196
J Occup Health 2012; 54: 196–205

J Occup Health, Vol. 54, 2012

Journal of
Occupational Health

Validation of the Japanese Version of the Recovery Experience
Questionnaire
Akihito Shimazu1, Sabine Sonnentag2, Kazumi Kubota1 and Norito Kawakami1
Department of Mental Health, The University of Tokyo, Graduate School of Medicine, Japan and 2Department of
Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, Germany

1

Abstract: Validation of the Japanese Version of the
Recovery Experience Questionnaire: Akihito SHIMAZU,et al. Department of Mental Health, The Universityof Tokyo, Graduate School of Medicine—Objectives:
The aim of this study was to validate the Japaneseversion of the Recovery Experience Questionnaire(REQ-J), which assesses how individuals unwind andrecuperate from work during leisure time (i.e., psychological detachment, relaxation, mastery and control).
Methods: The translated and back-translated REQ
was administered via the Internet to 2,520 Japaneseemployees from various occupations. Exploratory andconﬁrmatory factor analyses were conducted to evaluate factorial validity. The relationship with potential
predictors and consequences of recovery experienceswere investigated to evaluate construct validity. Internalconsistency was examined to evaluate its reliability.
Results: A series of conﬁrmatory factor analyses
revealed that the hypothesized four-factor model ﬁt thedata best. Construct validity was generally supported
by expected correlations of recovery experiences withpossible predictors and consequences. Cronbach’s
alpha coefﬁcient for each of the four subscales was
sufﬁcient (0.85–0.89). Conclusions: This study conﬁrmedthat the REQ-J is an adequate measure of recovery
experiences that can be used in the Japanese context.
(J Occup Health 2012; 54: 196–205)
Key words: Health, Japanese, Job stress, Performance,
Recovery, Work engagement

During recent years, employees have been experiencing substantial changes in working conditions, as
Received Oct 21, 2011; Accepted Jan 30, 2012
Published online in J-STAGE Mar 12, 2012
Correspondence to: A. Shimazu, Department of Mental Health, The
University of Tokyo, Graduate School of Medicine, 7–3–1 Hongo,
Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan (e-mail: ashimazu@m.u-tokyo.
ac.jp)

traditional boundaries between work and personal life
are becoming increasingly blurred1). Communication
technology provides the opportunity to complete one’s
work outside the traditional office and beyond traditional work hours2, 3). These changes necessitate abetter understanding of not only how employees spend
their working time (i.e., on-job experiences) but also
how they spend their leisure time (i.e., off-job experiences). The current article focuses on employees’
recovery experiences during off-job time and examines
the psychometric properties of the Japanese version of
the Recovery Experience Questionnaire4) (REQ-J)- a
self-report questionnaire to measure recovery experience.
Recovery and recovery experiences
The recovery process can be described as a processcontrary to the strain process. To recover indicatesthat an individual’s functional systems that have beentaxed during a stressful experience return to theirprestressor levels 5). Recovery implies that affective states become more positive and that performance capabilities that have been negatively affected
improve. Recovery often goes hand in hand with adecrease in physiological and psychological strain4).
Sonnentag and Fritz4) argue that “it is not a specificactivity per se that helps to recover from job stress”(p.204). These authors propose that the activity’sunderlying attributes (i.e., so-called recovery experiences) are critical for recovery. Thus, two individuals
may engage in two different activities, such as yoga
versus taking a bath, but the underlying attributes
that ultimately lead to recovery (i.e., the relaxation
experienced while practicing yoga or taking a bath)might be identical for the two activities6). Sonnentag
and Fritz4) explained that to gain a better understanding of the recovery phenomenon, it is necessary to go
beyond specific leisure-time activities and examine theAkihito SHIMAZU, et al.: Recovery in Japan

underlying psychological experiences instead. To thisend, they developed the REQ, which captures the corefunctional aspects of recovery experiences, that is,
psychological detachment, relaxation, mastery experiences and control.
Psychological detachment from work refers to anindividual’s experience of being away from the work
situation7). When psychologically detaching fromwork, one is not only physically away from one’s
job but also temporally gains mental distance fromit (“switching off”) and avoids thinking about workrelated topics or problems 8). By psychologicallydetaching oneself from work during off-job time, thedemands imposed on the functional systems during
work are reduced4). Hence, an individual’s affective
or self-regulatory resources are no longer taxed andcan be restored instead9).
Relaxation is characterized by a state of low activation and is associated with positively toned affect10).
Relaxation can occur when no further demands are
imposed on the individual and when little or no
physical or mental effort is required11). Relaxation
experiences and the associated state of low activation
with positive affect are important for recovery. Thisis because (1) a decrease in activation can stop thestrain process by which job stressors translate into
health impairments12) and (2) positive affective states
can undo the effects of negative affect13).
Mastery experiences during leisure time originate
from off-job activities that are challenging, stimulate
learning and provide a sense of achievement4). Theseexperiences are associated with feelings of competence and proficiency. Although engagement in activities that foster mastery experiences often necessitateseffort investment, mastery experiences are assumed toenable recovery from previous strains and should help
gain new resources that facilitate improved health andwell-being4).
Finally, control during leisure time refers to thedegree to which an individual can decide what to do,
as well as when and how to do it4). The experienceof control during leisure time may act as a resourcethat enhances recovery from work during off-job time.
This is because it (1) satisfies the desire for control14)
and (2) provides an individual the opportunity tochoose specific leisure activities that he or she prefers
and that may be particularly helpful for recovery tooccur.
Potential predictors and consequences of recovery
experience
Regarding potential predictors of recovery experiences, previous research has revealed that work characteristics, such as job demands and job control, areassociated with recovery experiences. For instance,197

