Sianoja, M., e al. (2016). Reco e y du ing Lunch B eaks: Tes ing Long-Te m Rela ions
wi h Ene gy Le els a Wo k.
Scandina ian Jou nal o Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology
,
1(1): 7, 1–12, DOI: h p://dx.doi.o g/10.16993/sjwop.13
* Uni e si y o Tampe e, FI
† Radboud Uni e si y Nijmegen, NL
Co esponding au ho : Ma jaana Sianoja (ma jaana.siano[email p o ec ed])
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Reco e y du ing Lunch B eaks: Tes ing Long-Te m
Rela ions wi h Ene gy Le els a Wo k
Ma jaana Sianoja*, Ulla Kinnunen*, Jessica de Bloom*, Kale i Ko pela* and Sabine Geu s†
This s udy had wo aims. Fi s , we examined whe he lunch b eak se ings, ac i i ies, and eco e y
expe iences we e associa ed wi h lunch ime eco e y c oss-sec ionally. Second, we in es iga ed whe he
lunch ime eco e y was ela ed o ene gy le els (i.e., exhaus ion and igo ) ac oss a 12-mon h pe iod.
We collec ed longi udinal ques ionnai e da a among 841 Finnish wo ke s (59% emale, mean age
47 yea s) om 11 di e en o ganiza ions in a ious ields a wo ime poin s (sp ing 2013 and 2014).
We used hie a chical eg ession analysis o es ou hypo heses.
We ound ha eco e y expe iences, ha is, psychological de achmen om wo k and con ol du ing
he lunch b eak, we e ela ed o success ul lunch ime eco e y. A e con olling o backg ound ac o s,
main job cha ac e is ics (wo kload and au onomy), and he ou comes a baseline, success ul lunch ime
eco e y was ela ed o a dec ease in exhaus ion and o an inc ease in igo one yea la e .
To conclude, lunch b eaks o e an impo an se ing o in e nal eco e y du ing wo king days and seem
o ela e o ene gy le els a wo k o e ime.
Keywo ds: lunch b eaks; eco e y; de achmen ; con ol; exhaus ion; igo
In oduc ion
Reco e y om wo k s ess, ha is, psycho-physiological
unwinding a e e o expendi u e a wo k ha es o es
employees’ ene gy and men al esou ces, is a mechanism
explaining how employees can p o ec hei well-being
and heal h in demanding wo king condi ions (C aig &
Coope , 1992; Geu s & Sonnen ag, 2006; Meijman &
Mulde , 1998). Reco e y plays an in e ening ole in he
ela ionship be ween s ess ul job cha ac e is ics and he
de elopmen o ch onic load eac ions, such as p olonged
a igue, sleep diso de s, and ca dio ascula diseases
(Geu s & Sonnen ag, 2006). The e o e, a mo e p o ound
unde s anding o eco e y p ocesses is essen ial in p o-
mo ing sus ainable wo king li e.
Reco e y occu s du ing b eaks om wo k when job
demands a e no longe p esen (Meijman & Mulde ,
1998). Di e en o ms o b eaks ange om sabba icals
and aca ions o sho mic o-b eaks wi hin he wo king
day. Reco e y wi hin wo king days, e e ed o as in e nal
eco e y, has ecei ed a less a en ion in he eco e y
esea ch li e a u e han o -job eco e y, e e ed o as
ex e nal eco e y (Sonnen ag & F i z, 2015). Al hough
eco e y du ing b eaks wi hin he wo king day may no
be as sel -e iden as eco e y du ing leisu e ime, in e nal
eco e y has po en ial in p e en ing s ess om
accumula ing ea ly on, helping o main ain pe o -
mance h oughou he day and p e en ing high need o
eco e y a he end o he wo king day (Co eng, an Sluijs,
Hend iksen, an Mechelen, & Boo , 2015; Geu s, Becke s, &
Tucke , 2014).
As wo ke s ypically spend a hi d o a hal o hei day
a he wo kplace i is impo an o ecognize he eco e y
po en ial o wi hin wo king day b eaks, and especially o
he lunch b eak, which is ypically he longes and mos
common o b eaks in he cou se o he wo king day.
Fu he mo e, o ganiza ions ha e a g ea e oppo uni y
o in luence employees’ in e nal eco e y han ex e nal
eco e y and, he e o e, lunch b eaks as a eco e y se -
ing may be o special in e es o employe s. Fo example,
o ganiza ions may encou age egula lunch b eaks and
p o ide es o a i e en i onmen s (e.g., quie ooms o
elaxa ion). The ques ion o how o eco e success ully
du ing lunch b eaks has ecen ly gained some esea ch
a en ion (B own, Ba on, P e y, & Gladwell, 2014;
K ajewski, Wieland, & Saue land, 2010; T ougakos, Hideg,
Cheng, & Beal, 2014). Ne e heless, esea ch on in e nal
eco e y is s ill sca ce (Sonnen ag & F i z, 2015).
In his s udy we examine which lunch ime se ings,
ac i i ies, and eco e y expe iences a e ela ed o lunch-
ime eco e y (i.e., how o en employees ecupe a e
success ully om wo k du ing lunch b eaks) in a c oss-
sec ional sample (S udy 1). Fu he mo e, we es whe he
lunch ime eco e y is ela ed o ene gy le els a wo k, ha
is, exhaus ion and igo , o e a 12-mon h pe iod (S udy 2).
Ou s udy con ibu es o he li e a u e on wo k s ess
Sianoja e al: Lunch ime Reco e y and Long-Te m Ou comesA . 7, page 2 o 12
eco e y by ex ending he unde s anding o how o p o-
mo e in e nal eco e y and explo ing i s ela ion wi h
main aining ene gy a wo k. Figu e 1 p esen s he model
o he s udy wi h hypo hesized ela ionships.
Reco e y du ing lunch b eak: Theo e ical and
empi ical pe spec i es
In he e o - eco e y (E-R) model (Meijman & Mulde ,
1998) eco e y has been de ined as a p ocess o he
psycho-biological sys em e u ning o i s p e-s esso
le el. Reco e y occu s when he demands causing s ain
a e no longe p esen (Meijman & Mulde , 1998). When
eco e y is insu icien , an indi idual has o in es addi-
ional e o a wo k, which may cause s ain and lead o
accumula ing s ain eac ions in he long e m. Reco e y
he e o e plays a signi ican ole in coun e ac ing
s ain caused by job demands and helps in main aining
well-being and ene gy a wo k.
