistical power of our analyses and increased the probability of chance results. Secondly, this study was conducted in a country with generous, legally established vacation rights (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2008). Moreover, highly educated workers were slightly overrepresented in the sample. Each factor may possibly limit the external validity of our findings. However, there is no theoretical basis to assume that recovery processes would unfold differently in lower educated employees or in workers who have considerably less free time at their disposal (e.g. United States and Japan). Still, replication of our results in a larger, more diverse sample from different countries would be desirable. Thirdly, we focused on ‘working compulsively’ as a core characteristic of workaholism, and we used only the ‘working compulsively’ scale to divide the sample into obsessive and non-obsessive workers, instead of using both the ‘working compulsively’ and the ‘working excessively’ scales. However, our additional post-hoc analyses suggest that the cognitive component of workaholism (i.e. feeling guilty; Schaufeli, Taris, & Van Rhenen, 2008) is more important than the behavioural component (i.e. working long hours), because people may work long hours for a variety of reasons other than work addiction (Burke, 1999; Douglas & Morris, 2006). Nevertheless, it would be interesting to repeat our study in a sample including more extreme workaholics who work both compulsively and excessively. This issue also relates to a fourth shortcoming. We conceptualized the tendency to work compulsively as a possible moderator between vacationing, behaviour, cognitions and emotions. However, work addiction may also be seen as an antecedent of vacationing, as it is likely that workaholic employees hesitate to take vacation, because they will feel anxious, stressed or guilty when they are not occupied with work. Therefore, it is useful, although also quite difficult, to conduct research in a sample of vacationing workaholics. Fifthly, we recommend studying the role of respite length in more detail. It seems plausible that compulsive workers need more time to unwind from work compared with non-compulsive workers and therefore benefit less from shorter respites than from longer respite periods. Longitudinal studies in workers with respites of different lengths, and particularly including frequent measurements during the transition phases between work and non-work, are necessary to determine a minimal and optimal respite length for compulsive workers. Stress and Health 30: 232–243 (2014) © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Workaholics Go Cold Turkey

On a theoretical level, it seems that the view of a vacation as a period of withdrawal symptoms does not match the findings. Obsessive workers do not seem to experience any withdrawal symptoms. On the contrary, affective well-being seems to improve during the holiday. Therefore, future longitudinal studies could investigate whether other symptoms of drug addiction are applicable to workaholism. Berglas (2004, p. 385) for example speculated that workaholics ‘[…] develop a tolerance to the rewards of work manifested by a need for markedly increased amounts of their intoxicant […] to achieve a desired effect’. It is necessary to further test this assumption and possibly reconsider the conceptualization of workaholism as an addiction. Last but not the least, another interesting question thrown up by this research concerns the role of job stress. Against the background of our findings, it can be hypothesized that the development in rumination and affective well-being in compulsive workers resembles the development in employees facing high job demands. This supposition should be investigated empirically, as the findings might also help to further disentangle the relationship between working compulsively and job demands (Taris et al., 2005).

Conclusions In conclusion, our study that focused on behavioural, cognitive and emotional consequences of working compulsively across a vacation period suggests that long respites alleviate levels of rumination about work (until 2 weeks after a holiday) and improve affective well-being in obsessive and non-obsessive workers alike. Initial differences between the two groups seem to disappear during the holiday. Looked at it from that angle, obsessive workers seem to benefit more from a vacation during the respite period itself. But at the same time, they also lose more upon returning home and resuming work. So, their vacation relief is greater, but so is their relapse. Summing up, vacations seem to constitute a powerful recovery opportunity for all workers and even more for workers who find it difficult to recover during free evenings after work or during normal weekends because of their strong inner drive to continue working. The major challenge for these workers is, however, to prevent a relapse in compulsive behaviour and cognition after returning to work in order to keep their levels of workability, health and well-being high.