job demands were found to have a negative relationship with psychological detachment15–17), relaxation4, 17),mastery experiences18) and control4, 17). This is because(1) when confronted with high demands at work, individuals will be more likely to constantly think about
their job in order to develop solutions to difficulties
originating from job demands4); (2) the higher level ofactivation caused by job demands makes it more difficult to arrive at a state of relaxation during off-job
time4); (3) fatigue caused by job demands makes it
more difficult to engage in self-regulatory processes19);and (4) high job demands leave less time available
for leisure activities20), which reduces the individual’scontrol over off-job time4). Hence, we hypothesizethat job demands have a negative relationship with all
four recovery experiences.
However, the relationship of job control with recovery experiences seems to be more complex. For
example, in jobs with high control, some recovery
opportunities might exist even during working time21),
in turn increasing the likelihood of detachment andrelaxation at home. In addition, job control enables
individuals to adopt an active approach toward theirenvironment, which is reflected in their pursuit oflearning activities22) and other proactive behaviors23),
thereby increasing the likelihood of mastery experiences at home. Moreover, job control increases the likelihood that an individual will attempt to exert control
during off-job time (i.e., spill over)24). However, as
job control often implies the possibility and the necessity of making decisions at the same time, recovery
off the job might be impaired when job control ishigh4). Sonnentag and Fritz4) revealed that job control
was not related to psychological detachment or relaxation. Siltaloppi et al.17) also found no associations
between job control on the one hand and psychological detachment and relaxation on the other. However,they reported that job control correlated positively
with mastery and control. Hence, we hypothesizethat job control has a positive relationship only withmastery and control.
As for the potential consequences of recovery experiences, several well-being variables have been examined in relation to recovery experiences. For instance,
recovery experiences appear to be positively related
to health, that is, to low levels of fatigue, emotional
exhaustion, health complaints, depressive symptoms
and sleep problems4, 17, 25, 26). In addition, some studies
suggest that recovery experiences are positively related
to work engagement17, 27, 28), which refers to a positive,
fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption29), and to job
performance6, 30). Since recovery experiences (e.g.,
mentally switching off from work, reducing a stateof prolonged activation, pursuing challenging activi-

198

ties and executing control during leisure time) may
contribute to the prevention of continued resource
drain and restoration of resources6), we hypothesizethat they are associated with better health, work
engagement and job performance. In our study, we
focus on overall job performance. Note that although
Fritz et al.25) revealed a curvilinear, rather than alinear, relationship between recovery experiences andjob performance, the current study does not expect acurvilinear relationship. However, we will test it on
an exploratory basis.
The current study
Presently, the REQ is particularly used in Westerncountries. Versions are available in languages such as
English and German4), Spanish31), and Finnish17). Asin other countries, the concept of recovery experiences
is potentially beneficial for the study and practice ofwell-being of Japanese workers, since the Japanesework longer than workers in other Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
countries32) and their off-job activities therefore seemto be crucial to their well-being. Thus, in order tostudy and apply the concept of recovery experiencesin Japan, validation of the REQ-J is a necessary firststep.
This study aims to validate the REQ-J in a sampleof Japanese employees from heterogeneous occupations. More specifically, we examined its factorial
and construct validity and its reliability (internalconsistency).

MethodTranslation
First, the English version of the REQ was translated into Japanese by the first author of the current
study (A.S.). Then, back-translation into English was
performed by an English specialist who had not readthe original items. We compared the English andback-translated versions and created a preliminary
Japanese version after some corrections for words,
meanings and content of each item.
ParticipantsThis study was a part of a research project that
aimed to clarify the relationship between socioeconomic status and health. Participants supplied data
via the Internet. The survey was conducted among
registered monitors of a survey company in Japan.
A total of 13,564 monitors with occupations, whowere matched in age, gender and resident area to a
Japanese representative sample, were randomly invited
to participate in the survey. The first 2,520 respondents were included in this study. Table 1 shows thecharacteristics of the respondents. The mean age ofJ Occup Health, Vol. 54, 2012

Table 1. Means (and SDs) or frequencies (and percentages)of demographic variables of participants (N=2,520)
N
Age (yr)
GenderMen
Women
Marriage
Yes
No
Education
College or lower
University or higher
Occupation
White collar
Blue collar
Shift work
No
Yes
Working hours / week

(%)