Besides seeing eco e y as a passi e p ocess (i.e., caused
by me e absence o demands), ac i e pe spec i es on
eco e y ha e also been in oduced. Acco ding o conse -
a ion o esou ces (COR) heo y (Hob oll, 2002; Hob oll,
1989), people a e mo i a ed o gain new esou ces and
p o ec hei exis ing esou ces. Resou ces a e de ined
b oadly as “objec s, pe sonal cha ac e is ics, condi ions,
o ene gies ha a e alued by he indi idual” (Hob oll,
1989, p. 516). When esou ces a e los , h ea ened wi h
loss, o new esou ces a e no gained a e e o in es -
men , s ain occu s. Du ing b eaks om wo k, people
ha e he oppo uni y o engage in pleasan ac i i ies
and o egain esou ces (e.g., ene gy and posi i e mood).
Thus, o eco e du ing a b eak, a b eak mus ensu e
absence o job demands and p o ide an oppo uni y o
employees o egain alued esou ces (Hob oll, 2002;
Meijman & Mulde , 1998). This also implies ha b eaks
should be egula and long enough o allow enough ime
o eco e y.
Addi ionally, b eak loca ion ( he place whe e he b eak
is spen ), b eak ac i i ies, and expe iences du ing he
b eak may in luence i s eco e y po en ial as hey a e
closely ela ed o he absence o job demands and oppo -
uni ies o esou ce gain. These aspec s ha e been a gued
(Sonnen ag & Na e , 2004) and shown (Sonnen ag &
F i z, 2015; Sonnen ag & Zijls a, 2006; an Hoo & Baas,
2013) o be o impo ance in e ms o eco e y du ing lei-
su e ime. Some o hese (e.g., ac i i ies) ha e also been
iden i ied in ea lie esea ch as impo an aspec s o in e -
nal eco e y (see Sianoja, Kinnunen, De Bloom, & Ko pela,
2015).
When looking a eco e y esea ch on whe e b eaks
a e spen , a ecen 5-day dia y s udy ound no di e ence
be ween spending b eaks inside o ou side he o ice in
e ms o esou ce eco e y (Hun e & Wu, 2016). Howe e ,
in his s udy ca ied ou among 95 uni e si y s a mem-
be s, he ou side condi ion also included di e en spaces
inside he o ice building (e.g., a b eak oom), which may
no o e as bene icial condi ions o de achmen om
wo k as spaces ou side he o ice building (e.g., a ca é o
es au an ). O he s udies ha e been speci ically in e es ed
in na u al en i onmen s. Acco ding o an in e en ion
s udy by B own e al. (2014), spending one’s lunch ime
walking in a na u al en i onmen was bene icial in e ms
o imp o ed men al heal h when compa ed o walking in
buil en i onmen s. Acco dingly, his s udy sugges s ha
Figu e 1: Model o he s udy.
Sianoja e al: Lunch ime Reco e y and Long-Te m Ou comes A . 7, page 3 o 12
b eak loca ion may be signi ican in e ms o eco e y.
To conclude, spending he lunch b eak ou side he o ice
building should, in heo y, aid eco e y, as i ensu es
be e men al de achmen om wo k o e ing a “change
o scene y” whe e job demands a e no p esen (e.g.,
Ko pela, De Bloom, & Kinnunen, 2015).
Conce ning b eak ac i i ies, ea lie s udies on in e nal
eco e y ha e associa ed elaxing, physical, and social
ac i i ies wi h posi i e eco e y ou comes (Co eng
e al., 2015; K ajewski e al., 2010; T ougakos e al., 2014).
O hese, we ocused on social ac i i ies. Wendsche
e al. (2014) showed ha collec i e es b eaks (i.e., b eaks
including social ac i i ies) we e associa ed wi h less
u no e han b eaks spen alone. In addi ion, a s udy by
T ougakos e al. (2014) ocusing on di e en lunch b eak
ac i i ies e ealed ha social ac i i ies ha we e based on
indi iduals’ own choice, we e conduci e o eco e y.
In sum, in addi ion o absence o job demands, as sug-
ges ed by he E-R model, ea lie esea ch shows ha
eco e y may be also enhanced by engaging in ac i i ies
ha enable esou ce eplenishmen , as sugges ed by he
COR heo y.
Hypo hesis 1: a) Ha ing lunch b eaks egula ly, b) ha -
ing longe lunch b eaks, c) spending lunch b eaks ou side
he o ice building and d) spending lunch b eaks wi h o h-
e s a e posi i ely associa ed wi h eco e y du ing lunch
b eaks.
Fu he mo e, i has been a gued ha a eco e ing
b eak should p omo e eco e y expe iences (Co eng
e al., 2015; T ougakos e al., 2014). Acco ding o
Sonnen ag and F i z (2007), he e a e ou such mecha-
nisms: psychological de achmen , elaxa ion, mas e y,
and con ol. O hese, we examined de achmen , ha is,
no hinking abou wo k, and con ol, ha is, ge ing o
choose how o spend one’s ee ime (e.g., lunch b eaks).
These wo expe iences we e chosen as hey ha e gained
mos suppo in ea lie s udies. In s udies ocusing on
eco e y du ing leisu e ime, de achmen has been
iden i ied as a co e eco e y expe ience (Sonnen ag &
F i z, 2015). Psychological de achmen om wo k, in
addi ion o physical de achmen , is c ucial, as con inuing
o hink abou job demands du ing b eaks may esul
in s ain (Sonnen ag & F i z, 2007). In ac , in a c oss-
sec ional s udy de achmen du ing wo k b eaks was
connec ed o less need o eco e y a he end o he
day (Co eng e al., 2015). Fu he mo e, au onomy (i.e.,
con ol) du ing lunch b eaks has p e iously been linked
o bene icial ou comes (T ougakos e al., 2014). Mo e
speci ically, au onomy du ing lunch b eaks was ecog-
nized as a mode a o be ween lunch b eak ac i i ies and
eco e y ou comes: au onomy s eng hened he posi i e
e ec s o he ac i i ies. In addi ion, p e e ed wo k b eak
ac i i ies ha e been associa ed wi h inc eased esou ces
a e he b eak (Hun e & Wu, 2016). The e o e b eak
cha ac e is ics ha enhance psychological de achmen
om wo k and allow con ol, may p o ide bene icial
se ing o eco e y.
