A Diary Study on Work-Related Perseverative Cognition and Employees’ Need for Recovery The Role of Emotional Support from Family and Neuroticism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Daily Work-related Perseverative Cognition (WPC) increases employees’ need for recovery by maintaining physical activation of work-related stressors, thus depleting employees’ resources further. The aim of this study was to highlight factors that influence the WPC/need for recovery relationship on a daily basis. It is hypothesized that daily satisfaction with emotional support from family would have both a direct and a moderating effect on the relationship between employees’ daily WPC and need for recovery. Since individuals higher in neuroticism tend to report more distress symptoms and perseverative cognition, it was expected that neuroticism would: (1) have a direct effect on WPC and need for recovery, (2) accentuate the WPC/need for recovery relationship and (3) reduce the buffering effect of emotional support from family on need for recovery. A sample of 31 employees completed diaries for five consecutive days before sleep (122 data points). Results from hierarchical linear modeling analyses revealed that daily family support had no direct effect on daily need for recovery. However, daily family support buffered the WPC/need for recovery relationship but only among individuals low in neuroticism. For those high in neuroticism, daily family support was not associated with a reduction of daily need for recovery from work after resources had been depleted due to WPC. These findings suggest that individual characteristics (neuroticism) should be considered in order to interpret the effect of key resources (family support) on recovery. The discussion highlights how organizations can foster family support and offer alternative strategies for those higher in neuroticism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".