2,520
1,257
1,263

(49.9)(50.1)

1,560
960(61.9)(38.1)

1,376
1,144

(54.6)(45.4)

1,782
738(70.7)(29.3)

2,074
446(82.3)(17.7)

Mean

(SD)

44.4

(12.9)

37.2(24.9)

the participants was 44.4 yr (SD=12.9). Of the participants, 49.9% were male, 61.9% were married, 45.4%
had a university degree or higher, 70.7% were whitecollar workers and 17.7% were shift workers. The
mean working time per week was 37.2 h (SD=24.9).
Consent from participants was confirmed based on
their filling out the questionnaires according to the
ethics code for public health research in Japan33). The
procedures were approved by the ethics review boardof The University of Tokyo before starting the study.
Measures
The measures and variables used in this study
were (1) recovery experiences, (2) possible antecedents (i.e., job demands and job control), (3) possible
consequences (i.e., psychological distress, physicalcomplaints, work engagement and job performance)and demographic characteristics.
Recovery experiences were assessed with a preliminary Japanese version of the REQ. The items of
the REQ are grouped into four subscales that reflect
the underlying dimensions of recovery experience:
Psychological detachment (4 items), Relaxation(4 items), Control (4 items) and Mastery (4 items).
All items were scored on a five-point Likert scaleranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 5 (fully agree).
Responses for each subscale were summed and averaged to get an average score for each subscale.
Job demands were assessed using the corresponding
subscale of the Brief Job Stress Questionnaire (BJSQ)34)
consisting of 3 items: “I am asked to do an excessive

199

Akihito SHIMAZU, et al.: Recovery in Japanamount of work”; “My job leaves me with little timeto get things done”; and “My job requires working
hard.” Items were scored on a four-point Likert scale,ranging from 1 (disagree) to 4 (agree). Responses
for the 3 items were summed and averaged to get an
average score.
Job control was assessed using the corresponding
subscale of the BJSQ34) consisting of 3 items: “I haveinfluence over the pace of my work”; “I have thefreedom to decide the order and way of my work”;
and “I have influence over the policies in my work
unit.” Items were scored on a four-point Likert scale,ranging from 1 (disagree) to 4 (agree). Responses
for the 3 items were summed and averaged to get an
average score.
Psychological distress was assessed using the corresponding subscales of BJSQ34), consisting of 15 items
mainly reflecting fatigue, anxiety and depression. For
instance, “I am tired completely”; “I feel ill at ease”;
and “I feel depressed.” Each item was scored on afour-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost never)to 4 (almost always). Responses for the 15 items
were summed and averaged to get an average score.
Physical complaints was also assessed using thecorresponding subscale of BJSQ 34) consisting of
11 items, like “I have a pain in the back.” Each item
was scored on a four-point Likert scale ranging from1 (almost never) to 4 (almost always). Responses forthe 11 items were summed and averaged to get an
average score.
Work engagement was assessed with the short formof the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)29),
which has been validated in Japan as well35). The
UWES includes three subscales that reflect the underlying dimensions of engagement: Vigor (3 items; e.g.,
At my job, I feel strong and vigorous), Dedication(3 items; e.g., I am enthusiastic about my job) and
Absorption (3 items; e.g., I am immersed in mywork). All items are scored on a seven-point Likert
scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always). According
to the validation study of the Japanese version of the
UWES35), it is recommended that work engagement
should be treated as a unitary construct due to highcorrelations among the three components. Therefore,
the sum of the scores of all 9 items was used, andthen the sum scores were averaged to get a averagescore.
Job performance was assessed using a single itemfrom the World Health Organization Health and Work
Performance Questionnaire (HPQ)36). Respondents
were asked to rate their overall work performance
during the past four weeks on a 0–10 self-anchoringscale, in which 0 was defined as the “worst possible
work performance a person could have on this job”
and 10 was defined as “top work performance” on thejob. We used a single-item self-report global scalebecause 1) it has been argued that a global index ofoverall job performance (single item measure) is an
inclusive and valid measure of job performance 36);2) data on the objective performance of employees
is difficult to obtain; and 3) alternative self-reported
measures of job performance focus on single occupations and include questions tailored to the uniquedemands of those occupations.
Demographic variables, such as gender, marriage,
education, occupation, shift work and working hours
per week, were included as possible confounders in
the analyses.
AnalysesIn evaluating factorial validity, we first conducted exploratory factor analyses, whereby all of the
16 items were entered using the unweighted leastsquares method. We extracted factors with eigenvalues of greater than one and then obtained factor
structures with Promax rotation. Next, we conductedconfirmative factor analyses, whereby we compared
the fit of a one-factor model, which assumed that
all items measuring the four constructs load on one
general recovery experiences factor, to that of a fourfactor model, which assumed that each item loads ona hypothesized factor.
In evaluating construct validity, we investigated
the relationship of recovery experiences with potential predictors (i.e., job demands and job control)and consequences (i.e., psychological distress, physical complaints, work engagement and job performance). In evaluating internal consistency, values for
Cronbach’s alpha were calculated.