Hypo hesis 2: Reco e y expe iences (de achmen and
con ol) du ing lunch b eaks a e posi i ely associa ed wi h
eco e y du ing lunch b eaks.
Long- e m associa ions be ween lunch ime eco e y
and ene gy le els a wo k
As long- e m ou comes o eco e y we ocused on ene gy,
speci ically on exhaus ion and igo a wo k. Acco ding o
he E-R model (Meijman & Mulde , 1998), when eco e y
is insu icien , high and con inuous demands lead o nega-
i e load e ec s and deple ion o ene gy, which in he long
e m can lead o emo ional exhaus ion. Emo ional exhaus-
ion is one o he co e bu nou dimensions and e e s o
“ eelings o being o e ex ended and deple ed o one’s
emo ional and physical esou ces” (Maslach, Schau eli, &
Lei e , 2001, p. 399). Resea ch has shown ha emo ional
exhaus ion p edic s men al and physical illness, such as
dep ession and ca dio ascula diseases (Ahola, 2007),
as well as inc eased sickness absence (Toppinen-Tanne ,
Ojajä i, Väänänen, Kalimo, & Jäppinen, 2005).
Hun e and Wu (2016) ound ha esou ce eco e y
du ing wo kday b eaks ac oss one wo king week was asso-
cia ed wi h lowe le els o exhaus ion a he end o he
week. As a as we know, he long- e m e ec s be ween
poo eco e y du ing lunch b eaks and exhaus ion ha e
no ye been examined. Howe e , o e ime employees go
h ough nume ous cycles o daily lunch ime eco e y p o-
cesses, which may ul ima ely esul in ei he gain o loss
o ene gy depending on whe he eco e y is success ul
o incomple e. The e o e, insu icien eco e y may, o e
ime, esul in cumula i e esou ce loss in e ms o highe
exhaus ion.
Hypo hesis 3: Insu icien eco e y du ing lunch
b eaks is ela ed o high le el o emo ional exhaus ion
o e ime.
In con as , success ul eco e y ensu es ha ene gy
le els a e su icien o people o expe ience igo a
wo k (Meijman & Mulde , 1998). Vigo is one o he co e
dimensions o wo k engagemen and is cha ac e ized
by high ac i a ion, ene gy, and men al esilience while
wo king (Schau eli, Salano a, González-Romá, & Bakke ,
2002). Wo k engagemen , and pa icula ly igo , has been
shown o be impo an in e ms o mo i a ion and pe o -
mance a wo k (Bakke , Deme ou i, & Sanz-Ve gel, 2014).
I has also been shown ha exhaus ion and igo a e
no endpoin s o he same ene gy cons uc (Deme ou i,
Mos e , & Bakke , 2010; Mäkikangas, Feld , Kinnunen, &
Tol anen, 2012). Thus we canno conclude ha absence
o exhaus ion au oma ically implies high le els o igo . I
is he e o e impo an o measu e bo h when examining
he ene gy le els o indi iduals.
To he bes o ou knowledge, s udies on in e nal
eco e y and i s ela ion o igo a e so a lacking.
Howe e , on a daily le el aking mic o-b eaks a wo k has
been associa ed wi h i ali y, a concep ela ed o igo
(Zache , B ails o d, & Pa ke , 2014). Fu he mo e, ea lie
esea ch has es ablished a posi i e link be ween ex e nal
eco e y and wo k engagemen (Kühnel, Sonnen ag, &
Wes man, 2009; Sonnen ag, 2003). I eco e y is epea edly
insu icien du ing lunch b eaks, i may lead o loss o
ene gy and o e ime educe igo . In addi ion, eco e y is
associa ed wi h esou ce gain (e.g., ene gy), and esou ces
end o accumula e and gene a e o he esou ces in
he long e m (Hob oll, 2002). Acco dingly, success ul
Sianoja e al: Lunch ime Reco e y and Long-Te m Ou comesA . 7, page 4 o 12
eco e y du ing lunch b eaks may esul in ene gy gain,
esul ing in highe le els o igo o e ime.
Hypo hesis 4: Success ul eco e y du ing lunch b eaks is
ela ed o high le el o igo o e ime.
Me hods
Pa icipan s and P ocedu e
The da a we e collec ed as a pa o la ge p ojec on
eco e y om wo k (see Kinnunen e al., 2016). The pa -
icipan s o his s udy we e Finnish employees wo king in
11 di e en o ganiza ions in a ious ields, mos ly wo k-
ing in cogni i ely o emo ionally demanding jobs. The
mos common ields we e educa ion, in o ma ion ech-
nology, and media. The ques ionnai e da a we e collec ed
in wo phases. Fi s , in sp ing 2013 (Time 1), an elec onic
ques ionnai e was sen ei he di ec ly o he employees’
wo k e-mail add esses (in se en o ganiza ions) o he
link o he ques ionnai e was deli e ed o he employees
by ou con ac pe sons (in ou o ganiza ions). O he
employees con ac ed (N = 3,593), 1,347 e u ned he
comple ed ques ionnai e a e wo eminde s, yielding a
esponse a e o 37.5%. Second, in sp ing 2014 (Time 2)
he elec onic ques ionnai e was sen o hose employees’
e-mail add esses who esponded in 2013 and who we e
s ill employed in he same o ganiza ions (N = 1,192). O
hese, a o al o 841 employees e u ned he comple ed
ques ionnai e, yielding a esponse a e o 70.6%. In
bo h s udy phases he employees we e in o med abou
he goals o he s udy, assu ed ha esponses would be
ea ed con iden ially and eminded ha pa icipa ion
was olun a y.
