Journal of Applied Psychology

© 2018 American Psychological Association 2018, Vol. 103, No. 7, 772–786

0021-9010/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000308

Daily Micro-Breaks and Job Performance: General Work Engagement as a

Cross-Level Moderator
Sooyeol Kim, YoungAh Park, and Lucille Headrick
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Despite the growing research on work recovery and its well-being outcomes, surprisingly little attention
has been paid to at-work recovery and its job performance outcomes. The current study extends the work
recovery literature by examining day-level relationships between prototypical microbreaks and job
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

performance as mediated by state positive affect. Furthermore, general work engagement is tested as a
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

cross-level moderator weakening the indirect effects of microbreaks on job performance via positive
affect. Using multisource experience sampling method, the authors collected two daily surveys from 71
call center employees and obtained objective records of daily sales performance for two consecutive
weeks (n ⫽ 632). Multilevel path analysis results showed that relaxation, socialization, and cognitive
microbreaks were related to increased positive affect at work which, in turn, predicted greater sales
performance. However, breaks for nutrition-intake (having snacks and drinks) did not show significant
effects. Importantly, microbreaks had significant indirect effects on job performance via positive affect
only for workers who had lower general work engagement, whereas the indirect effects did not exist for
workers who had higher general work engagement. Furthermore, Bayesian multilevel analyses confirmed
the results. Theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and future research directions are
discussed.

Keywords: job performance, micro-breaks, positive affect, recovery, work engagement

“All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy”
—A proverb
The popular media warns that working individuals should take
breaks or risk becoming “worn-out” or “dulled.” The Cable News
Network has recently featured on several business cases that
integrate respite activities into the workplace (e.g., foosball, yoga,
snack bars, naps) as some organizations believe that fun and
relaxing activities between tasks increase employee morale and
promote productivity (Rodriguez, 2013). Conversely, some orga-
nizations and managers may consider such activities to be coun-
terproductive and disdain breaks as ways to “goof off” on com-
pany time. In light of the contrasting views on respite activities
within the workplace, can organizational psychology provide any
insight into whether respite activities at work are beneficial for job
performance outcomes?
Researchers have studied recovery processes that allow workers
to unwind and repair negative consequences of continual work
This article was published Online First March 29, 2018.
Sooyeol Kim, YoungAh Park, and Lucille Headrick, School of Labor
and Employment Relations, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
We acknowledge the presentation of an earlier version of this paper at
the 2015 Academy of Management annual conference in Atlanta, Georgia
and the publication of an earlier version of this study at the 2015 Academy
of Management Proceeding.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sooyeol
Kim, School of Labor and Employment Relations, University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820. E-mail: sooyeolkim@
gmail.com
(see, Demerouti, Bakker, Geurts, & Taris, 2009, for a review). The
recovery literature recommends microbreaks as energy manage-
ment strategies for sustaining employee resources throughout a
workday (Fritz, Lam, & Spreitzer, 2011; Hunter & Wu, 2016;
Trougakos & Hideg, 2009; Zacher, Brailsford, & Parker, 2014). A
recent study also showed that on days when office workers took
frequent afternoon microbreaks, they reported substantially re-
duced effects of work demands on negative affect at the end of the
workday (Kim, Park, & Niu, 2017). Despite increasing evidence
that microbreaks have salutary effects on well-being and strain, the
literature offers little evidence and insights as to whether and how
microbreaks promote employee job performance (Trougakos &
Hideg, 2009). Moreover, scholarly knowledge is lacking regarding
whether microbreaks benefit job performance for all employees or
certain employees only.
In this study, we aim to better explain the relationship between
at-work recovery and its job performance outcome. Examining the
link between microbreaks and performance will advance recovery
theory and help organizations recognize potential benefits of respite
activities at work. Figure 1 illustrates our conceptual model to exam-
ine day-level relationships between prototypical microbreaks—relax-
ation, nutrition-intake, socialization, and cognitive—and job perfor-
mance outcomes, as well as determine a mechanism underlying the
relationships. Another important aim is to test general work engage-
ment as an individual difference factor that cross-moderates the in-
termediary mechanism in predicting job performance. Our theoretical
model and empirical test contribute to the recovery literature in three
key ways.
First, research has shown that recovery outside work relates to
the next day’s positive work-related outcomes, such as proactive

