Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology“A Blessing and a Curse”: Work Loss During Coronavirus Lockdown onShort-Term Health Changes via Threat and RecoveryAlicia A. Grandey, Gordon M. Sayre, and Kimberly A. FrenchOnline First Publication, July 22, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000283
CITATIONGrandey, A. A., Sayre, G. M., & French, K. A. (2021, July 22). “A Blessing and a Curse”: Work Loss During CoronavirusLockdown on Short-Term Health Changes via Threat and Recovery. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Advanceonline publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000283
“A Blessing and a Curse”: Work Loss During Coronavirus Lockdown onShort-Term Health Changes via Threat and Recovery
Alicia A. Grandey1, Gordon M. Sayre2, and Kimberly A. French31 Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University
2 Department of Organizational Behavior, Emlyon Business School3 School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology
The coronavirus pandemic resulted in national lockdown orders, followed by employment changes to reducelabor costs. We assess how health varied for hospitality workers due to the lockdown (i.e., comparing health amonth before to a month after), employment change (i.e., comparing those with loss vs. no change), andemployee response (i.e., more job threat vs. more personal recovery). Comparing pre- and post-lockdownsurveys of 137 U.S. and U.K. hospitality employees, psychological health (i.e., negative and positive affect)worsened but physical health (i.e., symptoms and sleep) improved. We proposed those facing work loss (66%had reduced hours, furloughs, or layoffs) had more job threat but also more personal recovery (i.e., relaxation,mastery, exercise), resulting in opposing pathways to health. Results from a path analysis showed that workloss indirectly linked to higher psychological distress due to job threat, but to lower distress and fewer physicalsymptoms due to relaxation. Regardless of work loss, mastery (e.g., hobbies) was related to immediatechanges in positive affect and sleep, while exercise did not have short-term health benefits. Further, recoverybenefits from work loss were short-lived; only job threat carried the effect to psychological distress 2 monthslater. We offer quotes from the hospitality workers to contextualize the blessing and curse of work loss duringthe lockdown for these particularly vulnerable employees.
Keywords: occupational health, job insecurity, negative affect, relaxation
It’s been a blessing and a curse. On one hand I have time for self-improvement I never had before (online courses, drawing/painting etc.)and I can see that having a lasting benefit beyond the pandemic. But Ihave no idea if I will still have a job or how the economy is going toreact once this is over. (Furloughed restaurant worker)
In early 2020, the World Health Organization recognized thenovel COVID-19 pandemic, which was followed by national lock-down orders for the public, causing massive disruption to society aswe know it. The COVID-19 lockdown is a salient environmentalevent not just due to the virus itself, but through secondaryorganizational changes to abide by health regulations and curtaillabor costs; changes that evoke employee stress and require adapta-tion (Morgeson et al., 2015). FromMarch to April 2020, the numberof U.S. employees with work reductions (i.e., full-to part-time)doubled, and job loss (i.e., temporary or layoff) increased five timesin that month (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020). These events areparticularly salient for the hospitality and leisure industry whichfaced the highest levels of labor reductions (Allas et al., 2020).
For example, in the U.K. 80% reported being temporarily laid off(i.e., furloughed; Osborne, 2020) and in the U.S. 47% reported nolonger being employed (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020). Werespond to the call for more evidence on employee health afterCOVID-19 lockdowns and specifically the health of vulnerablepopulations (Bapuji et al., 2020), by assessing how hospitalityworkers’ health changes as a function of the primary lockdownevent, a secondary work event (i.e., employment reductions), andtheir own adaptation to these changes.
Though most scholars hypothesize that the COVID-19 pandemicimpaired health and wellbeing, there is mixed and contradictoryevidence. Some indicators of health worsened immediately after thelockdown but not others (Sibley et al., 2020; Wan, 2020; Wanberget al., 2021) and in fact some found improvements to psychologicaland physical health (Sullivan, 2020; Zacher & Rudolph, 2020). Oneunexamined factor that could create such contradictory evidence isinvoluntary work reductions, which have countervailing pathwaysthat may determine if health worsens or improves immediately post-lockdown. On the one hand, work reductions, “signal impendingscarcity of resources (e.g., jobs)” (Shoss et al., 2021, p. 8), particu-larly threatening to the low-wage hospitality worker who tends tohave both job and financial insecurity (Shoss, 2017; Vander Elstet al., 2016). As such, greater health costs might be found after thelockdown for employees in hospitality who had reduced hours, werefurloughed, or laid off. Continuing to work during this time was alsohighly stressful (Gamio, 2020; Mull, 2020), however, such thatemployment reductions offer a work respite that could have imme-diate health benefits if it gives more time to cope with the stressfulenvironmental events than regular work hours (Barnes et al., 2016;
Thisdocumentiscopyrightedby
theAmerican
Psychological
Associatio
nor
oneof
itsalliedpublishers.
Thisarticle
isintended
solely
forthepersonal
useof
theindividual
user
andisnotto
bedissem
inated
broadly.
Alicia A. Grandey https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7912-9058The authors would like to acknowledge this project used funding from the
American Psychological Foundation (APF) Dissertation Award and from theGeorgia Institute of Technology.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alicia A.