In S udy 1, we used he c oss-sec ional sample col-
lec ed a T2, because no all a iables (i.e., spending lunch
b eaks ou side, spending b eaks wi h o he s, lunch ime
de achmen , and lunch ime con ol) we e measu ed a
T1. A c oss-sec ional design was conside ed app op ia e
because we we e in e es ed in he immedia e ela ions o
b eak se ings, ac i i ies, and expe iences wi h lunch ime
eco e y. S udy 2 was based on he longi udinal sample
co e ing bo h measu emen s wi h a 12-mon h ime lag
be ween he measu emen s. I is di icul o heo e ically
de e mine he mos app op ia e ime lag as we lack he-
o ies o change, and he e o e e en desc ip i e esea ch
on he ime cou ses o impo an ela ionships has been
ecommended (Kelloway & F ancis, 2013). We conside
one yea o be an app op ia e ime lag, as i is so a he
mos ypical ime pe iod used in ea lie eco e y s ud-
ies showing long- e m e ec s (Kinnunen & Feld , 2013;
Sil aloppi, Kinnunen, Feld , & Tol anen, 2011; Sonnen ag,
Binnewies, & Mojza, 2010). Addi ionally, he eali y o
da a collec ion in o ganiza ions imposed ce ain limi a-
ions. We we e no able o schedule measu emen s mo e
equen ly because we had o conside he o ganiza ions’
wishes and ime cons ain s.
O he sample used in bo h s udies (N = 841), 58.6%
we e women. The pa icipan s’ a e age age was 47.1 yea s
( ange 21–67, SD = 10.0). Mos o he pa icipan s (76.4%)
we e li ing wi h a pa ne (ei he ma ied o cohabi -
ing), and 45.6% had child en (a e age o wo) li ing a
home. O he sample, 38.2% held a uni e si y deg ee
(mas e ’s le el o highe ), 26.6% had a poly echnic deg ee,
and he es (35.2%) had a oca ional school quali ica ion
o less. O he pa icipan s, 8.3% we e blue-colla wo ke s
(e.g., cleane s), 30.0% lowe whi e-colla wo ke s
(e.g., o ice wo ke s), 57.8% senio whi e-colla wo ke s
(e.g., eache s) and 3.8% senio -le el manage s (e.g., chie
execu i e o ice s). The majo i y had a pe manen job
(89.0%), wo ked ull- ime (96.8%) and had a egula day
shi (89.7%). A e age weekly wo king hou s we e 39.1
(SD = 5.9). O he pa icipan s, 53.6% wo ked in he public
sec o as eache s o adminis a i e s a in oca ional o
uppe seconda y schools, o in a poly echnic (uni e si y o
applied sciences). The es (46.4%) wo ked in he p i a e
sec o in a ious jobs.
In analyzing sample a i ion we compa ed he espond-
en s (n = 841) o he longi udinal sample wi h he non-
esponden s. The esul s indica ed ha he esponden s
did no di e om he non- esponden s in e ms o gen-
de , age, ha ing a pa ne , numbe o child en o le el o
educa ion. They also did no di e in e ms o he s udy
a iables measu ed a bo h ime poin s ( egula i y o
aking lunch b eaks, lunch b eak leng h, lunch ime eco -
e y, exhaus ion, o igo ). Howe e , he esponden s we e
mo e o en employed as senio whi e-colla wo ke s (58%
s. 50%) han he non- esponden s (p < .05) and mo e
o en on a pe manen job con ac (89% s. 79%) han he
non- esponden s (p < .001). Also, he esponden s wo ked
mo e hou s pe week (39.1 s. 37.9 hou s, p < .01) and
mo e o en on egula day shi s (90% s. 83%, p < .01)
han he non- esponden s. As we used he da a collec ed
a T2 in ou c oss-sec ional s udy, his sample a i ion
conce ns bo h S udy 1 and S udy 2.
Measu es
Reco e y du ing lunch b eaks
To measu e he deg ee o eco e y du ing lunch b eaks
a T1 and T2, we used one i em “I ecupe a e om wo k
du ing my lunch b eak” om he Reco e y a e B eaks
Scale (Deme ou i, Bakke , Sonnen ag, & Fullaga , 2012)
aiming o cap u e speci ically how well and egula ly
employees eco e du ing hei lunch b eaks. The i em
was a ed on a scale om 1 ( e y seldom o ne e ) o 5
( e y o en o always). Ea lie s udies ha e p o ided sup-
po o he alidi y o single i em measu es (e.g., D ole &
Mo ison, 2001; Elo, Leppänen, & Jahkola, 2003). Con-
ce ning eco e y, i has been shown ha eco e y
om wo k measu ed wi h one i em co ela ed highly
wi h longe eco e y scales, such as need o eco e y
(Kinnunen, Feld , Sil aloppi, & Sonnen ag, 2011).
B eak se ings, ac i i ies and expe iences
O b eak se ings and ac i i ies, we measu ed egula i y o
lunch b eaks [dicho omized o 0 = occasionally (1–3 imes
a week), 1 = egula ly (4–5 imes a week)] and leng h o
he lunch b eak (in minu es). Those pa icipan s (n = 36 a
T1 and n = 32 a T2) who epo ed no aking lunch b eaks,
we e no asked o answe any u he lunch b eak ela ed
ques ions ( eco e y du ing lunch b eak, b eak ac i i ies,
o expe iences) and as lunch b eak eco e y was he main
ocus in ou s udy, hey we e excluded om he analyses.
Sianoja e al: Lunch ime Reco e y and Long-Te m Ou comes A . 7, page 5 o 12
In addi ion a T2, we asked whe he he employees
habi ually spen hei lunch b eaks ou side he o ice
building [“I spend my lunch b eak ou side my company
building (e.g., in a es au an o in a ca é)”] o wi h o he s
[“I spend my lunch b eak wi h o he s (e.g., wi h colleagues,
acquain ances, iends o amily membe s)”]. The answe s
we e dicho omized [0 = no (ha dly e e o once a week),
1 = yes (2–5 imes a week)].
