Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(2015) Dynamics of Well-Being PDF
(2015) Dynamics of Well-Being PDF
Dynamics of Well-Being
Sabine Sonnentag
Department of Psychology, University of Mannheim, D-68131 Mannheim, Germany;
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
email: sonnentag@uni-mannheim.de
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
17.1
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
INTRODUCTION
Well-being (i.e., feeling good and/or experiencing fulfillment and purpose) is a desirable state
for many individuals and is increasingly targeted by organizations and societies (Costanza
et al. 2014, Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller 2011). Accordingly, research has tried to identify
individual factors that contribute to well-being, often focusing on the question of what
differentiates people with a high level of well-being from those with a lower level. However,
although individual dispositions influence individual well-being (Friedman & Kern 2014),
this approach focusing only on individual differences neglects the dynamic nature of well-
being.
Well-being is not stable: It fluctuates within shorter periods of time (e.g., days and weeks), and
it can increase or decrease over longer periods of time (e.g., months and years). In this article, I
focus on these dynamic aspects of well-being by discussing longer-term changes as well as shorter-
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
term fluctuations and linking these changes and fluctuations to a persons experiences and
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
behaviors at work. Specifically, I look at job-related factors (job stressors, job resources, in-
terpersonal factors), personal resources, and factors at the workhome interface as potential
predictors of changes and fluctuations in well-being. Furthermore, I examine how well-being
relates to changes and fluctuations in performance.
I approach the empirical literature in a way that allows drawing conclusions about three im-
portant aspects of well-being dynamism: affect symmetry, homology, and reciprocity. First, the
idea of affect symmetry is rooted in the observation that positive and negative affect are linked to
two fundamentally different biobehavioral systems. Reactions to positive events and experiences
are reflected mainly in positive affective states and reactions to negative events and experiences are
reflected mainly in negative affective states (Thoreson et al. 2003, Watson et al. 1999). I therefore
describe positively and negatively valenced predictors in their relationship to positive and negative
well-being indicators. Second, the discussion of homology refers to the question of whether
relationships between constructs are similar across different levels of analysis (Chen et al. 2005).
Specifically, when looking at the dynamism of well-being, we need to understand whether var-
iables that stimulate longer-term changes in well-being are also important for explaining shorter-
term fluctuations in well-being, and vice versa (Dalal et al. 2014). Accordingly, I cover both
between-person and within-person processes. Third, not only might factors that are usually
discussed as predictors of employee well-being (e.g., job stressors) cause changes and fluctuations
in well-being, but well-being might also contribute to changes or fluctuations in these factors,
pointing to potentially reciprocal processes. Consequently, I address potential reverse processes in
this article.
This article is organized into seven sections. In the next section, The Concept of Well-Being,
I begin by presenting the well-being concept, describing conceptualizations of work-related
well-being, and discussing approaches to the study of well-being dynamics. In the subsequent
main sections of this article, I review empirical research, largely focusing on studies published
after the year 2000. Figure 1 shows the overall organizing framework. Specifically, in Between-
Person Differences in Well-Being Change over Time, I describe change processes over time by
examining predictors of changes in well-being and by discussing how well-being, in turn,
predicts changes in performance. In addition, I address possible reverse processes. In Within-
Person Variability, I turn to within-person fluctuations in well-being and describe factors that
predict this within-person fluctuation and how this fluctuation predicts fluctuations in per-
formance. Again, I present potential reverse processes. In the last two main sections, I integrate
the empirical findings and discuss directions for future research. In the final section, I present
a conclusion.
17.2 Sonnentag
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
Job stressors
Workhome interface
Figure 1
An organizing framework of the dynamics of well-being.
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
Work-Related Well-Being
Organizational research covers both hedonic and eudaimonic conceptualizations of well-being.
Many scholars emphasize the hedonic perspective, thereby focusing on affective and psychoso-
matic well-being (Fisher 2010, Nixon et al. 2011). Despite the dominance of the hedonic per-
spective, organizational research incorporates eudaimonic aspects of well-being as well, for
instance when addressing meaning at work (Rosso et al. 2010) or growth (Sonenshein et al. 2013).
When focusing on affective well-being, organizational research builds partly on the circumplex
model of affect (Russell 1980). This model describes affective experiences in a two-dimensional
structure comprising pleasure (i.e., affect valence) and activation (i.e., arousal). Moreover, or-
ganizational research on affective well-being strives to understand and predict specific symptoms
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
instance, in their widely used conceptualization, Schaufeli & Bakker (2004) proposed that work
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
engagement comprises three core components: vigor, dedication, and absorption. Spreitzer et al.
(2005) introduced thriving at work as another concept of positive well-being that incorporates
both a hedonic and eudaimonic view. Thriving encompasses the joint sense of vitality and learning.
Vitality means to feel energetic and alive, whereas learning refers to the experience of acquiring and
applying new knowledge and skills. Work engagement and thriving as positive well-being concepts
seem to be closely related to motivational and behavioral processes. Conceptually, however, they
emphasize the experience of energy, dedication, absorption, and growthas opposed to actual
behaviors.
17.4 Sonnentag
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
negative states over the first few months after organizational entry (Dunford et al. 2012, Kammeyer-
Mueller et al. 2013).
Importantly, well-being changes not only as a function of age or tenure, but also as a reaction to
the task and social environment that the employee is exposed to over longer periods of time.
Therefore, organizational research has examined factors in employees job environments, along
with personal resources and nonwork processes, as predictors of changes in work-related well-
being over time. These changes, along with reverse processes, are described in this section. In
addition, this section discusses how well-being might predict changes in performance.
of research attention. By looking at job-related factors (job stressors, job resources, and the
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
Job stressors. Job stressors are features of the work situation that potentially elicit physiological
and psychological strain reactions (Kahn & Byosiere 1992). Such stressors can have a pre-
dominantly challenging nature (e.g., job demands, workload, responsibilities) or they can pre-
dominantly hinder task accomplishment (e.g., hassles, constraints, role ambiguity) (LePine et al.
2005). Literally hundreds of studies have addressed the question of whether job stressors relate to
well-being. Over the years, more and more studies have used longitudinal research designs that
offer the possibility to examine how job stressors are related to changes in well-being over time.
Most studies addressed negative well-being indicators. More recently, however, researchers have
also examined how job stressors may be related to changes in positive well-being indicators.
With respect to changes in positive well-being indicators, job stressors do not matter much.
Most studies did not find any evidence for a lagged relationship between job stressors and changes
in overall work engagement (Mauno et al. 2007, Tims et al. 2013). Only a few studies reported that
work engagement decreases over time when employees experience a high level of job stressors
(Hakanen et al. 2008b, Sonnentag et al. 2010). The overall pattern of findings suggests that
employees can uphold work engagement under demanding circumstances.
The picture looks different for negative well-being indicators: When employees face a high level
of job stressors, strain symptoms increase over time. Sonnentag & Frese (2012) summarized
empirical evidence from 70 longitudinal studies on job stressors and predominantly negative well-
being indicators (e.g., emotional exhaustion, psychological distress). The majority of these studies
found both positive relationships between job stressors assessed at time 1 and an increase in
negative well-being indicators from time 1 to time 2. In a meta-analysis, Ford et al. (2014) pursued
a similar goal and analyzed lagged relationships between job stressors and indicators of psy-
chological and physical strain. They found a significant lagged relationship between stressors
assessed at time 1 and strain assessed at time 2, controlling for time-1 strain, which indicates that
strain increases after exposure to job stressors. Effect sizes were relatively small for exhaustion and
fatigue, but larger for symptoms such as anxiety, irritation, and tension. In terms of temporal
patterns, this meta-analysis suggests that lagged effect sizes increase within time lags up to two to
three years; beyond that, lagged effect sizes decline. Another meta-analysis that focused on
musculoskeletal symptoms as a negative well-being indicator found that high job demands and
highly monotonous work were associated with an increase in musculoskeletal problems (e.g.,
lower back symptoms) over time (Lang et al. 2012). Although most studies on job stressors and
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
negative well-being indicators focused on perceptions of stressors, there is also evidence that job
stressors as assessed by external observers predict changes in strain symptoms (Leitner & Resch
2005).
