The concept of ‘recovery’ (from work) has quickly gained in importance in the occupational health literature. However, we think that the conceptualization of ‘recovery’ needs some more attention. Although many authors acknowledge that ‘recovery’ refers to a ‘process’, the concept is often treated as a static construct. In this paper, we argue that recovery should be conceptualized as a dynamic construct related to changes in psychophysiological state of the person. We refer to two main theories that have provided a theoretical framework for research in this area: Meijman & Mulder's Effort‐Recovery (E‐R) model and Hobfoll's Conservation of Resources theory. In particular, the E‐R model has been seminal in this area and stresses the element of changing psychophysiological states that has been used for reconceptualising ‘recovery’. Various biological rhythms influence these changing psychophysiological states, and thus the level of energy (or effort) a person can mobilize or wants to mobilize. A distinction is made between ‘physical fatigue’ and ‘mental fatigue’ and its consequences for recovery. The discrepancy between ‘actual state’ and ‘required state’ has been suggested as the basis for ‘recovery’. This emphasises that recovery is a dynamic and ongoing process, which also included motivational aspects, in particular as far as mental work is concerned. The capacity to maintain self‐regulation of one's psychophysiological state is important in this respect. Thus, we propose that ‘recovery’ is the continuous process of harmonizing the ‘actual state’ with the state that is ‘required’ at that moment. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

The perseverative cognition hypothesis suggests that worry/ruminative thinking prolongs stress-related physiological activation. This study explored the association of work-related rumination with salivary cortisol sampled at 10pm, and the cortisol awakening response (CAR) the following morning. On a mid-week evening, 108 school teachers completed a small diary about their work related thoughts and gave a saliva cortisol sample at 10pm. The following morning, they gave four additional saliva samples: at awakening and at 15, 30 and 45 minutes after awakening, along with a rating of their anticipatory thoughts about work.The CAR was calculated as the percentage increase in cortisol secretion from awakening to 30 minutes, and the sample was divided at their respective medians to classify participants into low and high rumination groups. Cortisol secretion was found to be significantly greater in the high compared to the low ruminators at 10pm, and this effect was not related to leisure activities or work patterns during the evening. For the morning measures, high ruminators demonstrated a flattened CAR relative to the low ruminators and this effect appeared to be associated with sleep disturbance during the night. Ruminating about work-related issues is associated with cortisol secretion, and our findings support the perseverative cognition hypothesis.Rumination and Cortisol 2

No abstract

No abstract