Grandey, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, 141Moore Building, University Park, PA 16802, United States. Email:[email protected]
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
© 2021 American Psychological AssociationISSN: 1076-8998 https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000283
1
Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015). No known study has simultaneouslycompared both pathways from employment changes to employeehealth.The purpose of the current study was to determine the extent
employment changes (work reductions or loss) and employeeadaptation to the change (job threat, personal recovery) explainedchanges in psychological and physical health in the few monthsfollowing the environmental event (the COVID-19 lockdown). Weaim to explain contradictory health trends by integrating conserva-tion of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al., 2018)with stress-recovery literature (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015; Sonnentaget al., 2017). We propose that employment changes result in a lossof a valued condition creating threat to future resources, whichharms health (Shoss, 2017; Vander Elst et al., 2016) but also a gainin the valued resource of time for adaptive coping behaviors thatbenefit health (Barnes et al., 2016; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015). Ourstudy responds to calls to assess how recovery experiences can helpshort-term adaptation to stressful situations and the pandemicspecifically (Anicich et al., 2020), and is novel by simultaneouslycomparing recovery and threat as mechanisms explaining how workloss during a major environmental event influences health.Our inquiry makes a unique empirical contribution to understand-
ing employees’ coping with COVID-19 in terms of who we focuson, what we learn about health, and how we are able to test it. First,we offer insights into employees who have particularly precariousjobs during lockdown orders: Those in the hospitality and leisureindustry who depend on customers leaving their homes and cannotshift to remote work (ADP, 2020; Bick et al., 2020). Though severalemployee health publications have emerged regarding the pandemic(e.g., Wanberg et al., 2021) none have specifically focused onemployment changes during the societal lockdown for the mostvulnerable employees. Second, our study contributes to what weknow about work reductions and health by simultaneously testingtwo mechanisms that are typically studied separately: (a) threat anduncertainty about job-related resources (Vander Elst et al., 2016)and (b) a respite from job-related stress and time for recovery(Aguiar et al., 2013; Barnes et al., 2016). By comparing them inthe same study, we can learn whether and why work reductionspredict employee health comprehensively, allowing for bothimprovement and detriments to health. Third, we conduct our studymeasuring both psychological and physical health immediatelybefore and after the events (Zacher & Rudolph, 2020), avoidinga long lag that could permit extraneous factors to explain changes(Wanberg et al., 2021). As such, we isolate salient environmentaland work events, with participants acting as their own controls,permitting stronger causal inferences about health changes.Finally, our results offer practical implications about the efficacy
of three types of coping responses to the pandemic events. We testthree activities recommended by national health organizations asways of coping in the short-term with the lockdown orders (Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention, 2020; National Health Service,2020): quiet relaxation, hobbies or learning activities, and exercise.These activities align with recovery models to cope with work stress,but have not previously been tested in response as a way to cope witha pandemic, and to offset health costs from job insecurity (Anicichet al., 2020; Sonnentag, 2018). We compare the effectiveness ofrecovery activities as a short-term response to acute environmentalstressors.
Pandemic-Related Events and Employee Health Changes
Based on an event-oriented view of organizational phenomena,events that are salient and require adaptation are those that feelnovel or uncertain, disruptive to how work is usually done, andcritical by interfering with daily interactions and habits (Morgesonet al., 2015). In line with this model of events, the COVID-19pandemic and lockdown is the primary salient event, which alsoresulted in salient secondary events in organizations: employmentchanges. As illustrated in Figure 1, these events trickledown toemployee health, by evoking threat appraisals and/or copingbehavior, which together can be adaptive or maladaptive to health(see Figure 1).
To develop predictions about how these sets of events contributeto health, we draw on the conservation of resources (COR) theory,which “ : : : emphasizes the objectively stressful nature of events”(Hobfoll et al., 2018, p. 104), rather than perceptions as the startingpoint (Ganster & Rosen, 2013). When objective events threaten orremove valued resources, such as conditions (e.g., employmentstatus, health) or energies (e.g., time, money), events heightenindividual stress arousal and require energy to cope and adapt tochanges (Halbesleben et al., 2014; Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al.,2018). To be an effective adaptation to change, responses mustoutweigh health costs of stress hormones and expended energy(Ganster & Rosen, 2013; Hobfoll, 1989).
Environmental Event: Coronavirus Lockdownand Health
Consistent with the COR idea of an objectively stressful sharedevent, surveys in March 2020 showed that the coronavirusoutbreak was consistently rated as a major realistic threat tovalued conditions (i.e., health, finances; Kachanoff et al., 2020).Though such environmental events may be objectively threaten-ing to resources, they may not affect health in the same waysacross people. For example, a national sample of employeessurveyed before and after a shared economic threat (the U.S.2008 Recession) had significantly worsened physical health butnot psychological health (Frone, 2018). Despite the coronavirusobjectively threatening physical health, psychological health(higher negative and lower positive affect) seems more affectedthan physical health indicators (Sibley et al., 2020; Wanberget al., 2021). Even with psychological health, a national pre-COVID and post-COVID survey found mixed results: reducedpositive affect but surprisingly also reduced negative affect(Zacher & Rudolph, 2020). Thus, we broadly assess health giventhe possibility of different conclusions.
We focus on two indicators of health that represent the initialadaptation to stressful events (Ganster & Rosen, 2013): psycho-logical health (i.e., negative affect or distress and positive affect;Brosschot et al., 2005; Quinn et al., 2012) and physical health(i.e., somatic symptoms and insomnia; Barnes, 2012; Bono et al.,2013). These health indicators tend to be positively and recipro-cally related (Armon et al., 2008; Charles & Almeida, 2006;Vander Elst et al., 2016), though as shown by the mixed evidenceabove, that is not always the case. We consider secondaryevents after the COVID lockdown that may help explain thesedifferences.
Thisdocumentiscopyrightedby
theAmerican
Psychological
Associatio
nor
oneof
itsalliedpublishers.
Thisarticle
isintended
solely
forthepersonal
useof
theindividual
user
andisnotto
bedissem
inated
broadly.
2 GRANDEY, SAYRE, AND FRENCH
Work Event: Employment Change and Employee Health
We propose a secondary event from the COVID lockdown thathelps to explain health: employment change. The national lockdownin the U.S. and U.K. was intended to reduce the spread of the virus,but also had economic ramifications for hospitality industries thatdepend on customers leaving their homes (Allas et al., 2020).During economic downturns, organizations make decisions to cutlabor costs, which can occur by reducing hours (partial work loss),placing workers on temporary leave or furlough, or laying offworkers (ADP, 2020; Kreidler, 2020). Though scholars study thesechanges as unique job changes with differences in strength of healthimplications in the long-term (Barnes et al., 2016; Price et al., 2002;Selenko et al., 2011; Shoss et al., 2021), in the short-term these aresimilar in that they are all loss of work that is likely to feel novel,disruptive, and critical while occurring during a pandemic. As perthe event-oriented view and COR, such events require responsesfrom employees that can be maladaptive or adaptive. We proposework loss has two pathways to health: resource threat worsens healthand recovery activities improve health (see Figure 1).
Job-Related Resource Threat Pathway
All three employment changes (work hour reduction, furloughs,and layoffs) represent an objective loss in employment, a valuedcondition itself (Hobfoll, 1989), and time at work, linked to a varietyof tangible and psychological benefits (Jahoda, 1982; Vander Elst,et al., 2016). Specifically, work loss is typically linked to a loss infinancial resources, but during the early stages of the lockdown manyemployees receive paid leaves, supplemental income, and govern-ment assistance (Kelly, 2020; Keown & Mitchell, 2020). Whetherwork loss is immediately accompanied by objective financial loss ornot, we expect it evokes worries and uncertainty about future
job-related resources (i.e., future employment, financial security)more than continuing to work during the pandemic (Fryer, 1986;Jahoda, 1982; Shoss et al., 2021). In fact, the threat of future resourcelosses can be just as aversive as objective loss (Otto &Dalbert, 2013).We expect that employees with objective work loss at the early stageof the pandemic perceive greater threat to job and financial security(Shoss, 2017; Shoss et al., 2021; Vander Elst et al., 2016) comparedto those working the same as before.
Hypothesis 1: After the environmental event, employees withwork loss feel greater threat (i.e., to future job and financialsecurity) than those with no work loss.
A basic tenet of COR is that the threat of losing valued resourcescreates stress arousal, which has implications for psychological andphysical health (Ganster & Rosen, 2013; Hobfoll, 1989). One of theidentified psychological benefits of work is structured time, and workloss removes that structure and leaves time for rumination and worry(Jahoda, 1982; Selenko & Batinic, 2013). More specifically, uncer-tainty about future employment and financial instability after workloss are linked toworse psychological health and physical health, withlongitudinal studies showing chronic long-term health costs (Creed &Macintyre, 2001; De Witte et al., 2016; Jiang & Lavaysse, 2018;Shoss et al., 2018; Sverke et al., 2002; Vander Elst et al., 2016).
Several studies also confirm indirect effects of employment lossand job insecurity on psychological and physical wellbeing via job-related financial benefits as well as other psychological benefits ofemployment (Hoare & Machin, 2010; Selenko & Batinic, 2013;Selenko et al., 2011; Vander Elst et al., 2016). During the globalpandemic, there is an economic downturn that creates fear anduncertainty about job and financial security in general (Davidson,2020); we uniquely ask whether employment changes that reduce
Thisdocumentiscopyrightedby
theAmerican
Psychological
Associatio
nor
oneof
itsalliedpublishers.
Thisarticle
isintended
solely
forthepersonal
useof
theindividual
user
andisnotto
bedissem
inated
broadly.
Figure 1Model Illustrating Timing of Measurement and Proposed Relationships
Note. Solid lines indicate hypothesized relationships. Dashed lines indicate relationships that are statistically controlled in model.
BLESSING AND A CURSE 3
work time heighten perceptions of job-related threat with immediatecosts to psychological and physical health (Ganster & Rosen, 2013).In COVID-specific studies, post-pandemic threat appraisals pre-dicted psychological health changes (Zacher & Rudolph, 2020), andthreat to financial security predicted worse positive affect (i.e., lifesatisfaction) though not negative affect (i.e., depression) comparedto levels measured a year ago (Wanberg et al., 2021). We expand onthis work by assessing the effects of employment changes andperceived threat to job resources on immediate changes in bothpsychological and physical health. Thus:
Hypothesis 2: Job-related resource threat is negatively related topsychological (2a) and physical (2b) health after the lockdown.
Hypothesis 3: Employment change (work loss vs. no loss) hasan indirect negative effect on psychological (3a) and physical(3b) health via job-related resource threat.
Personal Resource Recovery Pathway
As stated above, work loss creates threats with health costs, butgenerally these costs are expected from chronic loss and accumu-lating stress over time (McKee-Ryan et al., 2005). For example, theidea that work loss removes the benefit of structured time is aconcern in the long-run (Jahoda, 1982). In the short-term, work lossresults in a gain in personal time, an “energy” resource that can beinvested in other valued outcomes (Hobfoll, 1989). The gain inpersonal time after work loss gives an employee a respite, allowingfor adaptive coping with stress. Respites are typically studied asbreaks, weekends, or vacations, which have immediate benefits tohealth (Davidson et al., 2010; Etzion et al., 1998; Westman &Eden, 1997).The work loss (and personal time gain) is beneficial when employ-
ees spend that time on leisure and recovery experiences. In otherresearch on employment changes during economic downturns, lesstime at work increased personal leisure (Aguiar et al., 2013) andspecifically time spent on personally beneficial behaviors like relaxa-tion and hobbies (Barnes et al., 2016). According to COR, whenpeople feel “richer” in resources, they feel more able to invest infuture resources, such as investing time in voluntary activities thathelp them grow or feel healthier (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005; Hobfollet al., 2018). Consistent with specific advice by national healthorganizations during the lockdown, we focus on three activitiesused for recovery from work stress: relaxation (i.e., meditate, nap),mastery (i.e., hobby, garden), and exercise (Frone & Brown, 2010;Hahn et al., 2011; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007, 2015). We expect thatafter the post-lockdown employment changes, employment changedetermines extent of recovery experiences:
Hypothesis 4: After the environmental event, employees withwork loss have more recovery experiences (relaxation, mastery,exercise) than those with no work loss.
COR notes that some stress responses are maladaptive to health(e.g., drinking, aggression), but adaptive coping results in a netgain to health (Hobfoll, 1989). All three recovery experiencesseem to cope with stress adaptively (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015;Sonnentag et al., 2017). Relaxation experiences enhance psycho-logical health by distracting from stressors and physical health by
reducing arousal while conserving energy for future use (Fritzet al., 2010; Hahn et al., 2011; Sonnentag et al., 2017). Masteryexperiences are investments in learning and growth, whichenhance psychological health through autonomy and self-efficacy,and physical health by distracting from stressors and improvingsleep (Hahn et al., 2011; Sonnentag et al., 2008). Finally, exerciseimproves psychological health through mood repair and self-image, and physical health by gaining bodily strength and immu-nity (Calderwood et al., 2016; Sonnentag et al., 2017). Notably,this body of evidence is based on planned or chosen breaks toreduce work stress (Sonnentag et al., 2008; Trougakos et al.,2014), making it less clear health gains emerge when copingwith the unexpected and uncontrollable events of the pandemic.We ask whether all three recovery experiences enhance health aftera major situational stressor.
Finally, we expect that employment changes indirectly benefithealth through increased recovery behaviors. Unemployed peoplewho spend more time on leisure activities have better psychologicalhealth (Haworth & Ducker, 1991), and in one study after COVID-19lockdown, people engaging in exercise and mastery experiences(Lades et al., 2020) and using other forms of active coping(Zacher & Rudolph, 2020) reported better psychological health.However, these studies did not assess employment changes as apredictor of recovery and take the threat pathway into account. Wetake work loss and threat into account, proposing that:
Hypothesis 5: Recovery (i.e., relaxation, mastery, exercise)after the lockdown is positively related to psychological (a)and physical (b) health.
Hypothesis 6: Employment change (work loss vs. no loss) hasan indirect positive effect on psychological (6a) and physical(6b) health via recovery.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were recruited for a study on work stress and health[Institutional Review Board approval #00012461; masked forreview] through Prolific Academic, an online participant poolthat identifies and confirms study eligibility with a pre-screening(Palan & Schitter, 2018). Eligibility criteria were (a) employed inhospitality and leisure industry (i.e., hotel, restaurants), (b) workingmore than 15 hr a week in the United States (U.S.) or UnitedKingdom (U.K.), and (c) over 18 years of age.
As shown in Figure 1, data collection originally started in earlyFebruary 2020, about a month prior to the World Health Organiza-tion (WHO) declaring the virus a pandemic (March 11th), followedby national lockdown orders that halted customers visiting stores inthe U.S. and U.K. Given our original study was on service inter-actions, we were forced to close data collection for our originalproject with 178 eligible participants (March 19th). We reformu-lated the project [with IRB approval] to assess health changes beforeand after the lockdown, retaining the 176 participants who com-pleted the survey prior to their own nation’s lockdown orders(U.S. = March 15th; U.K. = March 23rd) to ensure survey re-sponses represented pre-lockdown health. Respondents received alink to the post-event survey 1 month after the lockdown orders(April 10th), then closed prior to the easing of lockdown restrictions
Thisdocumentiscopyrightedby
theAmerican
Psychological
Associatio
nor
oneof
itsalliedpublishers.
Thisarticle
isintended
solely
forthepersonal
useof
theindividual
user
andisnotto
bedissem
inated
broadly.
4 GRANDEY, SAYRE, AND FRENCH
(April 24th). After reminders, we had 137 respondents with com-plete pre- and post-event data (78% of baseline respondents).This final sample was 64.7% female, 34.6 years old on average
(SD = 11.44) and employed in the U.S. (29%) and U.K. (71%).1 Wecombined data from both countries due to similarities in hospitalityindustry employment changes, leadership offering limited federalguidelines for responding to the pandemic, and governmental finan-cial support for lower-income and unemployed workers and smallbusinesses at the time of our second survey (“British governmentresponse to the COVID-19 pandemic,” 2020; “CARES act,” 2020;“COVID-19 pandemic in the United States,” 2020). The majority ofthe sample was White (92%; 5.1% Black, 2.2% Hispanic/Latinx,1.5% Asian, 0.7% Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 0.7%Native American/Alaskan Native). On both surveys, participants selected annualhousehold income category (1–7). On the pre-event survey, 18%reported incomes below $20,000, 35% at $20–$40,000 (2), 25% at$40–$60,000 (3), 10% at $60–$80,000 (4), and 12% above $80,000,and the median income category was 2. At the pre-survey, allparticipants were employed in hospitality and leisure, with job titlessuch as bartender, chef, desk clerk, event coordinator, manager, andwaiter. At the post-survey, only about a third (34.3%) reportedworking the same as before, consistent with the high levels of changein this industry in both nations (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020;Osborne, 2020), and the majority (79%) of those working had in-person interactions at least some of the time.
Measures
Employment Change: Work Loss
At the baseline survey, all of the 137 respondents were working inhotels, restaurants, or other hospitality settings. In the post-eventsurvey, they selected their current employment status as “employedand working the same hours” (n = 45), “employed at reduced hours”(n = 18), “employed but on leave or furlough” (n = 60), “no longeremployed” (n = 9), as shown in Figure 2. Five put “other,” and wewere able to use open-ended comments to categorize them as workloss or not. We created an Employment Change variable, with 34.3%working the same as before (n = 47, coded 0) and 65.7% with workloss (n = 90, coded 1) during the pandemic. The two groups differedas expected in work hours and personal time. Based on post-surveyresponses, participants in the “Work Loss” group reported signifi-cantly fewer work hours on average (M = 1.89, SD = 3.06) than the“No Loss” group (M = 6.90, SD = 2.90), t(132) = 9.11, p < .001,95% CI of difference [3.92, 6.10], and significantly more hours forpersonal use or leisure per day (M = 9.22, SD = 6.82) than the noloss group (M = 4.50, SD = 2.99); t(132) = −4.46, p < .001, 95%CIdifference [−6.81, −2.62].2
Job-Related Threat
To measure the perceived threat of COVID-19 in the post-eventsurvey, respondents were asked, “given your current situation, ratethe extent that [job security]/[financial security] feel uncertainor threatened” (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely).3 The inter-itemcorrelation (r = .73) is more appropriate than an alpha coefficientand exceeded recommendations for two-item measures (r = .25;Nunnally, 1978).
Recovery Experiences
In the post-event survey, respondents indicated frequency(1 = very rarely, 5 = very often) of relaxation (two items: “tooktime for leisure” and “did relaxing things”; α = .77; Sonnentag &Fritz, 2007) andmastery (two items: “did things that challenged me”and “did things that broadened my horizons”; α = .75). Participants
Thisdocumentiscopyrightedby
theAmerican
Psychological
Associatio
nor
oneof
itsalliedpublishers.
Thisarticle
isintended
solely
forthepersonal
useof
theindividual
user
andisnotto
bedissem
inated
broadly.
Figure 2Employment Status Changes From Before to After the Lockdown
Note. These are the complete responses from the immediate post-eventsurvey: Employment change variable was created by coding these into WorkLoss (reduced, leave, loss: n = 90, 66%) versus Working/No Change(n = 47, 34%), using open-ended comments to categorize “other” responsesinto one of these two categories. Based on the follow-up survey responses2 months later (n = 118; Work Loss: n = 46, 40%; Working: n = 70, 59%),the majority (n = 71; 60%) remained in the same category, a third (n = 40,34%) changed from Work loss to Working, with a few (n = 5, 4%) movedfrom Working to Work loss.
1 As seen in Table 1, U.K. respondents differed from U.S. respondents byhaving higher pre-lockdown insomnia and post-lockdown exercise. How-ever, nationality as a covariate did not predict health changes or changemodel results.
2 Additional tests ensured we are not obscuring health differences bygrouping these forms of work loss together. Employment change had thesame direct effects on threat, recovery, and health if omitting the category ofreduced hours (n = 18) or laid off (n = 9), except the effect on exercise wasno longer significant. We also compared leave with/without pay and workingremote/in-person; none showed significant differences in our outcomes.
3 In the broader literature, job insecurity is positively related to financialresources, but they are studied as separate constructs (Vander Elst, et al.,2016). We expected that during the early stage of the pandemic these werehighly yoked given the uncertainty and volatility of both the labor market andstock market. Results are the same whether we are using the single item ofthreat to job security or to financial security, and they are highly correlated;thus we aggregated the two items to represent future job-related threat morebroadly.
BLESSING AND A CURSE 5
also reported the number of days (0–7) they did exercise for 30 ormore minutes per week, on average.
Employee Health Changes
In the baseline survey, respondents rated their general health,while in the post-event survey participants rated their health “in thepast month” to ensure it reflected health after the lockdown orders.See Table 1 for means by survey. For psychological health,respondents rated how intensely (1 = Very slightly or not at allto 5 = Extremely) they felt 10 items that indicate negative affect ordistress, such as scared, guilty, and jittery (αBaseline = .91; αPost-Event = .91), and 10 positive items that indicate positive affect,such as enthusiastic, proud, and interested (αBaseline = .93; αPost-Event = .87; Watson, 1988). For physical health, respondentsreported their frequency (1 = Not at all, 5 = Every day) of 10somatic symptoms (Spector & Jex, 1998) including “upset stom-ach” and “headache” (αBaseline = .81; αPost-Event = .79) and athree-item measure of insomnia (Jenkins et al., 1988) to rate thefrequency (1 = very rarely, 5 = very often) of waking up tired,difficulty falling asleep and staying asleep (αBaseline = .81; αPost-Event = .83). We omitted sleep and fatigue items from the symp-toms measure to avoid overlap with insomnia.
Covariate: Income Loss
Work loss may be accompanied by financial loss, and both cancontribute to job-related resource threat and health (Vander Elstet al., 2016; Wanberg et al., 2021). To account for financial loss, wecreated a dichotomous variable indicating household income loss(income decreased from baseline to post-event, n = 40, coded 1) orno loss (income stayed the same or increased from baseline to post-event, n = 97; coded 0).4
Qualitative Response
In the post-event survey, respondents were asked “Please sharehow COVID-19 has affected you at this time, in your own words”with an open-ended text box.
Analysis and Results
We tested our hypotheses using a path analysis model in thelavaan package (Rosseel, 2012) in R version 4.0.2. Bootstrappedconfidence intervals, including those for indirect effects, werecalculated using the adjusted bootstrap percentile method with10,000 resamples in lavaan. In the path model, we included baselinehealth for each outcome (negative affect, positive affect, insomnia,physical symptoms) as a predictor of post-survey health to removestable person-level differences or biases, and household income loss(or no loss) as a covariate of all responses to assess whether workloss predicts employee responses and psychological and physicalhealth beyond household income loss. Consistent with otherCOVID-19 studies controlling for baseline health (Wanberg et al.,2021; Zacher & Rudolph, 2020), demographics are not predictive ofpsychological and physical health changes and themodel is the samewith them included or omitted. We present the more parsimoniousmodel results, with only baseline health and income loss ascovariates.
Measurement Model
We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on our seven-factor measurement model (excluding the single-item measures andcovariates), using an item-parceling approach given the large numberof items for some measures (Little et al., 2013). We reduced thenegative affect, positive affect, and physical symptom items into threeparcels for each construct using the item-to-construct approach,consistent with best practices (Little et al., 2002). This model showedexcellent fit to the data, χ2(115) = 137.17, CFI = .98, RMSEA =.04, SRMR = .05, and was a significantly better fit than a six-factormodel with recovery behaviors as a single factor, χ2
Diff(6) = 53,p < .001, a six-factor model with psychological health as a singlefactor, χ2
Diff(6) = 232, p < .001, a six-factor model with physicalhealth onto a single factor, χ2
Diff(6) = 35.6, p < .001, and a four-factor model with all of the above, χ2
Diff(15) = 311, p < .001.
Lockdown Change and Health: Quantitativeand Qualitative Data
Prior to hypothesis testing, we tested mean changes in our fourhealth outcomes before and after the lockdown (see Table 1 andFigure 3). Results supported that psychological health worsened:negative affect increased, t(136) = −2.80, p = .01, while positiveaffect decreased, t(136) = 9.04, p < .001. In contrast, physical healthimproved, with lower levels of somatic symptoms, t(136) =6.34, p < .001, and insomnia, t(136) = 2.75, p < .01, after lock-down. Given these results for physical health, we explored whetherchanges varied by demographics (e.g., income, nationality, gender);however, physical health improved for all groups. Finally, employ-ment change did not predict psychological or physical health: therewere similar changes over time for the work loss and no changegroups. This lack of direct effect on psychological and physical healthis consistent with opposing pathways occurring simultaneously.Finally, we also reviewed the open-ended comments about howthe pandemic had affected respondents. As illustrated by our openingquote referring to “a blessing and a curse,” those with Work Lossreferred to both resource threat and recovery time:
Asmuch as I miss my family by not being able to see or visit them I havebeen able to spend more time with my children doing things we wouldnormally not do. I have caught up with alot [sic] of things that alsoneeded doing in the house. (Catering Assistant)
I am more worried about being able to make my house payment. I ammore worried when I have to do any type of grocery shopping.Everything takes twice as long because of extra steps to sanitize etc.(Cashier/server)
If I’m honest, my life has improved. I am worried for the economy bothglobally and on a local level and frightened for the health of friends,family and community. However, I have been furloughed from a fairlystressful job on 80% of my income. I am more than happy to Stay athome and work on projects. (Assistant Manager)
Thisdocumentiscopyrightedby
theAmerican
Psychological
Associatio
nor
oneof
itsalliedpublishers.
Thisarticle
isintended
solely
forthepersonal
useof
theindividual
user
andisnotto
bedissem
inated
broadly.
4 Based on a within-person comparison of the household income categoryselected, there was a significant decrease over time (MPre = 2.68, SD = 1.38;MPost = 2.34, SD = 1.36); t(136) = 4.11, p < .001. Employment changewas not related to the income category, nor to income loss. This may be dueto our broad income categories, but also other sources of funding offered(i.e., stimulus funding or unemployment benefits) during early stages of thepandemic.
6 GRANDEY, SAYRE, AND FRENCH
Thisdocumentiscopyrightedby
theAmerican
Psychological
Associatio
nor
oneof
itsalliedpublishers.
Thisarticle
isintended
solely
forthepersonal
useof
theindividual
user
andisnotto
bedissem
inated
broadly.
Tab
le1
DescriptiveStatisticsforPre-andPost-Pandemic
Lockdow
nEvent
Variable
MSD
12
34
56
78
910
1112
1314
1516
Baseline
1.Age
34.56
11.44
2.Gender
0.35
0.48
−.03
3.Country
0.71
0.46
−.02
−.07
4.NA
1.96
0.75
−.26**
.02
.00
5.PA
2.96
0.85
.11
−.11
.07
−.25**
6.Sym
ptom
s1.88
0.57
−.04
−.01
−.12
.48**
−.33**
7.Insomnia
3.19
1.02
−.10
−.04
.19*
.44**
−.29**
.46**
Post-Event
8.IncomeLoss
0.29
0.46
−.06
−.17*
.06
.11
−.17*
.00
.08
9.WorkLoss
0.66
0.48
.01
.07
.07
.11
−.08
−.01
.16
.13
10.JobThreat
3.96
1.83
.05
.02
−.08
.15
−.22**
.18*
.17
.18*
.31**
11.Relaxation
3.50
0.86
−.03
.14
−.08
.05
−.01
−.11
−.13
−.07
.24**
.03
12.Mastery
2.61
0.85
.02
.13
−.04
−.04
.25**
−.15
−.27**
−.06
.11
−.09
.40**
13.Exercise
3.20
2.19
.12
−.12
.19*
−.12
.28**
−.22**
−.16
.03
.19*
.02
.11
.16
14.NAa
2.14
0.82
−.19*
−.13
.04
.54**
−.15
.44**
.39**
.16
.06
.44**
−.24**
−.18*
−.03
15.PAa
2.39
0.73
.19*
−.02
−.09
−.06
.58**
−.14
−.21*
−.16
−.05
−.10
.16
.41**
.28**
−.13
16.Sym
ptom
sa1.63
0.51
−.03
−.15
.04
.32**
−.16
.65**
.44**
.12
−.02
.15
−.28**
−.25**
−.20*
.47**
−.17*
17.Insomniaa
2.98
1.10
−.14
−.03
.13
.32**
−.20*
.34**
.66**
.21*
.07
.17
−.16
−.34**
−.15
.45**
−.29**
.57**
Note.
N=
137.
NA
=NegativeAffect;PA
=Positive
Affect;Sym
ptom
s=
Som
aticSym
ptom
s.Gendercodedsuch
that0=
Fem
ale;1=
Male.Country
codedsuch
that0=
UnitedStates;1=
United
Kingdom
.IncomeLosscodedsuch
that
0=
NoLoss;1=
IncomeLoss.WorkLosscodedsuch
that
0=
NoLoss;1=
WorkLoss.Boldedvalues
aretest–retestrelatio
nships.
aIndicatesasignificant
change
from
Baselineto
Post-Event
atp<
.05.
*p<
.05.
**p<
.01.
BLESSING AND A CURSE 7
Respondents still working the same made many statements aboutthe health threats and less about job threats, but they also mentionedtime at home during the lockdown:
I believe I had symptoms of covid 19 [sic], starting almost 5 weeks ago.I isolated and currently still have chest issues although I think mysymptoms have been what they term as mild. Mild however was stillhorrible. I feel nervous too. Nervous about the effects of this pandemicon those I love and care about. (Manager)
It has had little effect on my directly. For the most part, everything hasbeen going business as usual, with the only significant difference notbeing able to go certain places. (Cook)
Spending more time at home with my wife and 10-month old, so that’snice. I work in the restaurant industry so we haven’t closed down andmy job isn’t at risk, so I don’t have to worry about finances, which isalso a great relief. Mostly concerned with keeping myself and familysafe and healthy. (Facilities and technology at a restaurant)
Thus, there were some themes aligning with job threat andrecovery by employment change (see Table 2 for more qualitativecomments). We turn to assessing hypotheses with quantitative data.Please see Table 3 for summary of the hypotheses and results.