Research on job stressors and eudaimonic well-being is limited. Clausen & Borg (2010)
identified work pace and emotional demands as predictors of an increase, and role ambiguity as
predictor of decrease, in meaning at work over time. These findings point to an interesting trade-
off between negative well-being indicators and eudaimonic well-being: Some types of stressors
contribute to an increase of strain symptoms while also increasing the experience of meaning.
It might even be that the experience of meaning makes highly demanding jobs bearablebut
nevertheless, these jobs may cause exhaustion over time.
Job resources. Job resources are physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
job that help to either achieve work goals, reduce job demands and the associated physiological
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
and psychological costs, or stimulate personal growth, learning, and development (Bakker et al.
2014, p. 392). Typical job resources are autonomy (i.e., job control), feedback, and task variety, as
well as opportunities for learning and development.
With respect to positive well-being indicators, research has shown that perceptions of job
resourcesparticularly autonomypredict an increase in work engagement over time (De Lange
et al. 2008, Hakanen et al. 2008a, Xanthopoulou et al. 2009a; cf. Kinnunen & Feldt 2013).
Findings are a bit less consistent for negative well-being indicators. In some studies, job resources
predicted a decrease in strain symptoms such as exhaustion (Akkermans et al. 2013, Hakanen et al.
2008b), depression (Holman & Wall 2002) or musculoskeletal symptoms (Lang et al. 2012).
Other studies, however, failed to find any association between job resources and changes in
negative well-being indicators (De Lange et al. 2004, Xie et al. 2008) or found changes with respect
to some resources, but not others (Leiter et al. 2013).
Overall, autonomy and other job resources are linked to positive changes in well-being over
time. These changes are reflected more in an increase in work engagement and other positive well-
being indicators than in a decrease in negative indicators. One reason for this pattern of findings
could be that job resources in themselves are experienced as something positive, resulting in
feelings of energy and positive affect; job resources, however, might not always be fully effective in
removing job stressors, thereby leaving the strain level unaffected.
The interpersonal environment. Studies have examined how interpersonal factors predict
changes in well-being over time, addressing social support, negative social interactions, and
leadership processes as possible predictors. Studies focusing on social support have resulted in
mixed findings. Although cross-sectional research has demonstrated that social support is related
to well-being (Halbesleben 2006), social support seems not always to be powerful enough to
predict changes in well-being. For instance, social support predicted an increase in work en-
gagement for some measurement waves and some subsamples, but not for others (Biggs et al. 2014,
Brough et al. 2013, Weigl et al. 2010). Several studies addressing negative well-being indicators
found that a lack of social support at work is associated with an increase in negative well-being
indicators over time (Halbesleben & Buckley 2006, ter Doest & de Jonge 2006), whereas others
suggest that social support is not associated with any change in strain symptoms (Brough et al.
2013, Diestel & Schmidt 2012). Meta-analytical evidence also remains inconclusive (Lang et al.
2012).
Social supports effectiveness in changing well-being seems to depend on specific contingencies:
Looking at reciprocity processes, Nahum-Shani et al. (2011) found an association between re-
ceived social support and a decrease of depressive symptoms and somatic complaints over time
17.6 Sonnentag
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
when exchange was perceived to be reciprocal. Westman et al. (2011) showed that social support
as well as cohesiveness in a team can backfire: In teams with high team-level exhaustion, social
support and cohesiveness predicted an increase in individual exhaustion over time, probably
because the interpersonal closeness of team members facilitated a crossover of exhaustion from
one team member to another. Kammeyer-Mueller et al. (2013) reported an interesting finding on
social support during the socialization processes of organizational newcomers. The intercept of
supervisor and coworker support, as well as the slope of supervisor support, predicted well-being
over time, suggesting that not only the level of social support but also its perceived trajectory
matter.
Relatively little attention has been paid to the question of how negative interaction processes (e.
g., interpersonal conflicts) predict changes in well-being over time. A notable exception is a study
by Hoobler et al. (2010) that found that experiencing workplace aggression is linked to an increase
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
in poor mental health over time. Similarly, Kammeyer-Mueller et al. (2013) reported that social
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
Personal resources. Well-being might be influenced not only by job resources, but also by per-
sonal resources (i.e., individual factors that help one to master the environment and to achieve
ones goals; Xanthopoulou et al. 2009a). When looking at positive well-being indicators, most
studies found that factors such as self-efficacy, optimism, organization-based self-esteem, and
active coping predicted an increase in work engagement over time (Simbula et al. 2011, Weigl et al.
2010; cf. Mauno et al. 2007). With respect to negative well-being outcomes, findings are less
consistent (Gonzles-Morales et al. 2010).
The workhome interface. Experiences at the interface between work and home contribute to
changes in well-being over time. Research has paid particular attention to conflicts between work
and family life (i.e., experienced interference between work and family; Greenhaus & Beutell
1985) and to recovery processes. With respect to positive well-being indicators, there is some
evidence that conflicting demands from work and family are related to a decrease in well-being
over time (Grant-Vallone & Donaldson 2001). With respect to negative well-being indicators,
a recent meta-analyses based on longitudinal studies showed that both work-to-family conflict
(i.e., work interfering with family) and family-to-work conflict (i.e., family interfering with work)
were related to an increase in strain symptoms over time (Nohe et al. 2015). Matthews et al. (2014),
however, reported that work-to-family conflict and family-to-work conflict predicted an increase
in well-being, when taking into account concurrent levels of work-to-family conflict and family-to-
work conflict. This finding suggests that over time, employees may adjust to conflicts between
different life domains. Hammer et al. (2005) have shown that not only ones own but particularly
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
ones spouses experiences at the workfamily interface are relevant for changes in depression
over time.
Research on recovery processes suggests that psychological detachment from work during
nonwork time predicts a decrease in exhaustion and buffers the relationship between high job
demands and psychosomatic complaints (Sonnentag et al. 2010). Worry and rumination during
respite periods predict an increase of exhaustion and anxiety over time (Flaxman et al. 2012).
However, beneficial effects of recovery on well-being were not evident in all studies (Kinnunen &
Feldt 2013).
Although most research on the association between well-being and performance is cross-sectional,
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
some studies have addressed the question of whether well-being predicts changes in task per-
formance, extrarole performance, and other indicators over time.
Task performance. With respect to positive well-being indicators, Binnewies et al. (2009) showed
that feelings of recovery during leisure time predict an increase in self-rated job performance over
a period of 6 months. Akkermans et al. (2013) reported that dedicationone aspect of work
engagementpredicted an increase in self-rated task performance over time; by contrast, emo-
tional exhaustion predicted a decrease in self-rated task performance over time. Similarly, Shi et al.
(2013) reported that poor emotional health predicted a decrease in self-rated performance over
a 12-month period.
Other indicators. Wright et al. (2002) examined whether well-being can predict a composite per-
formance score capturing work facilitation, goal emphasis, and team building. They found that a
measure comprising both positive and negative well-being indicators predicted an increase in per-
formance over a 2-year period. Moreover, negative well-being indicators such as burnout and poor
emotional health are related to an increase in absence over time (Shi et al. 2013, Ybema et al. 2010).
Reverse Processes
Although most longitudinal studies examining well-being have focused on factors that predict
changes in well-being over time, the reverse causal process also has received research attention.