Results
Factorial validity
Table 2 shows the results of exploratory factor
analyses. Contrary to our assumptions, three factors
with eigenvalues of greater than one were extracted.
Factor 1 consisted of 8 items regarding psychologicaldetachment and relaxation; Factor 2 consisted of 4
items regarding control; and finally, Factor 3 consistedof 4 items regarding mastery. Interfactor correlation
between Factor 1 and Factor 2 was 0.65; that between
Factor 1 and Factor 3 was 0.39; and that between
Factor 2 and Factor 3 was 0.48.
In the next step, we conducted confirmatory factor
analyses. Since we had three factors extracted by
exploratory factor analysis, the fit of the three models(i.e., one, three and four-factor models) was assessed.
In the three-factor model, psychological detachment
and relaxation items loaded on the first factor; mastery
items loaded on the second factor; and control items
loaded on the third factor. As can be seen in Table 3,

200

J Occup Health, Vol. 54, 2012

Table 2. Results of exploratory factor analysis with an unweighted least squares method and promax rotation (N=2,520)
Factor 1: Psychological
Factor 2: Control Factor 3: Mastery
Detachment & Relaxation

No. Items
5
10
3
16
11
12
6
14

I don’t think about work at all (PD)I distance myself from my work (PD)I forget about work (PD)I get a break from the demands of work (PD)I do relaxing things (RE)I use the time to relax (RE)I kick back and relax (RE)I take time for leisure (RE)

0.888
0.859
0.812
0.705
0.616
0.608
0.598
0.572

–0.267–0.071–0.152
0.084
0.249
0.254
0.211
0.199

–0.071–0.080–0.009
0.011
0.047
0.040
0.021
0.066

9
4
1
13

I determine for myself how I will spend my time (CO)I decide my own schedule (CO)I feel like I can decide for myself what to do (CO)I take care of things the way that I want them done (CO)–0.039–0.071–0.148
0.259

0.904
0.837
0.801
0.555

–0.074–0.038
0.043
0.028

7
8
2
15

I seek out intellectual challenges (MA)I do things that challenge me (MA)I learn new things (MA)I do something to broaden my horizons (MA)

0.020
0.003
–0.2150.166–0.141–0.040
0.123
0.035

0.908
0.873
0.761
0.682

PD = psychological detachment, RE = relaxation, MA = mastery, CO = control.
Table 3. Results of confirmatory factor analyses: Comparison of goodness-of-fit indices among one-factor, three-factor andfour-factor models
Model
One-factor model
Three-factor modelb)
Four-factor modelc)
a)

GFI

AGFI

PGFI

NNFI

CFI

PNFI

RMSEA

χ2

df

p

0.64
0.83
0.88

0.52
0.77
0.83

0.49
0.62
0.63

0.59
0.84
0.88

0.65
0.86
0.90

0.56
0.72
0.74

0.19
0.12
0.10

9,317.55
3,667.31
2,598.84

104
101
98

0.000
0.000
0.000

N=2,520. GFI = Goodness of Fit Index, AGFI = Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index, NNFI = Non-normed Fit Index, CFI =Comparative Fit Index, PNFI = Parsimony Normed Fit Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.
a)
All items measuring the four constructs load on one general recovery experiences factor. b) Psychological detachment and relaxation items loaded on the first factor; mastery items loaded on the second factor; and control items loaded on the third factor.
c)Each item loads on a hypothesized factor.

the four-factor model fit the data better than the
one-factor model (∆χ 2 (6) = 6,718.71, p<0.001) andthree-factor model (∆χ 2 (3) = 1,068.47, p<0.001). In
the four-factor model, all items significantly loaded on
their respective latent factors (p<0.001).
Internal consistency
The values for Cronbach’s alpha were 0.85 forpsychological detachment, 0.89 for relaxation, 0.87 formastery and 0.85 for control.
Relationship with potential predictors and consequences of recovery experiences
Table 4 shows the correlations between all study
variables, including recovery experiences, potential
predictors and consequences of recovery experiences.
Job demands were negatively related to all recovery
experience variables with the exception of mastery.
Job control was positively related to all recovery

experience variables with the exception of psychological detachment. Psychological distress and physicalcomplaints were negatively related to all recovery
experience variables. Work engagement was positively related to relaxation, mastery and control, whereas
it was negatively related to psychological detachment.
Job performance was positively related to all recovery
experience variables. To explore curvilinear relationships between the recovery experiences and job
performance, we conducted multiple regression analysis in which we entered the recovery experience as asimple (in order to control for the linear effect) andsquared scores of the recovery experiences. Analyses
showed that the standardized betas of squared psychological detachment (β =–0.26; p<0.05), squared relaxation (β =–0.29; p<0.05) and squared control (β =–0.43;
p<0.01) were significant. All linear effects remained
positive and significant. The negative sign of theregression weight of the squared recovery experiences

201

Akihito SHIMAZU, et al.: Recovery in Japan

Table 4. Means, standard deviations, internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alpha on the diagonal) and correlations of the variables
used in the study (N=2,520)
Measures

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Demographics
1 Age

44.43 12.87 (n.a.)

