Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

Telepressure and Recovery Experiences Among Remote and Onsite Workers

Published Online:March 25, 2022https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000303

Abstract

Abstract. This study examined the associations between telepressure and work recovery experiences (i.e., psychological detachment, relaxation, control, and mastery) and tested whether these associations differ between employees working onsite (n = 158) or remotely (n = 284). Our results revealed that telepressure was negatively related to psychological detachment, relaxation, control, and mastery. Moreover, the relations between telepressure and recovery experiences were stronger among employees working onsite than among those working remotely. These results revealed that working remotely helped to buffer the negative links between telepressure and recovery experiences.

References

  • Barber, L. K., & Santuzzi, A. M. (2015). Please respond ASAP: Workplace telepressure and employee recovery. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(2), 172–189. 10.1037/a0038278 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cambier, R., Derks, D., & Vlerick, P. (2019). Detachment from work: A diary study on telepressure, smartphone use and empathy. Psychologica Belgica, 59(1), 227–245. 10.5334/pb.477 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Charalampous, M., Grant, C. A., Tramontano, C., & Michailidis, E. (2019). Systematically reviewing remote e-workers' well-being at work: A multidimensional approach. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(1), 51–73. 10.1080/1359432X.2018.1541886 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Haslam, N., Loughnan, S., & Perry, G. (2014). Meta-Milgram: An empirical synthesis of the obedience experiments. PLoS One, 9(4), e93927. 10.1371/journal.pone.0093927 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(1), 116–122. 10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02016.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of fit in structural equation models. In A. Maydeu-OlivaresJ.J. McArdle (Eds.), Contemporary psychometrics (pp. 275–340). Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (2021). Mplus user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456–476. 10.1177/1094428109351241 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 204–221. 10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Windeler, J. B., Chudoba, K. M., & Sundrup, R. Z. (2017). Getting away from them all: Managing exhaustion from social interaction with telework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(7), 977–995. 10.1002/job.2176 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar