Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 124 (2014) 11–23

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp

Beginning the workday yet already depleted? Consequences

of late-night smartphone use and sleep
Klodiana Lanaj a,⇑, Russell E. Johnson b, Christopher M. Barnes c
a
Warrington College of Business Administration, University of Florida, United States
b
The Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, United States
c
Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Smartphones have become a prevalent technology as they provide employees with instant access to
Received 27 August 2012 work-related information and communications outside of the office. Despite these advantages, there
Accepted 10 January 2014 may be some costs of smartphone use for work at night. Drawing from ego depletion theory, we exam-
ined whether smartphone use depletes employees’ regulatory resources and impairs their engagement at
Accepted by Paul Levy
work the following day. Across two studies using experience sampling methodology, we found that
smartphone use for work at night increased depletion the next morning via its effects on sleep. Morning
Keywords:
depletion in turn diminished daily work engagement. The indirect effects of smartphone use on depletion
Smartphone use
Depletion
and engagement the next day were incremental to the effects of other electronic devices (e.g., computer,
Sleep tablet, and television use). We also found some support that the negative effects of morning depletion on
Work engagement daily work engagement may be buffered by job control, such that depletion impairs work engagement
Experience sampling methodology only for employees who experience low job control.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction Unfortunately, this key replenishing activity eludes many people.

Self-control resources are important for effective functioning in
the workplace (Beal, Weiss, Barros, & MacDermid, 2005; Kanfer,
Ackerman, Murtha, Dugdale, & Nelson, 1994). With adequate
self-control, people are able to override impulses, block out dis-
tracting emotions and cognitions, and align behavior with social
norms and task standards (Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, &
Twenge, 2005; Hagger, Wood, Stiff, & Chatzisarantis, 2010).
People’s ability to exert self-control, however, is not limitless.
Ego depletion theory (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice,
1998; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000) suggests that continuous acts
of self-control draw from a limited pool of resources that is vulner-
able to depletion. Once depleted, people find subsequent work
activities more demanding and become vulnerable to non-task dis-
tractions and impulses (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007; Beal et al.,
2005). In organizational settings, for example, depletion makes it
more difficult for employees to refrain from deviant and unethical
acts (e.g., Christian & Ellis, 2011; Gino, Schweitzer, Mead, & Ariely,
2011; Thau & Mitchell, 2010).
Off-work recovery activities are important for replenishing de-
pleted resources, and getting sufficient sleep is especially impor-
tant (Baumeister, 2003; Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, 2008).
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: klodiana.lanaj@warrington.ufl.edu (K. Lanaj).
For example, the National Sleep Foundation reported that only four
in ten Americans report getting sufficient sleep on most nights
(Marcus, 2010). Although there are many causes of insufficient
sleep, a commonly-cited reason is smartphone use for work
(Perlow, 2012). Smartphones have quickly become a prevalent
technology (e.g., over half of American adults own a smartphone;
iPass, 2011; Smith, 2013), providing people with instant access to
electronic information and communication. There are clear bene-
fits of using smartphones for work – access to company email
and files is faster and easier than ever before and they provide di-
rect connections to clients, coworkers, and supervisors. Indeed,
many companies provide smartphones to their employees for
these very reasons (Carlson, 2012).
The benefits of smartphone use for work at home may, how-
ever, be offset by the inability of employees to fully recover from
work activities while away from the office, especially at night.
Employees often use smartphones for work within an hour of going
to bed, and many sleep within reach of their smartphones (Perlow,
2012). Although smartphones provide ready access to work emails
and documents that facilitates connectivity to work, they may also
interfere with employees’ sleep and replenishment of regulatory
resources. Moreover, when employees fail to replenish depleted re-
sources, their engagement at work suffers the following day (e.g.,
Binnewies, Sonnentag, & Mojza, 2009; Sonnentag et al., 2008).
Thus, the connectivity provided by smartphones may in fact have

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.01.001
0749-5978/Ó 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
12 K. Lanaj et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 124 (2014) 11–23
an effect that is opposite from what companies intend. While using
smartphones for work at night may be convenient, it is unclear
whether doing so also carries some cost to employees. Given this
potential paradox, an accurate understanding of the relations
among smartphone use for work at night, depletion, and work
engagement the next day is needed.
In addition to the possible paradoxical effects of smartphone
use on engagement, another question is whether these relations
are incremental to ones involving other technologies. Smartphones
serve many of the same functions as other electronic devices, like
computers, tablets, and televisions, thus it may be that the effects
of smartphone use at night are redundant with these other tech-
nologies. If so, then there is less need to devote specific attention
to smartphones. However, we suspect that smartphones are un-
ique for several reasons. First, compared to other forms of technol-
ogy, smartphone use has more direct ties to work responsibilities.
For example, television viewing is not typically done for work pur-
poses, and computers have such a broad variety of uses (e.g., pro-
ducing and consuming social media, photo and video editing) that
a large proportion of their use is for non-work purposes. Smart-
phones, on the other hand, are often the first wave of incursion
of work into the home (Huhman, 2011; Perlow, 2012). For exam-
ple, initial smartphone activity sometimes leads to the use of other
technologies, such as when an email or instant message request
prompts employees to access files on their computer or laptop.
Second, smartphones are more accessible (and thus more invasive)
than other technologies. Smartphones, which are rarely powered
off, instantly notify users of new messages, emails, and notifica-
tions and their portability enables them to be brought anywhere,
including into the bedroom. Computers and laptops, in contrast,
shut off (or hibernate) and require time to boot up. They are also
appreciably larger, which constrains where they can be placed
and used. In support of this idea, it is reported that people check
their smartphones for messages far more often than they do on
computers and other devices (Perlow, 2012). The frequent nature
of their interruptions and the ease of using smartphones in bed
may be among the driving features that render smartphones un-
iquely depleting. There is a need, then, to ascertain whether smart-
phones deserve special consideration or whether they are merely
representative of a broader domain that includes other technolo-
gies like computers and televisions.
The aim of this research is to provide an ego depletion view of
workplace behavior by examining within-person linkages between
morning depletion and daily work engagement over multiple days.
We examine antecedents, consequences, and buffers of morning
depletion. With regards to antecedents, late-night smartphone
use for work and sleep quantity are specified as precursors of
depletion at the beginning of the following work day. Despite anec-
dotal evidence that smartphone use may impact employees’ subse-
quent sleep and functioning at work (e.g., The Economist, 2012;
Time Magazine, 2012), these proposals have not been empirically
verified. Additionally, we examined whether smartphones have
incremental effects vis-à-vis other technologies (e.g., computer
and television use). With regards to consequences, we investigated
the effect of morning depletion on daily work engagement. Finally,
drawing from theories of ego depletion and job design, we exam-
ined job control as a buffer of the negative relation of depletion
with work engagement. Illustrated in Fig. 1 is our theoretical
model.
This research has important theoretical and practical implica-
tions. First, a shortcoming of ego depletion research is that it gen-
erally examines temporally proximal cognitive tasks as
antecedents of depletion (Baumeister et al., 1998; Hagger et al.,
2010; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). For example, it has been
found that engaging in cognitively demanding tasks increases the
likelihood of subsequent counterproductive behavior (Gino et al.,
2011; Mead, Baumeister, Gino, Schweitzer, & Ariely, 2009). How-
ever, several recent studies have begun to extend this temporal
horizon, indicating that sleep the previous night is an important
antecedent of depletion and restoration (Barnes, Schaubroeck,
Huth, & Ghumman, 2011; Christian & Ellis, 2011; Wagner, Barnes,
Lim, & Ferris, 2012). There is value in adding to this literature by
examining factors that contribute to inadequate sleep, which can
then be acted upon to improve sleep and reduce depletion. If
smartphone use for work at night results in depletion the next
day via its interference with sleep, concrete steps can be taken to
mitigate this problem (e.g., removing smartphones from the bed-
room or powering them down completely after a specified time).
Second, self-control resources not only help people suppress
negative outcomes but they also contribute to positive outcomes
(Baumeister et al., 1998; DeWall, Baumeister, Gailliot, & Maner,
2008; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). Organizational scholars to
date, however, have primarily focused on relations of depletion
of self-control resources with negative outcomes like deviant and
unethical behaviors (e.g., Gino et al., 2011), while ignoring its ef-
fects on positive outcomes. This oversight is unfortunate because
positive work outcomes such as work engagement also require
regulatory resources and they contribute to effective job perfor-
mance (e.g., Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011; Rich, LePine, &
Crawford, 2010). For these reasons, there is value in examining
whether and how depletion affects work engagement, which refers
to the investment of high levels of effort and personal energies at
work (Macey & Schneider, 2008).
Third, contextual factors may counteract the negative effects of
depletion, especially those that support people’s needs for auton-
omy and competence (Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007). Unfortu-
nately, contextual factors in work settings that buffer the effects
of depletion have yet to be identified. In this study we examined
job control as one such moderator (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Hackman
& Oldham, 1976). Considering job control addresses Sonnentag’s
(2011) recent call for more attention to the role of task character-
istics with regards to work engagement. In addition, examination
of the role of job control has important practical implications be-
cause there are many ways that organizations can create auton-
omy-supportive environments for employees (e.g., Parker,
Williams, & Turner, 2006), and by doing so, minimize depletion-re-
lated effects on work engagement. In the following sections we de-
velop hypotheses regarding the antecedents, consequences, and
boundary conditions of depletion shown in Fig. 1.
Late-night smartphone use and sleep as antecedents of morning
depletion
Ego depletion theory recognizes sleep as a critical mechanism
for replenishing depleted resources (Baumeister, 2003; Baumei-
ster, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994). The physiological processes associ-
ated with sleep and sleep deprivation parallel the resource
depletion and recovery processes associated with self-control
(Barnes & Van Dyne, 2009; Horne, Anderson, & Platten, 2008).
For example, physiological research indicates that inadequate
sleep is associated with significant drops in glucose levels and
cerebral metabolic rates in the prefrontal cortex (Schnyer, Zei-
thamova, & Williams, 2009; Wimmer, Hoffmann, Bonato, & Moffitt,
1992). This reduced activity is noteworthy because the prefrontal
cortex plays a key role in executive functioning (Nilsson et al.,
2005), which is inherently tied to self-control (Kaplan & Berman,
2010). Thus, recent research has linked a lack of sleep to ego deple-
tion (Barnes, 2012), which in turn has been linked to breakdowns
in the regulation of deviant and unethical behaviors (Barnes
et al., 2011; Christian & Ellis, 2011; Wagner et al., 2012).
Although sleep is important in replenishing the needed re-
sources for self-control, work activities often interfere with getting
 K. Lanaj et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 124 (2014) 11–23
Fig. 1. Theoretical model linking smartphone use for work at night with sleep, depletion, and engagement.
sufficient sleep (Akerstedt, Fredlund, Gillberg, & Jansson, 2002;
Barnes, Wagner, & Ghumman, 2012; de Lang et al., 2009). Working
late at night is especially disruptive to sleep (Czeisler & et al., 1999;
Folkard & Tucker, 2003; Son, Kong, Koh, Kim, & Harma, 2008),
which is now more common owing to the rise in use of smart-
phones for work (iPass Inc., 2011; Perlow, 2012; The Economist,
2012). One poll indicates that people spend upwards of 15 h a
day with their smartphones on and in close proximity, many of
whom sleep with their smartphones within reach by their bed
(The Telegraph, 2011). Given the other activities that compete for
employees’ time outside of work—such as family demands (Ed-
wards & Rothbard, 2000; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985)—many
employees conduct significant portions of their smartphone-based
work late in the evening (e.g., checking work email after their chil-
dren have gone to bed). In a recent marketing study conducted by
Ericsson, 64% of participants indicated their non-voice smartphone
usage occurred in the late evening and 40% indicated they used
their smartphones in bed (Ericsson ConsumerLab, 2011).
Despite the convenience and benefits of using smartphones for
work at night, two subfields of sleep physiology research indicate
that doing so may pose problems for sleep and behavior the next
day. One subfield focuses on the interplay between light and sleep
and suggests that humans have evolved to be better suited for
activity during daylight than darkness (Siegel, 2005). This is man-
ifested as the circadian rhythm, a clocklike mechanism that regu-
lates many physiological activities including sleep mechanisms
(Borb & Achermann, 1999; Czeisler et al., 1999). The circadian
rhythm cycle is regulated by the suprachiasmatic nuclei of the
hypothalamus, which relays signals to the pineal gland to secrete
melatonin, which is a key biochemical in the process of falling
asleep (Dijk & Czeisler, 1995; Lavie, 2001). Melatonin directly
inhibits the wakefulness-generating mechanisms, thereby en-
abling the brain’s sleep-related structures to be activated unop-
posed (Lavie, 1986, 2001). Light, however, inhibits the production
of melatonin (Lavie, 2001). Illuminance that is well below typical
indoor light can suppress melatonin (Brainard et al., 1988), and
even a simple light pulse shined on the back of the knee interrupts
the human circadian rhythm (Campbell & Murphy, 1998). Thus,
late night exposure to even small amounts of light can disrupt
asleep. Smartphones have backlit display screens that shine light
onto users when in use and when messages and other notifications
are received. This means that employees lying in bed in the dark—
who would otherwise be producing melatonin and falling asleep—
are exposed to light when smartphones are nearby, thereby
13
disrupting the production of melatonin and consequentially falling
and staying asleep.
A second subfield of sleep physiology focuses on sleep hygiene.
Activities such as using sleep-disturbing products (e.g., caffeine),
engaging in activating activities close to bedtime, and using the
bed for activities other than sleep inhibit the process of falling
and staying asleep (Gellis & Lichstein, 2009). Poor sleep hygiene,
in turn, is linked to poor sleep outcomes (Mindell, Meltzer, Carska-
don, & Chervin, 2009; Suen, Hon, & Tam, 2008). Smartphone use is
an example of an activating activity that contributes to poor sleep
hygiene (Brunborg et al., 2011). In particular, smartphone use for
work at night prevents employees from psychologically detaching
themselves from work, which is problematic because detachment
has beneficial effects on sleep (Sonnentag, Dorman, & Demerouti,
2010; Sonnentag et al., 2008). Smartphone use for work at night
may also trigger active ruminations about ongoing work tasks
and impending deadlines. Such ruminations undermine people’s
sleep hygiene, preventing them from getting sufficient rest and
recovering depleted resources (e.g., Querstret & Cropley, 2012;
Söderström, Jeding, Ekstedt, Perski, & Åkerstedt, 2012). Drawing
from these bodies of research, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1. Late night smartphone use will be positively related
to low sleep quantity.
Hypothesis 2. Sleep quantity will be negatively related to morning
depletion.
Hypothesis 3. Sleep quantity will mediate the effect of late night
smartphone use with morning depletion.
Work engagement as a consequence of morning depletion and
smartphone use
Work engagement represents investment of personal energies
into work roles (Kahn, 1990, 1992; Rich et al., 2010). Engaged
employees are ‘‘psychologically present, fully there, attentive, feel-
ing, connected, integrated, and focused on their role performances’’
(Rich et al., 2010, p. 619). Ego depletion theory posits that deple-
tion of self-regulatory resources impairs the attention and effort
that can be allocated to subsequent activities (Muraven & Baumei-
ster, 2000). Thus, the low effort and difficulty in directing and
14 K. Lanaj et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 124 (2014) 11–23
focusing attention that is entailed by ego depletion is inconsistent
with the focus and effort entailed in engagement. Engaged
employees bring and apply energy to their work (Bakker & Leiter,
2010; Kahn, 1990, 1992), but energy is an internal resource that
is vulnerable to depletion (Baumeister et al., 1998, 2007). Thus,
we expect that morning depletion has implications for work
engagement because experiencing engagement requires regulatory
resources in order for employees to become absorbed in their work
and to block out non-work distractions (e.g., Christian et al., 2011).
Studies adopting a resource perspective to work engagement
(e.g., Halbesleben, 2010; Halbesleben, Harvey, & Bolino, 2009) have
identified several between-person organizational and personal re-
sources that contribute to work engagement. Far less attention,
however, has been given to the impact of within-person changes
in resources. This oversight is surprising because engagement is a
within-person phenomenon that varies over time (Sonnentag,
2003; Sonnentag et al., 2010), and research indicates that recovery
activities performed the previous day impact engagement levels
the next day (Sonnentag, 2003; Sonnentag, Mojza, Demerouti, &
Bakker, 2012). Thus, regulatory resources ought to be an important
source of daily work engagement, an idea that is consistent with
Sonnentag et al.’s (2010) theoretical model of state work engage-
ment that specifically recognizes daily resources as predictors of
daily work engagement. If so, then employees who experience
depletion in the morning (due to smartphone use and poor sleep
the previous night) should experience less engagement during
the workday. Consistent with the arguments presented above, we
hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 4. Morning depletion will be negatively related to
daily work engagement.
Hypothesis 5. Sleep quantity and depletion will mediate the effect
of late-night smartphone use on daily work engagement.
Buffering role of job control
The impact of morning depletion on daily work engagement
may vary across people. Theories of job design and motivation
identify job control (i.e., the extent to which employees have free-
dom of choice over their work behavior; Grandey, Fisk, & Steiner,
2005) as a key source of employees’ intrinsic motivation for and
identification with their work (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Hackman &
Oldham, 1976; Patall, Cooper, & Robinson, 2008). Furthermore,
ego depletion theory proposes that depletion is offset by factors
that enhance intrinsic motivation to perform well (Muraven &
Slessareva, 2003). Indeed, job control is likely to provide affective
and cognitive resources that compensate for situations that are
depleting (Grandey et al., 2005). It is possible, then, that employees
with high job control may be less susceptible to the damaging ef-
fects of morning depletion. This possibility is supported by Kar-
asek’s (1979) job demand-control model, which recognizes job
control as a moderator for the effects of resources on work activi-
ties. Empirical results also suggest that job control counters the
depleting effects of stressors on health and well-being (Karasek,
1979, 1990; Van Yperen & Hagedoorn, 2003).
Unfortunately, little research has examined how between-indi-
vidual differences in job characteristics may moderate the extent
to which morning resources impact daily work activities. This
oversight is regrettable for practical reasons because job character-
istics can be readily altered in order to aid employees. If it is the
case that greater job control equips employees with resources to
counteract morning depletion, then companies can redress some
of the problems created by late-night smartphone use by enhanc-
ing employees’ sense of control. Given the central role of autonomy
for cultivating intrinsic motivation and buffering the effects of
stressors, we predict that job control will mitigate the negative
relation of depletion with engagement.
Hypothesis 6. Job control will moderate the negative relation of
morning depletion with daily work engagement, such that the
relationship is weaker when job control is high vs. low.
We tested the hypotheses across two studies using experience-
sampling methodology. Such methodology was necessary because
the focal predictors and outcomes fluctuate daily. In Study 1 we
established whether smartphone use for work late at night contrib-
uted to poor sleep and reduced resources and engagement the fol-
lowing workday. These potential costs have received far less
attention relative to the benefits that smartphones provide to
employees (e.g., greater access and connectivity). In Study 2, we
reexamined the focal relations, this time controlling for other dis-
ruptive technologies (computers, tablets, and televisions) that may
impact employees’ sleep and depletion. Thus, in addition to evalu-
ating the generalizability of our findings, we also established
whether smartphones are a unique source of depletion.
Study 1: Method
Our sample 1 consisted of 82 mid- to high-level managers en-
rolled in weekend MBA classes at a large university in the Midwest
US. The sample consisted of 65 men and 17 women. Thirty-nine (or
48%) participants were between 31 and 40 years old, 28 (or 34%)
were between 20 and 30 years old, and 15 (or 18%) were between
41 and 50 years old. Participants worked an average of 47.9 h per
week (SD = 10.4), and were employed in a variety of positions
(e.g., recruiting program manager, associate manager, senior man-
ager of operations, chief financial officer, finance manager, and lead
engineer).
Participants first completed an initial one-time survey that as-
sessed demographic characteristics and job control. One week later
we started administering the daily surveys. We utilized experi-
ence-sampling methodology (Wheeler & Reis, 1991) to capture
participants’ daily use of smartphones for work, sleep quantity,
sleep quality, state-depletion, and work engagement. Participants
completed surveys twice a day – morning and afternoon – for a
period of ten consecutive workdays. The morning survey, which
was sent to participants at 6 AM each morning, assessed partici-
pants’ smartphone use for work the previous night, sleep quality
and quantity, and state-depletion at that moment. The afternoon
survey, which was sent at 4 PM each afternoon, measured partici-
pants’ work engagement experienced that day. To verify that
participants completed each survey at the appropriate time, we
checked the timestamps of the morning and afternoon surveys.
The average time elapsed between completion of the morning
and afternoon surveys was 8.7 h (SD = 2.8 h). In total, we received
557 matched morning and afternoon surveys out of a possible
820, yielding a response rate of 68%. The sample size was smaller
for analyses involving lagged variables.
Measures
Smartphone use
We were interested in measuring late night smartphone use for
work. Research suggests that most people have a propensity to go
to sleep within 1–2 h of 11:00 PM (Barnes & Wagner, 2009; Lavie,
1986) and we wanted to capture their use of smartphones close to
their bedtime. Hence, we assessed smartphone use with the
following item: ‘‘How many minutes did you use your
Blackberry/Smartphone for work after 9 PM last night?’’
 K. Lanaj et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 124 (2014) 11–23
Sleep quantity
We measured sleep quantity with the following item adapted
from Buysse, Reynolds Iii, Monk, Berman, and Kupfer (1989):
‘‘How many hours of actual sleep did you get last night (This may
be different than the number of hours you spent in bed)?’’
Morning depletion
Morning state-depletion was measured with five items (average
a across days = .91) from a scale developed by Twenge, Muraven,
and Tice (2004; see Christian & Ellis, 2011, for the full list of items).
Each morning participants indicated the extent to which each
statement represented how they felt at that moment, using a scale
ranging from 1 (‘‘Very slightly or not at all’’) to 5 (‘‘Very much’’).
Example items included ‘‘I feel drained’’ and ‘‘Right now, it would
take a lot of effort for me to concentrate on something.’’
Work engagement
We adapted three items (average a = .85) from Schaufeli et al.’s
(2006) short-form Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) to
assess daily work engagement. The afternoon survey asked partic-
ipants to indicate their agreement with the engagement items
using a scale ranging from 1 (‘‘Strongly disagree’’) to 5 (‘‘Strongly
agree’’). An example item is: ‘‘Today while working, I forgot every-
thing else around me.’’
Job control
Job control was measured on the initial one-time survey using
three items (a = .82) developed by Karasek (1979). Participants
indicated the extent to which they had freedom and control over
their work using a response scale ranging from 1 (‘‘Never’’) to 5
(‘‘Very often’’). Example items include: ‘‘To what extent do you
have freedom to decide how to organize your work?’’ and ‘‘To what
extent do you have control over what happens on your job?’’
Control variables
Research indicates that sleep quantity and sleep quality are
related, such that poor sleep quality erodes sleep quantity (Barnes
et al., 2011). Therefore, we controlled for sleep quality in all anal-
yses that included sleep quantity. We measured sleep quality each
morning with four items (a = .84) from Scott and Judge (2006; e.g.,
‘‘I woke up several times during the night’’). Research also indicates
that short sleep quantity and poor sleep quality on one night lead
to longer sleep the next night (Banks, van Dongen, Maislin, & Din-
ges, 2010; Dinges et al., 1997; Rupp, Wesensten, Bliese, & Balkin,
2009). Accordingly, when predicting sleep quantity, we included
sleep quantity and quality from the previous night (i.e., lagged in
time by 1 day) as control variables.
Pilot study
For practical concerns, it is common in experience sampling
studies to use shortened scales to avoid burdening participants
and to motivate regular participation (Fisher & To, 2012). However,
using shorter scales may raise concerns about their psychometric
properties. In order to verify that the shortened scales still reflect
the focal constructs, we conducted a pilot study. Eight-four em-
ployed participants (average age = 31.4 years, SD = 10.8; average
hours worked per week = 41.5, SD = 5.95) were recruited and
administered the full Twenge et al. (2004) depletion scale and
the full Schaufeli, Bakker, and Salanova (2006) engagement scale.
Participants were instructed to respond to the items based on their
experience that day at work. We evaluated scores on the shortened
scales by correlating them with scores on the full scale. In both
cases, correlations between the short and full scales were large:
15
r = .93 for depletion and r = .83 for engagement (p < .01 for both).
The shortened scales were therefore deemed valid measures of
their target constructs.
Study 1: Results
Reported in Table 1 are descriptive statistics and correlations
for the focal variables. To determine whether level 1 variables dis-
played within-individual variance, we first examined the results of
null models via hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Raudenbush &
Bryk, 2002). Null models are useful to estimate the within- and be-
tween-person variance in level 1 variables. As our findings in
Table 2 illustrate, there was significant within-person variance
(ranging from 41% to 67%) in all level 1 endogenous variables.
The amount of within-person variance tended to be larger than
the amount of between-person variance, which indicates that
HLM is appropriate. Consistent with recommendations by
Hofmann, Griffin, and Gavin (2000), all level 1 variables were cen-
tered at participants’ means (e.g., group mean centering), whereas
the level 2 variable (job control) was grand-mean centered. Center-
ing at participants’ means removes effects of between-person con-
founds from level 1 variables and allows for a better understanding
of relations among level 1 variables (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).
Tests of hypotheses
Hypothesis 1 stated that late night smartphone use would be
positively associated with low sleep quantity that night. We tested
this hypothesis by regressing sleep quantity on smartphone use,
controlling for sleep quality, and previous night sleep quantity
and quality. Thus, the regression coefficient reflects change in sleep
quantity associated with smartphone use. We found support for
Hypothesis 1: smartphone use for work at night was associated
with lower sleep quantity that night (B = .005, p < .05; see
Table 3). We computed pseudo R2 and found that compared to
the null model, this regression explained 49% of the within person
variance in sleep quantity, and 5% of this variance was explained
by smartphone use for work at night.
Building on theoretical arguments that sleep has restorative
properties, Hypothesis 2 posited that sleep quantity would be neg-
atively related to morning depletion. Consistent with this predic-
tion, we found that sleep quantity was negatively associated
with morning depletion (B = 0.29, p < .05) and that it explained
17% of the within person variance in depletion, controlling for var-
iance explained by sleep quality and smartphone use.
Hypothesis 3 stated that sleep quantity would mediate the rela-
tion of late night smartphone use with state depletion the next
morning. To ascertain whether the mediated effect was statistically
significant, we followed recommendations by Bauer, Preacher, and
Gil (2006) for testing mediation (1-1-1) in multilevel models. To do
so, we estimated the indirect effect and conducted a Monte Carlo
simulation with 20,000 replications to obtain a confidence interval
around the indirect effect. Monte Carlo simulation is appropriate
because it produces confidence intervals that account for the
non-normal sampling distribution of the indirect effect (Preacher,
Zyphur, & Zhang, 2010; Wang et al., 2013). The estimate for the
indirect effect was .002, and the biased corrected 95% confidence
interval did not include zero (.001, .003). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was
supported as sleep quantity mediated the effect of smartphone
use on morning depletion.
Because work engagement requires regulatory resources, we
hypothesized that morning depletion would reduce employees’
daily work engagement. In support of Hypothesis 4, morning
16 K. Lanaj et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 124 (2014) 11–23

Table 1
Study 1: descriptive statistics and correlations.

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Smartphone use 7.84 19.80
2 Sleep quantity 6.36 1.09 0.14**
3 Sleep quality 4.09 0.89 0.03 0.54**
4 Previous day sleep quantity 6.37 1.08 0.01 0.07 0.06
5 Previous day sleep quality 4.04 0.89 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.55**
6 Morning depletion 1.59 0.72 0.03 0.45** 0.51** 0.01 0.04
7 Work engagement 3.47 0.91 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.10*
8 Job control 4.00 0.79 0.02 0.04 0.17 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.17

Note: N at level 1 = 557, N at level 2 = 82. Variables 1–7 are within-individual (level 1) variables. Their means and standard deviations are based on daily observations. Inter-
correlations are based on within-individual scores. Job control is a between-individual variable. Its inter-correlations with variables 1–7 are based on between-individual
scores (e.g., we aggregated variables 1–7 to the individual level).
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

Table 2
Study 1: parameter estimates and variance composition of level 1 variables.

Variable Intercept b00 Within-individual variance (e2) Between-individual variance (r2) Percentage of within-individual variance
**
Smartphone use 7.25 215.66 106.18 67
Sleep quantity 6.37** 0.74 0.45 62
Sleep quality 4.12** 0.49 0.32 60
Previous day sleep quantity 6.36** 0.68 0.53 56
Previous day sleep quality 4.068** 0.5 0.31 62
Morning depletion 1.59** 0.32 0.21 60
Work engagement 3.49** 0.45 0.37 55

Note: b00 represents the average level of the variable across individuals. e2 represents the within-individual variance and, r2 the between-individual variance in the variable.
Percentage of within-individual variance was computed as the ratio of the within-individual variance/(within + between variance).

p < .05.
**
p < .01.

Table 3
to estimate 1-1-1-1 micro-mediation in multilevel modeling (the
Study 1: HLM results for predictors of sleep quantity.
indirect effect is equal to the product of the parameter estimates
Predictor Criterion: Sleep quantity of the three paths plus the sum of the covariances of their slopes).
B SE t We then tested this indirect effect with the Monte Carlo procedure
Intercept (b00) 6.376 0.092 69.43** suggested by Bauer et al. (2006). The Monte Carlo approach utilizes
Sleep quality (b10) 0.692 0.068 10.09** the parameter estimates from multilevel modeling as well as their
Previous day sleep quality (b20) 0.169 0.084 2.01* variances and covariances to produce a distribution of the estimate
Previous day sleep quantity (b30) 0.101 0.062 1.65
of the indirect effect. The Monte Carlo simulation then randomly
Smartphone use (b40) 0.005 0.003 1.96*
draws 20,000 times from this distribution of the indirect effect,
Note: N = 356 (sample size is smaller due to lagged variables). All level 1 predictors where each random draw utilizes the adjusted formula above by
were centered at persons’ means. Bauer et al. (2006) to estimate micro-mediation in multilevel mod-

p < .05.
**
p < .01.
eling. The distribution of these random draws is used to create a
confidence interval that accounts for the non-normal sampling dis-
tribution of the indirect effect (Preacher et al., 2010; Wang et al.,
depletion was associated with less engagement that day (B = .15, 2013). These analyses yielded an indirect effect of .005, and the
p < .05), controlling for smartphone use and sleep quantity. Morn- bias-corrected 95% confidence interval did not include zero
ing depletion explained 5% of the within person variance in daily ( .00549; .00497). Thus Hypothesis 5 was supported: use of
work engagement.1 smartphones for work late at night reduces work engagement
Ego depletion theory posits that expenditure of resources in one the next day via its effects on sleep quantity and depletion.
activity leaves fewer resources for subsequent activities (Muraven To address possible reverse causality effects (i.e., work engage-
& Baumeister, 2000). Hypothesis 5 thus predicted that smartphone ment impacts smartphone use), we also tested a lagged model in
use has an indirect effect on work engagement via sleep quantity which late night smartphone use was regressed on work engage-
and depletion. We tested this hypothesis following recommenda- ment from earlier that day, controlling for sleep quality and sleep
tions by Bauer et al. (2006) and recent work (Wang et al., 2013). quantity. However, daily work engagement did not predict smart-
We estimated the indirect effect of smartphone use on work phone use that night (B = 2.19, ns). On a day to day basis, then,
engagement by adjusting Formula 5 (Bauer et al., 2006, p. 147) being engaged at work is not associated with subsequent smart-
phone use for work at night.
Lastly, Hypothesis 6 stated that job control is a cross-level
1
It is possible that the relation of depletion with engagement may be driven by moderator for the relation of depletion on work engagement, such
other personal and contextual daily factors. Because we had access to data on some that this relation is weaker for employees with high (vs. low) job
potential factors, we were able to reexamine this relation after controlling for daily control. Results of slopes-as-outcomes regressions revealed that
positive and negative affect and daily workload. The pattern of results remained the
same when affect and workload were added to the model. This result is consistent
job control was a significant predictor of the within-individual
with previous work showing that depletion of self-regulatory resources is indepen- slopes between morning depletion and daily engagement
dent of other psychological states like mood (e.g., DeWall et al., 2008). (B = .19, p < . 05; see Table 4). Consistent with predictions, job
 K. Lanaj et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 124 (2014) 11–23 17

Table 4
Study 1: moderating effects of job control on the relation of depletion with work engagement.

Predictor Criterion: Daily work engagement

B SE t
Intercept (b00) 3.48 0.072 48.29**
Level 2 predictors
Job control (b01) 0.148 0.082 1.79
Level 1 predictors
Smartphone use (b10) 0.000 0.002 0.44
Sleep quantity (b20) 0.012 0.039 0.31
Morning depletion (b30) 0.150 0.06 2.49*
Cross-level predictor
Morning depletion  job control (b31) 0.189 0.062 3.05**

Note: N at level 1 = 557, N at level 2 = 82. All level 1 predictors were centered at persons’ means; level 2 variables were grand-mean centered.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

to which observed effects are attributable specifically to smart-

3.7
phone use or whether smartphone use is simply a marker of a
3.6 more general technology construct. Answering this question is use-
Daily Work Engagement

ful because it provides guidance on whether or not researchers and

3.5 practitioners ought to pay particular attention to employee smart-
phone use. Second, an additional study enabled us to examine the
3.4
robustness of our within-person effects by testing our theoretical
3.3 model with a more diverse sample of employees than the sample
of weekend MBA students in Study 1. Demonstrating that results
3.2 replicate reduces concerns that the Study 1 findings are due to
sampling error or spurious effects.
3.1
Low Depletion High Depletion

Low Job Control High Job Control Study 2 Method

Fig. 2. Study 2: cross-level moderating effects of job-control on the depletion-work

engagement relation.
Participants and procedure

control buffered the negative effect of morning depletion on daily
work engagement (see Fig. 2) and it explained 34% of the variance
in depletion–work engagement slopes. Following procedures
recommended by Preacher, Curran, and Bauer (2006), simple
slopes analyses revealed that the negative relation between
depletion and engagement was significant at low levels (i.e., 1
SD) of job control (B = .28, z = 2.66, p < .05), but not at high
levels (i.e., +1 SD) of job control (B = .01, z = .12, ns). Thus,
morning depletion related to daily work engagement only when
job control was low.2
Study 2
We conducted a second experience sampling study for two rea-
sons. First, we examined relations of smartphone use with sleep
and depletion vis-à-vis the use of other common technologies
(i.e., late-night computer use for work, tablet use for work, and
television viewing). Doing so enabled us to ascertain the extent
2
Although our theory does not make predictions for moderated mediation, we
tested whether job control moderated the within-person indirect effect of smart-
phone use on work engagement. To do so, we estimated the indirect effect of
smartphone use on engagement at lower ( 1 SD) and higher (+1 SD) values of job
control using the same technique suggested by Bauer et al. (2006) for assessing
indirect effects in multilevel models. We found that the within-person indirect effect
of smartphone use on work engagement was significant when job control was high
(indirect effect = .0049; 95% CI [ .0052, .0046]), as well as when job control was
low ( .0054; 95% CI [ .006, .005]). Similar to recent published work (Wang et al.,
2013), we then tested the effect difference between the high and low moderator
conditions. The effect difference between the two conditions was .0005 with a 95% CI
(.0004; .0008), indicating that the indirect effect was significantly weaker when job
control was high versus low.
We surveyed 161 employees for 10 working days using
Mechanical Turk (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011) and re-
ceived sufficient daily responses from 136 of them. Participants
were paid for each survey that they completed. Mechanical Turk
has been successfully used previously by organizational scholars
for collecting primary data and for replications (see Bendersky &
Shah, 2013; Cryder, Loewenstein, & Scheines, 2013; Pitesa & Thau,
2013; Wiltermuth & Flynn, 2012). The sample consisted of 74 men
(54%) and 62 women (46%). The average age of the sample was
31.3 years (SD = 8.7), participants worked an average of 42.2 h
per week (SD = 7.8), and were employed in a variety of job posi-
tions (e.g., chemist, paralegal, retail clerk, media technician). We
received 829 matched morning and afternoon surveys for a re-
sponse rate of 61%.
Participants were first administered a one-time survey that as-
sessed demographics and job control. We then followed the same
procedure as in Study 1 and began administering the daily surveys
approximately one week later. Specifically, we sent two daily sur-
veys to participants for 10 consecutive workdays. Same as in Study
1, we sent the morning survey at 6 AM and measured state deple-
tion, previous night sleep quality and quantity, and technology use.
We sent the afternoon survey at 4 PM and measured work engage-
ment for that day. The average time between completion of the
morning and afternoon surveys was 8.7 h (SD = 2.3).
Measures
We assessed smartphone use with the same item from Study 1
(‘‘How many minutes did you use your Blackberry/Smartphone for
work after 9 PM last night?’’). Similar items were used to measure
18 K. Lanaj et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 124 (2014) 11–23

Table 5
Study 2: descriptive statistics and correlations.

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 Smartphone use 4.27 13.86
2 Computer use 12.09 31.85 0.14**
3 Tablet use 0.91 6.28 0.08* 0.03
4 Television use 43.38 49.76 0.00 0.02 0.03
5 Sleep quantity 6.98 1.40 0.06 0.18** 0.04 0.14**
6 Sleep quality 4.42 0.83 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.41**
7 PD sleep quantity 6.91 1.43 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.12** 0.15**
8 PD sleep quality 4.40 0.84 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.14** 0.41**
9 Depletion 1.56 0.87 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.40** 0.58** 0.09* 0.05
10 Work engagement 3.36 0.99 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.07* 0.01 0.04 0.10**
11 Job control 3.50 0.63 0.05 0.00 0.07 0.23** 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.11 0.22*

Note: N at level 1 = 829, N at level 2 = 136. Variables 1–11 are within-individual (level 1) variables. Their means and standard deviations are based on daily observations. Inter-
correlations are based on within-individual scores. Job control is a between-individual variable. Its inter-correlations with variables 1–11 are based on between-individual
scores (e.g., we aggregated 1–11 at the individual level). PD = previous day.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

computer use (‘‘How many minutes did you use a desktop/laptop
computer for work after 9 PM last night?’’), tablet use (‘‘How many
minutes did you use an electronic tablet (iPad, e-reader, etc.) for
work after 9 PM last night?’’), and television use (‘‘How many min-
utes did you watch TV after 9 PM last night?’’). For the remaining
variables, we used the same items as in Study 1 to measure sleep
quantity, sleep quality (average a = .83), morning depletion (aver-
age a = .95), daily work engagement (average a = .86), and job con-
trol (a = .86). Similar to Study 1, we controlled for sleep quality,
and previous day sleep quantity and quality when predicting sleep
quantity.
Study 2: Results
Table 5 presents descriptive statistics and correlations for the
Study 2 variables. Interestingly, smartphone use was weakly re-
lated to the other technologies: computer use (r = .14, p < .01), tab-
let use (r = .08, p < .05), and television use (r = .00, ns). Similar to
Study 1, there was significant within-person variance (ranging
from 51% to 71%) in all level 1 variables (see Table 6). As recom-
mended, we group mean centered our level 1 variables and grand
mean centered the level 2 variable (Hofmann et al., 2000; Rauden-
bush & Bryk, 2002).
Tests of hypotheses
To be consistent, we tested the same multilevel regressions as
in Study 1 but with the addition of the technology control variables
(e.g., computer, tablet, and television use). Hypothesis 1 was tested
by regressing sleep quantity on smartphone use, controlling for
sleep quality, previous day sleep quality and quantity, and com-
puter, tablet, and television use at night (see Table 7). In support
of Hypothesis 1, late night smartphone use for work was negatively
associated with sleep quantity (B = .015, p < .05), and this relation
was incremental to the other technologies. Because we controlled
for previous night sleep quantity, this effect represents change
associated with smartphone use for work. Compared to the null
model, this model explained 50% of the within-person variance
in sleep quantity. Smartphone use for work at night explained 4%
of the within-person variance in sleep quantity, computer use ex-
plained 9%, television use explained 2%, and tablet use explained
less than 1%. These results indicate that all four technologies have
unique relations with sleep quantity. Despite the fact that televi-
sions were used the longest (average of 43.4 min), use of smart-
phones (average of 4.3 min) and computers (average of 12.1 min)
each explained more variance in sleep quantity.
Findings for Hypotheses 2 and 3 also replicated. In support of
the former, after controlling for technology use and sleep quality,
sleep quantity had a negative relation with morning depletion
(see Table 8) and explained 15% of the within-person variance in
depletion. In support of the latter, smartphone use had a significant
indirect effect on depletion through sleep quantity. Following the
recommendations of Bauer et al. (2006) for estimating 1-1-1 medi-
ation in multilevel modeling, the indirect effect was .004 and the
95% confidence interval did not include zero (.002; .007). This indi-
rect effect was incremental to the effects of the other technologies
because all indirect effects were tested concurrently. In addition to
smartphone use, results indicated that computer use (indirect
effect = .002; 95% CI: .001; .003) and television use (indirect
effect = .002; 95% CI: .0005; .003) also had significant indirect ef-
fects on morning depletion, but tablets did not (indirect ef-
fect = .004; 95% CI: .001; .02).
Consistent with Hypothesis 4, morning depletion had a signifi-
cant, negative relation with work engagement (B = .17, p < .05).
Depletion explained 3% of the within-person variance in work
engagement. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was also supported in Study 2.
We tested Hypothesis 5 (i.e., smartphone use has an indirect ef-
fect on engagement via sleep and depletion) using Bauer et al.’s
(2006) procedure for 1-1-1-1 multilevel micro-mediation. Results
indicated that the indirect effect of smartphone use was .002 and
the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval did not include zero
(.001; .002). This micro-mediation finding fully replicated in Study
2, this time controlling for the effects of the other technologies.
Finally, we tested Hypothesis 6 by examining whether job con-
trol moderated the effects of depletion on work engagement. The
interactive effect was not significant (B = 0.11, p > .05). Thus, un-
like Study 1, no support was found for Hypothesis 6 in Study 2.
General discussion
We utilized experience sampling methodology to examine how
daily fluctuations in smartphone use for work late at night relate to
sleep quantity that night, depletion the next morning, and work
engagement the next day. Consistent with predictions derived
from ego depletion theory (Baumeister et al., 1998), we found that
smartphone use for work at night disrupted sleep that night, which
was associated with greater depletion the next morning and less
engagement during the workday. By way of supplementary analy-
ses, we were able to address concerns about reverse causality by
demonstrating that work engagement does not predict subsequent
smartphone use. Thus, lower engagement appears to be a conse-
quence rather than an antecedent of greater smartphone use for
 K. Lanaj et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 124 (2014) 11–23 19

Table 6
Study 2: parameter estimates and variance composition of level 1 variables.

Variable Intercept b00 Within-individual variance (e2) Between-individual variance (r2) Percentage of within-individual variance (%)
**
Smartphone use 5.47 262.37 118.52 69
Computer use 13.88** 818.38 334.16 71
Tablet use 0.98** 26.72 12.11 69
Television use 46.74** 1433.85 1388.41 51
Sleep quantity 6.97** 1.24 0.78 61
Sleep quality 4.41** 0.48 0.22 69
Previous day sleep quantity 6.92** 1.27 0.80 61
Previous day sleep quality 4.39** 0.49 0.23 68
Morning depletion 1.58** 0.42 0.34 55
Work engagement 3.32** 0.69 0.28 71

Note: b00 represents the average level of the variable across individuals. e2 represents the within-individual variance and, r2 the between-individual variance in the variable.
Percentage of within-individual variance was computed as the ratio of the within-individual variance/(within + between variance).
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

Table 7 employees’ daily work engagement. Study 1 provided support for

Study 2: HLM results for predictors of sleep quantity. this idea, as daily depletion negatively related to daily engagement
Predictor Criterion: Sleep quantity for employees who perceived low job control, but was unrelated
B SE t
for those who perceived high job control. This finding is consistent
with ego depletion (Baumeister et al., 2007), work design (Hack-
Intercept (b00) 6.976 0.092 75.56**
man & Oldham, 1976), and self-determination theories (Gagné &
Sleep quality (b10) 0.600 0.087 6.90**
Previous day sleep quantity (b20) 0.066 0.049 1.33 Deci, 2005). Job control was also significant in our test of moder-
Previous day sleep quality (b30) 0.075 0.052 1.45 ated mediation, such that the negative indirect effect of smart-
Computer use (b40) 0.004 0.002 2.13* phone use on engagement was weaker when job control was
Tablet use (b50) 0.015 0.004 3.52*
high vs. low. These interactive and moderated indirect effects,
Television use (b60) 0.005 0.001 4.38**
Smartphone use (b70) 0.015 0.005 2.76*
however, did not replicate in Study 2, possibly owing to the occu-
pational levels represented in this sample. Inspection of the job ti-
Note: N at level 1 = 630. Sample size is smaller because of lagged data. tles for the Study 2 participants revealed that most Study 2
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
participants occupied low level jobs (e.g., clerk, retail associate, of-
fice technician, paralegal), in contrast to the mid- and high-level
management positions held by the Study 1 participants. Given that
Table 8 job latitude is higher at higher levels in organizations, Study 2 par-
Study 2: predictors of morning depletion. ticipants may have enjoyed less job control (the somewhat smaller
mean and SD for job control in Study 2 vs. Study 1 lends some sup-
Predictor Criterion: Morning depletion
port for this idea). Thus, while contextual factors like job control
B SE t
may mitigate the effects of depletion, future research is needed
Intercept (b00) 1.587 0.055 29.05** to resolve our discrepant moderator effects. Also, job control was
Sleep quality (b10) 0.459 0.041 11.20**
treated as a level 2 variable in this study, as we assumed it is rel-
Sleep quantity (b20) 0.109 0.023 4.60**
Computer use (b30) 0.000 0.000 0.17
atively stable over the course of a few work weeks. However, ac-
Tablet use (b40) 0.011 0.004 2.54* tual or perceived job control might vary as responsibilities
Television use (b50) 0.000 0.000 0.23 change and new projects are undertaken. Thus, there may be utility
Smartphone use (b60) 0.004 0.002 2.65* in adopting a more dynamic view of job control and assessing
*
p < .05. whether daily or weekly variations in perceived control impact
**
p < .01. depletion–outcome relations. This is another avenue for future
research.
Clarifying the nature of smartphones vis-à-vis other technolo-
work late at night. The indirect effect of smartphone use on next gies is another contribution of the current research. Our findings
day’s work engagement (via sleep and depletion) was robust as it from Study 2 suggest that smartphone use is independent of com-
replicated across two unique samples (managers in Study 1 and puter, tablet, and television use, based on the small relations
mostly non-managers in Study 2). As further evidence of its robust- among them. The largest correlation we observed was between
ness, the indirect effect remained significant after controlling for smartphone use and computer use. Although our methodology
the use of computers, tablets, and televisions at night. These find- prevents us from addressing this issue, future research might
ings indicate the need to consider the impact that within-person examine possible causal relations among the different technolo-
changes in work-related behaviors and sleep have on employees’ gies. For example, messages and notifications received on employ-
functioning at work the next day (cf. Barnes, 2012; Christian & El- ees’ smartphones may prompt them to access information or
lis, 2011). software on their computers or tablets in order to complete a task
Although experiencing depletion makes it difficult to engage in or to fulfill a request. If so, then this would lend credence to the
subsequent activities, such effects can be mitigated. For example, idea that smartphone use is the gateway for work infiltrating the
activities that cultivate intrinsic motivation buffer the effects of home (Huhman, 2011). Regardless, our finding that smartphone
depletion (Muraven & Slessareva, 2003). Given that autonomy is use has unique relations with sleep, depletion, and engagement
an important source of intrinsic motivation (Gagné & Deci, 2005), above and beyond the other technologies verifies that it deserves
we examined whether perceptions of job control reduced the special consideration. On that same note, the use of computers
extent to which the experience of depletion detracted from for work late at night also merits attention as it had robust,
20 K. Lanaj et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 124 (2014) 11–23
incremental relations with outcomes. A direction for future re-
search is to tease apart the ways in which smartphone and com-
puter use impact sleep and depletion. Given the brighter and
larger displays of computers, their impact on sleep may be primar-
ily physiological (disrupting the production of melatonin) whereas
the impact of smartphone use may owe to the lack of detachment
from work (owing to their invasive, always-on nature). In sum, the
consequences of using different technologies are not superfluous,
thus any interventions designed to curb their depleting effects will
need to be tailored to each one.
Theoretical implications
Our research has important theoretical implication for ego
depletion theory and organizational research utilizing this theory,
for research on sleep, and for research that applies a resource per-
spective to work engagement. First, our study contributes to ego
depletion theory by responding to recent calls for research that
investigates the longevity of depletion effects (Hagger et al.,
2010). With a few exceptions (e.g., Christian & Ellis, 2011), the
overwhelming majority of ego depletion research has focused on
antecedents of depletion that are very proximal in time (Hagger
et al., 2010), such as the influence of one act of self-control on an
immediately subsequent act of self-control (Baumeister et al.,
1998). By ignoring sources of depletion that have prolonged effects,
a short-term focus underestimates the total effect of depletion in
the workplace. We show that depletion due to activities on the pre-
vious day (late night technology use and sleep) depletes available
resources the following morning, which in turn impairs work
engagement during the work day. We therefore provide evidence
that depletion has both distal antecedents as well as consequences.
Second, our study has important implications for sleep research.
A large body of work has established that sleep impacts affect, cog-
nition, and performance (Lim & Dinges, 2010). We show a more
specific effect of sleep on employees’ ability to exert self-control
the next workday, providing support for an ego depletion view of
sleep deprivation. In addition, we show that smartphone use late
at night impairs sleep quantity, incremental to sleep quality as well
as sleep quantity and quality the previous night. We therefore
highlight the importance of investigating work-based activities
that contribute to poor sleep hygiene and their effects on deple-
tion. Having demonstrated that technology use for work late at
night harms sleep hygiene, a needed direction for future research
is to identify and test possible interventions that can break this
sequence.
Furthermore, recent applications of ego depletion theory dem-
onstrate that depletion impairs employees’ ability to control
unethical and deviant impulses and behaviors (Barnes et al.,
2011; Christian & Ellis, 2011). We contribute to this line of work
by expanding the criterion domain of depletion in organizational
settings. Specifically, our study shows that a resource perspective
can also be utilized when investigating daily work engagement.
Despite conceptual arguments and empirical evidence that
employees’ daily work engagement fluctuates (Sonnentag, 2003;
Sonnentag et al., 2010, 2012), few empirical investigations have
considered daily resource levels as a predictor of daily work
engagement. This investigation is needed because the amounts of
within-person variance in daily depletion and engagement were
substantial (58% and 63%, respectively, averaged across the two
studies). Bucking this trend, we found that daily resource depletion
in the morning was negatively related to daily engagement. Self-
control resources enable employees to devote energy to work tasks
and block out non-work distractions, which are vital ingredients
for experiencing the absorption, vigor, and dedication that charac-
terize engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2006). A resource perspective
therefore provides a more holistic understanding of the factors that
predict daily work engagement (Sonnentag et al., 2010).
Practical implications
Our research findings have a number of implications for organi-
zational practitioners. One implication concerns the apparent par-
adox surrounding smartphone use uncovered by our study. That is,
organizations are increasingly making smartphones available to
employees in order to keep them plugged into work when away
from the office (iPass Inc, 2011; Perlow, 2012). Doing so maximizes
responsiveness to time-sensitive work demands, disseminates
time-sensitive information, and connects geographically or tempo-
rally separated individuals, all of which improve organizational
coordination and performance. While smartphones help accom-
plish these goals, they also entail some costs, especially when used
for work late at night. As evidenced in our two studies, smartphone
use at night interferes with sleep and its recovery functions. As a
result, employees’ regulatory resources are not fully replenished
prior to work the following day, impeding the likelihood that
employees can be fully engaged in their work on that day. One
practical implication, then, is that practitioners might need to re-
think how employees use smartphones outside of the office, at
least during the late evening.
Furthermore, given that we now know that there are some costs
associated with smartphone use for work, it is critical for future re-
search to estimate and compare the gains in productivity owing to
smartphone use outside of the office vis-à-vis the losses in produc-
tivity owing to depleted resources and lower engagement.
Whether or not companies ought to endorse the use of smart-
phones for work at night would obviously hinge on the gains out-
weighing (or at least equaling) the losses. This tradeoff likely
depends on the importance and time criticality of the task in ques-
tion, as well as the importance of next day activities. There may be
contexts in which putting off work until the next day has disas-
trous consequences, and using a smartphone for work at night is
well worth the negative effects on less important tasks the next
day. In other contexts, the opposite may be true. Thus, the cost/
benefit tradeoff may depend on the nature as well as the dynamic
sequencing of job tasks over time.
In addition, employees may themselves minimize the negative
effects of insufficient sleep by engaging in behaviors that replenish
depleted resources. Recent research suggests that the negative ef-
fects of insufficient sleep may be mitigated by the strategic use of
naps, stimulants (e.g., caffeine), reshuffling important tasks to
other people, scheduling breaks, and working in teams (Barnes,
2011). While such solutions do not eliminate entirely the problem
of lost sleep, they help minimize its negative effects on work
behaviors. Ultimately, though, it is necessary to eliminate the prob-
lem (sleep quantity) rather than manage the symptoms (depleted
resources) if the goal is to optimize worker well-being and produc-
tivity. A simple solution is fully powering off electronic devices like
smartphones after a certain time at night (e.g., 9 PM).
A final practical implication concerns our preliminary evidence
regarding the buffering role of job control. Employees may have to
work late at night due to high work demands. For example, unfa-
miliar tasks and looming deadlines place demands on employees
that interfere with their ability to get sufficient sleep and replenish
depleted resources. Depleted resources in turn interfere with
employees’ ability to engage in subsequent activities that require
self-control. It is possible, however, to buffer the negative effects
of depletion on subsequent activities. We found some support that
the negative relation of depletion with engagement was lessened
when employees reported high job control. Thus, employee
engagement at work may be facilitated if companies enhance
their sense of control by, for example, offering flexible work
 K. Lanaj et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 124 (2014) 11–23
arrangements, increasing decision-making latitude, and introduc-
ing employee participation programs (e.g., gainsharing). Future
research might also consider whether personal resources (e.g.,
internal locus of control, self-efficacy) also buffer the effects of
depletion on engagement and productivity.
Limitations
Despite the strengths of our research (e.g., multiple experience
sampling studies, temporal spacing of daily surveys), we note some
limitations that could be redressed by future research. First, all of
our study variables were self-reported, which raises concern that
some observed relations may be biased by common method vari-
ance (CMV). This concern is somewhat alleviated by the fact that
the morning and afternoon surveys were spaced in time, which
is effective for minimizing CMV (Johnson, Rosen, & Djurdjevic,
2011; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), and that the
cross-level interaction observed in Study 1 is unlikely to be ex-
plained by CMV (Evans, 1985). Furthermore, in both Study 1 and
Study 2, we controlled for prior night’s sleep quantity when assess-
ing the effects of smartphone use on sleep quantity. Therefore, the
estimate for smartphone use represents change in sleep quantity
associated with smartphone use. Use of such change scores
reduces concerns for reverse causality and spurious relations due
to common method variance (Scott & Barnes, 2011). Also, our use
of person-centered scores for the level 1 analyses minimizes the
influence of response tendencies due to individual differences
(Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Future research might explore non-
self-report methods of measuring the focal variables, such as track-
ing smartphone usage via phone bill records or archival data from
service providers.
Second, we operationalized technology use late at night as the
number of minutes participants used each device after 9 PM. Other
operationalizations, however, are possible. For example, the spe-
cific periods of time that participants used each device (e.g., from
10 to 11 PM) might be measured. Although we show that smart-
phone use has negative relations with sleep and depletion, it
may be that the extent of depletion depends on when smartphones
were used (perhaps depletion is greater when smartphones are
used at midnight vs. 9 PM). Thus, a more granular approach that
assesses the exact time when employees used their smartphone
for work at night may provide additional insight. Another possibil-
ity is to record the types of activities that employees used the
smartphone for (e.g., voice call, accessing documents), to deter-
mine whether certain activities are more depleting than others.
Furthermore, smartphone-use in the morning may lead to ‘‘waking
up on the wrong side of bed’’ in that early-morning smartphone
use (e.g., checking work email upon waking up) may be a more
proximal cause of depletion by inducing anxiety and negative emo-
tions about impending deadlines at work (e.g., Rothbard & Wilk,
2011). Having now established that smartphone use is linked to
sleep and depletion, future research can build on our initial work
by examining whether the timing (e.g., early in the night vs. late
at night vs. early in the morning) and types of activities moderate
the relations we observed.
Third, future research would do well to investigate in further
detail the mechanisms responsible for the effects of smartphone
usage on depletion and engagement. As previously discussed, these
effects may be due to physiological processes (e.g., melatonin pro-
duction) and psychological ones (e.g., rumination and detachment
from work). Also, different devices may primarily operate through
different channels. For example, computers give off greater
amounts of light than smartphones, thus potentially having a lar-
ger impact on melatonin production. In contrast, the receipt of
messages and notifications on smartphones is more immediate
and intrusive than on computers, thus having greater impact on
21
rumination and detachment. While we observed indirect effects
of smartphone use on depletion and engagement, there is an
obvious need to further tease apart relations among the focal vari-
ables. Doing so is important from an applied standpoint because
knowledge of the key mechanisms informs whether interventions
to offset the costs of smartphone use should target physiological or
psychological processes (or both). Thus, these—and other potential
causal mechanisms—ought to be directly tested.
Fourth, we lacked access to task data that could be used to eval-
uate the cost/benefit tradeoff of using smartphones for work late at
night. Although work engagement is an important variable, and
one that contributes to job performance (Christian et al., 2011;
Rich et al., 2010), our research did not establish a relation from
engagement to productivity. Given that we observed significant
indirect effects of smartphone use on engagement in both studies,
these effects may extend to outcomes of engagement as well. Fur-
thermore, given the overlap between work engagement and burn-
out (Cole, Walter, Bedeian, & O’Boyle, 2012), our findings may also
apply to the burnout literature. Paralleling our results for engage-
ment, it is reasonable to expect that smartphone use late at night
puts employees at greater risk for burnout the next day. Thus, the-
ories pertaining to burnout and stress, such as Karasek’s (1979) job
demands–control model, may provide further insight on the conse-
quences of smartphone use, sleep, and depletion. For example, Kar-
asek’s model suggests that smartphone use may have implications
for health outcomes in addition to productivity. In a similar vein,
our findings also inform the burnout literature by highlighting
technology use as a potential stressor and by integrating theorizing
on ego depletion and stress. A crucial next step, however, is to ex-
tend the indirect effects of smartphone use to behavioral and
health outcomes like productivity and withdrawal.
Conclusion
Smartphones as a means for conducting work outside of the of-
fice are becoming increasingly popular as they provide employees
with instant access to electronic information and communication.
Many companies provide smartphones to their employees for
these reasons. Our findings suggest, however, that late night use
of smartphones for work may interfere with sleep, thus leaving
employees depleted in the morning and less engaged during the
workday. Our findings also suggest that smartphone use deserves
special consideration because its associations with sleep, deple-
tion, and engagement were independent from computer, tablet,
and television use. A key premise of this research is the importance
of examining within-person variations in depletion and engage-
ment, and it is our hope that this study sparks future research on
this vital topic.
References
Akerstedt, T., Fredlund, P., Gillberg, M., & Jansson, B. (2002). Work load and work
hours in relation to disturbed sleep and fatigue in a large representative sample.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 53, 585–588.
Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. (Eds.). (2010). Work engagement: A handbook of essential
theory and research. New York: Psychology Press.
Banks, S., van Dongen, H. P. A., Maislin, G., & Dinges, D. F. (2010). Neurobehavioral
dynamics following chronic sleep restriction: Dose response effects of one night
for recovery. Sleep, 33, 1013–1026.
Barnes, C. M. (2011). ‘‘I’ll sleep when I’m dead’’: Managing those too busy to sleep.
Organizational Dynamics, 40, 18–26.
Barnes, C. M. (2012). Working in our sleep: Sleep and self-regulation in
organizations. Organizational Psychology Review, 2(3), 234–257.
Barnes, C. M., Schaubroeck, J. M., Huth, M., & Ghumman, S. (2011). Lack of sleep and
unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115,
169–180.
Barnes, C. M., & Van Dyne, L. (2009). ‘‘I’m Tired:’’ Differential effects of physical and
emotional fatigue on workload management strategies. Human Relations, 62,
57–90.
22 K. Lanaj et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 124 (2014) 11–23
Barnes, C. M., & Wagner, D. T. (2009). Changing to daylight saving time cuts into
sleep and increases workplace injuries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
1305–1317.
Barnes, C. M., Wagner, D. T., & Ghumman, S. (2012). Borrowing from sleep to pay
work and family: Expanding time-based conflict to the broader non-work
domain. Personnel Psychology, 65, 789–819.
Bauer, J. D., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random
indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel modeling: New
procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11, 142–163.
Baumeister, R. (2003). Ego depletion and self-regulation failure: A resource model
of self-control. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 27, 281–284.
Baumeister, R., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is
the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
1252–1265.
Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social
exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88,
589–604.
Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and why
people fail at self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self-regulation, ego depletion, and
motivation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 1–14.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self-
control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 351–355.
Beal, D. J., Weiss, H. M., Barros, E., & MacDermid, S. M. (2005). An episodic process
model of affective influences on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
1054–1068.
Bendersky, C., & Shah, N. P. (2013). The downfall of extraverts and the rise of
neurotics: The dynamic process of status allocation in task groups. Academy of
Management Journal, 56, 387–406.
Binnewies, C., Sonnentag, S., & Mojza, E. J. (2009). Daily performance at work:
Feeling recovered in the morning as a predictor of day-level job performance.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 67–93.
Borb, A. A., & Achermann, P. (1999). Sleep homeostasis and models of sleep
regulation. Journal of Biological Rhythms, 14, 557–568.
Brainard, G. C., Lewy, A. J., Menaker, M., Fredrickson, R. H., Miller, L. S., Weleber, R.
G., et al. (1988). Dose–response relationship between light irradiance and the
suppression of plasma melatonin in human volunteers. Brain Research, 454,
212–218.
Brunborg, G. S., Mentzoni, R. A., Molde, H., Myrseth, H., Skouveroe, K. J. M., Bjorvatn,
B., et al. (2011). The relationship between media use in the bedroom, sleep
habits and symptoms of insomnia. Journal of Sleep Research, 20, 569–575.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. A
new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 6, 3–5.
Buysse, D. J., Reynolds Iii, C. F., Monk, T. H., Berman, S. R., & Kupfer, D. J. (1989). The
Pittsburgh sleep quality index: A new instrument for psychiatric practice and
research. Psychiatry Research, 28, 193–213.
Campbell, S. S., & Murphy, P. J. (1998). Extraocular circadian phototransduction in
humans. Science, 279, 396–399.
Carlson, N. (2012). Marissa Mayer just gave every Yahoo employee an iPhone 5.
Business Insider. <http://www.businessinsider.com/marissa-mayer-just-gave-
every-yahoo-employee-an-iphone-5-2012-9>. Accessed August 2013.
Christian, M. S., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2011). Examining the effects of sleep deprivation on
workplace deviance: A self-regulatory perspective. Academy of Management
Journal, 54, 913–934.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A
quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual
performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89–136.
Cole, M. S., Walter, F., Bedeian, A. G., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2012). Job burnout and
employee engagement: A meta-analytic examination of construct proliferation.
Journal of Management, 38, 1550–1581.
Cryder, C. E., Loewenstein, G., & Scheines, R. (2013). The donor is in the details.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121, 15–23.
Czeisler, C. A. et al. (1999). Stability, precision, and near-24-hour period of the
human circadian pacemaker. Science, 284, 2177–2181.
de Lang, A. H., Kompier, M. A. J., Taris, T. W., Geurts, S. A. E., Beckers, D. G. J.,
Houtman, I. L. D., et al. (2009). A hard day’s night: A longitudinal study on the
relationships among job demands and job control, sleep quality and fatigue.
Journal of Sleep Research, 18, 374–383.
DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Gailliot, M. T., & Maner, J. K. (2008). Depletion makes
the heart grow less helpful: Helping as a function of self-regulatory energy and
genetic relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1653–1662.
Dijk, D. J., & Czeisler, C. A. (1995). Contribution of the circadian pacemaker and the
sleep homeostat to sleep propensity, sleep structure, electroencephalographic
slow waves, and sleep spindle activity in humans. Journal of Neuroscience, 15,
3526–3538.
Dinges, D. F., Pack, F., Williams, K., Gillen, K. A., Powell, J. W., Ott, G. E., et al. (1997).
Cumulative sleepiness, mood disturbance, and psychomotor vigilance
performance decrements during a week of sleep restricted to 4–5 hours per
night. Sleep, 20, 267–277.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family:
Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of
Management Review, 25, 178–199.
Ericsson ConsumerLab. (2011). From apps to everyday situations. <http://www.
ericsson.com/res/docs/2011/silicon_valley_brochure_letter.pdf>. Accessed
August, 2012.
Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method
variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 36, 305–323.
Fisher, C. D., & To, M. L. (2012). Using experience sampling methodology in
organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 865–877.
Folkard, S., & Tucker, P. (2003). Shift work, safety and productivity. Occupational
Medicine – Oxford, 53, 95–101.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory as a new framework for
understanding organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26,
331–362.
Gellis, L. A., & Lichstein, K. L. (2009). Sleep hygiene practices of good and poor
sleepers in the United States: An internet-based study. Behavior Therapy, 40,
1–9.
Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L., & Ariely, D. (2011). Unable to resist the
temptation: How self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 191–203.
Grandey, A. A., Fisk, G. M., & Steiner, D. D. (2005). Must ‘‘Service With a Smile’’ be
stressful? The moderating role of personal control for American and French
employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 893–904.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family
roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test
of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.
Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2010). Ego depletion and
the strength model of self-control: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
136(4), 495–525.
Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships
with burnout, demands, resources and consequences. In A. B. Bakker & M. P.
Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: The essential theory and research (pp. 102–117).
New York: Psychology Press.
Halbesleben, J. R. B., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M. C. (2009). Too engaged? A conservation
of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work
interference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1452–1465.
Hofmann, S. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application of hierarchical
linear modeling to organizational research. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.),
Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions,
and new directions (pp. 75–170). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Horne, J., Anderson, C., & Platten, C. (2008). Sleep extension versus nap or coffee,
within the context of ‘‘sleep debt’’. Journal of Sleep Research, 17, 432–436.
Huhman, H. R. (2011). Owning a smartphone may pressure workers into putting in
more hours. Business Insider. <http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-30/
strategy/30025454_1_smartphone-texts-and-emails-cell-phone>. Accessed
August 2012.
iPass Inc. (2011). Mobilemania Sweeps the Enterprise. The iPass global mobile
workforce report: Understanding enterprise mobility trends and mobile usage.
<http://mobile-workforce-project.ipass.com/cpwp/wp-content/uploads/2011/
11/ipass_mobileworkforcereport_q4_2011.pdf>. Accessed August, 2012.
Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Djurdjevic, E. (2011). Assessing the impact of common
method variance on higher-order multidimensional constructs. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 96, 744–761.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.
Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human
Relations, 45, 321–349.
Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L., Murtha, T. C., Dugdale, B., & Nelson, L. (1994). Goal
setting, conditions of practice, and task performance: A resource allocation
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 826–835.
Kaplan, S., & Berman, M. G. (2010). Directed attention as a common resource for
executive functioning and self-regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
5, 43–57.
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain:
Implications for job redesign. Administratively Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308.
Karasek, R. A. (1990). Lower health risk with increased job control among white
collar workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 171–185.
Lavie, P. (1986). Ultrashort sleep-waking schedule. III. ‘Gates’ and ‘Forbidden zones’
for sleep. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 63, 414–425.
Lavie, P. (2001). Sleep–wake as a biological rhythm. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,
277–303.
Lim, J., & Dinges, D. F. (2010). A meta-analysis of the impact of short-term sleep
deprivation on cognitive variables. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 375–389.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3–30.
Marcus, M. B. (2010). Americans of all races don’t get enough sleep, USA Today.
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-03-08-
sleepsurvey08_ST_N.htm>. Accessed August, 2012.
Mead, N. L., Baumeister, R. F., Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., & Ariely, D. (2009). Too
tired to tell the truth: Self-control resource depletion and dishonesty. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 594–597.
Mindell, J. A., Meltzer, L. J., Carskadon, M. A., & Chervin, R. D. (2009). Developmental
aspects of sleep hygiene: Findings from the 2004 National Sleep Foundation
Sleep in America Poll. Sleep Medicine, 10, 771–779.
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, F. R. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited
resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126,
247–259.
Muraven, M., & Slessareva, E. (2003). Mechanisms of self-control failure: Motivation
and limited resources. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 894–906.
 K. Lanaj et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 124 (2014) 11–23
Nilsson, J. P., Soderstrom, M., Karlsson, A. U., Lekander, M., Akerstedt, T., Lindroth, N.
E., et al. (2005). Less effective executive functioning after one night’s sleep
deprivation. Journal of Sleep Research, 14, 1–6.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of
proactive behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636–652.
Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, C. J. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic
motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings.
Psychological Bulletin, 134, 270–300.
Perlow, L. A. (2012). Sleeping with your smartphone: How to break the 24/7 habit and
change the way you work. Harvard Business Review Press.
Pitesa, M., & Thau, S. (2013). Masters of the universe: How power and accountability
influence self-serving decisions under moral hazard. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 98, 550–558.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing
interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve
analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework
for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209–233.
Querstret, D., & Cropley, M. (2012). Exploring the relationship between work-
related rumination, sleep quality, and work-related fatigue. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 341–353.
Rothbard, N. P., & Wilk, S. L. (2011). Waking up on the right or wrong side of the
bed: Start-of-workday mood, work events, employee affect, and performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 54, 959–980.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and
data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and
effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 617–635.
Rupp, T. L., Wesensten, N. J., Bliese, P. D., & Balkin, T. J. (2009). Banking sleep:
Realization of benefits during subsequent sleep restriction and recovery. Sleep,
32, 311–321.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work
engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716.
Schnyer, D. M., Zeithamova, D., & Williams, V. (2009). Decision-making under
conditions of sleep deprivation: Cognitive and neural consequences. Military
Psychology, 21, 36–45.
Scott, B. A., & Barnes, C. M. (2011). A multilevel field investigation of emotional
labor, affect, work withdrawal, and gender. Academy of Management Journal, 54,
116–136.
Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2006). Insomnia, emotions, and job satisfaction: A
multilevel study. Journal of Management, 32, 622–645.
Siegel, J. M. (2005). Clues to the functions of mammalian sleep. Nature, 437,
1264–1271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature04285.
Smith, A. (2013). Smartphone ownership – 2013. Pew Research Center. <http://
www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2013/
PIP_Smartphone_adoption_2013.pdf>. August 2013.
Söderström, M., Jeding, K., Ekstedt, M., Perski, A., & Åkerstedt, T. (2012). Insufficient
sleep predicts clinical burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17,
175–183.
Son, M., Kong, J. O., Koh, S. B., Kim, J., & Harma, M. (2008). Effects of long work hours
and night shift on severe sleepiness among workers with 12-hour shift systems
23
for 5 to 7 consecutive days in the automobile factories of Korea. Journal of Sleep
Research, 17, 385–394.
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new
look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 518–528.
Sonnentag, S. (2011). Research on work engagement is well and alive. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 29–38.
Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2008). ‘‘Did you have a nice evening?’’ A
day-level study on recovery experiences, sleep, and affect. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 674–684.
Sonnentag, S., Dorman, C., & Demerouti, E. (2010). Not all days are created equal:
The concept of state work engagement. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work
engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 25–38). Hove,
England: Psychology Press.
Sonnentag, S., Mojza, E. J., Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). Reciprocal relations
between recovery and work engagement: The moderating role of job stressors.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 842–853.
Suen, L. K. P., Hon, L. K. E., & Tam, W. W. S. (2008). Association between sleep
behavior and sleep-related factors among university students in Hong Kong.
Chronobiology International, 25, 760–775.
Thau, S., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Self-gain or self-regulation impairment? Tests of
competing explanations of the supervisor abuse and employee deviance
relationship through perceptions of distributive justice. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95, 1009–1031.
The Economist, (2012), March 10th. Slaves to the smartphone: The horrors of
hyperconnectivity—And how to restore a degree of freedom. <http://
www.economist.com/node/21549904?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/ar/
slavestothesmartphone>. Accessed August 2012.
The Telegraph. (2011). Brits spend nearly an hour using smartphones during nights
out. The Telegraph. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/mobile-phones/
8806277/Brits-spend-nearly-an-hour-using-smartphones-during-nights-
out.html>. Accessed August 2012.
Time Magazine. (2012). Why companies should force employees to unplug. <http://
business.time.com/2012/02/16/should-companies-force-employees-to-unplug/
3/>. Accessed August, 2012.
Twenge, J., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. (2004). Measuring state self-control: Reliability,
validity, and correlations with physical and psychological stress, Unpublished
manuscript. San Diego State University.
Van Yperen, N. W., & Hagedoorn, M. (2003). Do high job demands increase intrinsic
motivation or fatigue or both? The role of job control and job social support.
Academy of Management Journal, 46, 339–348.
Wagner, D. T., Barnes, C. M., Lim, V., & Ferris, D. L. (2012). Lost sleep and
cyberloafing: Evidence from the laboratory and a Daylight Saving Time quasi-
experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Wang, M., Liu, S., Liao, H., Gong, Y., Kammayer-Mueller, J., & Shi, J. (2013). Can’t get
it out of my mind: Employee rumination after customer mistreatment
and negative mood in the next morning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98,
989–1004.
Wheeler, L., & Reis, H. T. (1991). Self-recording of everyday life events: Origins,
types, and uses. Journal of Personality, 59, 339–354.
Wiltermuth, S., & Flynn, F. (2012). Power, moral clarity, and punishment in the
workplace. Academy of Management Journal.
Wimmer, F., Hoffmann, R. F., Bonato, R. A., & Moffitt, A. R. (1992). The effects of
sleep-deprivation on divergent thinking and attention processes. Journal of Sleep
Research, 1, 223–230.