O eco e y expe iences, we measu ed de achmen and
con ol du ing lunch ime a T2. Bo h de achmen and
con ol we e measu ed wi h one i em ( espec i ely: “I dis-
ance mysel men ally om my wo k du ing lunch b eaks”
and “I decide mysel how o spend my lunch b eaks”)
om he Finnish e sion o he Reco e y Expe ience
Ques ionnai e (Kinnunen e al., 2011; Sonnen ag & F i z,
2007). The i ems we e adap ed o conce n lunch b eaks
and measu ed on a scale om 1 ( e y seldom o ne e ) o
5 ( e y o en o always).
Po en ial long- e m ou comes
Emo ional exhaus ion was measu ed a T1 and T2 wi h
he i e-i em scale (e.g., “I eel emo ionally d ained om
my wo k”) om he Maslach Bu nou In en o y (Kalimo,
Hakanen, & Toppinen-Tanne , 2006; Maslach, Jackson, &
Lei e , 1996) wi h esponse op ions on a se en-poin
esponse scale om 0 (ne e ) o 6 (e e y day). The C on-
bach’s alphas we e .93 a T1 and .93 a T2.
Vigo was measu ed a T1 and T2 wi h he h ee-i em
sho ened scale (e.g., “A my wo k, I eel bu s ing wi h
ene gy”) om he U ech Wo k Engagemen Scale
(Schau eli, Bakke , & Salano a, 2006) using a se en-poin
esponse scale anging om 0 (ne e ) o 6 (e e y day). The
C onbach’s alphas we e .89 a T1 and .90 a T2.
Con ol a iables
O he backg ound ac o s, we con olled o age (in yea s),
gende (1 = woman, 2 = man) and wo king hou s pe week,
as hese may play a ole in eco e y (e.g., Moh en, Jansen, &
Kan , 2010; Sil aloppi e al., 2011). Wo king hou s we e
measu ed wi h a single ques ion: “How many hou s do
you ac ually wo k pe week? (Include paid and unpaid
o e ime, bu no you commu ing ime)”.
We also con olled o main job cha ac e is ics, namely
wo kload and au onomy, measu ed a T1 and T2 as hey
may ac as con ounding a iables in ou s udy. Fi s ,
app op ia e job design may abo e all p omo e in e nal
eco e y (Geu s e al., 2014) as i enables he employees
o adjus hei wo k acco ding o hei cu en need o
eco e y. Fu he mo e, job demands and esou ces play a
pi o al ole in main aining ene gy as job demands may
s a a heal h de e io a ing p ocess leading o exhaus ion,
and job esou ces, in u n, o a heal h p omo ing p o-
cess leading o an inc ease in igo (Bakke e al., 2014).
Wo kload was measu ed wi h h ee i ems (e.g., “How
o en does you job equi e you o wo k unde ime p es-
su e?”, C onbach’s alphas .88 a T1 and .87 a T2) om he
Quan i a i e Wo kload In en o y (Spec o & Jex, 1998).
Au onomy was measu ed wi h i e i ems (e.g., “I can in lu-
ence decisions ha a e impo an o my wo k”, C onbach’s
alphas .77 a T1 and .78 a T2) om he QPS No dic-ADW
(Dallne e al., 2000). All job cha ac e is ics we e meas-
u ed wi h a i e-poin scale om 1 ( e y seldom o ne e )
o 5 ( e y o en o always).
Analyses
In bo h s udies (S udies 1 and 2), we used hie a chical
eg ession analyses o es ou hypo heses. In he c oss-
sec ional S udy 1 lunch ime eco e y se ed as a depend-
en a iable. A he i s s ep, we added he con ol a i-
ables (age, gende , weekly wo king hou s, wo kload, and
au onomy). A he second s ep we added a iables desc ib-
ing lunch b eak se ings and ac i i ies ( egula i y o he
lunch b eaks, leng h o he lunch b eak, b eak ou side,
and wi h o he s). Finally, a he hi d s ep we added eco -
e y expe iences (de achmen and con ol) du ing lunch
b eaks.
In he longi udinal S udy 2, we ollowed simila s eps
wi h bo h ou comes (exhaus ion and igo ). A he i s
s ep, we con olled o he ou come a Time 1. A he sec-
ond s ep, we added con ol a iables (age, gende , weekly
wo king hou s, wo kload, and au onomy). Lunch ime
eco e y a Time 1 was added a he inal s ep, as we we e
in e es ed in i s explana o y powe a e con olling o
he ou come a Time 1, backg ound ac o s and wo k
cha ac e is ics.
Resul s
Desc ip i e esul s
Means, s anda d de ia ions, and ze o-o de co ela ions o
he s udy a iables a e p esen ed in Table 1 (S udy 1) and
Table 2 (S udy 2). We i s looked a he equencies o
lunch b eak cha ac e is ics examined in S udy 1, in which
all a iables we e measu ed a T2. To ha e a egula lunch
b eak was common in ou sample, as 86% o he pa ici-
pan s epo ed aking a lunch b eak 4–5 imes a week. O
hose pa icipan s who ook lunch b eaks a leas once a
week, 37% epo ed habi ually spending he b eak ou -
side he o ice building and 71% wi h o he people. In
S udy 1, o he lunch b eak se ings and ac i i ies, egula
lunch b eaks ( = .21), longe lunch b eaks ( = .16), b eaks
ou side he o ice building ( = .17), and b eaks wi h o h-
e s ( = .08) showed posi i e associa ions wi h lunch ime
eco e y. Howe e , bo h eco e y expe iences – de ach-
men and con ol – du ing lunch b eaks showed he
s onges co ela ions: high le el o de achmen ( = .59)
and con ol ( = .30) du ing lunch b eaks we e associa ed
wi h success ul lunch ime eco e y. In addi ion, o he
con ol a iables, wo kload was nega i ely ( = −.12) and
au onomy posi i ely ( = .33) associa ed wi h eco e y du -
ing lunch b eaks.