Conflict of interest The authors have declared that they have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Academy of Finland (grant no. 257682). 241

Workaholics Go Cold Turkey

J. de Bloom, M. Radstaak and S. Geurts Workaholism Scale with its validity and reliability

REFERENCES

measurement. International Journal of Business and

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Burke, R. J. (2009). Workaholism and relationship quality: A spillover– crossover perspective. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14(1), 23–33. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Oerlemans, W., & Sonnentag, S. (2012). Workaholism and daily recovery: A day reconstruction study of leisure activities. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 87–107. Balducci, C., Cecchin, M., Fraccaroli, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). Exploring the relationship between workaholism and workplace aggressive behaviour: The role of job-related emotion. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(5), 629–634. Berglas, S. (2004). Treating workaholism. In R. H. Coombs (Ed.), Handbook of addictive disorders (pp. 383–407). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Brett, J. M., & Stroh, L. K. (2003). Working 61 plus hours a week: Why do managers do it? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 67–78. Brosschot, J. F., Gerin, W., & Thayer, J. F. (2006). The perseverative cognition hypothesis: A review of worry, prolonged stress-related physiological activation, and health. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 60(2), 113–124. Burke, R. J. (1999). It’s not how hard you work but how you work hard: Evaluating workaholism components. International Journal of Stress Management, 6(4), 225–239. Burke, R. J., & Matthiesen, S. (2004). Workaholism among Norwegian journalists: Antecedents and consequences. Stress and Health, 20(5), 301–308. Burke, R. J., Richardsen, A. M., & Mortinussen, M. (2004). Workaholism among Norwegian managers: work and well-being outcomes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(5), 459–470. Chen, Y., Lehto, X. Y., & Cai, L. (2013). Vacation and well-being: a study of Chinese tourists. Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 284–310. Dart, J. (2006). Home-based work and leisure spaces: Settee or work-station? Leisure Studies, 25(3), 313–328. De Bloom, J., Geurts, S., & Kompier, M. (2010). Vacation from work as prototypical recovery opportunity.

Management Studies, 2(1), 89–95.

De Bloom, J., Geurts, S. A. E., Taris, T. W., Sonnentag, S., De Weerth, C., & Kompier, M. A. J. (2010). Effects of vacation from work on health and well-being: Lots of fun, quickly gone. Work & Stress, 24, 196–216. De Bloom, J., Kompier, M., Geurts, S., De Weerth, C., Taris, T., & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Do we recover from vacation? Meta-analysis of vacation effects on health and wellbeing. Journal of Occupational Health, 51, 13–25. DeFrank, R. S., Konopaske, R., & Ivancevich, J. M. (2000).

trial and Organizational Psychology, 18, 167–190. Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological as-

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living

pects of workload. In P. J. D. Drenth, H. Thierry, &

and Working Conditions. (2008). Working time de-

C. J. de Wolff (Eds.), Handbook of work and organi-

velopments 2008. Retrieved on June 21, 2011, from

zational psychology (2nd edition). Work psychology

http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/studies/ tn0903039s/tn0903039s.htm#hd5

(Vol. 2, pp. 5–33). Hove: Psychology Press. Mojza, E. J., Sonnentag, S., & Bornemann, C. (2011).

Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2006). Recovery, well-being,

Volunteer work as a valuable leisure-time activity: A

and performance-related outcomes: The role of

day-level study on volunteer work, non-work experi-

workload and vacation experiences. Journal of Applied

ences, and well-being at work. Journal of Occupational

Psychology, 91, 936–945.

and Organizational Psychology, 84(1), 123–152.

Geurts, S. A. E., & Sonnentag, S. (2006). Recovery as an explanatory mechanism in the relation between acute stress reactions and chronic health impairment. Scandinavian

Nawijn, J., De Bloom, J., & Geurts, S. (2013). Pre-vacation time: Blessing or burden? Leisure Sciences, 35, 33–44. Nawijn,

J.,

Marchand,

M.,

Veenhoven,

R.,

&

Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 32, 482–492.

Vingerhoets, A. (2010). Vacationers happier, but

Gilbert, D., & Abdullah, J. (2002). A study of the impact

most not happier after a holiday. Applied Research in

of the expectation of a holiday on an individual’s sense of well-being. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 8, 352–361.