772
 GENERAL WORK ENGAGEMENT AS A CROSS-LEVEL MODERATOR
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Figure 1. Conceptual model. Control variables’ paths were not shown in the figure for simplicity but were
included in the analysis (i.e., day-specific morning positive affect and workload predicting the mediator and
outcome variable).
behaviors and task performance (e.g., Binnewies, Sonnentag, &
Mojza, 2009; Sonnentag, 2003; ten Brummelhuis & Bakker,
2012). However, we have scarce evidence regarding whether at-
work recovery through microbreaks generates similar positive
work outcomes. This little attention is surprising in that employees
spend most of their time at work. Also, the ultimate purpose of
recovery is to promote job performance as well as well-being
(Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). Therefore, testing job performance as
an outcome of microbreaks is highly warranted. In doing so, we
obtained objective records of daily sales performance to remove
self-report biases and minimize common method variance con-
cerns (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Also,
importantly, because most recovery research assessed its outcomes
with self-report measures, it remains difficult to determine whether
recovery positively influences employees’ substantive work out-
comes above and beyond their perceptual outcomes (Sonnentag,
Venz, & Casper, 2017, for a review). Accordingly, we studied call
center employees and collected their daily sales performance re-
cords to test whether microbreaks increase their important resource
(i.e., state positive affect) which then translates into tangible, core
performance outcomes (i.e., daily sales in call center business). We
further confirmed our results with Bayesian multilevel analyses to
provide rigorous evidence.
Second, whereas previous research has found beneficial effects
of work breaks on lower strain symptoms and higher positive
affective displays (e.g., Hunter & Wu, 2016; Trougakos, Beal,
Green, & Weiss, 2008), no study has investigated within-person
mechanisms by which microbreaks lead to job performance out-
come. It is not clear which underlying psychological experiences
explain the links between break activities and performance (Trou-
gakos & Hideg, 2009). Specifically, combining resource-based
theories with empirical research on at-work recovery, we concep-
tualize microbreaks as resource-replenishing events that aid job
performance because they increase employee resource levels, such
as positive affect, especially for employees who primarily interact
773
with customers on a daily basis. Furthermore, given that affective
states can shape job attitudes and drive important work behaviors
(Beal, Weiss, Barros, & MacDermid, 2005; Weiss & Cropanzano,
1996), it is important to test increased positive affect as a linking
mechanism. Thus, our theoretical reasoning and empirical test of
the psychological mechanism improve understandings of exact
channels through which microbreaks lead to desirable performance
results.
Third, empirical research on moderators of work break effects is
rare (for an exception, see Trougakos, Hideg, Cheng, & Beal,
2014) and virtually nonexistent for performance outcomes. Con-
sidering the lack of knowledge about whether or not processes of
microbreaks are applicable to all workers, Trougakos and Hideg
(2009) and Sonnentag, Pundt, and Venz (2017) have called for
research on moderators that potentially influence the relationship
between resources gained from breaks and job performance. As
such, we propose that employees who have a stable characteristic
of high work engagement—a general tendency to experience work
in active and energetic ways across situations (Schaufeli, Bakker,
& Salanova, 2006)— have less need for frequent microbreaks to
increase their transient positive affect, possibly because they al-
ready have a significant and stable resource reservoir. As moder-
ation tests are necessary for enriching theories, our study contrib-
utes to the recovery literature and its theory development.
Theoretical Foundations and Hypotheses Development
The Concept of Micro-Breaks and Theories Explaining
Their Recovery Effects
Microbreak activities are short, informal respite activities taken
voluntarily between tasks (Kim et al., 2017; Trougakos & Hideg,
2009). This concept of microbreaks is distinguished from other
institutionalized breaks, such as lunch or formally scheduled
 774 KIM, PARK, AND HEADRICK
breaks. As individuals take microbreaks as needed amid task
activities, they are less structured compared to formally presched-
uled breaks. Although there is no established standard regarding
the length of microbreaks, they generally last anywhere from a few
seconds to several minutes. Most important, employees pursue
microbreak activities at their own discretion. If breaks are taken
otherwise (e.g., unwillingly due to others’ requests or at inoppor-
tune moments), they can be experienced as work interruptions
causing distractions, backlogs, and frustrations (Jett & George,
2003). The voluntary nature of microbreaks also aligns with the
literature on off-job recovery indicating the importance of auton-
omy during respites (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). For example,
positive relationships between evening leisure activities and next-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
morning recovery state were more pronounced among employees
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
with greater intrinsic motivation for the activities (ten Brummel-
huis & Trougakos, 2014). Additionally, Trougakos et al. (2014)
found that employee autonomy over how to use lunch breaks
determined whether the breaks had beneficial or harmful effects on
strain. Thus, self-initiated, voluntary microbreaks indicate that
employees choose most optimal timing and preferred activities for
their momentary respites and accommodate their idiosyncratic
recovery needs and daily rhythms (Kühnel, Zacher, de Bloom, &
Bledow, 2017).
Next, we briefly introduce three theories that commonly explain
recovery processes in the literature and explain how our concep-
tual model of microbreaks sits within the theoretical frameworks:
Conservation of resources theory (COR; Hobfoll, 1989), ego-
depletion theory (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice,
1998; Baumeister, Muraven, & Tice, 2000), and effort-recovery
model (Meijman & Mulder, 1998). First, COR theory assumes that
individuals have limited resources (e.g., energy) necessary to ad-
dress various demands in their life (Hobfoll, 1989). Resource
depletion causes strain and poor functioning, so individuals try to
conserve resources and avoid resource losses. In the workplace,
employees use their personal resources to deal with work demands
and job stressors and, as such, their resources become depleted
over the course of a workday. This resource perspective suggests
that employees cannot continue work efforts indefinitely through-
out the workday but they need to replenish drained resources. In
that sense, employees can take microbreaks and engage in their
choice of respite activities to restore depleted resources.
Similarly, ego-depletion theory is based on the resource scarcity
perspective: a central, psychological resource (ego) determines
individuals’ self-regulation capacity, but it is finite and drains
easily if used continuously (Baumeister et al., 1998, 2000). Self-
regulatory resources are particularly important for service employ-
ees as emotion regulation is essential for their quality service work
(Grandey, 2000). For example, call center employees often must
suppress negative emotions and display positive emotions if they
are to meet their customer service needs and sales goals (Grandey,
Dickter, & Sin, 2004). Thus, call center work is commonly con-
sidered a high self-control context in which self-regulatory re-
source depletion can make it difficult to control response tenden-
cies and amplify positive emotions while concentrating on tasks at
hand (e.g., following call scripts, answering customer questions,
searching for best customer options); as a result, job performance
may deteriorate. Nevertheless, ego-depletion theory suggests that
self-regulatory resources can be renewed after sufficient rest (Mu-
raven & Baumeister, 2000). In addition, studies based on this
theory point to positive affect as an important central resource that
counteracts ego depletion and facilitates behavioral performance.
For example, Tice, Baumeister, Shmueli, and Muraven (2007)
found that self-regulatory task performance improved when posi-
tive affect was induced by experimental conditions, such as watch-
ing a comedy video which is similar to microbreak activity. A field
study applying the theory also found that respite activities enhance
positive affect felt and displayed at work that is needed for per-
forming service tasks (i.e., cheerleading instruction; Trougakos et
al., 2008).
Effort-recovery model (Meijman & Mulder, 1998) further high-
lights that taking timely respites is important to recover diminished
self-regulatory resources and even generate resource surpluses.
The model posits that individuals should rest momentarily to allow
their functional systems (e.g., emotional, cognitive) to recuperate
from accumulated load reactions of continuous working, such as
fatigue; however, when respite opportunities are delayed, the load
reactions persist to the extent that it becomes more difficult to
return to one’s baseline functioning. In this regard, self-initiated
microbreaks can provide the necessary disengagement from work
just in time of needs. Accordingly, work breaks were found to be
related to increased well-being and decreased strain (Hunter &
Wu, 2016; Kim et al., 2017; Kühnel et al., 2017; Trougakos et al.,
2008; Zacher et al., 2014).
Building on these theoretical frameworks and empirical find-
ings, we contend that microbreak activities will be positively
linked to job performance through increased positive affect as a
resource. We test daily fluctuating positive affect—feeling active,
confident, interested, concentrating, enthusiastic, and happy—as a
linking mechanism in that positive affect is an integral part of
self-regulatory resources and task accomplishment for emotional
laborers (Beal et al., 2005). In particular, we investigate four
prototypical microbreaks (i.e., relaxation, nutrition-intake, social-
ization, and cognitive activities), considering that recovery effects
may hinge on the exact nature of the activities employees engage
in during breaks. In the next section, we first hypothesize how each
category of microbreaks increases positive affect. Then, drawing
on the episodic model of affective influences on job performance
by Beal et al. (2005), we theorize the intermediary role of positive
affect in connecting microbreaks and job performance. Last, we
turn to general work engagement as a moderator in the indirect
effect of microbreaks on job performance.
Relaxation Activities
Relaxation is to momentarily relieve psychological and physical
tension from continuous work and further prevent its short-term
accumulations throughout a workday. Common relaxation activi-
ties include taking a short nap or walk, meditating, daydreaming,
and stretching, all of which are characterized by low effort or
effortless activities (e.g., Sianoja, Syrek, de Bloom, Korpela, &
Kinnunen, 2017; Trougakos & Hideg, 2009). Effort-recovery
model explains that relaxation activities help individuals’ physical
and psychological systems return to prestress levels (Meijman &
Mulder, 1998). As such, relaxation is considered one of the core
recovery experiences for retreating physically and psychologically
to restore depleted resources (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). Likewise,
previous studies have found that short relaxation at work (e.g.,
stretching, napping) is associated with lower physical and mental
 GENERAL WORK ENGAGEMENT AS A CROSS-LEVEL MODERATOR
fatigue and higher positive emotions (Henning, Jacques, Kissel,
Sullivan, & Alteras-Webb, 1997; Trougakos et al., 2008). Also, on
days when employees had more relaxation activities, they reported
much lower impacts of work demands on affective distress (Kim et
al., 2017) and higher vitality, such as feeling energetic and cheer-
ful, at work (Zacher et al., 2014). Furthermore, an experimental
study found that individuals who appraised their microbreaks as
relaxing reported more feelings of vigor (Bennett, 2015). More-
over, short relaxation activities (i.e., park walks, soundscape of
nature, relaxation exercises) not only reduced employees’ daily
fatigue but also led to more positive states, such as feelings of
vigor, enjoyment, and concentration (Sianoja et al., 2017; Steidle,
Gonzalez-Morales, Hoppe, Michel, & O’shea, 2017). In summary,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
these combined findings suggest that relaxation microbreaks pro-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
vide optimal conditions for releasing any negative load reactions
of continuous working and resource recovery, thereby increasing
positive and pleasant states for the next task episodes.
Hypothesis 1a: Daily relaxation microbreaks will be posi-
tively related to increased positive affect at work.
Nutrition-Intake Activities
Nutrition-intake activities refer to snacking and drinking at