17.8 Sonnentag
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
Studies have examined whether an employees current well-being predicts changes in job stressors,
job resources, the interpersonal environment, personal resources, and experiences at the work
home interface, with the great majority of studies looking at perceptions of stressors, resources,
and other environmental factors. Moreover, studies have tested whether performance predicts
changes in well-being over time. Figure 1 illustrates these reverse processes.
Well-being as a predictor of changes in job stressors. De Lange et al. (2005) suggested that a
reverse process between well-being and changes in job stressors and other work characteristics
might operate via a rosy-perception mechanism (in people with good well-being), a gloomy-
perception mechanism (in people with poor well-being), an upward-selection mechanism (in
people with good well-being), and a drift toward a less favorable workplace (in people with poor
well-being). But empirically, there is no evidence that positive well-being indicators such as work
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
engagement predict changes in job stressors over time (Hakanen et al. 2008b, Kinnunen & Feldt
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
2013). The picture looks different for negative well-being indicators. In the abovementioned meta-
analysis, Ford et al. (2014) found significant lagged relationships between psychological and
physical strain indicators, on one hand, and job stressors, on the other, with increasing effect sizes
as the time lag between the measurement points increased. Effect sizes, however, were relatively
small.
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
2009a). Feeling energetic probably helps employees to see themselves and their lives in a positive
light, which in turn triggers a more active approach toward demands.
changes in well-being. For instance, Akkermans et al. (2013) have shown that self-rated per-
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
formance predicts an increase in dedication and a decrease in emotional exhaustion over time.
Relatedly, Hakanen et al. (2008a) found that personal initiative predicts an increase in work
engagement over time.
Conclusion. Taken together, studies testing reverse causal relationships reported that positive
well-being indicators, particularly work engagement, predict more positive perceptions of job
resources, social relationships, personal resources, and the workfamily interface. Negative well-
being indicators seem to be largely irrelevant for these positive changes over time. However,
negative well-being tends to predict an increase in perceived job stressors and workfamily conflict.
Self-rated performance can contribute to better well-being over time. Overall, these findings
question the view that a persons well-being is simply the result of environmental influences and
personal resources. Well-being also has the potential to shape (perceptions of) the environment and
personal resources.
WITHIN-PERSON VARIABILITY
Well-being fluctuates within a person. Most studies addressing this within-person variability have
used an experience-sampling or daily-survey approach and looked at day-to-day fluctuations,
but some research has also examined fluctuations within shorter (i.e., within-day) and longer
(i.e., week-to-week) time intervals.
Job stressors. Stressors have often been examined as potential causes of fluctuations in well-being.
Typically, studies have examined whether well-being deteriorates when employees face more job
stressors than usual on a specific day. Overall, positive well-being suffers on days when employees
experience a high level of job stressors (Harris & Daniels 2007, Hoppmann & Klumb 2012).
Because of their energizing potential, challenge stressors such as workload and time pressure,
17.10 Sonnentag
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
however, seem to boost work engagement (Sonnentag et al. 2012, Garrick et al. 2014) and at-
tentiveness (Rodell & Judge 2009).
Negative indicators of well-being become elevated on highly stressful days. For instance, on
days when employees have to deal with hindrance stressors, they experience high levels of acti-
vated negative affect (Rodell & Judge 2009, Zohar et al. 2003). But on days when facing challenge
stressors, employees typically experience a higher level of activated negative affect during work
(Ilies et al. 2007, Rodell & Judge 2009), at the end of the workday (Story & Repetti 2006, Zohar
et al. 2003), and after work (Ilies et al. 2007). Similarly, fatigue and exhaustion tend to increase as
a reaction to stressors (Garrick et al. 2014, Gross et al. 2011, Kammeyer-Mueller et al. 2009).
Findings on associations between stressors and physical or physiological indicators of poor well-
being are mixed (Bono et al. 2013, Harris & Daniels 2007, Ilies et al. 2010).
Specific factors moderate the day-level relationship between job stressors and negative well-
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
being indicators. For instance, positive events (Bono et al. 2013, Gross et al. 2011); more stable
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
job features, such as autonomy, perceived organizational support, and psychological safety climate
(Garrick et al. 2014, Ilies et al. 2010); and individual-difference variables, such as emotional
stability (Kammeyer-Mueller et al. 2009) and the use of self-regulatory strategies (Schmitt et al.
2012), all buffer the association between job stressors and negative well-being indicators.
Employees beliefs that stressors increase negative affect (Daniels et al. 2006) as well as chronic
social stressors (Gross et al. 2011), however, intensify the associations.
In summary, there is rather consistent evidence that when employees experience a higher level
of stressors than they usually do, negative well-being indicators increase, particularly when the
employees lack positive experiences or resources that could help to counteract the negative impact
of the elevated stressor level. It is noteworthy that challenge stressors can increase both positive
and negative activated states. There seems to be a fine line between a challenge stressors potential
to trigger positively toned work engagement and its potential to elicit negatively toned anxiety and
anger. The intensity and duration of the stressor, as well as job and personal resources, may
influence whether challenge stressors stimulate engagement or lead to negative arousal.
Until recently, eudaimonic well-being had received little attention in research on job stressors.
In a week-level study, Bakker & Sanz-Vergel (2013) found that the experience of flourishing is
lower when work pressure is high.
Job resources and other task features. Autonomy and other task features predict fluctuations
in well-being and are particularly important in boosting positive well-being indicators. Studies
have shown that day-level autonomy predicts day-level work engagement (Petrou et al. 2012,
Xanthopoulou et al. 2009b) and day-level positive emotions (Xanthopoulou et al. 2012).
Moreover, when experiencing task importance, task confidence, and goal enhancing events (e.g.,
having had the opportunity to perform a challenging task) during the working day, employees
enjoy elevated levels of positive affective states later on the day (Fisher et al. 2013, Zohar et al.
2003). Autonomy and other positive task features have rarely been examined in relation to
negative well-being indicators, and findings remain inconclusive (Fisher et al. 2013, Gabriel et al.
2014, Vandercammen et al. 2014).
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
experiencing a positive team climate (e.g., a good team spirit) and more positive social interactions,
employees have higher levels of work engagement and positive affect (Dimotakis et al. 2011,
Khnel et al. 2012, Xanthopoulou et al. 2012). Findings on the role of social support for negative
well-being indicators are less consistent (Dimotakis et al. 2011, Ilies et al. 2011, Totterdell et al.
2006), suggesting that although social support, a positive team climate, and positive social
interactions boost positive states, they are less powerful in alleviating negative states.
Negative interpersonal experiences such as workplace conflicts tend to be related to negative
well-being indicators (Ilies et al. 2011), at least under certain circumstances. Specific conflict
features and a persons general level of well-being play a crucial role in determining whether
workplace conflicts translate into day-specific impairments of well-being. Relationship conflicts
(i.e., disagreements about personal issues) in particular, but not task conflicts (i.e., disagreements
about how to achieve work goals), predict negative states (Meier et al. 2013). Moreover, em-
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
ployees with a high level of chronic depressive symptoms are more vulnerable than usual when
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
Personal resources and regulatory processes. Personal resources, as well as how employees reg-
ulate their emotions and how they cope with demanding situations, are important for day-specific
well-being. For instance, day-specific levels of self-efficacy, organization-based self-esteem, and
optimism predict day-level work engagement (Xanthopoulou et al. 2008, 2009b).
Emotion regulation in the context of emotional labor (e.g., in customer-service jobs) is closely
linked to employee day-specific well-being: Surface acting (i.e., adjusting the display of ones
emotion according to the jobs requirements) is associated with a decline in day-specific work
engagement, but not necessarily with a decline in positive affect (Judge et al. 2009, Schreurs et al.
2014, Scott & Barnes 2011). Deep acting (i.e., modifying ones felt emotions so that they are in line
with the jobs requirements) is positively related to work engagement and positive affect (Schreurs
et al. 2014, Scott & Barnes 2011), particularly for extraverted employees (Judge et al. 2009).
Surface acting and suppressing negative emotions are related to negative affect, emotional
exhaustion, and fatigue (Beal et al. 2013, Hlsheger et al. 2013, Wagner et al. 2014), particularly
in employees with high levels of chronic exhaustion (Trougakos et al. 2015). Deep acting, however,
is unrelated to negative states (Schreurs et al. 2014, Wagner et al. 2014), or even predicts low levels
of negative affect in introverted employees (Judge et al. 2009). Thus, it seems that surface acting in
17.12 Sonnentag
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
The workhome interface. Employees nonwork lives can impact their well-being at work. Spe-
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
cifically, affective experiences in the home domain can spill over into the work domain, impacting
affect on the job (Heller & Watson 2005). For instance, positive mood experienced at home predicts
positive mood at work, and negative mood experienced at home predicts negative mood at work
(Song et al. 2008).
In addition, unwinding and recuperation processes at home relate to subsequent well-being at
work. When employees feel well recovered before the start of the working day, they experience
a higher level of work engagement during the day (Sonnentag 2003, Ten Brummelhuis & Bakker
2012), whereas morning depletion (e.g., feeling drained) is negatively related to work engagement
during the day (Lanaj et al. 2014). Moreover, sleep matters for both positive and negative well-
being indicators (Scott & Judge 2006).
Conflicts between work and family life impede well-being. For instance, on days when em-
ployees feel that family demands are interfering with their work, they experience elevated levels of
guilt and hostility at work (Judge et al. 2006a). Moreover, interferences between work and family
can be reflected in physiological indicators of poor well-being (i.e., heart rate and blood pressure),
particularly when family-supportive supervision is low (Shockley & Allen 2013).
Task motivation and task performance. Studies that have examined positive well-being indica-
tors suggest that when persons feel better than they usually do they spend more effort on their tasks
(Foo et al. 2009, Seo et al. 2010) and achieve a higher level of task performance (Seo & Ilies 2009,
Zelenski et al. 2008). In an attempt to disentangle the process of how affect influences job
performance in a service setting, Rothbard & Wilk (2011) examined the relationship between
start-of-workday affect, perceptions of work events, and performance indicators throughout the
day. Data from all-center employees showed that morning positive affect predicted perceived
customer positive affective display and positive affect subsequent to interaction events with
customers, suggesting that morning positive affect enables favorable perception processes that in
turn trigger positive affect. Positive affect predicted verbal fluency during the subsequent calls of
the call-center agents.
Research on work engagement has provided some evidence that experiencing vigor, ded-
ication, and absorption at work is associated with performance benefits. For instance, work
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
engagement throughout the working day was associated with objective performance in a fast-food
restaurant setting (Xanthopoulou et al. 2009b). Likewise, teachers who felt high levels of work
engagement throughout the week reported higher levels of job performance during the same week
(Bakker & Bal 2010). Miner & Glomb (2010) tested how pleasant affect (i.e., hedonic tone as a
specific combination of items capturing positive and negative affect with high scores indicating
a dominance of positive affect over negative affect) relates to the performance of call-center
employees. Their analysis showed that call time was shorter (indicating better performance)
when employees experienced pleasant affect; pleasant affect, however, was unrelated to self-
rated service quality.
When it comes to negative well-being indicators as predictors, performance seems to suffer
when negative affect (Seo & Ilies 2009) and exhaustion (Halbesleben & Wheeler 2011) are high;
results for effort, however, are less consistent, and negative affect may even trigger more effort (Foo
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
et al. 2009), which is a finding that can be explained by the mood-as-information framework
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
(Schwarz & Clore 1983). According to this framework, negative affect signals to the person that
not everything in the environment is going well. Therefore, the person may want to address the
problematic situation by exerting more effort. Little is known about how eudaimonic well-being
may affect performance-related processes. Using the thriving framework (Spreitzer et al. 2005),
Niessen et al. (2012) found that on days when employees perceived positive meaning at work, they
experienced a higher task focus and showed more exploratory behavior (i.e., more information
search) than on days when they perceived their work to be less meaningful. Taken together, high
positive and low negative affective states as well as eudaimonic well-being seem to be important for
performance. Interestingly, high levels of negative affect can stimulate effort expenditure; this
effort, however, does not necessarily translate always into high levels of performance.
17.14 Sonnentag
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
Proactive work behavior. Individual fluctuations in well-being are relevant for proactive work
behaviorsthat is, work behaviors that aim at bringing about change in the work environment
(Parker & Collins 2010). Several studies suggest that within-person fluctuations of positive well-
being indicators such as positive affect (Fritz & Sonnentag 2009, Fay & Sonnentag 2012) and
work engagement (Sonnentag 2003) predict proactive work behaviors. Bissing-Olson et al. (2013)
looked at proenvironmental behavior as a specific type of proactivity. Their study showed that,
overall, neither day-specific activated nor day-specific deactivated positive affect predicted
proenvironmental proactive behavior. However, for employees who had a less positive pro-
environmental attitude, day-specific activated positive affect predicted proenvironmental
behavior. This result mirrors the findings on OCB reported above: Positive affect seems to be
particularly helpful in stimulating certain behaviors in people who are less inclined to show such
behaviors.
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Within-person fluctuations in negative affect did not turn out to be a predictor of proactive
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
work behavior (Bissing-Olson et al. 2013, Fay & Sonnentag 2012). Taken together, this pattern of
findings supports the conceptual model proposed by Parker et al. (2010) that emphasizes the role
of feeling energized in a positive way as a core pathway to proactive behavior.
Creative behavior. Well-being can be beneficial for creativity at work (i.e., the generation of novel
and useful ideas; Amabile 1988). In a pioneering study, Amabile et al. (2005) collected daily
narrative reports of affect and creative thought from 222 employees over several weeks. Their
analysis showed that self-rated and coder-rated positive affect predicted creative thought on the
same and on the next day. Based on a study with interior architects, Binnewies & Wrnlein (2011)
reported that morning positive affect predicted creativity throughout the day. When differenti-
ating between activating and nonactivating positive affect, To et al. (2012) found that activating
positive affect in particular is positively related to creative process engagement. Examining weekly
fluctuations in affect, Madrid et al. (2014) replicated this finding for innovative work behavior
(i.e., having ideas, mobilizing support for innovative ideas, transforming ideas into applications).
Thus, high positive arousal is essential for creative and innovative behavior.
Bledow et al. (2013) examined the dynamic interplay of negative and positive affect in the
prediction of day-specific creativity. Based on an affective-shift model, they argued that creativity
will benefit from an episode of negative affect, when this episode is followed by a decrease in
negative affect and an increase in positive affect. Experience-sampling data supported this as-
sumption and showed a significant interaction effect of a decrease in negative affect from morning
to afternoon and an increase in positive affect from morning to afternoon on day-level creativity
(assessed in the afternoon). Importantly, positive affect in the morning and in the afternoon
showed (marginally) significant main effects on creativity as well.
Taken together, fluctuations in positive well-being indicators are important for creativity,
particularly when the affective state reflects high arousal. With respect to fluctuations in negative
affect, a specific combination with subsequent positive affect seems to be crucial (Bledow et al.
2013).
Counterproductive work behavior. Studies have examined how fluctuations in well-being are
related to counterproductive work behavior (CWB), such as abuse of others, sabotage, theft, and
withdrawal. For positive well-being indicators, findings are inconsistent: Whereas some studies
did not find an association between positive affect and CWB (Judge et al. 2006b, Scott & Barnes
2011), others reported negative associations, at least for some of the performance indicators (Dalal
et al. 2009, study 2; Ferris et al. 2012).
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
The picture is more coherent with respect to negative well-being indicators. Discrete negative
affective states such as day-specific hostility, anger, and anxiety are related to deviant work be-
havior on this specific day (Judge et al. 2006b, Rodell & Judge 2009). Also, broader measures of
negative affect predicted CWB in some of the studies (Dalal et al. 2009, study 2; Scott & Barnes
2011), but not in others (Ferris et al. 2012, Judge et al. 2006b). Personality factors are possibly
relevant here, with conscientiousness and agreeableness attenuating the association between neg-
ative emotions and CWB (Yang & Diefendorff 2009).
A series of studies have focused specifically on work withdrawal (i.e., doing something other
than ones work task while being on the job) as one aspect of CWB (Miner et al. 2005, Miner &
Glomb 2010). In these studies, pleasant affect was positively related to concurrent work with-
drawal. Miner and coworkers (2005) argued that withdrawal might serve as a mood-maintenance
or as a mood-repair mechanism. In line with the mood-repair argument, Miner & Glomb (2010)
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
reported that an employees tendency to cognitively regulate his or her mood attenuated the
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
relationship between pleasant affect and work withdrawal, suggesting that employees who use
other mood-regulation strategies do not need to engage in work withdrawal in order to improve
their well-being.
Overall, fluctuations in negative affective states are stronger predictors of CWB than fluctu-
ations in positive affective states are. It seems that the propensity to engage in CWB is particularly
high on days when employees experience discrete negative emotions such as hostility, anger, and
anxiety. In addition, the findings on work withdrawal demonstrate that the effects of fluctuations
in well-being are not uniform for all types of CWB.
Reverse Processes
Not only does well-being as a result of job stressors and other fluctuating factors in the work-
environment, the person, or the nonwork domain; fluctuations in well-being can also stimulate
fluctuations in work-related and nonwork variables.
17.16 Sonnentag
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
work are related to negative affective states at home (Judge & Ilies 2004, Ilies et al. 2007, Song et al.
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
2008). Trait negative affectivity (Judge & Ilies 2004) and variables related to the way employees
manage their worklife interface influence the association between well-being at work and home.
The spillover of negative well-being from work to home is particularly strong when employees
have a strong work orientation and have no clear boundaries between the two life domains (Ilies
et al. 2009, Song et al. 2008).
Focusing on eudaimonic well-being, Culbertson et al. (2010) found that on days when
employees experienced a high level of purpose, growth, and environmental mastery at work, they
enjoyed a better mood and a higher level of life satisfaction at home. In a study on firefighters and
rescue workers, Sonnentag & Grant (2012) found that after workdays when workers had ex-
perienced prosocial impact, they engaged more in positive reflection about their work and ex-
perienced higher levels of positive affect at home. Interestingly, positive affect at the end of the
workday was not elevated after highly impactful days, suggesting a delayed effect of this eudaimonic
experience. Although empirical evidence on the effects of day-specific eudaimonic well-being is still
limited, these first studies suggest that eudaimonic experiences at work are reflected in better well-
being at home.
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
Affect Symmetry
Affect symmetry refers to the idea that positive factors in a persons work and nonwork life are
linked to positive well-being indicators and that negative factors are linked to negative well-being
indicators, with no asymmetric links between positive factors and negative well-being indicators
and vice versa. To examine whether affect symmetry exists in well-being dynamics, columns 1 and
2, columns 3 and 4, and columns 5 and 6 have to be compared. When looking at predictors of
change in well-being (columns 1 and 2), there is some weak evidence for affect symmetry (indicated
with a white triangle, 4): Job stressors tend to predict negative but not positive well-being
indicators, and job as well as personal resources tend to predict positive well-being indicators; the
evidence for negative indicators is more mixed.
When it comes to the prediction of within-person variability of well-being (columns 3 and 4),
the pattern is clearer. Job resources, positive aspects of the interpersonal environment, personal
resources, and positive aspects of the workhome interface predict (or tend to predict) variability
in positive well-being indicators, and job stressors, negative interpersonal factors, and negative
aspects of the work-home interface tend to predict negative well-being indicators. For asymmetric
relationships, evidence is mostly mixed.
For well-being as a predictor of change in job-related and workhome interface variables
(columns 5 and 6), the pattern of findings supports the idea of affect symmetry: Positive well-being
indicators predict (or tend to predict) positive factors, but not job stressors as a negative factor.
Negative well-being indicators, however, tend to predict negative, but not positive factors.
With respect to the link between well-being and performance, the overall pattern is in line with
affect symmetry: Positive well-being indicators tend to predict positive performance indicators
(task performance, OCB, proactive behavior, creativity), whereas negative well-being indicators
tend to predict negative performance indicators (i.e., CWB). For asymmetric patterns, evidence is
more mixed.
Taken together, with respect to the symmetric links, the evidence tends to support affect
symmetry, although there are deviations from this symmetry in individual studies. Interestingly,
the findings regarding asymmetric links are mostly mixed, meaning that in some studies positively
toned predictors are unrelated to negative well-being indicators (speaking for affect symmetry),
but in others, they are negatively related to the negative well-being indicators (speaking against
affect symmetry). It is possible that job and personal resources as well as positive workhome
experiences not only foster positive well-being but enable people to offset the negative strain
process as well.
17.18 Sonnentag
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Positive factors
MIXED MIXED
4d 4d 4d 4 d
Interpersonal environment: (YES) (YES) (NO)
positive aspects MIXED MIXED MIXED
4 4 4
Negative factors
www.annualreviews.org
Job stressors (NO) (YES) (YES) NO (YES)
MIXED
4 4d 4d 4 4
Dynamics of Well-Being
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
(Continued )
17.19
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
Table 1 (Continued )
arop2Sonnentag
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
17.20
well-being well-being well-being well-being well-being well-being well-being well-being
Variable indicators indicators indicators indicators indicators indicators indicators indicators
14 January 2015
Performance
Sonnentag
Positive performance YES (YES)
17:46
Columns 1 through 4 summarize the empirical evidence of how job factors, personal factors, and performance indicators predict change and within-person variability in well-being. Columns 5
through 8 summarize the empirical evidence of how well-being predicts change and within-person variability in job factors, personal factors, and performance indicators.
Abbreviations: 4, evidence for affect symmetry; d, evidence for homology; , evidence for reciprocal processes; , not enough studies to draw conclusions; MIXED, evidence is mixed; (NO), overall
no evidence, but some exceptions; NO, no evidence; YES, strong evidence; (YES), overall evidence, but some exceptions.
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
Homology
Table 1 provides insights about homology, allowing, for instance, a comparison of column 1 with
3 and column 2 with 4. Overall, factors that predict change in well-being are similar to factors that
predict variability in well-being, supporting the idea of homology (indicated with a black circle, d).
Some exceptions, however, can be observed for positive aspects of the interpersonal environment,
in that the mainly supportive evidence at one level is not in line with the mixed evidence in the
corresponding analysis at the other level. Moreover, there is hardly any evidence for job stressors
predicting changes in positive well-being indicators over time, and evidence from within-person
studies is quite mixed. A closer look at the individual studies suggests that in between-person
studies, challenge stressors (like other stressors) tend to be unrelated to an increase in work
engagement over time, whereas in within-person studies, challenge stressors predict high levels
of work engagement. Thus challenge stressors operate quite differently at the within-person and
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
between-person levels: The energizing effect they can have within a single workday does not
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
Reciprocal Processes
Not only is well-being predicted from work and nonwork factors; it also predicts these factors.
Comparing column 1 with 5 and column 2 with 6 in Table 1 offers insights about what reciprocal
change processes might look like. Overall, the evidence seems to support the idea that positive
factors and positive well-being indicators are reciprocally linked and that negative factors and
negative well-being indicators are reciprocally linked (indicated in Table 1 with a star icon, ). For
instance, job resources tend to predict an increase in positive well-being indicators, and positive
well-being indicators, in turn, tend to predict an increase in job resources. Similarly, job stressors
tend to predict an increase in negative well-being indicators, and negative well-being indicators, in
turn, predict an increase in job stressors. No reciprocity seems to exist for asymmetric patterns. For
instance, job resources sometimes predict change in negative well-being indicators, but these negative
well-being indicators do not predict change in job resources; job stressors do not predict change
in positive well-being indicators, and positive well-being indicators do not predict change in job
stressors. Taken together, the reciprocal change processes over time show clear affect symmetry.
With respect to within-person processes, it would be premature to draw strong conclusions.
But from the data that are available, it seems that there are reciprocal processes between job
resources and positive well-being indicators as well as between positive (negative) aspects of the
workhome interface and positive (negative) well-being indicators.
Again, for performance, strong conclusions about reciprocity are not yet warranted. However,
available evidence suggests that particularly positive performance indicators explain within-person
variability of positive well-being indicators, and these positive well-being indicators explain within-
person variability of positive performance indicators, pointing to a mutually reinforcing process.
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
reciprocally linked to changes and fluctuations in well-being. Despite this insight, many questions
on work-related well-being remain unanswered (see Table 2). Here, I present four key areas in
which future research effort is needed.
The studies presented in this article were conducted in different cultures, with the majorities of
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
the samples coming from North America, Europe, and Australia. Findings from studies conducted
in Asia (e.g., Foo et al. 2009, Song et al. 2008, Yang & Diefendorff 2009) or Latin America
(Madrid et al. 2014) did not differ substantially from findings obtained in Western cultures.
However, the number of studies is too small to arrive at reliable conclusions; moreover, systematic
direct comparisons between cultures are mostly absent. Future research should therefore address
possible cross-cultural differences in well-being dynamics. Based on the observation that fit be-
tween cultural values and individual characteristics plays an important role for individual well-
being (Diener et al. 2003), one might assume that factors that are valued within a culture are more
influential for changes and fluctuations in well-being than are less-valued factors.
Research methodology What are the time lags during which changes in well-being unfold?
17.22 Sonnentag
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
Studies on well-being change have focused mainly on overall change in well-being over time
and have neglected possible adaptation processes that might have occurred in between. According
to the hedonic treadmill model, people respond to life events with short-term reactions, but they
adapt to the new situation over time (Brickman et al. 1978), implying that it is unlikely to find
substantial longer-term changes in well-being. With respect to the findings of most of the change
studies presented in this article, it is unclear whether the observed change in well-being is the
net change after a partial adjustment process has occurred or it is the overall change (because no
adjustment has occurred). As meta-analytic data show, adjustment processes are not uniform
across different types of events happening in peoples lives (Luhmann et al. 2012). As a conse-
quence, we need to develop theoretical models of adaptation processes that differentiate between
different types of job-related and nonwork factors and that specify how long such an adaptation
may take. To disentangle adaptation processes from persistent change in empirical studies, we
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
need frequent and well-chosen measurement occasions (Pitariu & Ployhart 2010).
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
A synthesis of individual studies suggests that changes and fluctuations of well-being are em-
bedded in reciprocal processes. This element of reciprocity has also been addressed in some of the
individual studies itself, with respect to both change over time (Hakanen et al. 2008b) and within-
person fluctuation (Sonnentag et al. 2012). However, reciprocal processes might be much more
complex, occurring at different paces and being amplified versus dampened by situational and
personal factors. Moreover, we need more insights in the underlying mediating mechanisms.
Future research should shed more light on such dynamic processes in their complexity, possibly by
using computational modeling (Vancouver & Weinhardt 2012).
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
the outcome variables in the change studies and for using person-mean centered predictor scores
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
in the variability studies), future research would benefit from using additional types of measures,
including objective and observational data as well as reports from other sources. Moreover,
using only self-report measures obscures the mechanisms underlying well-being dynamics. For
instance, the finding that positive well-being predicts changes in perceptions of job resources
might imply that job resources actually have changed or that employees perceive more job
resources over time. Therefore, research needs to build more on measures that avoid the limi-
tations of self-report data. Overcoming self-reports is particularly needed when it comes to
performance measures.
Third, person-centered analysis has been suggested as a fruitful approach to study processes
related to health and well-being (Wang et al. 2013). In essence, this approach aims at identifying
specific patterns of change and/or variability and relating these patterns to predictor or outcome
variables. First studies have shown the feasibility of this method in the context of work-related
well-being (Mkikangas et al. 2011), and it seems promising to develop this perspective further.
In Table 3, I present some practical implications of the empirical research on the dynamics of
well-being discussed in this review.
Implications targeting changes in well-being over time Implications addressing within-person fluctuations of well-being
To increase work engagement and positive affect over time, To boost work engagement and other positive states during the
provide job resources (e.g., autonomy) and enhance personal workday, increase (the perception of) job resources, positive
resources (e.g., self-efficacy). social interactions, personal resources, deep acting as an
To alleviate exhaustion, psychosomatic complaints, and other emotion-labor strategy, and recovery at home.
strain symptoms over time, reduce job stressors and help To enhance positive well-being during the workday, enable goal
employees to overcome interferences between work and family. progress and task performance.
Encourage employees to take advantage of their work To stimulate task performance, organizational citizenship
engagement to improve job and personal resources. behavior, proactive and creative behavior during the
Provide support and guidance for employees so that poor well- workday, foster positive affect.
being does not result in higher levels of job stressors over time. To dampen exhaustion and other negative affective states
during the workday, reduce job stressors, interpersonal
conflict, and surface acting.
To reduce counterproductive work behavior, prevent and
manage negative emotions such as hostility and anger.
17.24 Sonnentag
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
CONCLUSION
Over the past 15 years, empirical research on well-being change and fluctuation has grown sub-
stantially. Meanwhile, there is clear evidence that work-related well-being changes and fluctuates
based on the experiences employees have at work and at the workhome interface. Change and
variability in well-being, in turn, predict change and variability in performance, as well as in
perceived workplace characteristics and workhome factors. However, because the underlying
processes are probably even more complex than uncovered in past research, this research is just
a starting point for future theorizing and empirical studies on the dynamics of well-being.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to Susan J. Ashford, Christine Bosch, Frederick P. Morgeson, and Anna-Sophia Pinck
for very helpful comments on an earlier draft.
LITERATURE CITED
Akkermans J, Brenninkmeijer V, Van den Bossche SNJ, Blonk RWB, Schaufeli WB. 2013. Young and going
strong? A longitudinal study on occupational health among young employees of difference educational
levels. Career Dev. Int. 18:41635
Amabile TM. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In Research in Organizational
Behavior, ed. BM Staw, LL Cummings, pp. 12367 . Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
Amabile TM, Barsade SG, Mueller JS, Staw BM. 2005. Affect and creativity at work. Adm. Sci. Q. 50:367403
Bakker AB, Bal PM. 2010. Weekly work engagement and performance: a study among starting teachers.
J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 83:189206
Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Sanz-Vergel AI. 2014. Burnout and work engagement: the JDR approach. Annu.
Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 1:389411
Bakker AB, Sanz-Vergel AI. 2013. Weekly work engagement and flourishing: the role of hindrance and
challenge job demands. J. Vocat. Behav. 83:397409
Bastian B, Kuppens P, De Roover K, Diener E. 2014. Is valuing positive emotion associated with life satis-
faction? Emotion 14:63945
Beal DJ, Trougakos JP, Weiss HM, Dalal RS. 2013. Affect spin and the emotional regulation process at work.