Quality of Life, 5, 35–47. Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2007). Dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of work-

Griffiths, M. D. (2011). Workaholism: A 21st century addiction. The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 24, 740–744.

aholism: A conceptual integration and extension. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(1), 111–136. Oates, W. E. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic: The facts

Griffiths, M. D., & Karanika-Murray, M. (2012). Contextualising over-engagement in work: Towards a more global understanding of workaholism as an ad-

about work addiction. New York: World Publishing Company. Porter, G. (1996). Organizational impact of workahol-

diction. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 1(3), 87–95.

ism: Suggestions for researching the negative out-

Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach, H.

comes of excessive work. Journal of Occupational

(2004). Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 57(1), 35–44.

Health Psychology, 1(1), 70. Radstaak, M., Geurts, S. A., Brosschot, J. F., Cillessen, A. H., & Kompier, M. A. (2011). The role of affect and

Koch, A. R., & Binnewies, C. (2013). Setting a good

rumination in cardiovascular recovery from stress.

example: Supervisors as work-life friendly role-models

International Journal of Psychophysiology, 81(3),

within the context of boundary management. Manu-

237–244.

script submitted for publication.

Robinson, B. E., & Kelley, L. (1998). Adult children of

Kubota, K., Shimazu, A., Kawakami, N., & Takahashi,

workaholics: Self-concept, anxiety, depression, and

M. (2012). Workaholism and sleep quality among

locus of control. The American Journal of Family

Japanese employees: A prospective cohort study. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 1–11.

Therapy, 26(3), 223–238. Robinson, B. E., Carroll, J. J., & Flowers, C. (2001).

Kühnel, J., & Sonnentag, S. (2011). How long do you

Marital estrangement, positive affect, and locus of

benefit from vacation? A closer look at the fade-out

control among spouses of workaholics and spouses

of vacation effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

of nonworkaholics: A national study. The American

32(1), 125–143.

Journal of Family Therapy, 29(5), 397–410. doi:

Liang, Y.-W., & Chu, C.-M. (2009). Personality traits

Gedrag & Organisatie, 23, 333–349.

and future directions. International Review of Indus-

and personal and organizational inducements: Antecedents of workaholism. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 37(5), 645–660.

10.1080/01926180127624 Russell, J. A. (1980) A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178. Schaufeli, W., & Taris, T. W. (2004). Dutch Work

McCallie, M. S., Blum, C. M., & Hood, C. J. (2006).

Addiction Scale (DUWAS). Wilmarschaufeli.nl. Re-

Progressive muscle relaxation. Journal of Human Be-

trieved from http://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/publica-

havior in the Social Environment, 13(3), 51–66.

tions/Schaufeli/Test%20Manuals/Scoring_DUWAS.pdf

McEwen, B.S. (1998). Stress, adaptation, and disease: Allostasis and allostatic load. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 840, 33–44.

(11 july 2014, date last accessed) Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Bakker, A. B. (2008). It takes two to tango. Workaholism is working exces-

McMillan, L. H. W., & O’Driscoll, M. P. (2006). Explor-

sively and working compulsively. In R. J. Burke, &

ing new frontiers to generate an integrated definition

C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The long work hours culture.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Geurts, S. A. E., & Taris,

of workaholism. In R. J. Burke (Ed.), Research compan-

Causes, consequences and choices (pp. 203–226).

T. W. (2009). Daily recovery from work-related effort

ion to working time and work addiction (pp. 89–107).

during non-work time. Research in Occupational

Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Executive travel stress: Perils of the road warrior. The Academy of Management Executive, 14, 58–71.

Stress and Well-being, 7, 85–123.

Bingly, UK: Emerald. Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008).

McMillan, L. H. W., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Brady, E. C.

Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three

Douglas, E. J., & Morris, R. J. (2006). Workaholic, or

(2004). The impact of workaholism on personal rela-

of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-

just hard worker? Career Development International,

tionships. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling,

11(5), 394–417.

32(2), 171–186.

Erkmen, T., Cerik, S., Bozkurt, S., & Ozaslan, E. (2010). The

242

development

of

Spence

and

Robbins

being? Applied Psychology, 57(2), 173–203. Schaufeli, W. B., Shimazu, A., & Taris, T. W. (2009).

