Content Server

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Effects of Short Vacations, Vacation Activities andExperiences on Employee Health and Well-BeingJessica de Bloom*, Sabine A. E. Geurts & Michiel A. J. Kompier

Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Abstract

It was investigated (1) whether employee health and well-being (H&W) improve during short vacations (45 days),(2) how long this improvement lasts after returning home and resuming work and (3) to what extent vacation ac-tivities and experiences explain health improvements during and after short vacations.Eighty workers reported their H&W 2weeks before vacation (Pre), during vacation (Inter), on the day of return

(Post 1) and on the third and 10th day after returning home (Post 2 and Post 3, respectively).The results showed improvements in H&W during short vacations (d= 0.62), although this effect faded out

rather quickly. Partial correlations and regression analyses showed that employees reported higher H&W during va-cation, the more relaxed and psychologically detached they felt, the more time they spent on conversations with thepartner, the more pleasure they derived from their vacation activities and the lower the number of negative inci-dents during vacation. Experiences of relaxation and detachment from work positively influenced H&W even afterreturning home. Working during vacation negatively influenced H&W after vacation.In conclusion, short vacations are an effective, although not very long lasting, cure to improve employees

H&W. Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 14 February 2011; Revised 21 June 2011; Accepted 26 October 2011

Keywords

holiday; weekend; health; well-being; recovery

*Correspondence

Jessica de Bloom, MSc, Radboud University Nijmegen, Behavioural Science Institute, Department of Work and Organizational Psychology,

P.O. Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Email: [email protected]

Published online 28 December 2011 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/smi.1434

IntroductionExposure to job stressors has negative effects on healthand well-being (e.g. Akerstedt, 2006; Vrijkotte, VanDoornen & De Geus, 2000). Consequently, recoveryfrom work stress is essential to preserve employee well-being. Recovery, defined as a period of absence fromwork and [. . .] a situation in which no special demandsare made on the individual (Geurts & Sonnentag, 2006),enables the psychophysiological systems that were acti-vated while expending effort at work to return to andstabilize at baseline levels. In other words, recoveryimplies a reduction in stress.

According to the EffortRecovery Theory (Meijman &Mulder, 1998) and the Allostatic Load Theory (McEwen,1998), initial normal load reactions associated with effortexpenditure during work (e.g. fatigue) can develop intomore chronic load reactions if recovery is incompleteduring off-job time. Recovery occurs regularly in-between work periods, for example during evening hoursand during weekends. However, diary studies demon-strated that employees often recover insufficiently during

these short periods of respite (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005;Van Hooff, Geurts, Kompier, & Taris, 2007). Vacation,as a relatively long and less interrupted period of off-job time, could, therefore, be a more effective opportu-nity to recover from work.

Indeed, a meta-analysis on vacation effects (DeBloom, Kompier, Geurts, DeWeerth, Taris & Sonnentag,2009) showed that vacation has a small positive ef-fect on health and well-being (H&W) when baselinelevels before and the first measurement occasion aftervacation are compared. These positive effects fadeout fast. However, most earlier studies lacked during-vacation measurements of H&W, and some reviewedstudies did not report the duration of the vacation pe-riod (Etzion, 2003; Fritz & Sonnentag, 2006; Gilbert &Abdullah, 2004). In other studies, the length of the va-cation period was rather long, varying between 9 and14 days (Lounsbury & Hoopes, 1986; Strauss-Blasche,Ekmekcioglu & Marktl, 2000; Westman & Eden,1997; Westman & Etzion, 2001). Accordingly, theeffects found up till now were mainly applicable to

305Stress and Health 28: 305318 (2012) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

relatively long vacations and confounded with workresumption (De Bloom et al., 2009). One of the firstvacation studies with on-vacation measures (DeBloom, Geurts, Sonnentag, Taris, De Weerth &Kompier, in press) concerned a rather specific typeof vacation (winter sports vacations) and was againrelatively long (9 days). Consequently, the relationbetween vacation duration and the strength andendurance of vacation effects is still unclear. Furtherdisentangling this relationship could bring aboutpractical guidance in vacation planning in order toconserve H&W in the long term.

In the present study, we, therefore, tried to replicatethe findings from De Bloom et al. (in press) in a differ-ent type and duration of vacation. Whereas De Bloomet al. (in press) investigated the effect of moderatelylong (9 days), active winter sports vacations abroad,we focused on short vacations of 4 or 5 days in thehome country. Yet, we applied a comparable researchdesign. Like De Bloom et al. (in press), we scheduledseveral measurement occasions before and after vaca-tion in order to assess similar outcome variables bysingle-item questionnaires (i.e. De Bloom et al.measured health status, mood, fatigue, tension, energylevel and satisfaction). Moreover, we also measuredH&W, vacation activities and experiences duringvacation itself that is regrettably still very uncommonin vacation studies.

We investigated whether employee H&W improvedduring short vacations (research question 1) and howlong this effect lasted after returning home and resum-ing work (research question 2). In line with previousfindings, we hypothesized:

H1: H&W will increase during vacation.H2: H&W will rapidly decrease after work resumption.

Whereas De Bloom et al. (in press) only focused onthe influence of vacation activities and experiences onchanges in H&W during vacation, we will also shedlight on the influence after vacation.

The role of vacation activities andexperiences

Until now, the influence of vacation activities andexperiences on the vacation (after-) effects is a rela-tively neglected research topic as well (De Bloomet al., 2010). The findings from the very few studiesthat, as yet, investigated the role of vacation activitiesand experiences were somewhat contradictory. Forexample, Westman and Eden (1997) found that vacationsatisfaction was negatively related to levels of exhaustionafter vacation, whereas Etzion (2003) found no such rela-tionship. Moreover, the data on vacation activities andexperiences were, in most cases, collected retrospectivelyafter resuming work and as a consequence, potentiallybiased and imprecise.

To our knowledge, there were only three studies thatever collected data on several activities and a fewexperiences during vacation itself and that linked thisinformation to the vacation (after-) effects (De Bloomet al., in press; Fritz & Sonnentag, 2006; Nawijn,2011). Therefore, more research into the role of vaca-tion activities and a greater diversity of experiences indifferent types and durations of vacations is highlyneeded. Furthermore, the few studies that examinedvacation activities and experiences during vacation it-self tended to focus on rather short-lived associationswith H&W during vacation (for a notable exceptionsee Fritz & Sonnentag, 2006). Therefore, we investi-gated to what extent vacation activities and experiencesexplained changes in H&W during as well as after vaca-tion (research question 3).