J. Appl. Psychol. 98:593605
Biggs A, Brough P, Barbour JP. 2014. Strategic alignment with organizational priorities and work engagement:
a multi-wave analysis. J. Organ. Behav. 35:30117
Bindl UK, Parker SK, Totterdell P, Hagger-Johnson G. 2012. Fuel of the self-starter: how mood relates to
proactive goal regulation. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:13450
Binnewies C, Sonnentag S, Mojza EJ. 2009. Feeling recovered and thinking about the good sides of ones work:
a longitudinal study on the benefits of non-work experiences for job performance. J. Occup. Health
Psychol. 14:24356
Binnewies C, Wrnlein S. 2011. What makes a creative day? A diary study on the interplay between affect, job
stressors, and job control. J. Organ. Behav. 32:589607
Bissing-Olson MJ, Iyer A, Fielding KS, Zacher H. 2013. Relationships between daily affect and pro-
environmental behavior at work: the moderating role of pro-environmental attitude. J. Organ. Behav.
34:15675
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
Bledow R, Rosing K, Frese M. 2013. A dynamic perspective on affect and creativity. Acad. Manag. J.
56:43250
Bono JE, Foldes HJ, Vinson G, Muros JP. 2007. Workplace emotions: the role of supervision and leadership.
J. Appl. Psychol. 92:135767
Bono JE, Glomb TM, Shen W, Kim E, Koch AJ. 2013. Building positive resources: effects of positive events and
positive reflection on work-stress and health. Acad. Manag. J. 56:160127
Breevaart K, Bakker AB, Hetland J, Demerouti E, Olsen OK, Espevik R. 2014. Daily transactional and
transformational leadership and daily employee engagement. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 87:13857
Brickman P, Coates D, Janoff-Bulman R. 1978. Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative?
J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 36:91727
Brough P, Timms C, Siu O, Kalliath T, ODriscoll MP, Sit CHP. 2013. Validation of the job demands-resources
model in cross-national samples: cross-sectional and longitudinal predictions of psychological strain and
work engagement. Hum. Relat. 66:131135
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Chen G, Bliese PD, Mathieu JE. 2005. Conceptual framework and statistical procedures for delineating and
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
17.26 Sonnentag
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
Diener E. 2000. Subjective well-being: the science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. Am.
Psychol. 55:3443
Diener E. 2012. New findings and future directions for subjective well-being research. Am. Psychol. 67:59097
Diener E, Oishi S, Lucas RE. 2003. Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: emotional and cognitive
evaluations of life. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 54:40325
Diestel S, Schmidt KH. 2012. Lagged mediator effects of self-control demands on psychological strain and
absenteeism. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 85:55678
Dimotakis N, Scott BA, Koopman J. 2011. An experience sampling investigation of workplace interactions,
affective states, and employee well-being. J. Organ. Behav. 32:57288
Dunford BB, Shipp AJ, Boss RW, Angermeier I, Boss AD. 2012. Is burnout static or dynamic? A career
transition perspective of employee burnout trajectories. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:63750
Fay D, Sonnentag S. 2012. Within-person fluctuations of proactive behavior: how affect and experienced
competence regulate work behavior. Hum. Perform. 25:7293
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Ferris DL, Spence JR, Brown DJ, Heller D. 2012. Interpersonal injustice and workplace deviance: the role of
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
Hakanen JJ, Schaufeli WB, Ahola K. 2008b. The job demands-resources model: a three-year cross-lagged study
of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement. Work Stress 22:22441
Halbesleben JRB. 2006. Sources of social support and burnout: a meta-analytic test of the conservation of
resources model. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:113445
Halbesleben JRB, Buckley MR. 2006. Social comparison and burnout: the role of relative burnout and received
social support. Anxiety Stress Coping 19:25978
Halbesleben JRB, Wheeler AR. 2011. I owe you one: coworker reciprocity as a moderator of the day-level
exhaustionperformance relationship. J. Organ. Behav. 32:60826
Hammer LB, Cullen JC, Neal MB, Sinclair RR, Shafiro MV. 2005. The longitudinal effects of work-family
conflict and positive spillover on depressive symptoms among dual-earner couples. J. Occup. Health
Psychol. 10:13854
Harris C, Daniels K. 2007. The role of appraisal-related beliefs in psychological well-being and physical
symptom reporting. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 16:40731
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Harris C, Daniels K, Briner RB. 2003. A daily diary study of goals and affective well-being at work. J. Occup.
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
17.28 Sonnentag
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
Kahn WA. 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad. Manag.
J. 33:692724
Kammeyer-Mueller JD, Judge TA, Scott BA. 2009. The role of core self-evaluations in the coping process.
J. Appl. Psychol. 94:11795
Kammeyer-Mueller JD, Wanberg C, Rubenstein A, Song Z. 2013. Support, undermining, and newcomer
socialization: fitting in during the first 90 days. Acad. Manag. J. 56:110424
Kinnunen U, Feldt T. 2013. Job characteristics, recovery experiences and occupational well-being: testing
cross-lagged relationships across 1 year. Stress Health 29:36982
Khnel J, Sonnentag S, Bledow R. 2012. Resources and time pressure as day-level antecedents of work en-
gagement. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 85:18198
Kuppens P, Van Mechelen I, Nezlek JB, Dossche D, Timmermans T. 2007. Individual differences in core affect
variability and their relationship to personality and psychological adjustment. Emotion 7:26274
Lanaj K, Johnson RE, Barnes CM. 2014. Beginning the workday yet already depleted? Consequences of late-
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
night smartphone use and sleep. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 124:1123
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
Lang J, Bliese PD, Lang JWB, Adler AB. 2011. Work gets unfair for the depressed: cross-lagged relations
between organizational justice perceptions and depressive symptoms. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:60218
Lang J, Ochsmann W, Kraus T, Lang JWB. 2012. Psychosocial work stressors as antecedents of musculo-
skeletal problems: a systematic review and meta-analysis of stability-adjusted longitudinal studies. Soc.
Sci. Med. 75:116374
Leiter MP, Hakanen JJ, Ahola K, Toppinen-Tanner S, Koskinen A, Vnnen A. 2013. Organizational
predictors and health consequences of changes in burnout: a 12-year cohort study. J. Organ. Behav.
34:95973
Leitner K, Resch MG. 2005. Do the effects of job stressors on health persist over time? A longitudinal study with
observational stressor measures. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 10:1830
LePine JA, Podsakoff NP, LePine MA. 2005. A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor-hindrance stressor
framework: an explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Acad.
Manag. J. 48:76475
Lu C, Wang H, Lu J, Du D, Bakker AB. 2014. Does work engagement increase person-job fit? The role of job
crafting and job insecurity. J. Vocat. Behav. 84:14252
Luhmann M, Hofmann W, Eid M, Lucas RE. 2012. Subjective well-being and adaptation to life events: a meta-
analysis. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 102:592615
Madrid HP, Patterson MG, Birdi KS, Leiva PI, Kausel EE. 2014. The role of weekly high-activated positive
mood, context, and personality in innovative work behavior: a multilevel and interactional model.
J. Organ. Behav. 35:23456
Mkikangas A, Hyvnen K, Leskinen E, Kinnunen U, Feldt T. 2011. A person-centred approach to investigate
the development trajectories of job-related affective well-being: a 10-year follow-up study. J. Occup.
Organ. Psychol. 84:32746
Maslach C, Leiter MP. 2008. Early predictors of job burnout and engagement. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:498512
Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP. 2001. Job burnout. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52:397422
Matthews RA, Wayne JH, Ford MT. 2014. A work-family conflict/subjective well-being process model: a test
of competing theories of longitudinal effects. J. Appl. Psychol. 99:117387
Mauno S, Kinnunen U, Ruokolainen M. 2007. Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement:
a longitudinal study. J. Vocat. Behav. 70:14971
May DR, Gilson RL, Harter L. 2004. The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability
and the engagement of the human spirit at work. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 77:1137
Meier LL, Gross S, Spector PE, Semmer NK. 2013. Relationship and task conflict at work: interactive short-
term effects on angry mood and somatic complaints. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 18:14456
Meier LL, Semmer NK, Gross S. 2014. The effect of conflict at work on well-being: depressive symptoms as
a vulnerability factor. Work Stress 28:3148
Miner AG, Glomb TM. 2010. State mood, task performance, and behavior at work: a within-persons ap-
proach. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 112:4357
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
Miner AG, Glomb TM, Hulin C. 2005. Experience sampling mood and its correlates. J. Occup. Organ.
