From recovery to regulation: An attempt to reconceptualize 'recovery from work'

162Citations
Citations of this article
256Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

The concept of 'recovery' (from work) has quickly gained in importance in the occupational health literature. However, we think that the conceptualization of 'recovery' needs some more attention. Although many authors acknowledge that 'recovery' refers to a 'process', the concept is often treated as a static construct. In this paper, we argue that recovery should be conceptualized as a dynamic construct related to changes in psychophysiological state of the person. We refer to two main theories that have provided a theoretical framework for research in this area: Meijman & Mulder's Effort-Recovery (E-R) model and Hobfoll's Conservation of Resources theory. In particular, the E-R model has been seminal in this area and stresses the element of changing psychophysiological states that has been used for reconceptualising 'recovery'. Various biological rhythms influence these changing psychophysiological states, and thus the level of energy (or effort) a person can mobilize or wants to mobilize. A distinction is made between 'physical fatigue' and 'mental fatigue' and its consequences for recovery. The discrepancy between 'actual state' and 'required state' has been suggested as the basis for 'recovery'. This emphasises that recovery is a dynamic and ongoing process, which also included motivational aspects, in particular as far as mental work is concerned. The capacity to maintain self-regulation of one's psychophysiological state is important in this respect. Thus, we propose that 'recovery' is the continuous process of harmonizing the 'actual state' with the state that is 'required' at that moment. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Zijlstra, F. R. H., Cropley, M., & Rydstedt, L. W. (2014). From recovery to regulation: An attempt to reconceptualize “recovery from work.” Stress and Health, 30(3), 244–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2604

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free