Vacation activities

To our knowledge, only five studies worldwide ever col-lected data on vacation activities (De Bloom et al., inpress; Lounsbury and Hoopes, 1986; Nawijn, 2010,Strauss-Blasche et al., 2000). Nawijn (2010) reportedthat vacation effects were similar for three differenttypes of vacation activities (i.e. sightseeing, shoppingand relaxing), and in his recent study (Nawijn, 2011),he also found no relationship between the type of activityand affect during vacation. However, these studies werecross-sectional and compared different types of vacationsand differences in activities between persons. Lounsburyand Hoopes (1986) and Strauss-Blasche et al. (2000) onlydescribed the percentages of vacationers who engaged incertain activities during vacation but did not link thisinformation to the vacation effects.

In De Bloom et al. (in press), a high number of pas-sive activities (for example reading a book or watchingtelevision) was negatively related to well-being changesduring winter sports vacations. Yet, in this study, theamount of time spent on passive activities also corre-lated highly with the occurrence of negative incidents,indicating that vacationers were probably forced tospend time on passive activities because of accidentsor illnesses. In the same study, engaging in physicalactivities was, although weakly, associated with positivechanges in H&W, whereas social activities were unre-lated to the vacation effect. Because our knowledge ofvacation activities is restricted to these few findings,we now examined the effect of time spent on differentactivities (physical, social, passive) on H&W during acompletely different type of vacation. Based on earlierfindings on the influence of vacation activities in wintersports vacations, we expected the following:

H3: Increases in H&W across a vacation period will besmaller for employees who spend more time onpassive activities during vacation.

H4: Increases in H&W across a vacation period will belarger for employees who spend more time onphysical activities during vacation.

Effects of Vacations, Activities and Experiences J. de Bloom, S. A. E. Geurts and M. A. J. Kompier

306 Stress and Health 28: 305318 (2012) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

H5: Increases in H&W across a vacation period will beunrelated to the time spent on social activitiesduring vacation.

Up till now, also insufficient attention has been paid tothe impact of work-related activities during vacation.According to the EffortRecovery Theory (Meijman &Mulder, 1998) and the Allostatic Load Theory (McEwen,1998), recovery from work can only occur in a situationin which nowork demands are put on the employees psy-chophysiological systems. A study by Tucker, Dahlgren,Akerstedt and Waterhouse (2008) demonstrated thatadditional work in the evening hours has negative effectson feeling rested and on levels of satisfaction. Conse-quently, working during vacation is expected to hamperthe recovery process and to reduce well-being. Earlierresearch conducted during winter sports revealed thatpeople hardly spent time on work during this type ofvacation (De Bloom et al., in press). Therefore, we againexamined the role of work-related activities during vaca-tion in the current study and hypothesized:

H6: Increases in H&W across a vacation period will besmaller for employees who spend more time onwork-related activities during vacation.

Vacation experiences

It is possible that it is not so much the specific activ-ity itself that helps people to recover from work stressbut the underlying psychological experience associ-ated with the activity. Sonnentag and Fritz (2007)distinguished four different recovery experiences:psychological detachment from work, relaxation,mastery and control. Detachment refers to being freefrom work-related duties and to disengaging mentallyfrom work (Etzion, Eden & Lapidot, 1998). Relaxa-tion implies low levels of activation, little physicalor intellectual effort, few demands and high levelsof positive affect. Mastery experiences refer to chal-lenging experiences that build up resources like skills,competency and proficiency in other domains thanthe job. Control characterizes the degree to which aperson can decide which activity to pursue, when,how and with whom. This final recovery experience(being in control) relates to Ryan and Decis Self-Determination Theory (2000). According to this the-ory, being in control and autonomous constitutes afundamental human need, and its fulfilment shouldlead to increased well-being. Particularly duringvacation, people should be able to fulfil this funda-mental need. We hypothesized:

H7: Increases in H&W across a vacation period will belarger for employees who psychologically detachfrom their work during vacation.

H8: Increases in H&W across a vacation periodwill be larger for employees who relax duringvacation.

H9: Increases in H&W across a vacation period will belarger for employees who report high levels ofmastery during vacation.

H10: Increases in H&W across a vacation period willbe larger for employees who report high levelsof control during vacation.

A second fundamental human need also derivingfrom Ryan and Decis (2000) Self-DeterminationTheory is relatedness: feeling closely connected toothers. A vacation may be an outstanding opportunityto spend time with close others and to connect to themby means of high quality conversations. In a recentstudy, Ryan, Bernstein and Brown (2010) found thatincreases in relatedness during weekends were associ-ated with higher levels of positive affect during off-jobtime. Nawijn (2011) also found that negative attitudestowards the travel party were associated with lower levelsof positive affect during vacation. Therefore, we testedthe following four hypotheses:

H11: The time for conversations with the partnerincreases during vacation.

H12: Increases in H&W across a vacation period will belarger for employees who spend more time onconversations with the partner during vacation.

H13: The quality of conversations with the partnerincreases during vacation.

H14: Increases in H&W across a vacation period will belarger for employees who report higher qualityconversations with the partner during vacation.

We also incorporated negative incidents during va-cation to investigate their effect on H&W during andafter vacation. Earlier research on non-work hasslesshowed that a high amount of hassles harms individualhealth (Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler & Schilling, 1989).During vacation, a period during which expectationsfor pleasure and fun are especially high, the occurrenceof negative incidents has indeed been associated withdeteriorated employee well-being (e.g. De Bloom et al.,in press or holiday stress such as travel stress in Nawijn,2011). We expected the following:

H15: Increases in H&W across a vacation period will besmaller for employees who experience negativeincidents during vacation.

In a recent study (De Bloom et al., in press), pleasurederived from vacation activities was associated withimprovements in employee well-being during vacation.However, it still remains unclear if pleasure duringvacation also has longer lasting effects on employeewell-being after returning home and resuming work.We hypothesized:

H16: Increases in H&W across a vacation period willbe larger for employees who report higher levelsof pleasure derived from their vacation activities.