2 Gendera)

1.50

0.50 –0.01

b)

3 Marriage

1.38

0.49 –0.38***

0.11***(n.a.)

4 Educationc)

1.45

0.50 –0.09***–0.26***

0.03(n.a.)

5 Occupationd)

1.29

0.46

–0.02

0.02

–0.25 ***

6 Shift worke)

1.18

0.38 –0.10***0.12***

0.05 **–0.10 ***

0.24***(n.a.)

7 Working hours (per week)

37.24 24.87 –0.06**–0.23***

0.01

0.11 ***–0.09***–0.08***(n.a.)

8 Psychological detachment

3.44

0.88 –0.01

0.12***

0.06 **

–0.02

–0.02

0.03

–0.06**(0.85)

9 Relaxation

3.69

0.85 –0.04*

0.10***

0.08 ***

0.01

–0.01

0.03

–0.05**

0.70***

10 Mastery

3.16

0.90

0.15***–0.04*–0.01

0.11 ***–0.06**–0.05**

0.00

0.26***

11 Control

3.93

0.78

0.08***

0.11***

0.14 ***

0.03–0.06**

–0.02

–0.01

0.47***

0.04(n.a.)(n.a.)

Recovery experiences

Possible predictors (job situation variables)
12 Job demands

2.54

0.76 –0.18***–0.14***

0.05 *

0.10 ***–0.05*

0.04

0.21***–0.17***

13 Job control

2.65

0.69

–0.15***–0.07 ***

0.08 ***–0.17***–0.21***

0.05*

0.01

0.14***

Possible consequences (well-being)
14 Psychological distress

2.00

0.68 –0.27***–0.01

0.14 ***

0.01

–0.01

0.06**

0.08***–0.18***

15 Physical complaints

1.74

0.52 –0.14***0.10***

0.08 *** –0.03

–0.01

0.04*

0.03

–0.14***

16 Work engagement

2.82

1.23

0.23***–0.03–0.12 ***

0.03

–0.05*–0.07***

0.01–0.08***

17 Job performance

6.24

1.85

0.23***

0.03–0.14 *** –0.02

0.00

–0.01

0.02

0.12***

Measures

9

10

11

12

14

15

16

17

13

Demographics
1 Age
2 Gendera)
3 Marriageb)
4 Educationc)
5 Occupationd)
6 Shift worke)
7 Working hours (per week)
Recovery experiences
8 Psychological detachment
9 Relaxation(0.89)

10 Mastery

0.40***(0.87)

11 Control

0.65***

0.40***(0.85)

12 Job demands–0.12***–0.02–0.09***(0.81)

13 Job control

0.07**

0.15***

0.17***–0.08***(0.74)

14 Psychological distress–0.23***–0.21***–0.20***

0.39***–0.21***

15 Physical complaints–0.17***–0.15***–0.13***

0.23***–0.14***

0.59***(0.85)

16 Work engagement

0.10***

0.36***

0.19***

0.08***

0.28***–0.34***–0.19***(0.95)

17 Job performance

0.18***

0.26***

0.21***–0.03

0.18***–0.35***–0.19***

0.45*** (n.a.)Possible predictors (job situation
variables)

Possible consequences (well-being)(0.94)***p<0.001, **p<0.01. Alpha coefficients are displayed in parentheses.
a)Gender was coded as 1 (men) and 2 (women). b) Marriage was coded as 1 (yes) and 2 (no). c) Education was coded as 1 (college or lower) and 2(university or higher). d) Occupation was coded as 1 (white collar) and 2 (blue collar). e) Shift work was coded as 1 (no) and 2 (yes).

202

implies that at high levels of psychological detachment, relaxation and control, the positive relationships
between the recovery experiences and job performance became less prominent. Inspection of the plots
showed that at intermediate levels of psychologicaldetachment, relaxation and control, job performancedid not increase further and remained at a highlevel; it did not decrease when psychological detachment, relaxation and control job performance further
increased. The standardized beta of squared mastery
was not significant (β =0.00; p>0.05).

Discussion
The aim of this study was to validate the Japaneseversion of the REQ in a sample of Japanese employees from heterogeneous occupations. In doing so, we
conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to evaluate factorial validity and investigated therelationship with potential predictors and consequences of recovery experiences to evaluate construct validity. In addition, we examined internal consistency toevaluate its reliability.
From exploratory factor analyses, three factors witheigenvalues of greater than one were extracted, whereby psychological detachment and relaxation werecondensed into one factor. This result was in contrast
with the original REQ study4), which extracted four
factors.
However, a series of confirmatory factor analyses
revealed that the hypothesized four-factor model fit
the data better than the one-factor and three-factor
models, suggesting that it would be better to treat
recovery experiences as four distinct constructs. Theinternal consistency of each of the four subscales was
sufficient (0.85 < α < 0.89), meeting the stringent
criterion of 0.8037). In addition, previous research4, 17)suggested that psychological detachment and relaxation have different causes and consequences, meaning that differentiation between the two aspects (i.e.,
psychological detachment and relaxation) would
be preferred over a single construct. Hence, we
decided to treat recovery experience as four different
constructs in line with the original study4), which, we
believe, would facilitate the comparability of researchfindings.
As far as the relationship with potential predictorsof recovery experiences is concerned, job demands
were negatively related to psychological detachment,
relaxation and control. These results were in line withearlier research4, 8) and suggest that 1) individuals withhigh job demands have difficulties in mentally switching off from work during leisure time; 2) prolonged
activation due to high job demands hinders relaxation
during off-job time; and 3) high job demands leave
less time available for leisure activities, which reduces