Psychol. 78:17193
Nahum-Shani I, Bamberger PA, Bacharach SB. 2011. Social support and employee well-being: the conditioning
effect of perceived patterns of supportive exchange. J. Health Soc. Behav. 52:12339
Nesselroade JR. 1991. The wrap and the woof of the developmental fabric. In Visions of Developments, the
Environment, and Aesthetics: The Legacy of Joachim F. Wohlwill, ed. R Downs, L Liben, D Palermo,
pp. 21340. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Nielsen K, Randall R, Yarker J, Brenner SO. 2008. The effects of transformational leadership on followers
perceived work characteristics and psychological well-being: a longitudinal study. Work Stress 22:1632
Niessen C, Sonnentag S, Sach F. 2012. Thriving at worka diary study. J. Organ. Behav. 33:46887
Nixon AE, Mazzola JJ, Bauer J, Krueger JR, Spector PE. 2011. Can work make you sick? A meta-analysis of the
relationships between job stressors and physical symptoms. Work Stress 25:122
Nohe C, Meier LL, Sonntag K, Michel A. 2015. The chicken or the egg? A meta-analysis of panel studies of the
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Parker SK, Bindl UK, Strauss K. 2010. Making things happen: a model of proactive motivation. J. Manage.
36:82756
Parker SK, Collins CG. 2010. Taking stock: integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors.
J. Manag. 36:63362
Petrou P, Demerouti E, Peeters M, Schaufeli WB, Hetland J. 2012. Crafting a job on a daily basis: contextual
correlates and the link to work engagement. J. Organ. Behav. 33:112041
Pitariu AH, Ployhart RE. 2010. Explaining change: theorizing and testing dynamic mediated longitudinal
relationships. J. Manag. 36:40529
Ram N, Gerstorf D. 2009. Time-structured and net intraindividual variability: tools for examining the de-
velopment of dynamic characteristics and processes. Psychol. Aging 24:77891
Reis D, Hoppe A, Schrder A. 2015. Reciprocal relationships between resources, work and study engagement,
and mental health: evidence for gain cycles. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 24: 5975
Rich BL, LePine JA, Crawford ER. 2010. Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance. Acad.
Manag. J. 53:61735
Rodell JB, Judge TA. 2009. Can good stressors spark bad behaviors? The mediating role of emotions in
links of challenge and hindrance stressors with citizenship and counterproductive behaviors. J. Appl.
Psychol. 94:143851
Rosso BD, Dekas KH, Wrzesniewski A. 2010. On the meaning of work: a theoretical integration and review.
Res. Organ. Behav. 30:91127
Rothbard NP, Wilk SL. 2011. Waking up on the right or wrong side of the bed: start-of-workday mood, work
events, employee affect, and performance. Acad. Manag. J. 54:95980
Russell JA. 1980. A circumplex model of affect. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 39:116178
Ryan RM, Deci EL. 2001. On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and
eudaimonic well-being. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52:14166
Ryan RM, Huta V, Deci EL. 2008. Living well: a self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia.
J Happiness Stud. 9:13970
Ryff CD. 1995. Psychological well-being in adult life. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 4:99104
Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. 2004. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and en-
gagement: a multi-sample study. J. Organ. Behav. 25:293315
Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Van Rhenen W. 2009. How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout,
work engagement and sickness absenteeism. J. Organ. Behav. 30:893917
Schmitt A, Zacher H, Frese M. 2012. The buffering effect of selection, optimization, and compensation strategy
use on the relationship between problem solving demands and occupational well-being: a daily diary
study. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 17:13949
Schreurs B, Guenter H, Hlsheger U, Van Emmerik H. 2014. The role of punishment and reward sensitivity in
the emotional labor process: a within-person perspective. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 19:10821
Schwarz N, Clore GL. 1983. Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: informative and directive
functions of affective states. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 45:51323
17.30 Sonnentag
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
Scott BA, Barnes CM. 2011. A multilevel field investigation of emotional labor, affect, work withdrawal, and
gender. Acad. Manag. J. 54:11636
Scott BA, Colquitt JA, Paddock EL, Judge TA. 2010. A daily investigation of the role of manager empathy on
employee well-being. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 113:12740
Scott BA, Judge TA. 2006. Insomnia, emotions, and job satisfaction: a multilevel study. J. Manag. 32:62245
Semmer N, Zapf D, Greif S. 1996. Shared job strain: a new approach for assessing the validity of job stress
measurements. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 69:293310
Seo MG, Bartunek JM, Barrett LF. 2010. The role of affective experience in work motivation: test of
a conceptual model. J. Organ. Behav. 31:95168
Seo MG, Ilies R. 2009. The role of self-efficacy, goal, and affect in dynamic motivational self-regulation.
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 109:12033
Shi Y, Sears LE, Coberley CR, Pope JE. 2013. The association between modifiable well-being risks and
productivity: a longitudinal study in pooled employer sample. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 55:35364
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Shirom A, Melamed S. 2006. A comparison of the construct validity of two burnout measures in two groups of
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
Theorell T, Nyberg A, Leineweber C, Hanson LLM, Oxenstierna G, Westerlund H. 2012. Non-listening and
self centered leadership: relationships to socioeconomic conditions and employee mental health. PLOS
ONE 7:e44119
Thoreson CJ, Kaplan SA, Barsky AP, Warren CR, de Chermont K. 2003. The affective underpinnings of job
perceptions and attitudes: a meta-analytic review and integration. Psychol. Bull. 129:91445
Tims M, Bakker AB, Derks D. 2013. The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being.
J. Occup. Health Psychol. 18:23040
Tims M, Bakker AB, Xanthopoulou D. 2011. Do transformational leaders enhance their followers daily work
engagement. Leadersh. Q. 22:12131
To ML, Fisher CD, Ashkanasy NM, Rowe PA. 2012. Within-person relationships between mood and cre-
ativity. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:599612
Totterdell P, Wood S, Wall T. 2006. An intra-individual test of the demands-control model: a weekly diary
study of psychological strain in portfolio workers. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 79:6384
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Trougakos JP, Beal DJ, Cheng BH, Ivona H, Zweig D. 2015. Too drained to help: a resource depletion
Access provided by University of California - Irvine on 01/30/15. For personal use only.
17.32 Sonnentag
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
arop2Sonnentag ARI 14 January 2015 17:46
Xie JL, Schaubroeck J, Lam SSK. 2008. Theories of job stress and the role of traditional values: a longitudinal
study in China. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:83148
Yang J, Diefendorff JM. 2009. The relations of daily counterproductive workplace behavior with emo-
tions, situational antecedents, and personality moderators: a diary study in Hong Kong. Pers. Psychol.
62:25995
Ybema JF, Smulders PGW, Bongers PM. 2010. Antecedents and consequences of employee absenteeism:
a longitudinal perspective on the role of job satisfaction and burnout. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol.
19:10224
Zacher H, Jimmieson NL, Bordia P. 2014. Time pressure and coworker support mediate the curvilinear
relationship between age and occupational well-being. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 19:46275
Zelenski JM, Murphy SA, Jenkins DA. 2008. The happy-productive worker thesis revisited. J. Happiness Stud.
9:52137
Zohar D, Tzischinski O, Epstein R. 2003. Effects of energy availability on immediate and delayed emotional
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print