In S udy 2 he e we e signi ican longi udinal co ela-
ions be ween lunch ime eco e y and bo h po en ial
long- e m ou comes (Table 2). Lunch ime eco e y a T1
was nega i ely ela ed o exhaus ion a T2 ( = −.35) and
posi i ely ela ed o igo a T2 ( = .36). O he con ol a -
iables gende ( emale), long weekly wo king hou s, high
wo kload and low au onomy we e ela ed o exhaus ion a
T2, and gende ( emale) and high le el o au onomy we e
ela ed o igo a T2. In addi ion, lunch ime eco e y
( = .48) and bo h ou comes ( = .69 o exhaus ion and

Sianoja e al: Lunch ime Reco e y and Long-Te m Ou comesA . 7, page 6 o 12
M / % SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Lunch ime eco e y 3.42 0.97 –
2. Age 48.13 10.02 .04 –
3. Gende 158.6% – .03 .04 –
4. Weekly wo king hou s 38.65 5.90 −.03 −.06 .07* −
5. Wo kload 3.82 0.79 −.12*** −.07 −.15*** .27*** –
6. Au onomy 3.20 0.80 .33*** −.06 .16*** .05 −.24*** –
7. Regula i y o lunch b eaks286.2% – .21*** −.13*** −.04 .04 −.05 .10** –
8. Leng h o lunch b eak 29.02 8.55 .16*** −.05 .11** −.02 −.05 .06 .08* −
9. Lunch b eak ou side336.9% – .17*** −.04 .11** .12** .08* .14*** .15*** .15*** –
10. Lunch b eak wi h o he s471.4% – .08* −.09** −.13*** .03 .02 .05 .21*** .07* .12** –
11. De achmen a lunch b eak 3.33 1.06 .59*** .01 .01 −.09* −.16*** .18*** .21*** .18*** .19*** .03 –
12. Con ol a lunch b eak 4.27 0.96 .30*** .03 .11** .03 −.05 .38*** .05 .19*** .22*** .05 .24***
Table 1: Means, s anda d de ia ions, and ze o-o de co ela ions o he s udy a iables in S udy 1.
No e. 1Gende : 1 = emale, 2 = male; 2Regula i y o lunch b eaks: 0 = occasionally (1–3 imes a week), 1 = egula ly (4–5 imes a week); 3B eak ou side: 0 = no (ha dly e e o once
a week), 1 = yes (2–5 imes a week); 4B eak wi h o he s: 0 = no (ha dly e e o once a week), 1 = yes (2–5 imes a week).
The second column shows pe cen ages o ca ego ical a iables: 1 % o emale pa icipan s; 2 % o pa icipan s aking lunch b eaks egula ly; 3 % o pa icipan s ypically spending
lunch b eaks ou side; 4 % o pa icipan s ypically spending lunch b eaks wi h o he s.
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; 807 < N < 841.
Sianoja e al: Lunch ime Reco e y and Long-Te m Ou comes A . 7, page 7 o 12
M / % SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Lunch ime eco e y T1 3.39 1.00
2. Age T1 47.13 10.02 .08*
3. Gende 158.6% – .01 .04
4. Weekly wo king hou s T1 39.09 5.94 −.09* −.01 .06
5. Wo kload T1 3.89 0.82 −.16*** .03 −.16*** .28***
6. Au onomy T1 3.18 0.82 .30*** −.08* .16*** .05 −.30***
7. Exhaus ion T1 1.92 1.45 −.41*** .04 −.11** .12** .36*** −.35***
8. Vigo T1 4.53 1.21 .43*** .01 −.06 .05 .01 .26*** −.45***
9. Exhaus ion T2 1.92 1.41 −.35*** −.02 −.15*** .08* .31*** −.30*** .69*** −.35***
10. Vigo T2 4.37 1.32 .36*** .00 −.09** .07 .04 .19*** −.37*** .68*** −.45***
Table 2: Means, s anda d de ia ions, and ze o−o de co ela ions o he s udy a iables in S udy 2.
No e. 1Gende : 1 = emale, 2 = male.
The second column shows pe cen ages o ca ego ical a iables: 1 % o emale pa icipan s.
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; 785 < N < 841.
= .68 o igo ) we e ela i ely s able be ween T1 and T2.
No mean le el changes occu ed in lunch ime eco e y o
exhaus ion be ween T1 and T2. Howe e , igo was signi i-
can ly lowe a T2 han a T1 (p < .001).
Tes ing he hypo heses
S udy 1
The esul s o he hie a chical eg ession analysis con-
ce ning he associa ions be ween lunch b eak se ings,
ac i i ies, eco e y expe iences, and lunch ime eco e y
a e shown in Table 3. A s ep 1, con ol a iables (back-
g ound a iables and job cha ac e is ics) explained 12%
o he a iance in lunch ime eco e y and au onomy a
wo k signi ican ly con ibu ed o lunch ime eco e y.
Regula lunch b eaks, longe lunch b eaks and habi u-
ally spending lunch b eaks ou side he o ice building
con ibu ed o success ul lunch ime eco e y, inc eas-
ing he explana ion a e o he model o 17%. Spend-
ing lunch b eaks wi h o he s did no con ibu e o
lunch ime eco e y. A e adding eco e y expe ience
a iables o he model a s ep 3, only egula i y o he
lunch b eaks (o he lunch ime cha ac e is ics en e ed a
s ep 2) con inued o be associa ed wi h lunch ime eco -
e y. Bo h de achmen and con ol we e posi i ely ela ed
o eco e y, and hey aised he explana ion a e o he
model o 41%. De achmen (β = .51, p < .001) p edic ed
lunch ime eco e y mo e s ongly han con ol (β = .09,
p < .01).
In sum, Hypo hesis 1 was pa ially suppo ed, as mos
o he posi i e e ec s o lunch ime se ings and ac i i ies
disappea ed when lunch ime eco e y expe iences we e
en e ed in o he model. Mo e speci ically, Hypo hesis 1a
was ully suppo ed, as aking lunch b eaks egula ly con-
ibu ed o success ul lunch ime eco e y. Hypo heses
1b and 1c we e pa ially suppo ed, as longe lunch
b eaks and spending b eaks ou side we e only signi ican
be o e eco e y expe iences we e en e ed in o he model.
Hypo hesis 1d did no ecei e suppo , as spending
lunch b eaks wi h o he s did no con ibu e o eco e y.
Fu he mo e, Hypo hesis 2 was ully suppo ed, as bo h
high le els o de achmen and con ol du ing lunch b eak
con ibu ed o success ul lunch b eak eco e y.