work. Human physiology runs on nutrients like a fuel (e.g., water,
minerals, protein, glucose), so getting adequate supplies of nutri-
ents is essential for human energy and daily functioning (Renner,
Sproesser, Strohbach, & Schupp, 2012). For example, glucose
(blood sugar) is one of the major sources of nutritional energy and,
as such, individuals who have higher glucose levels tend to show
less negative emotions and more helping behaviors because of
high self-regulatory resources (Gailliot et al., 2007). In addition,
some nonessential nutrients from foods and beverages can influ-
ence emotional and mental states. For example, caffeine is a mild
stimulant boosting feelings of alertness, activeness, and energy
(Häusser, Schlemmer, Kaiser, Kalis, & Mojzisch, 2014). Recent
studies have discovered beneficial effects of caffeine intake, given
the common coffee and tea breaks at work. Specifically, caffeine
consumption attenuated sleep deprivation effects on feelings of
energy depletion (Welsh, Ellis, Christian, & Mai, 2014) and min-
imized adverse effects of daily work demands on end-of-work
negative affect (Kim et al., 2017). Although most employees take
regular lunches, they may still feel hungry or thirsty as they
continuously use nutritional energy to exert self-control efforts for
job tasks throughout the work day. Indeed, employees tend to eat
more snacks on days when they want to reduce feelings of frus-
tration and fatigue (i.e., high affect-regulation motive) and thereby
boost their energy at work (Sonnentag, Pundt, et al., 2017). In
short, brief breaks for snacks and beverages between tasks may
help employees avoid discomforting physiological experiences
and further increase mental alertness and energy. Thus, we expect
that nutrition-intake breaks will increase positive affect at work
(e.g., feeling active and concentrating, etc.).
Hypothesis 1b: Daily nutrition-intake microbreaks will be
positively related to increased positive affect at work.
Socialization Activities
Off-job recovery research suggests that one way to assist recov-
ery is through social activities in which employees interact with
775
others, garner social support, and psychologically detach from
work-related thoughts (Sonnentag, 2001; ten Brummelhuis & Bak-
ker, 2012). In this study, we contend that nonwork-related social
contacts and interactions at work can boost employees’ positive
affect. The concept of relational energy (Owens, Baker, Sumpter,
& Cameron, 2016) explains that interpersonal interactions at work
give employees a heightened level of psychological resourceful-
ness that can enhance their capacity to do work. That is, employees
can be energized by and even proactively seek social interactions
to increase their energy at work. Moreover, employees who draw
more relational energy from social interactions tend to be highly
engaged in their job and more productive (Owens et al., 2016).
Trougakos et al. (2014) also found that daily lunch break social-
ization reduced end-of-work fatigue when employees had high
autonomy for their lunch break (i.e., deciding what they want to do
during the break). Similarly, Kim et al. (2017) demonstrated that
voluntary, nonwork social activities weakened the effects of daily
work demands on subsequent negative affect at work. Moreover,
Zacher et al. (2014) showed that daily microbreaks including
social contacts and interactions (i.e., talking about common inter-
ests like sports or hobbies, checking in with a friend and family
member) increased feelings of vitality at work, whereas work-
related break activities (e.g., seeking feedback) failed to do so.
Taken together, we argue that social interactions and contacts
should be free from work-related aspects to ensure optimal recov-
ery effects of microbreaks. Thus, we expect that voluntary,
nonwork-related social activities during microbreaks will increase
positive affect.
Hypothesis 1c: Daily socialization microbreaks will be posi-
tively related to increased positive affect at work.
Cognitive Activities
Cognitive microbreak activities refer to any activities that facil-
itate a mental break from work demands although they may still
require some cognitive attention and effort. Examples include
casual reading and browsing the Internet for entertainment or
personal learning. Most important is that cognitive distraction
momentarily shifts employees’ attention from high self-control
demands toward chosen activities for entertainment or casual
learning. The off-job recovery literature has suggested that psy-
chological detachment from work is critical for replenishing en-
ergy and affective resources (see Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015, for a
review). In addition, doing preferred activities during breaks in-
creases personal resources at work such as energy, motivation, and
concentration (Hunter & Wu, 2016). However, contrary to the
hypothesized recovery effects of cognitive activities at work, Kim
et al. (2017) found that voluntarily chosen cognitive breaks aggra-
vated employee distress. As a post hoc explanation, they attributed
the unexpected finding to their failure in distinguishing pleasurable
activities from personal chores and duties (e.g., online banking).
Accordingly, we expect that pleasurable or personally meaningful
cognitive breaks will provide temporary escape from work de-
mands and momentarily improve affective state, as reflected in our
cognitive activity items. Thus, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1d: Daily cognitive microbreaks will be positively
related to increased positive affect at work.
 776 KIM, PARK, AND HEADRICK
Indirect Effects of Micro-Break Activities on Job
Performance via Positive Affective Resource
Broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001) posits that
individuals’ positive emotions from positive episodes can widen
momentary thought-action repertoires, thereby increasing perfor-
mance in various contexts. That is, momentary positive experi-
ences generate positive affect which, then, leads individuals to
seek underexplored paths of thoughts and actions rather than
typical, automatic behavioral options. This proposition is congru-
ent with the episodic model of affective influences on performance
(Beal et al., 2005) as the model theorizes that affective state
influences cognition and behavioral styles that are conducive to
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
effective task achievement. In other words, the model posits that
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
affective states cannot only influence one’s attentional regulation
for task conducts but also directly impact on task approaches and
momentary response tendencies in doing job tasks (Beal et al.,
2005). This combined theoretical perspective suggests that positive
affect accruing from micro breaks will influence job performance.
More specifically, in the context of call center jobs, we argue
that positive affective state from microbreaks may lead to better
sales performance for the following reasons. First, call center
employees interact daily with multiple customers. Their task epi-
sodes tend to begin and end with each call they make. In emo-
tionally draining jobs, especially when employees faced with dif-
ficulties and frustrations, they tend to perceive more difficulty in
displaying positive emotions because of greater emotional disso-
nance between their true feelings and outward emotional expres-
sions (Beal, Trougakos, Weiss, & Green, 2006). However, shortly
after taking microbreaks, the resultant positive affect may help
employees reappraise and reframe task situations more confidently
and positively, thereby increasing work motivation. Indeed, lab
experiments showed that positive affect improved task perfor-
mance through enhanced beliefs that task effort would result in
good performance (Erez & Isen, 2002). Similarly, a field study
using insurance sales agents found that positive affect predicted
task performance by boosting motivational components such as
task self-efficacy and persistency (Tsai, Chen, & Liu, 2007). Thus,
we expect that positive affect gained from between-task micro-
breaks (e.g., feeling confident, enthusiastic, active, etc.) will shape
more positive work attitudes and increase task motivation momen-
tarily, facilitating job performance.
Second, the performance model of affective influences (Beal et
al., 2005) views that performance during an episode is a joint
function of resource level and resource allocation. That is, job
performance is a result of a dynamic process in which individuals
control and allocate various resources to task activities. The model
further suggests that state positive affect may allow employees to
better address emotional labor while simultaneously staying fo-
cused on cognitive processing. For example, even during difficult
calls, employees may use their state positive affect to please
dissatisfied customers while cognitively searching for the best
services and products. That is, employees in positive affective state
may easily alter emotion-regulation strategies without being dis-
tracted from finding the best customer options. In other words, this
example indicates that positive affect helps employees allocate
attentional resources to information-processing as well as address
emotional tasks during the sales calls. Accordingly, when call
center workers were in a pleasant and positive affective state, they
solved customer problems more efficiently during calls (Miner &
Glomb, 2010) and showed more verbal fluency in unscripted
interactions with customers (“no dead air time”), an important
call-quality metric (Rothbard & Wilk, 2011). Also, bank tellers’
positive emotion displays were associated with customers’ positive
perception of received services (Pugh, 2001). Likewise, positive
emotion in sales clerks was found to relate to their customers’
actual product purchase (Tsai, 2001).
Taken all together, we argue that positive affect derived from
microbreaks will function as a self-regulatory resource allowing
employees to maintain their work motivation, better handle diffi-
cult calls, and display positive emotions to meet their service and
sales goals.
Hypothesis 2: There will be indirect relationships between
microbreaks—(a) relaxation, (b) nutrition-intake, (c) social-
ization, and (d) cognitive activities—and job performance
through increased positive affect, such that on days when
employees take more microbreaks, they are more likely to
gain positive affect and thereby achieve higher performance.
General Work-Engagement as a
Cross-Level Moderator
Work engagement is defined as one’s inclination to view work
in a positive, fulfilling way that is characterized by vigor, dedica-
tion, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2006). The concept essen-
tially captures the extent that individuals experience their work as
stimulating and energetic (vigor), meaningful and significant (ded-
ication), and interesting and captivating (absorption). Although
work engagement levels can fluctuate daily, some individuals are
more engaged than others across situations, a tendency known as
general work engagement (Breevaart, Bakker, Demerouti, & Het-
land, 2012)— hereinafter work engagement in short. This construct
is about dedicating the “full self” and being highly motivated for
work, and thus differs from other traditional job attitudes such as
job satisfaction and organizational commitment (see, Christian,
Garza, & Slaughter, 2011, for a review).
A corollary in COR theory (Hobfoll, 2001) is that: “those with
greater resources are less vulnerable to resource loss and more
capable of orchestrating resource gain. Conversely, those with
fewer resources are more vulnerable to resource loss and less
capable to resource gain” (p. 349). Although work engagement has
not been examined as a cross-level moderator of the affect-
performance link within individuals, the past literature suggests
that work engagement is an important motivational resource for
employee performance. In a cross-sectional study of hotel workers
and their customers (Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005), employees’
general work engagement was related to higher service climate
which was, in turn, linked to employee performance and then
customer loyalty. Also, employees’ work engagement predicted
subsequent job performance as assessed by their supervisors and
coworkers (Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2008). A meta-analytic study
also confirmed that work engagement explains incremental vari-
ance in task performance above and beyond other job attitudes
(Christian et al., 2011). Thus, work engagement represents a
relatively stable resource that may reduce one’s sensitivity to the
effects of fluctuating positive affect on job performance.
More specifically, task performance during an episode is a joint
function of resource level and resource allocation (Beal et al.,
 GENERAL WORK ENGAGEMENT AS A CROSS-LEVEL MODERATOR
2005). As such, employees with high work engagement may be
able to offset temporary losses of affective resources by drawing
from larger resource reservoirs. That is, even with dwindling
transient affective resources, they still remain motivated to pursue
persistent task efforts and effectively allocate other necessary
resources. In addition, highly engaged employees tend to go be-
yond their roles to help achieve goals of coworkers and their
organization, further suggesting that highly engaged individuals
are better able to “free up” their personal resources (Christian et
al., 2011). Moreover, general work engagement is driven by both
job resources (e.g., social support, feedback) and personal re-
sources (e.g., resiliency, positive self-evaluations; Bakker, 2011;
Christian et al., 2011). This may indicate that individuals with high
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
work engagement have a “caravan of resources” for sustaining
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
work motivation and enhancing performance; therefore, they are
less affected by transient, volatile resources (Hobfoll, 2001).
Translating the conceptual and theoretical reasoning into the cur-
rent context, we hypothesize that positive affect gained from
microbreaks will have a weaker relation with job performance
especially for those who have high work engagement but will have
a stronger relation for those who have low work engagement.
Hypothesis 3: Work engagement at the between-person level
will moderate (reduce) the day-level relationship between
positive affect and sales performance, such that employees
with high (low) work engagement will be less (more) likely to
be influenced by positive affect during the workday.
Further, our combined hypotheses (H1–H3) imply that the
strength of the indirect relationships between microbreaks and
performance outcomes via positive affect may differ by the levels
of work engagement. That is, high work engagement makes em-
ployees less sensitive and vulnerable to state positive affect from
microbreaks for their performance benefits, such that the indirect
effects of microbreaks on job performance will be weaker for
employees with high work engagement but will be stronger for
those with low work engagement.
Hypothesis 4: The day-level indirect effects of (a) relaxation,
(b) nutrition-intake, (c) socialization, and (d) cognitive micro-
breaks on performance outcomes via positive affect will be
weaker (stronger) for employees who have higher (lower)
levels of work engagement.
Method
Sample and Procedure
The current study is the first publication based on data collected
as part of larger study entitled, “Employees’ Work and Nonwork
Experiences in Telemarketing Job.” IRB approval was granted by
Kansas State University for protocol number 7120. Participants
included 71 telemarketers at call centers in Korea. Their primary
job is to call customers and persuade them to purchase services or
products (OⴱNET, 2015). The participants sold insurance, credit
cards, cable and Internet, and landline and mobile phone services.
Consequently, they often engage in emotional labor: they must
suppress their true feelings, display positive emotions, answer
customers’ questions, and solicit sales (Grandey, 2003). Industries
represented were finance (49%) or telecommunications (51%).
777
The two groups showed no significant differences regarding age,
job tenure, weekly work hours, and work engagement (p values ⫽
.29 –.82). Most participants were women (79%), reflecting the
female-dominated call center field in Korea (Korea Labor and
Information Service, 2012). The final sample averaged 37.03
years-old (SD ⫽ 7.58), organizational tenure of 4.15 years (SD ⫽
3.19), and 39.45 hr worked per week (SD ⫽ 6.42).
Participants were recruited through several online community
websites for call center workers in Korea. With permission from
the websites’ administrators, the recruitment message was posted
for about 4 weeks, explaining the two-phase online study proce-
dure (an initial survey and two daily surveys for 10 workdays),
compensation for participation (a $30 value mobile gift card), and
eligibility for participation. To participate, they had to work full-
time at call centers with a regular work schedule (9 a.m. to 6 p.m.)
in accordance with regular working hours in Korea, and fixed
lunch hours (no shift and telecommuting workers). The initial
survey link was distributed to 165 participants who expressed
interest via e-mail. Completion of the initial survey indicated their
consent to participate in daily surveys and provide their objective
performance report retrieved from their organizations’ sales data-
base (i.e., daily sales performance records during the participation
period). Their organizations used archival sales records to calcu-
late incentive payments so employees were allowed to track and
retrieve their sales records freely on their work computer.1 A total
of 105 of 165 individuals completed the initial survey (64%),
reporting demographic information and their work engagement.
They also self-generated ID codes and used throughout the study
to allow us to match responses across measurement occasions.
About one week after the initial survey, they started answering
two short daily surveys for 10 consecutive workdays: one in the
morning (Time 1) to assess their morning positive affect (control
variable) and another at the end of each workday before leaving
their call center (Time 2) to measure their day-level workload
(control variable), engagement in microbreak activities, and posi-
tive affect at work. As expected in daily diary studies, 34 partic-
ipants (n ⫽ 7) skipped some of the daily surveys (e.g., completing
only morning or end-of-work survey), or failed to complete any
daily surveys after the first phase (n ⫽ 27). They were removed,
leaving 71 of 105 individuals (68%). No significant differences
were observed between the initial sample and the final sample
regarding age, sex, education level, organizational and job tenure,
average work hours per week, and work engagement (p values ⫽
.22–.73). On average, they completed the morning survey at 9:22
a.m. (SD ⫽ 0.34), and the end-of-work survey at 6:21 p.m. (SD ⫽
0.78). In addition, each Friday, participants emailed us the week’s
sales report along with their ID code. The sales reports included
successful sales transactions and amount of gross sales in Korean
Won for each day during the entire week. By matching these
performance records with daily survey responses, we obtained 632
day-level data points of 710 points possible (71 participants ⫻ 10
workdays), yielding a response rate of 89%.
1
Before this study, we conducted a pilot focus group interview with call
center workers in Korea. We learned that they would be able to retrieve
their individual sales performance report from their work computer which
was connected to their company’s sales management system.
 778 KIM, PARK, AND HEADRICK
Day-Level Measures
The measures were provided in Korean. To ensure accurate
translation of English-based measures, we used a translation-back
translation procedure with two independent bilingual translators
(Brislin, 1970). All scales were slightly adapted to suit the daily
measurement context, except for the microbreak activities mea-
sure.
Microbreak activities (Time 2). Table 1 displays the nine
items of microbreak activities and their categories. We measured
microbreak activities by slightly adapting the items of common
respite activities that Kim et al. (2017) developed and fully tested
according to the literature on microbreaks at work (Fritz et al.,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
2011; Trougakos & Hideg, 2009). Specifically, we added a small
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
phrase (“for entertainment”) at the end of their cognitive activity
items to clearly indicate the pleasurable nature of the activities.
This adapted measure asked respondents to recall their short,
informal respites taken voluntarily during their work day and then
rate how often they engaged in those break activities (1 ⫽ never to
5 ⫽ very frequently): two items each for relaxation, nutrition-
intake, and cognitive activities, and three items for social activities.
We then computed an average score within each of the categories
to produce four microbreak variables. We did not calculate the
coefficient alphas as these activities are not caused by a latent
construct, and each category of break activities is defined by the
combination of its measures (i.e., formative measure; Diamanto-
poulos & Siguaw, 2006).
Positive affect (Time 2). Positive affect was assessed with
positive emotion scales from the Positive and Negative Affective
Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). To mini-
mize participants’ burden, we used six shortened descriptors (i.e.,
happy, enthusiastic, active, concentrating, confident, interested) as
common in diary studies. Participants indicated how extensively
they had felt the positive emotions during their workday (1 ⫽ none
to 5 ⫽ to a great extent). The average Cronbach’s alpha across
observations was .91.
Job performance. To operationalize job performance, we
used daily sales performance records in Korean Won which indi-
cate gross sales for each work day. Considering that the call center
employees’ gross sales greatly varied across the industries due to
the different unit prices of the products and services they sold, we
standardized daily sales performance scores, using the individuals’
respective average gross sales of the two weeks during the study
period.2 Therefore, negative values represent below-average per-
formance in two working weeks, while positive values indicate
above-average performance.
Control variables. We measured morning positive affect as a
control variable (Time 1) because baseline affective state could
influence subsequent affect and work approaches during the work-
day. We used the same PANAS affective descriptors and response
options to ask participants to rate how extensively they felt the
emotions in the morning. The average Cronbach’s alpha across
observations was .90. In addition, we measured day-specific work-
load as another control variable because it could influence affec-
tive state at work (Ilies et al., 2007) and opportunities to interact
with customers on the phone. This was assessed at the end of the
workday with a short three-item Quantitative Workload Inventory
(Spector & Jex, 1998), on a 5-point rating format (1 ⫽ strongly
disagree to 5 ⫽ strongly agree). Example item was “Today, I had
a lot of work to do.” The average Cronbach’s alpha across obser-
vations was .89.
Person-Level Measure
General work engagement was assessed in the initial survey
with the short nine-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale
(Schaufeli et al., 2006) on a 5-point rating format (1 ⫽ strongly
disagree to 5 ⫽ strongly agree). Participants rated how well each
item described them in general at work. Example items included:
“At my work, I feel bursting with energy in general” and “I am
enthusiastic about my job, in general.” The Cronbach’s alpha was
.89.
Analytic Approach
We used multilevel path analysis to test the hypothesized model
shown in Figure 1 with Mplus 6.12 (Muthén & Muthén, 2007).
With this approach, we were able to accommodate the multilevel
structure of the data (i.e., daily responses nested in individuals) and
simultaneously estimate the path coefficients for the hypothesized
relationships. In our model, as control variables, morning positive
affect and workload were specified to have fixed effects on posi-
tive affect (Time 2) as well as on sales performance. We specified
the Level-1 (i.e., intraindividual level) fixed effects of four micro-
break activities on positive affect, and the Level-1 random effect of
positive affect on sales performance. In addition, we specified the
direct fixed effects of the microbreak activities on sales perfor-
mance. To facilitate the interpretation of the findings, all Level-1
predictors (i.e., workload, morning positive affect, microbreak
activities) were person-mean centered to obtain unbiased estimates
of the intraindividual-level relationships (Enders & Tofighi, 2007).
The Level-2 variable, work engagement, was grand-mean cen-
tered.
Variance partitioning showed that within-person fluctuations
explained a significant amount of the variance in the mediator and
outcome variable: 84.1% for positive affect during the workday
and 73.4% for sales performance. Also, substantial variability was
attributable to within-person fluctuations in microbreaks (75.3%
for relaxation, 74% for nutrition-intake, 86.7% for socialization,
and 55.1% for cognitive activities). Thus, the multilevel-modeling
approach was appropriate to test the hypotheses. Mediation hy-
potheses were tested via Monte Carlo simulation procedures using
the open-source software R, found at http://www.quantpsy.org/
medmc/medmc111.htm (Bauer, Preacher, & Gil, 2006; Preacher &
Selig, 2010).
Furthermore, we ran Bayesian multilevel analysis to confirm our
findings and respond to recent calls to deal with traditional null
hypotheses significance testing issues (Andraszewicz et al., 2015;
McKee & Miller, 2015). Critics have objected to the traditional
significance testing because p values and statistical significance
can be misinterpreted, and model comparison processes are lack-
ing in regression analyses (e.g., Johnson, 2013; Sellke, Bayarri, &
Berger, 2001). Bayesian analysis is an alternative to overcome
these issues because it depends less on p values and significance
2
We also used individuals’ average gross sales for the month to calcu-
late standardized performance scores but the significance of our results did
not differ.
 GENERAL WORK ENGAGEMENT AS A CROSS-LEVEL MODERATOR 779

Table 1
Common Micro-Break Activities

Category Examples

Relaxation activities • Stretching, walking around the office, or relaxing briefly

Nutrition-intake activities
Social activities
Cognitive activities
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
• Daydreaming, gazing out the office windows, taking a quick nap, or any other psychological relaxation
• Drinking caffeinated beverages (e.g., energy drinks, coffee, black or green tea)
• Snacking (e.g., cookies) or drinking non-caffeinated beverages (e.g., juice, water, vitamin water)
• Chatting with coworkers on non-work related topics
• Texting, using instant messenger, or calling to friends or family members
• Checking personal SNS (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, or personal blogs)
• Reading books, newspapers, or magazines for personal learning or entertainment
• Surfing the Web for entertainment (e.g., watching short video clips, playing a game)

and provides more flexibility for modeling complex error struc- (␥ ⫽ .13, p ⬍ .001), social (␥ ⫽ .14, p ⬍ .001), and cognitive
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

tures (Andraszewicz et al., 2015; Gelman, 2003).
Results
Preliminary Analysis
Table 2 presents means, standard deviations, and intercorrela-
tions of the study variables. As expected, at the within-person
level, the four microbreaks were positively related with positive
affect at Time 2 (rs ⫽ .17 to .24, ps ⬍ .001). Positive affect at
Time 2 was also positively related with sales performance, r ⫽ .29,
p ⬍ .001. Four types of microbreaks were also moderately corre-
lated with each other (rs ⫽ .19 to .57, ps ⬍ .01), except the
relationship between relaxation and cognitive activities, r ⫽ .08,
p ⫽ .055, and relaxation and nutrition-intake activities, r ⫽ ⫺.02,
p ⫽ .664. In addition, we checked whether there were any time
trends in our mediator and outcome variables because they were
measured repeatedly over two weeks. We entered the linear time
trend variable in each regression model for positive affect and
performance outcomes but found no significant linear time trends
in positive affect (␥ ⫽ .01, p ⫽ .999) and sales performance (␥ ⫽
.001, p ⫽ .999).
Hypothesis Testing
Table 3 presents the results from the multilevel path analysis
that estimated all the path coefficients simultaneously. Relaxation
microbreak activities (␥ ⫽ .13, p ⬍ .01) were positively related to
increased positive affect when morning baseline affect and work-
load were controlled for; thus, H1a, H1c, and H1d were supported,
respectively. However, the effect of nutrition-intake activities on
positive affect was not significant (␥ ⫽ .04, p ⫽ .333), failing to
support H1b. In Table 3, positive affect was positively related to
sales job performance (␥ ⫽ .41, p ⬍ .001), after controlling for
morning affect and workload.
Increased positive affect was further hypothesized to connect
the relationship between employees’ break activities and job per-
formance (H2a–H2d). Testing a series of indirect effects based on
20,000 Monte Carlo replications showed that the indirect effect of
relaxation activities on sales performance via positive affect was
.05 with 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval (CI)
from 0.02 to 0.09. Because the CI did not include zero, H2a was
supported. However, nutrition-intake activities did not show a
significant indirect effect on sales performance as the CI included
zero (95% CI [⫺0.03, 0.07]). Thus, H2b was not supported. The
indirect effect of social activities on sales performance via positive
affect was .06 (95% CI [0.02, 0.10]), supporting H2c. Cognitive
activities indirectly affected sales performance via positive affect
(.05, 95% CI [0.02, 0.08]), so H2d was supported. Note that there
were no significant direct relationships between the microbreaks
and sales performance. Nonetheless, the effects of relaxation,
socialization, and cognitive microbreaks on performance were
fully mediated by positive affect.

Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Among Study Variables

Variable M SDa SDb 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. General work engagement (Level 2) 3.16 — 1.00 .18 .07 ⫺.08 .08 .14 .02 .08 .16
2. Morning positive affect (Control) 2.84 .72 .30 — ⫺.19 ⫺.03 .19 .03 .22 .24ⴱ .16
3. Workload (Control) 3.00 .68 .29 — ⫺.04 .02 ⫺.11 .06 ⫺.15 ⫺.02 .05
4. Relaxation activities 2.58 .88 .50 — ⫺.04 ⫺.07 ⫺.11 .31ⴱⴱ .14 .24ⴱ ⫺.17
5. Nutrition-intake activities 2.70 .86 .50 — .05 ⫺.05 ⫺.02 .40ⴱⴱ .68ⴱⴱⴱ .19 .02
6. Social activities 2.68 .92 .44 — ⫺.06 ⫺.06 .19ⴱⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱⴱ .33ⴱⴱ .18 .06
7. Cognitive activities 2.88 .82 .59 — .04 ⫺.07 .08 .57ⴱⴱⴱ .29ⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱ ⫺.10
8. Positive affect 2.88 .66 .34 — .12ⴱⴱ ⫺.03 .21ⴱⴱⴱ .17ⴱⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱⴱ .23ⴱⴱⴱ .22
9. Sales performance .00 1.07 .51 — .22ⴱⴱⴱ .10ⴱⴱ ⫺.05 .07 .07 .01 .29ⴱⴱⴱ
Note. All variables are within persons, except general work engagement. Correlations below the diagonal represent within-person correlations (n ⫽ 632).
Correlations above the diagonal represent between-person correlations (n ⫽ 71). To calculate between-person correlations, we averaged within-person
scores across days. Sales performance was standardized based on individual mean scores during the two weeks.
a
Within-person. b Between-person.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
 780 KIM, PARK, AND HEADRICK

Table 3
Unstandardized Coefficients of the Multilevel Model

Positive affect supervisor Sales performance

Measure Estimate SE Est./SE Estimate SE Est./SE

Intercept 2.88 .04 72.57ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺1.18 .21 ⫺5.63ⴱⴱⴱ

General work engagementa .52 .18 2.93ⴱⴱ
Control: Morning positive affectb .11 .04 3.24ⴱⴱ .37 .06 6.59ⴱⴱⴱ
Control: Workloadb .002 .04 .06 .21 .06 3.49ⴱⴱⴱ
Relaxation activitiesb .13 .03 4.04ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.02 .05 ⫺.34
Nutrition-intake activitiesb .04 .04 .97 .04 .06 .62
Socialization activitiesb .14 .03 4.46ⴱⴱⴱ .04 .05 .84
Cognitive activitiesb .13 .05 2.77ⴱⴱ .08 .07 1.11
Positive affect (PA)b .41 .07 5.88ⴱⴱⴱ
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

PA ⫻ General work engagementc ⫺.15 .06 ⫺2.59ⴱ

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. Level 1 n ⫽ 632, Level 2 n ⫽ 71. SE ⫽ standard error. All results came from a path model that included
all variables: controls, predictors, mediator, moderator, and interaction term.
a
Between-person variable. b Within-persons variables. c Cross-level interaction term.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

We tested a cross-level moderation effect of work engagement
on the within-person relationship between positive affect and sales
performance. In Table 3, results showed that work engagement
was negatively associated with the random slope between positive
affect and sales amount (␥ ⫽ ⫺.15, p ⬍ .05). Following Preacher,
Curran, and Bauer (2006), we conducted simple slope tests in
multilevel modeling to confirm the nature of the interaction ef-
fects. As Figure 2 shows, the interaction pattern was observed for
sales performance outcome: the positive within-person link be-
tween positive affect and sales performance existed only for those
who had low levels of work engagement (␥ ⫽ .61, SE ⫽ .07, p ⬍
.001) but not for those who had high levels of work engagement
(␥ ⫽ .31, SE ⫽ .16, p ⫽ .06). Thus, H3 was supported.
Last, we tested whether estimated indirect effects of micro-
breaks on sales performance via positive affect differed at the
lower (⫺1 SD) and higher (⫹1 SD) level of work engagement.
Relaxation activities had a significant indirect effect of .17 (p ⬍
.05) under the low work engagement level, versus .01 (p ⫽ .743)
under the high work engagement level. Moreover, the indirect
effects were significantly different between the two conditions:
⫺.15 (95% CI [⫺.302, ⫺.002]). We did not test the moderated
indirect effect of nutrition-intake activities as H1b and H2b were
not supported. Social activities had a significant indirect effect of
.16 (p ⬍ .001) under the low work engagement level, versus .01
(p ⫽ .801) under the high work engagement level. The two
conditions had significantly different indirect effects: ⫺.15 (95%
CI [⫺.276, ⫺.015]). Last, cognitive activities also had a significant
indirect effect of .18 (p ⬍ .01) under the low work engagement
level but not under the high work engagement level (.04, p ⫽
.460). The indirect effects between the two conditions were sig-
nificantly different: ⫺.14 (95% CI [⫺.273, ⫺.014]). Therefore,
work engagement significantly moderated the indirect relation-
ships between the three microbreaks and job performance via
positive affect, supporting H4a, H4c, and H4d, respectively. Fol-
lowing suggestions by Preacher and Kelley (2011), we calculated
kappa-squared (␬2), the proportion of the maximum possible in-
direct effects, to evaluate effect sizes of indirect effects. The ␬2
values were .04, .043, and .037, respectively for relaxation, social,
and cognitive activities’ indirect effect on performance through
positive affect. The range of these effect sizes are between small

1
Sales Performance

0 Low General Work

Engagement

-1 High General Work

Engagement

-2

-3
Low Positive Affect High Positive Affect

Figure 2. Cross-level moderation effect of general work engagement in predicting daily sales performance.
 GENERAL WORK ENGAGEMENT AS A CROSS-LEVEL MODERATOR 781

(.01) and medium (.09) size (Cohen, 1988; Preacher & Kelley,
2011). However, the ␬2 value for nutrition-intake’s indirect effect
was .009 in accordance with its nonsignificant indirect effect.
Bayesian Multilevel Analyses to Confirm the Results
For Bayesian multilevel analysis, we used uninformative (ob-
jective) prior information (Kruschke, Aguinis, & Joo, 2012) with
the current data to produce a posterior distribution of parameter
estimates. For the Bayesian inference, we used Markov Chain
Monte Carlo simulation using the open-source software R. This
method iteratively draw samples from a set of conditional distri-
butions to create the posterior density of interest (Martin, Quinn, &
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Supplementary Analyses
While a priori theory of affective influences on job performance
(Beal et al., 2005) and its empirical literature suggest a path
direction from state affect to job performance (Shockley, Ispas,
Rossi, & Levine, 2012), it may be possible that preceding episodes
of successful sales increase subsequent positive affect during the
workday. Thus, we further explored our partial data given that
85% of our final sample (n ⫽ 60 out of 71 participants) provided
time information of their sales transactions, so we were able to
separate their sales performance in the morning (before lunch
hour) and afternoon (after lunch hour). This allowed us to test a
possible role of morning performance in increasing positive affect
during the workday (536 day-level data points out of a possible

total of 600). The multilevel path analysis showed that morning

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Park, 2011). Following Yuan and MacKinnon (2009), we ran the

analysis with two chains iterating 10,000 times with 500 burn-in
iterations, and both chains converged for all estimated parameters.
Table 4 details the results for indirect effects of the four micro-
breaks on sales performance via positive affect. Specifically, re-
laxation activities had an indirect effect of .15 (95% CI [0.08,
0.21]) for sales job performance. Socialization activities had an
indirect effect of .12 (95% CI [0.07, 0.20]) whereas cognitive
activities had an indirect effect of .13 (95% CI [0.05, 0.21]).
However, nutrition-intake activities did not show a significant
indirect effect on job performance as shown in the previous anal-
yses. General work engagement was also confirmed to moderate
the link between positive affect and job performance: ⫺.15 (95%
CI [⫺0.24, ⫺0.08]). In addition, our Bayesian multilevel analysis
results found the moderated indirect effect of relaxation (⫺.02,
95% CI [⫺0.03, ⫺0.01]), social (⫺.02, 95% CI [⫺0.04, ⫺0.01]),
and cognitive (⫺.02, 95% CI [⫺0.03, ⫺0.01]) activities on sales
performance through positive affect. However, the moderated in-
direct effect of nutrition-intake activities was not supported (.001,
95% CI [⫺0.02, 0.01]). These Bayesian results indicate that the
indirect effects of relaxation, social, and cognitive activities will be
reduced by .02 when the score of general work engagement in-
creases by one unit. Thus, the results from Bayesian analyses
indicated robustness in our initial results.
sales performance did not predict increased positive affect during
the workday (␥ ⫽ .12, p ⫽ .221), controlling for morning positive
affect (␥ ⫽ 0.58, p ⫽ .255) and day-specific workload
(␥ ⫽ ⫺.075, p ⫽ .314). Also, without the control variables, the
path from morning performance to positive affect still remained
nonsignificant.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to determine whether and how
microbreaks are positively linked to daily job performance out-
comes within call center employees. Another important goal was
to test whether general work engagement moderates the daily
affective process of microbreaks involving job performance. Our
results from both traditional and Bayesian multilevel analyses
show that relaxation, socialization, and cognitive activities were
positively related to increased positive affect leading to greater
sales performance, after controlling for daily workload and base-
line morning affect. We also find that positive affect fully mediates
the day-level relationships between the three microbreaks and
sales performance. Microbreaks for nutrition-intake, however, do
not predict positive affect and job performance. Furthermore,
microbreaks have varying indirect effects depending on the levels
of work engagement between persons. Specifically, for employees

Table 4
Results of Bayesian Multilevel Analysis

Sales performance
Measure Estimate SE 2.5% of CI 97.5% of CI

Indirect effects of relaxation activities .15 .01 .08 .21

Indirect effects of nutrition-intake activities .04 .01 ⫺.03 .08
Indirect effects of social activities .12 .01 .07 .20
Indirect effects of cognitive activities .13 .01 .05 .21
Positive affect (PA) .89 .09 .69 1.24
General work engagement .40 .06 .20 .68
PA ⫻ Work engagement ⫺.15 .02 ⫺.24 ⫺.08
Conditional indirect effects of relaxation activities ⫺.02 .01 ⫺.03 ⫺.01
Conditional indirect effects of nutrition-intake activities .001 .01 ⫺.02 .01
Conditional indirect effects of social activities ⫺.02 .01 ⫺.04 ⫺.01
Conditional indirect effects of cognitive activities ⫺.02 .01 ⫺.03 ⫺.01
Note. Level 1 n ⫽ 632, Level 2 n ⫽ 71. SE ⫽ standard error; PA ⫽ positive affect. The conditional indirect
effects indicate that as the score of moderator, general work engagement, increases by one unit, each indirect
effect decreases, except nutrition-intake breaks.
 782 KIM, PARK, AND HEADRICK
who have high work engagement, microbreaks have no significant
day-level indirect effects on sales performance via positive affect,
but employees who have low work engagement show significant
indirect effects.
Theoretical Implications
Our findings offer important implications to the work recovery
literature, which has predominantly investigated off-job recovery
experiences and their positive outcomes, but has underexplored
on-the-job recovery phenomena and work-relevant outcomes
(Trougakos & Hideg, 2009). Considering that employees spend a
significant amount of time in their work places, we examined
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
microbreaks as a way to recover momentary affective resources for
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
call center employees’ job performance. In particular, to maximize
more prescriptive knowledge about on-the-job recovery, we con-
sidered the specific content of the breaks. That is, when employees
voluntarily engage in respite activities that facilitate relaxation and
socialization, they can relieve themselves from work demands and
increase their affective resources. Also, importantly, our results
showed that cognitive activities can still boost positive affect when
the activities had personal entertainment and learning purposes.
Thus, our findings support the theorized recovery effect of specific
microbreaks as providing important resources (Baumeister et al.,
1998; Hobfoll, 1989; Meijman & Mulder, 1998).
On the other hand, nutrition-intake activities did not have a
significant indirect effect on job performance via positive affect.
As a post hoc explanation, it may be plausible that employees
enjoy snacks and coffee while interacting with others or watching
a fun video footage. Indeed, the within-person correlations showed
that on days when individuals had more nutrition-intake activities,
they were also likely to have socialization, r ⫽ .32, p ⬍ .001, and
cognitive activities at work, r ⫽ .57, p ⬍ .001. In addition, when
we ran another path model including nutrition-intake breaks as a
sole predictor, nutrition-intake significantly increased positive af-
fect (␥ ⫽ .14, p ⬍ .001) which, in turn, led to higher sales
performance (␥ ⫽ .50, p ⬍ .001). Furthermore, considering the
short-term effects of caffeine in boosting one’s energy (cf. Kim et
al., 2017; Welsh et al., 2014), we differentiated consumption of
caffeine versus snacks and noncaffeinated beverage as separate
predictors in exploratory analyses. Caffeine-intake seemed to pro-
vide a quick boost in positive affect (␥ ⫽ .10, p ⫽ .041), whereas
snacking and having noncaffeine drinks did not show the effects
(␥ ⫽ .04, p ⫽ .309). Nevertheless, the significant effect of
caffeine-intake disappeared when all types of microbreaks were
included in the analysis. These patterns suggest that the effects of
nutrition-intake might have been masked by other break activities
due to their concurrent occurrences. Thus, it may be premature to
draw a definitive conclusion that nutrition-intake activities do not
have recovery effects.
Moreover, the notion of limited self-regulatory resources has
been central to the recovery literature, but no study has actually
tested specific resources as a mechanism involved in daily micro-
breaks and job performance outcomes (Trougakos & Hideg, 2009).
Although Hunter and Wu (2016) tested combined personal re-
sources (energy, motivation, concentration) as a linking mecha-
nism between preferred break activities and somatic symptoms
(e.g., headaches, eye strain), it remained unclear whether micro-
breaks can be connected to performance outcomes via increased
resources. Building on the major theoretical frameworks in recov-
ery, we further drew upon the performance model of affective
influences (Beal et al., 2005) to theorize why state positive affect
from microbreak activities translates into substantive job perfor-
mance outcomes. This supported the theoretical notion that posi-
tive affect is a key self-regulatory resource especially for employ-
ees who often need emotion regulation to achieve service and sales
goals. Of important note, both our study and Hunter and Wu
(2016) found full mediation effects in which break activities were
not directly linked to the outcome variables but only through
increased personal resources. The consistent indirect effects in our
study further corroborate the theoretically driven role of micro-
breaks in temporarily halting resource expenditure and replenish-
ing important resources for positive work outcomes. Thus, we
advance theoretical and empirical knowledge by showing that
recovery activities (i.e., microbreaks) influence performance
through an enhanced resource. Moreover, our findings of the
objective performance outcomes expand a recent study’s result
that short, self-initiated breaks at work were related to employees’
positive approaches to their job with more vigor, dedication, and
enthusiasm (Kühnel et al., 2017).
Last, it may be too simplistic to assume that work breaks aid
momentary recovery for all employees without considering indi-
vidual or situational differences (Sonnentag, Venz, et al., 2017;
Trougakos et al., 2014). When it comes to job performance, some
individuals may be more motivated to perform well, regardless of
their fluctuating resource levels (Trougakos & Hideg, 2009). In
accordance, we found that work engagement moderated the indi-
rect effects of microbreaks on performance via positive affect,
supporting the contention that not all individuals are sensitized to
transient affective resource for their job performance. That is,
relaxation, socialization, and cognitive microbreaks are most ben-
eficial for employees in low work engagement in that they depend
more on state positive affect because of their lack of work moti-
vation in general. In contrast, fluctuating positive affect has much
less influence on employees in high work engagement as they can
remain highly engaged in their job tasks, regardless of situations.
In other words, those who have high work engagement may not
need frequent microbreaks to replenish affective resources for job
performance. Therefore, our findings add to the performance
model of affective influences (Beal et al., 2005) by showing that
the within-person variability of transient affect-performance link-
age is contingent upon the important individual difference factor,
particularly for tasks that require high self-regulations. Addition-
ally, our findings support COR theory (Hobfoll, 2002): a stable
resource reservoir (general work engagement) increases resistance
to the ebb and flow of transient resources (state positive affect). In
short, our study contributed to identifying general work engage-
ment as a boundary condition for the performance benefits of
microbreaks via positive affect.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Overall, we used more rigorous methodological approaches: two
daily surveys for 10 consecutive days, objective performance
records, and confirmation through Bayesian multilevel analysis
that lessens concerns for traditional null hypothesis testing issues
(Andraszewicz et al., 2015; McKee & Miller, 2015). However, we
must acknowledge a few limitations for future research directions.
 GENERAL WORK ENGAGEMENT AS A CROSS-LEVEL MODERATOR
First, the same measurement points for the predictor and mediator
limited causal inferences in our study, although we controlled for
morning affect and workload to rule out the possibility that they
drive the hypothesized relationships. Nevertheless, for better
causal inferences, future studies should separate the time points for
the predictor and mediator when possible. In addition, although
objective sales records were used to show that microbreaks matters
for tangible job outcomes beyond the perceptual outcomes in the
literature, our study cannot determine the exact causal direction
from work-day positive affect and performance outcomes due to
the inherent limitations of correlational design and daily aggre-
gated sales data. Thus, to empirically determine the causal direc-
tions, we strongly recommend that future studies should confirm
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
our findings using laboratory or field experiments in which re-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
searchers can manipulate microbreaks and induce positive affect
and then examine various aspects of job performance including
quality of handling service and sales calls beyond quantitative
metrics.
Third, although we found relaxation, socialization, and cogni-
tive microbreaks to have positive effects independent of each
other, nutrition-intake activities did not significantly increase pos-
itive affect. Our current design cannot disentangle possible pat-
terns of co-occurring activities during microbreak episodes. Thus,
future research should measure microbreak activities at an episodic
level, using alternative methods, such as event-contingent diary in
which participants record any event of microbreaks in detail every
time it occurs (Wheeler & Reis, 1991). Also, the event-level
approach may better reflect postbreak affective changes, their
influences on performance-related behaviors, and more nuanced
break activities, such as habitual versus purposeful snacking at
work (cf. Sonnentag & Pundt, 2016).
Next, our sample included only call center employees, perhaps
restricting generalizability of the current findings. Future studies
should examine whether microbreaks bring similar performance
benefits across different jobs and industries. In particular, given
the fully mediated effects via positive affect in our study, future
research should confirm whether the indirect effects also replicate
in different job settings other than customer service and sales jobs.
For example, the impact of positive affective state will be benefi-
cial only to the extent that the affect matches the task requirements,
in that positive affect might not be so helpful when job tasks
require a narrower set of response tendencies and attentional focus
(Beal et al., 2005).
In addition, whereas we investigated only nonwork-related so-
cial activities as breaks in this study, employees in other job
contexts might enjoy work-related social activities. For example, a
researcher may take a small break from his or her article-writing
task and have a casual conversation with colleagues about new
research ideas. This break activity may still boost the person’s
positive affect. Perhaps, some specific job or performance contexts
determine the potential, salutary effects of work-related activities
during breaks. Thus, future research needs to explore when and
why the context of work provides energizing experiences during
breaks.
Another important note is that we tested general work engage-
ment as the only cross-level moderator, so future research should
search for other situational or contextual factors that may moderate
microbreaks’ recovery effects or their indirect effects on perfor-
mance outcomes. For example, some organizations and work
783
groups may emphasize performance and competition too much,
underestimating values of well-being and social interactions (e.g.,
Hammer, Saksvik, Nytrø, Torvatn, & Bayazit, 2004). Under such
workplace norms, employees might experience adverse effects of
microbreaks as they may feel guilty about nonwork respite activ-
ities at work. In fact, an organizational survey has shown that
about 20% of respondent employees said they did not step away
from their workspaces due to guilt (Staples Advantage, 2014).
Future research should go beyond our study to explore micro-
break timing. For example, microbreaks later in the day were
found to be less effective than breaks before work shifts for
replenishing resources (Hunter & Wu, 2016), whereas another
study found that afternoon microbreaks boosted daily work en-
gagement while breaks in the morning failed to do so (Kühnel et
al., 2017). Although microbreaks’ exact timings, durations, and
specific activities may be difficult to track in real time, researchers
might try a day reconstruction method (see Diener & Tay, 2014,
for a review) in which participants systematically parse their
previous day into major activities and then rate their experiences
and time spent on each activity (e.g., Oerlemans & Bakker, 2014).
In addition, microbreaks might have an optimal duration for the
best performance outcomes; too much might be counterproductive.
Thus, future research should explore microbreaks’ durations, tim-
ings, and their recovery effects on various outcomes, both over the
course of a workday and greater periods of time.
Last, we recommend that future studies investigate antecedents
to microbreaks and their specific content. For example, Bowling,
Beehr, and Swader (2005) found that extraverted individuals en-
gage in more frequent and positive social interactions at work.
Also, a few studies using a latent profile analysis approach found
that work and personal factors (e.g., role ambiguity, job control,
supervisor support) are associated with certain profiles of post-
work recovery experiences (Bennett, Gabriel, Calderwood, Dahl-
ing, & Trougakos, 2016; Kinnunen et al., 2017). Other studies
have recently suggested that organizational climates (e.g., eating
and exercise climate) may influence employees’ snacking at work
and health behaviors in general (Sonnentag, Pundt, et al., 2017;
Sonnentag & Pundt, 2016). Therefore, future research may find it
fruitful to examine various personality, work, and organizational
factors as potential predictors of microbreaks and specific activi-
ties chosen.
Practical Implications
Our findings have important implications for organizational and
managerial practices. Organizations should educate their employ-
ees and managers in the values of microbreaks between task
episodes for enhancing job performance, so that self-initiated
microbreaks are not frowned upon. Considering that employees
spend most of their lifetime working, they should strategically
construct their workday activities to allow brief moments for
recovery, possibly using a time-tracking app. In addition, organi-
zations may redesign their call centers to be more conducive to
microbreak activities. For example, areas might be designated for
specific relaxation activities such as meditation or listening to
music. Indeed, an intervention study found that call center em-
ployees reported reduced physical and psychological strain after
using a silent break room with daybeds for practicing progressive
muscle relaxation (Krajewski, Wieland, & Sauerland, 2010). Or-
 784 KIM, PARK, AND HEADRICK
ganizational wellness training might include instructions for effec-
tive desk stretching between calls and encouraging social interac-
tions during breaks. In call centers, employees are often separated
by partitions which might constrain positive social interactions, so
easily accessible areas for breaks would help. For cognitive activ-
ities, we recommend giving employees free access to the Internet,
books, magazines, and newspapers, so that employees can take a
mental break from work demands.
Because our results showed that microbreaks have conditional
indirect effects on performance via positive affect, managers
should be aware that employees may vary in their need for micro-
breaks depending on their general work engagement levels. Espe-
cially after difficult calls, those who have low work engagement
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
may need small breaks to boost positive affect and prevent further
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
loss of affective resources. Relatedly, we found that general work
engagement positively predicted an average level of job perfor-
mance across days (i.e., direct effect of general work engagement
on the intercept of daily job performance). Thus, in addition to
encouraging microbreaks on a need basis, we recommend that
managers should help employees increase work engagement to
improve their performance, recognizing that day-to-day engage-
ment experiences may develop into work engagement over time
(Bakker, 2011). Also, considering that both job and personal
resources drive the general work engagement levels, managers
may try to provide workers with necessary job resources (e.g.,
autonomy, performance feedback, social support, coaching), as
well as training to build personal resources such as self-efficacy
and optimism (Bakker, 2011).
References
Andraszewicz, S., Scheibehenne, B., Rieskamp, J., Grasman, R., Verhagen,
J., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2015). An introduction to Bayesian hypoth-
esis testing for management research. Journal of Management, 41,
521–543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206314560412
Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 265–269. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/0963721411414534
Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and
testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel
models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods,
11, 142–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.142
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998).
Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252–1265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.74.5.1252
Baumeister, R. F., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Ego depletion: A
resource model of volition, self-regulation, and controlled processing.
Social Cognition, 18, 130 –150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.2000.18
.2.130
Beal, D. J., Trougakos, J. P., Weiss, H. M., & Green, S. G. (2006). Episodic
processes in emotional labor: Perceptions of affective delivery and
regulation strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1053–1065.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1053
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.90.6.1054
Bennett, A. A. (2015). Take five? Examining the impact of microbreak
duration, activities, and appraisals on human energy and performance
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and The-
ses Database (UNI No. 3727013).
Bennett, A. A., Gabriel, A. S., Calderwood, C., Dahling, J. J., & Trouga-