J Occup Health, Vol. 54, 2012

the amount of time the individual can have control
over during off-job time. Contrary to our expectations, job demands had no relationship with mastery,suggesting that job demands might not always haveadverse effects on mastery experiences. Truly, job
demands and associated fatigue may make it difficult to initiate and uphold the activities that result inmastery experiences4). However, job demands, on thepositive side, may provide individuals with challenging experiences and learning opportunities in otherdomains to build up new internal resources. These
complex characteristics of job demands may have led
to a practically zero relationship with mastery.
Job control had positive relationships with relaxation, mastery and control, whereas it had no relationship with psychological detachment. This suggeststhat job control has a complex relationship withrecovery experiences. More specifically, job control
makes it possible to work more flexibly38), leading tomore recovery opportunities such as leisure activities
for relaxation, mastery, and control over one’s own
life21). However, at the same time, job control often
implies the responsibilities for fulfilling one’s duty
and the necessity to make decisions, which makes it
more difficult to detach from work even during off-job
time4).
As far as relationships with potential consequencesof recovery experiences are concerned, recovery
experiences were generally positively correlated withpsychological and physical health, work engagement
and job performance, suggesting that recovery experiences would lead to better well-being. When testing
curvilinear relationships between recovery experience and job performance, we found that the relation
between psychological detachment, relaxation andcontrol on the one hand and job performance on theother flattened after intermediate levels of the recovery experiences. This pattern of findings suggests that
performance increases when psychological detachment, relaxation and control increases from a low to
an intermediate level. However, employee performance does not benefit any further from extremely
high levels of psychological detachment, relaxation orcontrol. It is important to note that performance does
not suffer at such very high levels of the recovery
experiences. Future study needs to examine curvilinear relationships in more detail.
However, it should be noted that psychological detachment was negatively correlated with work
engagement (r=–0.08) in contrast with previous studies4, 17, 27, 39). This suggests that, at least for our respondents, switching off mentally during off-job time did
not improve work engagement but rather decreased
it. When individuals are mentally detached from theirjobs during off-job time, they may feel difficulty in203

Akihito SHIMAZU, et al.: Recovery in Japan“switching on” again in the next morning25), and they
may need more time to mobilize their energy for theirjob, which results in impaired work engagement. As
Binnewies et al.40) pointed out, thinking about work
may not be necessarily negative per se. Positively
reflecting about one’s work (e.g., thinking about arecent success or about an inspiring goal) might even
improve work engagement. Future research needs
to clarify the optimal level of psychological detachment and the preferable type of work-related thoughts
during off-job time to improve work engagement.
Limitations and future directions
The present study has several limitations. First,
it is based on survey data that used self-reported
measures. Next to self-report bias due to, for example, negative affect, common method variance might
have affected the results, suggesting that the trueassociations between variables might be weaker thanthose observed in this study. A study by Fritz etal.25), however, that avoided common method variancearrived at similar findings with respect to well-being
outcomes. Nevertheless, our findings should be replicated with objective measures in the future.
A second possible limitation is that we used across-sectional design, which precludes causal inferences. For instance, our data showed that recovery
experiences were related to most of the indicators ofwell-being. This might indicate that good recovery
experiences lead to better well-being. It might also
be that individuals enjoying better well-being are
more likely to have more positive recovery experiences. Based on the cross-sectional analyses of thecurrent study, it can only be concluded that recovery
experience is related to well-being. A recent longitudinal study demonstrated that lack of psychologicaldetachment predicts poor well-being over the courseof one year37). More longitudinal research is neededthat uncovers the causal order in the relationshipbetween recovery experiences and their predictors andconsequences.
Finally, our data were collected via the Internet,
which requires caution regarding the generalizability of our findings, as the representativeness of thesample may be challenged. It is claimed that thesocioeconomic and educational status of the average Internet user is usually above that of the general
population 41). Indeed, our participants had higher
educational statuses compared with those from nationwide surveys in Japan, which were administered by apaper-and-pencil method42). Thus, similar to typicalInternet studies, self-selection might be a limitationof the present study. However, on the positive side,
the present research included employees from a wide
range of different occupations, whereas many studies

on occupational health are biased towards a specificgroup or occupation. Future research should examine whether or not our findings can be generalized tothose obtained by paper-and-pencil assessment.