S udy 2
The esul s o hie a chical eg ession analyses explo ing
he longi udinal ela ionships o lunch ime eco e y wi h
exhaus ion and igo a e shown in Table 4. Conce ning
exhaus ion, a s ep 1, exhaus ion a T1 s ongly p edic ed
exhaus ion a T2 explaining 47% o he a iance. A he
second s ep, adding he con ol a iables, he explana ion
a e o he model inc eased by 1 %, as gende ( emale)
was signi ican ly ela ed o exhaus ion. A he inal
s ep, lunch ime eco e y a T1 con ibu ed signi ican ly
(β = −.07) o exhaus ion a T2. The inc ease in he explana-
ion a e was signi ican , al hough i inc eased only 0.3%.
The explana ion a e o he inal model was 48%. Thus,
in line wi h Hypo hesis 3, success ul eco e y a lunch
b eaks seems o explain – o a mino deg ee – a dec ease
in exhaus ion ac oss one yea .
In he model p edic ing igo , a s ep 1, igo a T1
s ongly p edic ed igo a T2 explaining 47% o he
a iance. A he second s ep, adding he con ol a iables
nei he backg ound ac o s no job cha ac e is ics we e
signi ican p edic o s o igo . A he inal s ep, lunch ime
eco e y a T1 con ibu ed signi ican ly (β = .10) o igo
a T2 and added 1% o he explana ion a e. The explana-
ion a e o he inal model was 48%. Thus, in line wi h
Hypo hesis 4 success ul eco e y a lunch b eaks seems o
explain – o a mino deg ee – an inc ease in igo ac oss
one yea .
Discussion
This s udy had wo main aims. Fi s , we in es iga ed
whe he ce ain lunch b eak se ings, ac i i ies, and expe-
iences we e ela ed o eco e y du ing lunch b eaks.
Second, we examined whe he lunch ime eco e y was
associa ed wi h ene gy le els a wo k one yea la e . We
based ou s udy on he E-R model and he COR heo y.
Sianoja e al: Lunch ime Reco e y and Long-Te m Ou comesA . 7, page 8 o 12
Lunch ime eco e y
S ep 1 S ep 2 S ep 3
P edic o s β β β
Age .06 .09* .06*
Gende 1−.03 −.04 −.03
Weekly wo king hou s −.04 −.05 .00
Wo kload −.04 −.04 .01
Au onomy .33*** .30*** .22***
Regula i y o lunch b eaks2.15*** .07*
Leng h o lunch b eak .11** .03
Lunch b eak ou side3.11** .01
Lunch b eak wi h o he s4−.00 .02
De achmen a lunch b eak .51***
Con ol a lunch b eak .09**
ΔR2.12*** .06*** .24***
R2.12*** .17*** .41***
Table 3: Resul s o hie a chical eg ession analysis o lunch ime eco e y (S udy 1), N = 774.
No e. 1Gende : 1 = emale, 2 = male; 2Regula i y o lunch b eaks: 0 = occasionally (1–3 imes a week), 1 = egula ly
(4–5 imes a week); 3B eak ou side: 0 = no (ha dly e e o once a week), 1 = yes (2–5 imes a week); 4B eak wi h o he s:
0 = no (ha dly e e o once a week), 1 = yes (2–5 imes a week).
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
Model 1 Model 2
Exhaus ion Vigo
S ep 1 S ep 2 S ep 3 S ep 1 S ep 2 S ep 3
P edic o s a T1 β β β β β β
Dependen a iable a T11.68*** .65*** .63*** .69*** .68*** .64***
Age T1 −.04 −.03 −.03 −.04
Gende 2−.07* −.07* −.05 −.05
Weekly wo king hou s T1 −.02 −.02 .04 .05
Wo kload T1 .05 .06 .02 .03
Au onomy T1 −.03 −.02 .03 .01
Lunch ime eco e y T1 −.07* .10**
ΔR2.47*** .01** .003* .47*** .01 .01**
R2.47*** .48*** .48*** .47*** .48*** .49***
Table 4: Resul s o hie a chical eg ession analysis o exhaus ion (Model 1) and igo (Model 2) a T2 (S udy 2), N = 745.
No e. 1Dependen a iable a T1: Fo he i s model Exhaus ion a T1, o he second model Vigo a T1. 2Gende : 1 = emale,
2 = male.
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
Among ou sample o Finnish wo ke s, ha ing lunch
b eaks was common, as 86% o he pa icipan s ook hem
4–5 imes a week. On a e age, he pa icipan s el occa-
sionally eco e ed a e hei lunch b eaks and no changes
in his ega d we e obse ed ac oss one yea . In line wi h
ou expec a ions, o he b eak se ings o ac i i ies, egu-
la i y o he lunch b eaks, leng h o he lunch b eak and
spending lunch b eaks ou side he o ice con ibu ed o
success ul lunch ime eco e y. Thus, ou s udy suppo s
he impo ance o aking egula lunch b eaks. Howe e ,
associa ions be ween b eak leng h and b eaks ou side
we e no longe signi ican a e aking eco e y expe i-
ences in o accoun . As expec ed, we ound ha highe
le els o de achmen and con ol du ing lunch b eaks
we e ela ed o mo e success ul lunch ime eco e y. This
inding concu ed wi h ea lie esea ch on in e nal eco -
e y (Co eng e al., 2015; T ougakos e al., 2014). In ligh
o ou esul s, i seems ha de achmen is mo e mean-
ing ul in e ms o lunch ime eco e y han con ol. This
is logical, as de achmen ensu es o al absence o job
Sianoja e al: Lunch ime Reco e y and Long-Te m Ou comes A . 7, page 9 o 12
demands, whe eas employees wi h high le el o con ol
may s ill choose o engage, o example, in discussing
wo k issues. Ou esul he e o e ex ends he ea lie ind-
ing ha de achmen om wo k is a powe ul eco e y
expe ience du ing non-wo k ime (Sonnen ag & F i z,
2015). Howe e , ou one-i em measu e o con ol did no
necessa ily cap u e all dimensions o con ol as a eco e y
expe ience, o example con ol o e when o ake lunch
b eaks (c . Sonnen ag & F i z, 2007). The measu e used
may he e o e ha e unde es ima ed he impo ance o
con ol du ing b eaks. We ecommend u u e s udies o
assess eco e y expe iences a lunch ime wi h mul iple
i ems o cap u e hei ull meaning.