J. de Bloom, S. A. E. Geurts and M. A. J. Kompier Effects of Vacations, Activities and Experiences


Put together, in this study, we tried to replicate recentfindings regarding vacation (after-) effects (researchquestion 1 and 2) and the role of vacation activitiesand experiences (research question 3). Our study contri-butes to health psychology, stress research in general andvacation research in particular because it (1) investigatesthe effects on H&W in a very popular, common andeven though neglected type of vacations (short trips toa holiday park in the home country), (2) enquires intothe role of vacation duration in focusing on short vaca-tions instead of relatively long vacations as in earlierstudies, (3) examines vacation experiences that are dif-ferent from those studied in previous research (namelyrecovery experiences, time and quality of conversationsand negative incidents) and (4) investigates not onlyshort-term effects of vacation activities and experienceson H&W changes during vacation but also longer termeffects after returning home. To achieve these aims andto arrive at valid conclusions, we applied a unique, elab-orate research design with several measurements before,during and after vacation.

Method

Procedure

We set up a 5-week longitudinal field study and mea-sured H&W repeatedly among vacationers who spenta long weekend (4 days, FridayMonday) or a midweek(5 days, MondayFriday) on a Dutch holiday park.Levels of H&W were measured once 2weeks beforevacation (Pre), twice during vacation (Inter 1 andInter 2, combined into Inter), once on the day of return(Post 1), on the third (Post 2) and on the 10th day(Post 3) after returning home (Figure 1).

Data collection took place between 29 Septemberand 9 November in 2009.

Before the cycle of data collection, every participantreceived an overview of his/her personal measurementoccasions. To stimulate adherence to the researchprotocol and to reduce missing data, we announced alottery price among all participants (a long weekend

vacation in a Dutch holiday park) with the chances ofwinning being higher, the more questionnaires werecompleted.

Four to twoweeks before vacation, employees re-ceived a link to a digital general questionnaire in orderto assess demographic information and basic job infor-mation. Participants then received an email with a linkto a digital diary on every measurement occasion be-fore and after vacation, also accompanied by a shortmessage service (SMS) reminder on their personal cellphone. The digital diaries had to be completed justbefore going to sleep.

During vacation, two paperpencil questionnaireswere used for the on-vacation measures. One day be-fore vacation, we used an SMS to remind the partici-pants to bring the questionnaires with them to theirvacation destination. During vacation, we again sentan SMS to remind the participants to complete thequestionnaires on the day after arrival (second vacationday) and on the next to last day.

After collecting the data, we thanked the respon-dents for their participation, provided them with infor-mation about when the results would be published andannounced the winner of the lottery price.

Participants

To recruit participants for the study, we were renderedassistance by a Dutch tourism company, which rentsbungalows on holiday parks in the Netherlands. Thisorganization provided us with 1668 email addresses ofvacationers who went on a vacation within the researchperiod. After sending a request to take part in the studyand distributing information about the project by emailto these vacationers, 93 employees finally took part inthe study (6% response rate).

Because we were also interested in the influence of avacation on the quantity and quality of conversationswith the partner, we excluded persons who did not goon vacation with their partner (13 exclusions). Notethat every person included in our study went on

After returning homeDuring vacation (4-5 days)Before vacation

2 weeksbefore

2nd day next to last day

day of return

3rd day 10th day

Post 1 Post 2 Post 3

Inter

Inter 2Inter 1

Weekend(Fr-Mo)

Midweek(Mo-Fr)

Tuesday

Tuesday

Saturday Sunday

Tuesday Thursday

Monday

Friday

Thursday Thursday

Monday Monday

Pre Post 1 Post 2 Post 3

Inter

Inter 2Inter 1Pre

Figure 1. Research design for the current study



vacation with a partner who did not participate in ourstudy. Therefore, the data were independent.

Completion rates were high: 100% on Pre (N= 80),96% on Inter (N= 77), 94% on Post 1 (N= 75) and99% on Post 2 and Post 3 (N= 79). For 67 of the 80participants, data sets were complete (no missing dataon any occasion).

The majority of the sample went on vacation for along weekend (56%), whereas 44% went on vacationfor a midweek. The mean age was 42.5 years (standarddeviation (SD) = 10.0 years), and about half of theparticipants were male (57%). The largest part of thesample (56%) was medium educated (senior generalsecondary and university preparation education),whereas 27% held a college or university degree, and17% were lower educated (no, lower secondary orjunior secondary education).

In terms of personal living situation, the majority ofthe respondents (72%) was married and lived togetherwith at least one child, and 23% was married but livedwithout children. The largest part of the respondents(79%) went on vacation with children. The mean ageof the youngest child on vacation was 6.5 years.

About one third (31%) worked in the service sec-tor, 28% were white collar workers and 14% workedin health care. Another 12% were blue collar workers,and 15% worked in other sectors. A minority of thesample (30%) supervised at least three other persons,and 11% were self-employed. The respondentsworked regular working days (no shift workers) and36 h per week on average (SD= 8.0 h, range from 24to 65 h).

Measures

Health and well-being

We incorporated eight main indicators of H&W topresent a comprehensive account of H&W: healthstatus, mood, mental fatigue, physical fatigue, tension,energy level, satisfaction and happiness. Single-itemmeasures were used to assess these concepts. In thisway, we minimized the effort required from the partici-pants and maximized user-friendliness, which shouldincrease response rates. Previous studies revealed thatparticipants generally value the directness of single-item measures and the lack of repeated comparableitems (De Bloom et al., 2010; Elo, Leppnen & Jahkola,2003). If the underlying constructs are sufficiently one-dimensional and unambiguous, multiple item measuresmay be replaced by single-item measures (e.g. VanHooff et al., 2007). We adapted response-scales on thebasis of the basic Dutch grade notation system rangingfrom 1 (extremely low/negative) to 10 (extremely high/positive) and anchored the first and the last grade.

Health status was measured by the item Howhealthy did you feel today? (1, very unhealthy; 10,very healthy). We measured mood with the itemHow was your mood today? (1, very bad; 10, very

good). Mental fatigue was assessed with the questionHow mentally fatigued did you feel today? (1, notfatigued at all; 10, very fatigued). We measured phys-ical fatigue with the item How physically fatigued didyou feel today? (1, not fatigued at all; 10, very fa-tigued). Tension was assessed with the item How tensedid you feel today? (1, very calm; 10, very tense).Moreover, the respondents rated the extent to whichthey felt energetic : How energetic do you currentlyfeel? (1, absolutely not energetic; 10, absolutely ener-getic). In addition, respondents were asked to indi-cate their level of satisfaction by means of a reportmark ranging from 1 (absolutely not satisfied) to 10(absolutely satisfied) on the measure How satisfieddo you feel about this day?. Finally, happiness was mea-sured by the question How happy did you feel today?(1, absolutely not happy; 10, absolutely happy).