kos, J. P. (2016). Better together? Examining profiles of employee
recovery experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1635–1654.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000157
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. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1002/job.541
Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., & Swader, W. M. (2005). Giving and
receiving social support at work: The roles of personality and reciproc-
ity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 476 – 489. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1016/j.jvb.2004.08.004
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Hetland, J. (2012). The
measurement of state work engagement. European Journal of Psycho-
logical Assessment, 28, 305–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/
a000111
Brislin, R. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359
10457000100301
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engage-
ment: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and
contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89 –136. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Geurts, S. A. E., & Taris, T. W. (2009).
Daily recovery from work-related effort during non-work time. In P. L.
Perrewé, D. C. Ganster, & S. Sonnentag (Eds.), Research in organiza-
tional stress and well-being (Vol. 7, pp. 85–123). Oxford, England:
Emerald Publishing Group. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3555
(2009)0000007006
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective
indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and
empirical illustration. British Journal of Management, 17, 263–282.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00500.x
Diener, E., & Tay, L. (2014). Review of the Day Reconstruction Method
(DRM). Social Indicators Research, 116, 255–267. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/s11205-013-0279-x
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in
cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psycho-
logical Methods, 12, 121–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12
.2.121
Erez, A., & Isen, A. M. (2002). The influence of positive affect on the
components of expectancy motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87, 1055–1067. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1055
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of
General Psychology, 2, 300 –319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680
.2.3.300
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive
psychology. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Amer-
ican Psychologist, 56, 218 –226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X
.56.3.218
Fritz, C., Lam, C. F., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2011). It’s the little things that
matter: An examination of knowledge workers’ energy management.
The Academy of Management Perspectives, 25, 28 –39. http://dx.doi.org/
10.5465/AMP.2011.63886528
Gailliot, M. T., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., Plant,
E. A., Tice, D. M., . . . Schmeichel, B. J. (2007). Self-control relies on
glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is more than a metaphor.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 325–336. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.325
Gelman, A. (2003). A Bayesian formulation of exploratory data analysis
and goodness-of-fit testing. International Statistical Review, 71, 369 –
382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-5823.2003.tb00203.x
 GENERAL WORK ENGAGEMENT AS A CROSS-LEVEL MODERATOR
Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotion regulation in the workplace: A new way
to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psy-
chology, 5, 95–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.95
Grandey, A. A. (2003). When “the show must go on”: Surface acting and
deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated
service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 86 –96. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2307/30040678
Grandey, A. A., Dickter, D. N., & Sin, H. P. (2004). The customer is not
always right: Customer aggression and emotion regulation of service
employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 397– 418. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1002/job.252
Halbesleben, J. R., & Wheeler, A. R. (2008). The relative roles of engage-
ment and embeddedness in predicting job performance and intention to
leave. Work & Stress, 22, 242–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
02678370802383962
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Hammer, T. H., Saksvik, P. Ø., Nytrø, K., Torvatn, H., & Bayazit, M.
(2004). Expanding the psychosocial work environment: Workplace
norms and work-family conflict as correlates of stress and health. Jour-
nal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 83–97. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/1076-8998.9.1.83
Häusser, J. A., Schlemmer, A., Kaiser, S., Kalis, A., & Mojzisch, A.
(2014). The effects of caffeine on option generation and subsequent
choice. Psychopharmacology, 231, 3719 –3727. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/s00213-014-3506-5
Henning, R. A., Jacques, P., Kissel, G. V., Sullivan, A. B., & Alteras-
Webb, S. M. (1997). Frequent short rest breaks from computer work:
Effects on productivity and well-being at two field sites. Ergonomics,
40, 78 –91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/001401397188396
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources. A new attempt at con-
ceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the
nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources
theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 337– 421.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation.
Review of General Psychology, 6, 307–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
1089-2680.6.4.307
Hunter, E. M., & Wu, C. (2016). Give me a better break: Choosing
workday break activities to maximize resource recovery. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 101, 302–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0
000045
Ilies, R., Schwind, K. M., Wagner, D. T., Johnson, M. D., DeRue, D. S.,
& Ilgen, D. R. (2007). When can employees have a family life? The
effects of daily workload and affect on work-family conflict and social
behaviors at home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1368 –1379.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1368
Jett, Q. R., & George, J. M. (2003). Work interrupted: A closer look at the
role of interruptions in organizational life. The Academy of Management
Review, 28, 494 –507. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.10196791
Johnson, V. E. (2013). Revised standards for statistical evidence. Proceed-
ings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 110, 19313–19317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1313
476110
Kim, S., Park, Y., & Niu, Q. (2017). Micro-break activities at work to
recover from daily work demands. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
38, 28 – 44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2109
Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., de Bloom, J., Sianoja, M., Korpela, K., & Geurts,
S. (2017). Linking boundary crossing from work to nonwork to work-
related rumination across time: A variable-and person-oriented ap-
proach. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22, 467– 480.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000037
785
Korea Labor and Information Service. (2012). Labor industry statistics.
Korea Labor and Information Service. Retrieved from http://statistics
.keis.or.kr/stats/index.do
Krajewski, J., Wieland, R., & Sauerland, M. (2010). Regulating strain
states by using the recovery potential of lunch breaks. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 131–139. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/a0018830
Kruschke, J. K., Aguinis, H., & Joo, H. (2012). The time has come:
Bayesian methods for data analysis in the organizational sciences. Or-
ganizational Research Methods, 15, 722–752. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1094428112457829
Kühnel, J., Zacher, H., de Bloom, J., & Bledow, R. (2017). Take a break!
Benefits of sleep and short breaks for daily work engagement. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26, 481– 491. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1269750
Martin, A. D., Quinn, K. M., & Park, J. H. (2011). MCMCpack: Markov
chain Monte Carlo in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 42, 1–21.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18637/jss.v042.i09
McKee, R. A., & Miller, C. C. (2015). Institutionalizing Bayesianism
within the organizational sciences: A practical guide featuring comments
from eminent scholars. Journal of Management, 41, 471– 490. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/0149206314546750
Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload.
In P. J. D. Drenth, H. Thierry, & C. J. de Wolff (Eds.), Handbook of
work and organizational psychology: Work psychology (Vol. 2, pp.
5–33). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Miner, A. G., & Glomb, T. M. (2010). State mood, task performance, and
behavior at work: A within-persons approach. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 112, 43–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.obhdp.2009.11.009
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of
limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological
Bulletin, 126, 247–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.247
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Author.
Oerlemans, W. G., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). Burnout and daily recovery: A
day reconstruction study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
19, 303–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036904
OⴱNET. (2015). Summary report for: 41–9041.00-telemarketers. OⴱNET
online. Retrieved from http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/41-
9041.00
Owens, B. P., Baker, W. E., Sumpter, D. M., & Cameron, K. S. (2016).
Relational energy at work: Implications for job engagement and job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 35– 49. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/apl0000032
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools
for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel model-
ing, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral
Statistics, 31, 437– 448. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/10769986031004437
Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation
models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psy-
chological Methods, 16, 93–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022658
Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2010). Monte Carlo method for assessing
multilevel mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence inter-
vals for indirect effects in 1-1-1 multilevel models [Computer software].
Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org/
Pugh, S. D. (2001). Service with a smile: Emotional contagion in the
service encounter. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1018 –1027.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069445
 786 KIM, PARK, AND HEADRICK
Renner, B., Sproesser, G., Strohbach, S., & Schupp, H. T., & the Eating
Motivation Survey (TEMS). (2012). Why we eat what we eat. Appetite,
59, 117–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.04.004
Rodriguez, R. (2013, March 29). Goofing off company time? Go for it.
Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/29/living/play-at-work-
irpt/
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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.0056
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational
resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer
loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 90, 1217–1227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1217
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
of work engagement with a short questionnaire a cross-national study.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
Sellke, T., Bayarri, M. J., & Berger, J. O. (2001). Calibration of p values
for testing precise null hypotheses. The American Statistician, 55, 62–
71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1198/000313001300339950
Shockley, K. M., Ispas, D., Rossi, M. E., & Levine, E. L. (2012). A
meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between state affect,
discrete emotions, and job performance. Human Performance, 25, 377–
411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2012.721832
Sianoja, M., Syrek, C. J., de Bloom, J., Korpela, K., & Kinnunen, U.
(2017). Enhancing daily well-being at work through lunchtime park
walks and relaxation exercises: Recovery experiences as mediators.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Advance online publica-
tion. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000083
Sonnentag, S. (2001). Work, recovery activities, and individual well-being:
A diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 196 –210.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.6.3.196
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behav-
ior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 518 –528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010
.88.3.518
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The Recovery Experience Question-
naire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuper-
ation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psy-
chology, 12, 204 –221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2015). Recovery from job stress: The stressor-
detachment model as an integrative framework. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 36, S72–S103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1924
Sonnentag, S., & Pundt, A. (2016). Organizational health behavior climate:
Organizations can encourage healthy eating and physical exercise. Ap-
plied Psychology: An International Review, 65, 259 –286. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1111/apps.12059
Sonnentag, S., Pundt, A., & Venz, L. (2017). Distal and proximal predic-
tors of snacking at work: A daily-survey study. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 102, 151–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000162
Sonnentag, S., Venz, L., & Casper, A. (2017). Advances in recovery
research: What have we learned? What should be done next? Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 22, 365–380. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/ocp0000079
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report
measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale,
organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, and
physical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychol-
ogy, 3, 356 –367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.3.4.356
Staples Advantage. (2014). News release: Staple survey reveals many
employees feel too guilty to take breaks, despite spending longer hours
at work. Retrieved from http://investor.staples.com/phoenix.zhtml?c⫽
96244&p⫽irol-newsArticle&ID⫽1928035&highlight⫽
Steidle, A., Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., Hoppe, A., Michel, A., & O’shea, D.
(2017). Energizing respites from work: A randomized controlled study
on respite interventions. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 26, 650 – 662. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017
.1348348
Tice, D. M., Baumeister, R. F., Shmueli, D., & Muraven, M. (2007).
Restoring the self: Positive affect helps improve self-regulation follow-
ing ego depletion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43,
379 –384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.007
ten Brummelhuis, L. L., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). Staying engaged during
the week: The effect of off-job activities on next day work engagement.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 445– 455. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/a0029213
ten Brummelhuis, L. L., & Trougakos, J. P. (2014). The recovery potential
of intrinsically versus extrinsically motivated off-job activities. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 177–199. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/joop.12050
Trougakos, J. P., Beal, D. J., Green, S. G., & Weiss, H. M. (2008). Making
the break count: An episodic examination of recovery activities, emo-
tional experiences, and positive affective displays. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 51, 131–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2008.307
64063
Trougakos, J. P., & Hideg, I. (2009). Momentary work recovery: The role
of within day work breaks. In S. Sonnentag, P. L. Perrrewé, & D. C.
Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well-being (Vol. 7,
pp. 37– 84). Oxford, UK: JAI Press.
Trougakos, J. P., Hideg, I., Cheng, B., & Beal, D. (2014). Lunch breaks
unpacked: The role of autonomy as a moderator of recovery during
lunch. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 405– 421. http://dx.doi.org/
10.5465/amj.2011.1072
Tsai, W. C. (2001). Determinants and consequences of employee displayed
positive emotions. Journal of Management, 27, 497–512. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1177/014920630102700406
Tsai, W. C., Chen, C. C., & Liu, H. L. (2007). Test of a model linking
employee positive moods and task performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 1570 –1583. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6
.1570
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali-
dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A
theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of
affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Welsh, D. T., Ellis, A. P., Christian, M. S., & Mai, K. M. (2014). Building
a self-regulatory model of sleep deprivation and deception: The role of
caffeine and social influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1268 –
1277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036202
Wheeler, L., & Reis, H. T. (1991). Self-recording of everyday life events:
Origins, types, and uses. Journal of Personality, 59, 339 –354. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00252.x
Yuan, Y., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2009). Bayesian mediation analysis.
Psychological Methods, 14, 301–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a001
6972
Zacher, H., Brailsford, H. A., & Parker, S. L. (2014). Micro-breaks matter:
A diary study on the effects of energy management strategies on occu-
pational well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85, 287–297.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.08.005
Received March 22, 2017
Revision received January 31, 2018
Accepted February 3, 2018 䡲