Conclusion
In conclusion, this study confirmed that REQ-J isan adequate measure of recovery experiences that canbe used in the Japanese context.

References
1) Jones F, Burke RJ, Westman M. Work-life balance:
key issues. In: Jones F, Burke RJ, Westman M,
editors. Work-life balance: a psychological perspective. East Sussex (UK): Psychology Press; 2006. p.1–9.
2) Ng TWH, Sorensen KL, Feldman DC. Dimensions,antecedents, and consequences of workaholism: aconceptual integration and extension. J Organ Behav
2007; 28: 111–36.
3) Parks YA, Fritz C, Jex SM. Relationships between
work-home segmentaiton and psychological detachment from work: the role of communication technology use at home. J Occup Health Psychol 2011; 16:
457–67.
4) Sonnentag S, Fritz C. The recovery experience questionnaire: development and validation of a measure
for assessing recuperation and unwinding fromwork. J Occup Health Psychol 2007; 12: 204–21.
5) Meijman TF, Mulder G. Psychological aspects ofworkload. In: Drenth PJD, Thierry H, de Wolff
CJ, editors. Handbook of work and organisational psychology, 2nd Ed. Erlbaum, Hove (UK):
Psychology Press; 1998. p.5–33.
6) Binnewies C, Sonnentag S, Mojza EJ. Recovery
during the weekend and fluctuations in weekly job
performance: a week-level study examining intraindividual relationships. J Occup Organ Psychol
2010; 83: 419–41.
7) Etzion D, Eden D, Lapidot Y. Relief from job
stressors and burnout: reserve service as a respite.
J Appl Psychol 1998; 83: 577–85.
8) Sonnentag S, Bayer U. Switching off mentally:
predictors and consequences of psychologicaldetachment from work during off-job time. J Occup
Health Psychol 2005; 10: 393–414.
9) Hobfoll SE. Conservation of resources: a new
attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am Psychol 1989;
44: 513–24.
10) S t o n e A A , Ke n n e d y - M o o r e E , N e a l e J M .
Association between daily coping and end-of-day
mood. Health Psychol 1995; 14: 341–9.
11) Tinsley HEA, Eldredge BD. Psychological benefitsof leisure participation: a taxonomy of leisureactivities based on their need-gratifying properties.
J Couns Psychol 1995; 42: 123–32.
12) Brosschot JF, Pieper S, Thayer JF. Expanding stresstheory: prolonged activitation and perseverative
cognition. Psychoneuroendocrino 2005; 30: 1043–9.
13) Fredrickson BL. The undoing effect of positive

204

emotions. Motiv Emot 2000; 24: 237–58.
14) Deci EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic motivation and selfdetermination in human behavior. New York (USA):
Plenum; 1985.
15) Cropley M, Purvis LJM. Job strain and rumination
about work issues during leisure time: a diary study.
Eur J Work Organ Psy 2003; 12: 195–207.
16) Grebner S, Semmer NK, Elfering A. Working
conditions and three types of well-being: a longitudinal study with self-report and rating data. J Occup
Health Psychol 2005; 10: 31–43.
17) Siltaloppi M, Kinnunen U, Feldt T. Recovery experiences as moderators between psychological work
characteristics and occupational well-being. WorkStress 2009; 23: 330–48.
18) van Hooff MLM, Geurts SAE, Kompier MAJ, Taris
TW. Workdays, in-between workdays and the weekend: a diary study on effort and recovery. Int Arch
Occup Environ Health 2007; 80: 599–613.
19) Muraven M, Baumeister RF. Self-regulation anddepletion of limited resources: does self-control
resemble a muscle? Psychol Bull 2000; 126:
247–59.
20) Shimazu A, Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Peeters
MCW. Work-family conflict in Japan: how job andhome demands affect psychological distress. Ind
Health 2010; 48: 766–73.
21) Taris TW, Beckers D, Verhoeven LC, Geurts SAE,
Kompier MAJ, van der Linden D. Recovery opportunities, work-home interference, and well-being
among managers. Eur J Work Organ Psy 2006; 15:
139–57.
22) Taris TW, Kompier MAJ. Job characteristics andlearning behavior. In Perrewe PL, Ganster DC,
editors. Research in occupational stress and wellbeing: Exploring interpersonal dynamics Vol.4.
Amsterdam (NL): JAI Press; 2005. p.127–66.
23) Frese M, Kring W, Soose A, Zempel J. Personal
initiative at work: differences between East andWest Germany. Acad Manage J 1996; 39: 37–63.
24) Meissner M. The long arm of the job: a study ofwork and leisure. Ind Relat 1971; 10: 239–60.
25) Fritz C, Yankelevich M, Zarubin A, Barger P.
Happy, healthy and productive: the role of detachment from work during nonwork time. J Appl
Psychol 2010; 95: 977–83.
26) von Thiele Schwarz U. Inability to withdraw fromwork as related to poor next-day recovery andfatigue among women. Appl Psychol-Int Rev 2011;
60: 377–96.
27) Kühnel J, Sonnentag S, Westman M. Does work
engagement increase after a short respite? The
role of job involvement as a double-edged sword.
J Occup Organ Psychol 2009; 82: 575–94.
28) Sonnentag S. Recovery, work engagement, andproactive behavior: a new look at the interface
between nonwork and work. J Appl Psychol 2003;
88: 518–28.
29) Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, Gonzalez-Romá V,
Bakker AB. The measurement of engagement