Regarding the construct validity of H&W, Warr(1994) distinguished different forms of well-being:pleased versus displeased (represented as satisfactionand happiness in our study), depressed versus enthusi-astic (represented as mood in our study) and anxiousversus comfortable (represented as tension in ourstudy). He further states that arousal should beassessed, which we measured in the form of energylevel and fatigue. Moreover, we included a measure ofphysical well-being, namely health status.

To test whether the assumed underlying constructexisted, we included the eight H&W indicators in anexploratory factor analysis. This factor analysis resultedin a one-factor solution with an Eigenvalue greater than1 and satisfying factor loadings ranging from 0.55 to0.88. Cronbachs a of H&W was high on every singlemeasurement occasion: 0.86 (Pre), 0.90 (Inter 1), 0.90(Inter 2), 0.92 (Post 1), 0.90 (Post 2) and 0.88 (Post 3).Accordingly, we combined the eight H&W indicatorsinto one overall H&W measure.

Vacation activities

For each of the four vacation activities (work-related, physical, social, passive), participants indicatedthe amount of time they had devoted to it during the2 days they filled in the questionnaires. We also gaveat least two examples for each activity to help vaca-tioners categorize their activities: checking work mailor a phone call with the office (work-related), swim-ming or going for a walk (physical), having a drink/party or playing games (social) and reading a novel orwatching television (passive). We averaged the amountof time spent on the activities on both days to get an in-dication of the daily time spent on each activity duringthe whole vacation.

Pleasure derived from activities

We also measured levels of pleasure by asking parti-cipants to rate the pleasure they experienced while exe-cuting different activities. An example item is Pleaseindicate how pleasant you experienced the physical



activities you carried out today (1, very unpleasant;10, very pleasant). In order to get an overall score ofthe pleasure derived from vacation activities for eachparticipant, we averaged the pleasure scores across theactivities that the vacationer engaged in.

Negative incidents

Negative incidents were measured with the questionDid you experience something very unpleasant today?.Participants responded dichotomously (yes or no). Wedivided the vacationers into two groups: one group thatexperienced at least one negative incident during vaca-tion and one group that experienced no negative inci-dent during vacation. By means of an open question,we also investigated the nature of the negative incident(Would you give a short indication of the nature of thenegative incident you experienced?).

Recovery experiences

We used the 16 items of the well-validated RecoveryExperience Questionnaire from Sonnentag and Fritz(2007) to measure detachment, relaxation, masteryand control with four items each. We adapted this scaleto a vacation context by starting each item with Duringthis vacation. . . instead of During time after work. . .as written in the original questionnaire. An exploratoryfactor analysis with varimax rotation resulted in the as-sumed four-factor solution with Eigenvalues greaterthan 1 and factor loadings0.47. We averaged thescores of the four subscales for the two during-vacationmeasurements to get a day indicator. Vacationers couldrespond to the items on a five-point Likert scale withanswers ranging from 1, strongly disagree to 5,strongly agree. An example item for Psychological de-tachment from work was: During this vacation, I forgetabout work. Cronbachs a for this subscale was 0.88 onthe first and 0.93 on the second measurement occasionduring vacation. Relaxation experiences were assessed byitems, for example During this vacation, I kick backand relax (as for Inter 1 and Inter 2 were, respectively,0.81 and 0.91). An example item for Mastery was Dur-ing this vacation, I seek out intellectual challenges (asfor Inter 1 and Inter 2 were, respectively, 0.71 and 0.90).A sample item of Control was During this vacation, Idecide my own schedule (a was 0.90 on both measure-ment occasions during vacation).

Time spent on conversations with partner

We asked the participants to indicate how muchtime they had spent talking with their partner on theday they completed the questionnaire (How muchtime did you talk with your partner today?). Theanswers could range from 1 to 5 (1, less than 15min;2, 1530 min; 3, 3060min; 4, 6090min; and 5,more than 90min).

Quality of conversations with partner

The respondents were also asked to rate the qualityof the conversations with their partner by a questionmark ranging from 1, very bad to 10, excellent(How would you rate the quality of the conversationswith your partner today?). Again, we computed the av-erage score across both measurement occasions.

Statistical analysis

In order to obtain a more reliable indicator of H&Wduring vacation, to reduce missing data and to simplifythe results, we combined the two occasions during va-cation (Inter 1 and Inter 2) into one (Inter). A t-testshowed that the mean levels of H&W were indeedcomparable during the two measurement occasionsduring vacation (7.8 and 7.7, t (75) = 0.06, p> 0.05,r (76) = 0.72, p< 0.05).

In order to test hypotheses 1 and 2, we analysed thedata in a multivariate analysis of variance with repeatedmeasures on the five occasions (one before, one duringand three after vacation) with duration of vacation(long weekend or midweek) as between-subjects factor.To detect variations in H&W across the vacation pe-riod, Post-hoc Fishers Least Significant Difference(LSD) tests were applied. The vacation effect (H1)was tested by examining the difference between H&Wlevels reported before vacation and during vacation(Pre versus Inter). Vacation after-effects (H2) weretested by conducting LSDs for the comparison ofH&W on Pre versus Post 1, versus Post 2 and versusPost 3.

We present Cohens d for paired observations(Cohen, 1988, p. 46) for all significant differences be-tween measurement occasions. Following Cohen(1988), we distinguished small (00.5), medium (0.50.8) and large (>0.8) effects.

Research question 3 and the associated hypotheses(H3H16) were investigated using partial correlationand regression analyses. First of all, we investigatedthe associations of each vacation activity and experi-ence with H&W during and after vacation, controllingfor H&W levels reported before vacation (as well asfor sex and age). The strength of the partial correla-tion coefficients gives us an idea about the impact ofa single vacation activity or experience on the vacation(after-) effects.