McMillan, L. H. W., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Burke, R. J.

Being driven to work excessively hard: The evaluation

(2003). Workaholism: A review of theory, research,

of a two-factor measure of workaholism in the

Stress and Health 30: 232–243 (2014) © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. de Bloom, M. Radstaak and S. Geurts

Workaholics Go Cold Turkey

Netherlands and Japan. Cross-Cultural Research, 43(4),

A

320–348.

Environmental Medicine, 57, 298–315.

systematic

literature

overview.

Occupational

Van Hooff, M. L. M., Geurts, S. A. E., Kompier, M. A. J., & Taris, T. W. (2007). Workdays, in-between work-

Schou Andreassen, C., Ursin, H., & Eriksen, H. R. (2007).

Snir, R., & Zohar, D. (2008). Workaholism as discre-

days and the weekend: A diary study on effort and

The relationship between strong motivation to work,

tionary time investment at work: An experience-

recovery. International Archives of Occupational and

“workaholism”, and health. Psychology & Health, 22(5),

sampling study. Applied Psychology, 57(1), 109–127.

615–629 Scottl, K. S., Moore, K. S., & Miceli, M. P. (1997). An exploration of the meaning and consequences of workaholism. Human Relations, 50(3), 287–314.

Environmental Health, 80, 599–613.

Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism:

Van Wijhe, C., Peeters, M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2014).

Definition, measurement, and preliminary results.

Enough is enough. Cognitive antecedents of workahol-

Journal of Personality Assessment, 58(1), 160–178.

ism and its aftermath. Human Resource Manage-

Tabassum, A., & Tasnuva, R. (2013). Gaining the insight

ment, 53(1), 157–177.

Shimazu, A., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Is workaholism

of workaholism, its nature and its outcome: a litera-

Van Wijhe, C., Peeters, M., Schaufeli, W. B., &

good or bad for employee well-being? The distinctive-

ture review. International Journal of Research Studies

Ouweneel, E. (2012). Rise and shine: Recovery expe-

ness of workaholism and work engagement among

in Psychology, 2, 81–92.

riences of workaholic and nonworkaholic employees.

Japanese employees. Industrial Health, 47(5), 495–502.

Taris, T. W., Geurts, S. A. E., Schaufeli, W. B., Blonk, R. W. B.,

Shimazu, A., Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2010).

& Lagerveld, S. E. (2008). All day and all of the

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 1–14.

How does workaholism affect worker health and per-

night: The relative contribution of two dimensions

Westman, M. (2005). Strategies for coping with busi-

formance? The mediating role of coping. Interna-

of workaholism to well-being in self-employed workers.

ness trips: A qualitative exploratory study. Interna-

tional Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 17, 154–160.

Work & Stress, 22(2), 153–165.

tional Journal of Stress Management, 11, 167–176.

Shimazu, A., Sonnentag, S., Kubota, K., & Kawakami,

Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Verhoeven, L. C.

Westman, M., & Eden, D. (1997). Effects of a respite

N. (2012). Validation of the Japanese version of the

(2005). Workaholism in the Netherlands: Measure-

from work on burnout: Vacation relief and fade-

Recovery Experience Questionnaire. Journal of

ment and implications for job strain and work–

Occupational Health, 54(3), 196–205.

nonwork conflict. Applied Psychology, 54(1), 37–60.

out. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 516–527. Wojdylo, K., Baumann, N., Buczny, J., Owens, G., &

Sluiter, J. K., Frings-Dresen, M. H. W., & Meijman, T. F.

Ursin, H., & Eriksen, H. R. (2004). The cognitive activa-

Kuhl, J. (2013). Work craving: A conceptualization

(2000). Reactivity and recovery from different types

tion theory of stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 29(5),

and measurement. Basic and Applied Social Psychol-

of work measured by catecholamines and cortisol.

567–592

ogy, 35(6), 547–568.

Stress and Health 30: 232–243 (2014) © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

243