J Occup Health, Vol. 54, 2012

30)
31)

32)

33)

34)

35)

36)

37)
38)

39)

40)

41)

42)

and burnout: a confirmative analytic approach.
J Happiness Stud 2002; 3: 71–92.
Fritz C, Sonnentag S. Recovery, health, and job
performance: effects of weekend experiences.
J Occup Health Psychol 2005; 10: 187–99.
Sanz-Vergel AI, Sebastián J, Rodrígez-Munoz
A, Garrosa E, Moreno-Jiménez B, Sonnentag S.
Adaptación der “Cuestionario de Experiencias deRecuperación” a una muestra espanola. Psicothema2010; 22: 990–6.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment. Society at a Glance 2011 — OECD
Social Indicators. [Online]. 2011 [cited 2011 Oct19]; Available from: URL: http://www.oecd.org/els/social/indicators/SAG
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Scienceand Technology & Ministry of Health, Labour andWelfare. Ethical Guidelines for EpidemiologicalResearch. [Online]. 2008 [cited 2011 Oct 19];
Available from: URL: http://www.lifescience.mext.
go.jp/files/pdf/37_139.pdf (in Japanese)
Shimomitsu T, Yokoyama K, Ono Y, Maruta T,
Tanigawa T. Development of a novel brief job stressquestionnaire. In: Kato S, editor. Report of theresearch grant for the prevention of work-relateddiseases from the Ministry of Labour. Tokyo:
Ministry of Labour; 1998. p.107–15 (in Japanese).
Shimazu A, Schaufeli WB, Kosugi S, et al. Work
engagement in Japan: validation of the Japaneseversion of Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Appl
Psychol-Int Rev 2008; 57: 510–23.
Kessler RC, Barber C, Beck A, et al. The world
health organization health and work performancequestionnaire (HPQ). J Occup Environ Med 2003;
45: 156–74.
Henson RK. Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: a conceptual primer on coefficientalpha. Meas Eval Couns Dev 2001; 34: 177–89.
Jackson PR, Wall TD, Martin R, Davids K. New
measures of job control, cognitive demand, andproduction responsibility. J Appl Psychol 1993; 78:
753–62.
Sonnentag S, Binnewies C, Mojza EJ. Staying welland engaged when demands are high: the role ofpsychological detachment. J Appl Psychol 2010; 95:
965–76.
Binnewies C, Sonnentag S, Mojza EJ. Feelingrecovered and thinking about the good sides of
one’s work: a longitudinal study on the benefits of
non-work experiences for job performance. J Occup
Health Psychol 2009; 14: 243–56.
Smith MA, Leigh B. Virtual subjects: using theInternet as an alternative source of subjects andresearch environment. Behav Res Methods Instrum
Comput 1997; 29: 496–505.
Oshio T, Kobayashi M. Income inequality, perceived
happiness, and self-rated health: evidence fromnationwide surveys in Japan. Soc Sci Med 2010;
70: 1358–66.

205

Akihito SHIMAZU, et al.: Recovery in Japan

Appendix
日本語版リカバリー経験尺度
以下の質問文は，「1 日の仕事が終わった後の時間の過ごし方」について尋ねたものです。ご自身の状況に当てはまる程度をお答え下さい。それぞれの質問が類似しているように見えても，すべての項目に回答して下さい。
全く当て
はまらない

あまり当て
はまらない

どちらとも
いえない

やや当て
はまる

よく当て
はまる

01

何をするか自分で決められると思う

1

2

3

4

5

02

新しいことを学ぶ

1

2

3

4

5

03

仕事のことを忘れる

1

2

3

4

5

04

自分のスケジュールは自分で決める

1

2

3

4

5

05

仕事のことは全く考えない

1

2

3

4

5

06

くつろいでリラックスする

1

2

3

4

5

07

知的に挑戦できることを探し出す

1

2

3

4

5

08

やりがいのあることに挑戦する

1

2

3

4

5

09

時間の過ごし方は自分で決める

1

2

3

4

5

10

仕事と距離を置く

1

2

3

4

5

11

リラックスできることをする

1

2

3

4

5

12

リラックスするために時間を使う

1

2

3

4

5

13

自分のやりたいように物事を片付ける

1

2

3

4

5

14

余暇に時間をかける

1

2

3

4

5

15

自分の視野が広がることをする

1

2

3

4

5

16

仕事での負担から離れて，ひと休みする

1

2

3

4

5

【下位尺度と該当項目】
心理的距離：03, 05, 10, 16
リラックス：06, 11, 12, 14
熟達：02, 07, 08, 15
コントロール : 01, 04, 09, 13