However, as all vacation activities and experiencesact upon H&W simultaneously, it would be some-what arbitrary to only study the pure effect of asingle vacation activity or experience, independentfrom all other activities and experiences. Therefore,we conducted four multiple regression analyses(H&W Inter, H&W Post 1, H&W Post 2 and H&WPost 3 constituted the dependent variable) in whichpre-vacation levels of H&W and sex and age werecontrolled for. All vacation activities and experienceswere then entered, following a stepwise procedure



with forward inclusion that aims to select thosevariables that explain the highest percentage of var-iance in the dependent variable. These variablescan be considered main factors in statisticallyexplaining the vacation (after-) effect.

Results

Vacation (after-) effects (researchquestions 1 and 2, hypotheses 1 and 2):

Multivariate analysis of variance revealed a main effectacross time (F (4, 65) = 11.42, p< 0.05), meaning thatH&W levels significantly varied across the five measure-ment occasions. There was no significant interactioneffect between duration of vacation (long weekend ormidweek) and time (F (4, 65) = 0.11, p> 0.05), meaningthat H&W changes across time did not depend on theduration of vacation.

Post-hoc LSD tests further showed that H&W levelson Inter and on Post 1 differed significantly from pre-vacation levels (p< 0.05). The average change in H&Wfrom Pre (M=6.9) to Inter (M=7.7) represented amedium-sized positive effect (d=0.62). On the day ofreturn (Post 1), H&W levels also surpassed pre-vacationlevels significantly (M=7.2). This difference from Pre toPost 1 represented a small effect (d=0.22). Post-hoc LSDtests further showed no significant differences betweenpre-vacation and H&W levels on Post 2 and Post 3 (onthe third and the 10th day after vacation). Accordingly,the answer to research question 1 was yes, H&W ofworking individuals increased substantially during shortvacations (H1 supported). Regarding research question2, the effects of short vacations decreased rapidly uponreturning home (H2 supported). On the day of return,there was a small positive effect left, and this effect hadfaded out completely within 3 days after vacation andwork resumption.

Vacation activities and experiences(research question 3, hypotheses 316):

We will first report the descriptives of the vacationactivities and experiences (Table I). Then, we willdescribe the results of the partial correlation analyses(Table II) and finally the results of the stepwise regres-sion analyses (Table III).

Vacation activities

Passive activities

On average, vacationers spent 2.2 h per day(SD= 1.0 h) on passive activities, and almost everyemployee (97%) devoted at least some time to thistype of activities (Table I). The time devoted to pas-sive activities during vacation was unrelated to thevacation (after-) effect (Table II). Hypothesis 3 wasnot supported.

Physical activities

Every vacationer performed physical activities dur-ing holidays. On average, the vacationers spent 3.0 h(SD= 1.4 h) on physical activities per day (Table I).The time spent on physical activities was unrelated tothe vacation effect and to the vacation after-effect(Table II). Hypothesis 4 was not supported.

Social activities

Table I shows that time spent on social activitiesduring vacation varied widely between 0 and 9 h aday. Nearly all vacationers (97%) performed socialactivities, on average, 3.0 h per day (SD= 1.6 h). Vaca-tioners who spent more time on social activities alsoreported higher levels of pleasure during vacation. Ta-ble II indicates that the number of hours spent on so-cial activities was not associated with H&W duringand after vacation. Hypothesis 5 was supported.

Work-related activities

During vacation, only a minority of 14% of therespondents (N= 11) performed work activities, andthe average number of daily hours spent on work-related activities was, therefore, very low (M= 0.1, SD=0.6). For the 11 respondents who performed work-related activities, the maximum daily time spent on thistype of activities was 4.5 h per day. Work-related activ-ities correlated negatively with detachment, indicatingthat vacationers who spent more time on work wereless able to detach psychologically from their work(Table I). Table II shows that the number of hoursspent on work-related activities was negatively relatedto H&W after vacation. The more time employeesworked during vacation, the less they benefitted fromtheir vacation in terms of increased H&W after vaca-tion. In the stepwise regression analyses (Table III),time spent on work-related activities turned out to bean important determinant of the vacation after-effect.A higher number of hours spent on work-related activ-ities during vacation was significantly associated withlower levels of H&W on the day of return and the thirdday after returning home. Accordingly, hypothesis 6was supported.

Vacation experiences

Psychological detachment from work

Table I shows that the degree of psychologicaldetachment from work during vacation was high. Onaverage, respondents scored 4.0 points on a five-pointscale (SD= 1.0). Partial correlations demonstrated thatdetachment was positively and strongly related tochanges in H&W during and after vacation (Table II):employees who were better able to detach from workduring vacation experienced greater health benefitsfrom a vacation during the vacation period itself andafter returning home. In the stepwise regression analy-ses, detachment did not add variance in explaining the