Bo h aking longe lunch b eaks and habi ually spend-
ing b eaks ou side he wo kplace p emises we e co e-
la ed wi h highe le els o de achmen . Thus ou esul s
sugges ha lunch b eak leng h and spending lunch
b eaks ou side he o ice building may ma e o lunch-
ime de achmen , which in u n ela es o lunch ime
eco e y. We ecommend ha u u e s udies, wi h longi-
udinal designs enabling app op ia e media ion analysis,
es whe he lunch ime eco e y expe iences media e he
e ec s o lunch ime se ings and ac i i ies on eco e y.
One ea lie s udy ound ha spending he b eak inside
e sus ou side one’s o ice (ou side = in he same build-
ing o ou side he building) did no ha e an e ec on
eco e y a e b eaks du ing he wo king day (Hun e &
Wu, 2016). As ou esul s sugges ha whe e lunch
b eaks a e spen could ma e , i is impo an o no e ha
ou measu e (ou side = ou side he o ice building) was
di e en om he one used by Hun e and Wu (2016).
The e o e we sugges ha u u e s udies use mo e com-
p ehensi e measu es in di e en ia ing whe e b eaks a e
spen o disen angle hese di e ing esul s. Fo example,
spending b eaks in he b eak oom o he depa men
could ha e di e en eco e y ou comes om spend-
ing b eaks ou side he o ice building in a es au an .
Fu he mo e, ou ou side condi ion was qui e gene al,
and did no ake speci ic eco e y enhancing en i on-
men al ac o s (e.g., na u al se ings) in o accoun . Gi en
ha na u al se ings a e mo e likely o a o d es o a i e
expe iences han a e buil en i onmen s, compa ing
hem would be a good op ion o u u e s udies (B own
e al., 2014).
Fu he mo e, in ou s udy, spending he lunch b eaks
wi h o he s was no associa ed wi h eco e y. This is
su p ising, as ea lie esea ch sugges s ha b eaks
including social ac i i ies a e mo e bene icial o eco e y
han b eaks spen alone (Wendsche e al., 2014).
Howe e , ea lie esea ch has also sugges ed ha social
ac i i ies a e mo e bene icial when based on one’s
own choice (T ougakos e al., 2014). Ou s udy ook
no accoun o his issue, which may explain ou non-
signi ican inding. Addi ionally, we did no dis inguish
be ween spending he b eak wi h colleagues and spend-
ing he b eak wi h o he people, like iends and amily.
This may be impo an , as in heo y spending he lunch
b eak wi h iends o amily may ela e o mo e success-
ul de achmen om wo k han spending he b eak wi h
colleagues. The e o e we ecommend ha u u e s ud-
ies ake in o accoun whe he social ac i i ies a e based
on employees’ own choice and wi h whom employees
spend hei b eaks.
When looking a lunch ime eco e y and i s long- e m
ela ionship wi h ene gy le els, we ound ha success ul
lunch ime eco e y was associa ed wi h less exhaus ion
one yea la e , as expec ed. Al hough he e ec s we ound
we e small, i is wo h no ing ha his ela ionship was
s ill alid a e con olling o baseline le el o exhaus ion
and se e al con ols. Thus success ul lunch ime eco e y
explained a mino dec ease in exhaus ion in he long
e m. Ou indings lend en a i e suppo o ou expec-
a ions de i ed om he E-R model: insu icien eco e y
du ing lunch b eaks is ela ed o loss o ene gy. When
his loss o ene gy accumula es o e ime due o epea ed
episodes o insu icien eco e y, i may pa ly explain
inc eased le els o exhaus ion. Fu he mo e, ou esul
is in line wi h he conclusions o ea lie s udies linking
in e nal eco e y wi h less exhaus ion in he sho e m
(Hun e & Wu, 2016).
Simila ly, he connec ion be ween lunch ime eco e y
and igo was suppo ed. Success ul eco e y was ela ed
o a mino inc ease in igo one yea la e a e con olling
o baseline le el o igo and se e al o he con ols. These
indings en a i ely suppo ou expec a ions de i ed
om he E-R and COR heo ies ha success ul eco e y
p e en s ene gy loss and inc eases in e nal esou ces
(e.g., ene gy). When lunch ime eco e y is epea edly
success ul, i accumula es and gene a es new esou ces
ac oss ime, ela ing o a small inc ease in igo . As he
le els o exhaus ion and igo a wo k we e easonably
s able o e one yea (i.e., he T1 le el explained abou hal
o hei a iance a T2), ou indings es ima ing he long-
e m change in ene gy le els due o lunch ime eco e y
can be conside ed p omising. Taken oge he , lunch ime
eco e y seems o be o impo ance in e ms o ene gy a
wo k o e ime.
Limi a ions, s eng hs, and sugges ions o u u e
s udies
This s udy has ce ain limi a ions ha should be consid-
e ed. Fi s , choosing he bes ime lag o s udying lon-
gi udinal ela ions be ween in e nal eco e y and ene gy
is no sel -e iden and he one-yea ime lag used in ou
s udy is deba able. Ou esul s explained a ia ion in
ene gy le els only o a mino deg ee. The e ec s would
likely be s onge i mo e equen measu es o e sho e
ime lags (e.g., e e y couple o mon hs) we e applied.
Fu u e esea ch may bene i om es ing simila long-
e m e ec s wi h mo e equen measu emen s o e di -
e en ime spans. Ne e heless, ou longi udinal analysis
suppo ed long- e m ela ionships be ween lunch ime
eco e y, exhaus ion and igo , suppo ing he iew ha
employees’ deg ee o eco e y du ing hei lunch b eaks
may ha e signi icance, no only on a daily le el, bu also
in he long- e m.
Second, al hough p e ious s udies ha e demons a ed
one i em measu es o be alid subs i u es o longe
scales (D ole & Mo ison, 2001; Elo e al., 2003; Fishe ,
Ma hews, & Gibbons, 2016; Kinnunen e al., 2011) u u e
esea ch may bene i om using mul iple i em measu es
o lunch ime eco e y and eco e y expe iences. Thi d,