Table

I.Means,stan

dard

deviations

andzero-order

correlations

betw

eenstud

yvaria

bles

Variables

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

19

M1.4

42.5

6.9

7.7

7.2

7.0

7.0

0.1

3.0

3.0

2.2

7.8

0.1

4.0

4.4

2.5

3.7

4.3

8.1

SD0.5

10.0

1.3

1.2

1.5

1.5

1.4

0.6

1.4

1.6

1.0

1.1

0.3

1.0

0.5

0.8

0.8

0.9

1.2

Min

120.0

3.3

3.5

3.3

3.0

3.1

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.0

3.5

0.0

1.0

3.0

1.0

1.9

2.0

4.5

Max

264.0

9.4

9.9

10.0

9.9

10.0

4.5

7.0

9.0

4.5

10.0

1.0

5.0

5.0

4.6

5.0

5.0

10.0

Possiblerange

12

1865

110

110

110

110

110

024

024

024

024

010

01

15

15

15

15

15

110

N80

8080

7775

7979

7777

7777

7777

7777

7777

7777

1.Sex

2.Age

0.15

3.H&W

Pre

0.08

0.05

4.H&W

Inter

0.15

0.14

0.47*

5.H&W

Post1

0.27*

0.00

0.51*

0.70*

6.H&W

Post2

0.09

0.20

0.51*

0.58*

0.54*

7.H&W

Post3

0.17

0.01

0.49*

0.39*

0.58*

0.54*

8.Nrof

hrs

work-related

activities

0.06

0.04

0.07

0.13

0.33*

0.25*

0.27*

9.Nrof

hrs

physical

activities

0.12

0.01

0.02

0.18

0.14

0.06

0.02

0.01

10.Nrof

hrs

socialactivities

0.06

0.09

0.12

0.10

0.02

0.02

0.11

0.13

0.04

11.Nrof

hrs

passive

activities

0.05

0.02

0.25*

0.23*

0.20*

0.21*

0.02

0.04

0.19

0.08

12.Pleasure

from

activities

0.04

0.08

0.33*

0.48*

0.42*

0.38*

0.22

0.17

0.13

0.32*

0.21

13.Negativeincidents

0.20

0.14

0.04

0.29*

0.18

0.15

0.06

0.21

0.07

0.07

0.07

0.06

14.Detachment

0.04

0.00

0.05

0.34*

0.26*

0.25*

0.45*

0.49*

0.03

0.11

0.02

0.17

0.20

15.Relaxation

0.05

0.14

0.12

0.41*

0.27*

0.30*

0.18

0.05

0.02

0.04

0.19

0.23*

0.04

0.29*

16.Mastery

0.08

0.05

0.10

0.09

0.02

0.13

0.03

0.05

0.07

0.03

0.02

0.18

0.09

0.13

0.05

17.Con

trol

0.08

0.30*

0.06

0.19

0.15

0.08

0.06

0.11

0.07

0.10

0.16

0.07

0.12

0.22

0.47*

0.12

18.Tim

econv

0.01

0.17

0.09

0.33*

0.16

0.13

0.09

0.04

0.21

0.01

0.32*

0.10

0.05

0.05

0.00

0.32*

0.19

19.Qualityconv

0.05

0.09

0.36*

0.58*

0.43*

0.39*

0.35*

0.01

0.03

0.09

0.04

0.46*

0.11

0.25*

0.25*

0.02

0.12

0.29*

Note.SD

:standard

deviation;Min:minim

um;Max:maxim

um;H&W:healthandwell-being;Nrof

hrs:numberof

hou

rsspenton

activity;Con

v:conversationswithpartner.

Negativeincidents:0,

no;

1,yes.Sex:

1,male;2,

female.

*p14 days) and shorter respites (normalweekends, single days off) are needed to find out to whatextent the strength and the duration of the vacation(after-) effects depend on vacation length.

The rapid fade out process of positive vacationeffects corroborates earlier findings as well (e.g. DeBloom et al., 2010; Etzion, 2003; Westman & Eden,1997). We found that only on the day of return(when 92% of the respondents did not yet resumework), there was a small positive effect. On thethird day after returning home, all participants hadresumed work, and positive vacation effects hadfaded out entirely. These findings suggest that workresumption and the associated increased strain be-cause of job stressors may initiate the disappearanceof positive vacation effects.

Despite the fact that positive effects wash out rapidlyafter work resumption, regular vacations seem to be ofvital importance: a longitudinal study by Gump andMatthews (2000) who followed 12,338 men at risk forcoronary heart disease demonstrated that not takingannual vacations is associated with an increased riskof morbidity and even mortality 9 years later. Similarstudies on the long term effects of deficiencies in vaca-tions on H&W in healthy populations of both sexes are,

therefore, needed in order to further determine theimportance of regular respites.

Vacation activities and experiences(research question 3, hypotheses 316)

Our study revealed that passive, physical and socialactivities were unrelated to the improvement of H&Wduring and after vacation. Thus, it may well be thatthe particular type of activity people engage in is lessimportant than the personal preference for an activityand the satisfaction with this activity (see also Tucker,Dahlgren, Akerstedt & Waterhouse, 2008, who foundsimilar results for different activities during eveninghours after work).

Employees who performed working tasks during va-cation benefitted less from their vacation after return-ing home than non-working vacationers. Moreover,work-related activities were related to lower levels ofpsychological detachment from work, which were inturn associated with lower post-vacation H&W. Conse-quently, work-related activities during vacation seem tohamper recovery.

One main issue that emerges from our findings is theimportance of high quality contact with the partnerduring vacation. In general, vacationers talked morewith their partner and reported higher quality conver-sations during vacation than before vacation. Vaca-tioners, who talked extensively and positively withtheir partner, benefitted more from their vacation, feltbetter detached from work, felt more relaxed and expe-rienced more pleasure from their activities. These find-ings are consistent with those of Etzion and Westman(2001) who found that crossover of strain betweenspouses decreased after vacation. A vacation may actas a relationship booster by increasing the number ofinteractions with the partner and by enhancing spousesupport. Longitudinal studies that can also establishcausal relationships are recommended.

Mental detachment from work and relaxation weregenerally high during vacation. The more employeesdetached from their work and relaxed during vacation,the more they benefitted from vacation in terms ofH&W. These findings illustrate the importance of recov-ery experiences (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005). Detachmentwas also negatively related to work-related activitiesduring vacation and positively to the quality of conversa-tions with the partner. Relaxed vacationers experiencedhigher levels of pleasure from vacation experiences andhigher quality conversations.

Our data showed that people who derived pleasurefrom vacation activities experienced larger increases inH&W during and, to a smaller degree, after vacation.We assume that these are reciprocal influences withpleasure influencing H&W and vice versa. As we notedearlier that vacation activities were not so impactful,these results suggest that it is the underlying experienceof the activity in terms of pleasure that is associatedwith H&W rather than the activity itself. Negative



incidents appeared to be harmful during vacation butlost their negative impact after vacation.

Feelings of mastery and control were unrelated tothe vacation (after-) effects. The mean level of masterywas quite low, and it may, therefore, be that a shortvacation in a holiday park offered limited possibilitiesfor mastery experiences. On the contrary, the averagelevel of control was quite high for all participants, andthe standard deviation was small. As a consequence,the absence of an association between control andvacation (after-) effects could be because of a restric-tion of range or the restricted number of respondentsin the current study. Accordingly, the relationshipbetween these variables should further be investigatedin future vacation studies.

Strengths and limitations

The repeated measurements before, during and aftervacation and the user-friendly data collection withuniform measurement occasions across participantscontributed to the methodological quality of ourstudy. Moreover, the assessment of H&W and vaca-tion activities and experiences during vacation itselfis unique in vacation research and resulted in morevalid vacation data.

Nevertheless, several limitations deserve to be con-sidered. Firstly, the restricted response (response ratewas 6%) may possibly have coloured our results andmay, therefore, have limited the external validity of thisstudy. It could, for example, be argued that, especially,people who are interested in vacation (research) andwho believe in the importance of vacations took partin the study. However, the rapid fade out process ofpositive effects that is in line with earlier findings doesnot point into this direction. Furthermore, we com-pared the characteristics of our current sample withthe characteristics of the general Dutch working popu-lation (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2011;Schulte Nordholt, 2005) and found no notable differ-ences in the distribution of sex (56% male in generalversus 57% in our sample), age (mean age: men, 41.8and women, 40.0 years in general versus 44.8 and40.8 years in our sample), level of education (22%lower, 43% medium and 35% higher educated ingeneral versus 17% lower, 56% medium and 27%higher educated in our sample) or weekly work hours(33 h per week in general versus 36 h a week in oursample). Accordingly, we are confident that the find-ings in our small sample apply to broader workingpopulations as well.

Secondly, some of our predictor variables were cor-related, leading to problems of multicollinearity. Thisissue was partly solved by using stepwise regressionsand partial correlations concurrently: a relationshipbetween a certain predictor variable and the outcomevariable that is suppressed by another variable in theregression analysis should become apparent in thecorrelation analysis.

Thirdly, we labelled the measure on the day of returnPost 1. This may be debatable because vacationersreturned home but did (largely) not resume work,making this occasion possibly an on-vacation measure-ment, but this measurement is simultaneously not rep-resentative for a real on-vacation day because it isconfounded by travel stress and household chores (do-ing the laundry, shopping). Hence, future researchshould substantiate whether there may be a qualitativedifference between off-job time spent at home orabroad (either in a different country or not).

Fourthly, given our study design, it is hard to estab-lish the direction of the relationship between activitiesand experiences and H&W. Simple causal inferencesshould be avoided as this relationship may be a two-way street, that is, with reciprocal influences (e.g.higher H&W leading to detachment and better conver-sations or conversations leading to detachment andimproved H&W).

Fifthly, it could be argued that the duration of amidweek vacation from Monday to Friday is actually9 days (including the preceding and the subsequentweekend) instead of 5 days. However, we testedwhether this difference (long weekend versus midweekvacation) affected H&W levels, and we found that thiswas not the case (i.e. there was no interaction effectbetween duration and vacation (after-) effects).

Last but not least, we created two groups of vaca-tioners on the basis of the presence or absence of negativeincidents during vacation. Still, the borders between asomewhat unpleasant experience and a negative incidentmay sometimes be less clear-cut than our dichotomousvariable might suggest. In future studies, it would,therefore, be useful to obtain more information aboutunpleasant experiences (and not just very unpleasantincidents) and treat these experiences more like a contin-uous variable by assessing the intensity and the impact ofthe incident as well.

Practical implications

Regarding the positive but also short-lived nature ofvacation effects, planning several short vacation periodsacross a work-year may well be an efficient remedy topreserve H&W (see also Etzion, 2003).

Psychological detachment from work and relaxationshould be stimulated to boost and prolong positivevacation effects. Because both recovery experiences arealso associated with the quality of conversations andpleasure from activities, stimulating good interactionsand engaging in self-chosen pleasant activities should in-crease subjective recovery and in turn positively impactH&W. Work-related activities and worrying about workshould be prevented during vacation in order to achievehigh levels of detachment (for an effective strategy to de-crease rumination, see Brosschot and Van der Doef,2006). Relaxation could be promoted by techniquessuch as progressive muscle relaxation (McCallie, Blum& Hood, 2006) or engagement in pleasant activities with



a high relax-potential, for example reading a magazine,going for a walk or taking a sauna bath.

Suggestions for future research

Although our results showed that employees benefitfrom short vacations, it remains unclear whether theywould benefit more from longer vacations. Therefore,there is a research need for studies on longer vacations(>14 days) with a similar research design and similarH&W indicators to compare vacation (after-) effects.

In addition, more research on control over vacationactivities should be undertaken as the association betweenself-determination, and the vacation (after-) effects arestill not very well understood.

Another suggestion is to assess whether a vacationspent at home has comparable effects on H&W as avacation spent abroad. The lower levels of H&W onthe first day of returning home (and still not working)compared with the H&W levels during vacation abroadcautiously suggest that a day at home might be less ben-eficial than a day abroad, and research on sabbaticalleaves points into the same direction (Davidson et al.,2010). It would be interesting to examine whetheremployees feel equally well in terms of H&W whilespending off-job time at home instead of abroad andhow vacation activities (e.g. work-related activities)and experiences (e.g. detachment, relaxation, conversa-tions with the partner) may differ for these type ofvacations. Following this reasoning, research on theeffect of a non-working day or a regular free weekendat home also needs to be undertaken to bring to lightviable discrepancies between vacation periods andshorter free time intervals.

Moreover, more research on the effect of vacationson couples and family interactions should be con-ducted. Within these studies, a multisource approachcould be applied to validate self-reports by ratings offamily members and to analyse the effects of activitiesand experiences of fellow vacationers on the targetindividual (e.g. negative incidents of the spouse maynegatively affect the target individual as well).

Finally, in studies with larger sample sizes, differ-ences in the vacation (after-) effects for different typesof jobs (e.g. function, supervisory tasks, weekly workhours), compositions of the family (e.g. singles, mar-ried couples, children), personality and individual pre-ferences for activities could be investigated.

In conclusion, this study has shown that short vaca-tions have a positive effect on H&W that fades outwithin 3 days after returning home. Regarding vacationactivities, work-related activities during vacationturned out to have a negative impact on mental detach-ment during vacation and on H&W after returninghome. Concerning vacation experiences, the pleasurederived from vacation activities, the quality of conver-sations with the partner as well as relaxation andmental detachment from work seemed to play animportant role for vacation (after-) effects.

Acknowledgments

We thank Deborah Urbanczyk and Judith Horstmannfor their dedicated help in collecting the data for thisstudy. Moreover, we thank William Burk, Pieter vanGroenestijn and Rinske de Graaff Stoffers from theRadboud University Nijmegen for helping in digitaliz-ing the diaries, preparing and analysing the data sets.

REFERENCES

Akerstedt, T. (2006). Psychosocial stress and impaired

sleep. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment &

Health, 32, 493501.

Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Schilling, E. A.

(1989). Effects of daily stress on negative mood. Jour-

nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 808818.

Brosschot, J. F., & Van der Doef, M. (2006). Daily wor-

rying and somatic health complaints: Testing the ef-

fectiveness of a simple worry reduction intervention.

Psychology & Health, 21, 1931.

Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. (2011). Werkzame

beroepsbevolking; vergrijzing per bedrijfstak, SBI 2008.

Retrieved May 15, 2011, from http://statline.cbs.nl/

StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=80832-

NED&D1=0-1&D2=1-2&D3=0&D4=0&D5=0&D6=a

&D7=a&D8=l&HD=110509-1736&HDR=T,G7&STB=

G1,G2,G3,G4,G5,G6.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral

sciences. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Davidson, O. B., Eden, D., Westman, M., Cohen-

Charash, Y., Hammer, L. B., Kluger, A. N. et al.

(2010). Sabbatical leave: Who gains and how much?

Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 953964.

De Bloom, J., Geurts, S. A. E., Sonnentag, S., Taris, T.,

De Weerth, C., Kompier, M. A. J. (in press). How

does a vacation from work affect employee health

and well-being? Psychology & Health, DOI:10.1080/

08870446.2010.546860.

De Bloom, J., Kompier,M., Geurts, S., DeWeerth, C., Taris,

T., & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Dowe recover fromvacation?

Meta-analysis of vacation effects on health and well-

being. Journal of Occupational Health, 51, 1325.

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 and Stress, 24, 196216.

Elo, A., Leppnen, A., & Jahkola, A. (2003). Validity of a

single-item measure of stress symptoms. Scandinavian

Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 29, 444451.

Etzion, D. (2003). Annual vacation: Duration of relief

from job stressors and burnout. Anxiety, Stress, and

Coping, 16, 213226.

Etzion, D., Eden, D., & Lapidot, Y. (1998). Relief from

job stressors and burnout: Reserve service as a respite.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 577585.

Etzion, D., & Westman, M. (2001). Job stress, vaca-

tion and the crossover of strain between spouses

Stopping the vicious cycle. Men & Work, 11,

106118.

Fritz, C, & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Recovery, health, and

job performance: Effects of weekend experiences.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10,

187199.

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

and performance-related outcomes: The role of

workload and vacation experiences. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 91, 936945.

Geurts, S. A. E., & Sonnentag, S. (2006). Recovery as an

explanatory mechanism in the relation between acute

stress reactions and chronic health impairment. Scan-

dinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 32,

482492.

Gilbert, D., & Abdullah, J. (2004). Holiday taking and

the sense of well-being. Annals of Tourism Research,

31, 103121.

Gump, B. B., & Matthews, K. A. (2000). Are vacations

good for your health? The 9-year mortality experience

after the multiple risk factor intervention trial. Psy-

chosomatic Medicine, 62, 608612.


http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=80832NED&D1=0-1&D2=1-2&D3=0&D4=0&D5=0&D6=a&D7=a&D8=l&HD=110509-1736&HDR=T,G7&STB=G1,G2,G3,G4,G5,G6http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=80832NED&D1=0-1&D2=1-2&D3=0&D4=0&D5=0&D6=a&D7=a&D8=l&HD=110509-1736&HDR=T,G7&STB=G1,G2,G3,G4,G5,G6http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=80832NED&D1=0-1&D2=1-2&D3=0&D4=0&D5=0&D6=a&D7=a&D8=l&HD=110509-1736&HDR=T,G7&STB=G1,G2,G3,G4,G5,G6http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=80832NED&D1=0-1&D2=1-2&D3=0&D4=0&D5=0&D6=a&D7=a&D8=l&HD=110509-1736&HDR=T,G7&STB=G1,G2,G3,G4,G5,G6http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=80832NED&D1=0-1&D2=1-2&D3=0&D4=0&D5=0&D6=a&D7=a&D8=l&HD=110509-1736&HDR=T,G7&STB=G1,G2,G3,G4,G5,G6

Lounsbury, J. W., & Hoopes, L. L. (1986). A vaca-

tion form work: Changes in work and nonwork

outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,

392401.

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

Progressive muscle relaxation. Journal of Human

Behavior in the Social Environment, 13, 5166.

McEwen, B. S. (1998). Stress, adaptation, and disease:

Allostatis and allostatic load. Annals of the New York

Academy of Science, 840, 3344.

Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological

aspects of workload. In P. J. D. Drenth, H. Thierry

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

nizational psychology (2nd edition). Work psychol-

ogy (Vol. 2, pp. 533). Hove: Psychology Press.

Nawijn, J. (2010). The holiday happiness curve: A pre-

liminary investigation into mood during a holiday

abroad. International Journal of Tourism Research,

12, 281290.

Nawijn, J. (2011). Determinants of daily happiness on

vacation. Journal of Travel Research, 50, 559566.

Ryan, R. M., Bernstein, J. H., & Brown, K. W. (2010).

Weekends, work, and well-being: Psychological need

satisfactions and day of the week effects on mood, vi-

tality, and physical symptoms. Journal of Social and

Clinical Psychology, 29, 95122.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination

theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, so-

cial development, and well-being. American Psycholo-

gist, 55, 6878.

Schulte Nordholt, E. (2005). Hoeveel uren werken wij

in Nederland? Economisch Statistische Berichten,

4457, 148.

Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The recovery experi-

ence questionnaire: Development and validation of

a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding

from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,

12, 204221.

Strauss-Blasche, G., Ekmekcioglu, C. & Marktl, W.

(2000). Does vacation enable recuperation? Changes

in well-being associated with time away from work.

Occupational Medicine, 50, 167172.

Tucker, P., Dahlgren, A., Akerstedt, T., & Waterhouse, J.

(2008). The impact of free-time activities on sleep,

recovery and well-being. Applied Ergonomics, 39,

653662.

Van Hooff, M. L. M., Geurts, S. A. E., Kompier, M. A. J.,

& Taris, T. W. (2007). Workdays, in-between work-

days, and the weekend: A diary study on effort and

recovery. International Archives of Occupational and

Environmental Health, 80, 599613.

Vrijkotte, T. G. M., Van Doornen, L. J. P., De Geus,

E. J. C. (2000). Effects of work stress on ambulatory

blood pressure, heart rate and heart rate variability.

Hypertension, 35, 880886.

Warr, P. (1994). A conceptual framework for the study

of work and mental health.Work and Stress, 8, 8497.

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

from work on burnout: Vacation relief and fade-

out. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 516527.

Westman, M., & Etzion, D. (2001). The impact of vaca-

tion and job stress on burnout and absenteeism. Psy-

chology & Health, 16, 595606.



Copyright of Stress & Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress is the property

of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv

without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email

articles for individual use.

Documents

Content Server