Employment Change and Health: Threat Pathway
The hypothesized path model showed an adequate fit to the data(CFI = .92, RMSEA = .096, SRMR = .09), especially given therelatively low sample size combined with the complex model
(Kenny et al., 2015).5 Hypothesis 1 proposed that employmentchange as work loss resulted in more job-related resource threatthan no loss. Beyond household income loss, work loss was associ-ated with more job-related threat (estimate = 1.13, SE = .31,p < .001, 95% CI [.51, 1.73]), supporting Hypothesis 16 Hypothesis2 proposed that job-related threat predicts worsened psychological(2a) and physical (2b) health. Controlling for baseline psychologicaland physical health and income loss, job-related threat positivelyrelated to post-event negative affect (estimate = .17, SE = .03,p < .001, 95% CI [.11, .23]) but not positive affect, partially support-ing Hypothesis 2a; further, threat was unrelated to post-event symp-toms and insomnia (see Table 3), not supporting Hypothesis 2b.
Finally, Hypothesis 3 proposed the indirect effect of employmentchange on psychological and physical health through job threat. Inpartial support of the threat pathway for psychological health (3a),there was a significant and positive indirect effect of employmentchange on negative affect through job threat (estimate = .20,p = .004, 95% CI [.08, .35]), but not on positive affect. As shown
Thisdocumentiscopyrightedby
theAmerican
Psychological
Associatio
nor
oneof
itsalliedpublishers.
Thisarticle
isintended
solely
forthepersonal
useof
theindividual
user
andisnotto
bedissem
inated
broadly.
Figure 3Mean Changes in Psychological and Physical Health Across the Three Waves of Data
Note. Bold lines are indicators of psychological health and dashed lines are indicators of physiological health;greater values on y-axis represent higher average levels of that indicator, x-axis represents the three surveys (inFebruary, April, and June 2020). Means are plotted using only participants with complete data for all three waves(n = 118); these did not significantly vary by employment status, so subgroups are not shown for parsimony.The pre- to post-event changes were significant for both psychological and physical health (see Table 1);changes from post-event to follow-up were significant for psychological but not physical health. See the onlinearticle for the color version of this figure.
5 Further, we found that the fit indices improved if we simplified the twopathways to threat and relaxation (omitting mastery and exercise; CFI = .97,RMSEA = .067, SRMR = .069). This model had similar coefficients andconclusions as the a priori predicted model reported here.
6 An alternative argument is that this difference existed before thepandemic, such that those who had more job and financial insecurity hadgreater chance of being reduced or let go afterward. However, lowerhousehold income did not predict work loss, and income decreased similarlyby income loss group, failing to support this argument.
8 GRANDEY, SAYRE, AND FRENCH
in Table 3, the indirect effects of work loss on somatic symptomsand insomnia via job threat were not significant, not supporting thethreat pathway for physical health (3b).
Employment Change and Health: Recovery Pathway
Hypothesis 4 proposed that employment change increases recov-ery experiences compared to those still working the same during
the pandemic. Specifically, work loss increased relaxation (esti-mate = .47, SE = .16, p = .003, 95% CI [.17, .77]) and exercise(estimate = .88, SE = .37, p = .02, 95% CI [.13, 1.57]) comparedto no loss, with no difference for mastery (see Table 4), partiallysupporting Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 5 posited that recovery wasbeneficial for psychological (5a) and physical (5b) health, and wecontrol for baseline affect levels and income loss to test thesepredictions. We find partial support for Hypothesis 5a: relaxation
Thisdocumentiscopyrightedby
theAmerican
Psychological
Associatio
nor
oneof
itsalliedpublishers.
Thisarticle
isintended
solely
forthepersonal
useof
theindividual
user
andisnotto
bedissem
inated
broadly.
Table 2Illustrative Comments About Impact of COVID-19 Lockdown by Employment Change
Theme Job title Example comment
Work lossJob threatPersonal time
Waitress Part time work has ceased, I live on my own and I miss my sisters and their families. However I have become closerwith people who live in my street despite our social distancing. Am using social media for contact muchmore than previously.
Job threatPersonal time
Kitchen assistant It makes me sad to think of all the lives lost across the world due to COVID-19 but I live in a small town andhave been staying at home. I work in a school kitchen and at this time I am not needed to go to work possibly until afterlock down ends. The weather has been lovely most of lockdown and we have been spending a lot of time in the gardenenjoying the sunshine. It’s a bit like being on holiday for us but we’re not allowed out or to go anywhere fun.
Job threatPersonal time
Sandwich barowner
I’m worried for the future of our business and our family’s financial security but overall I am in a good mental state.I am enjoying the extra time with my immediate family, staying in touch with other family and friendsand my mental health is benefitting from the extra time to do activities I don’t normally have the time for.
Health threatJob threatPersonal time
Waiter COVID-19 has created a lot of added stress in my life. Mywork hours are greatly reduced which is causing a great dealof financial strain. I’mhopeful about the relief checks that we’re supposed to get, but this is only a band-aid solution.I also worry that I might be at high risk because I have an auto-immune disorder and hypertension, and I worry aboutmy mother because she’s in her 60s which puts her at high risk. Although I try to stay up todate about COVID-19, I’ve also been trying to set time aside to keep my mind off of it and immerse myself intelevision, video games, and drinking.
No work lossHealth threat Assistant manager
in hotelJust feeling constantly stressed, constantly worried about interacting with customers at work. My mom worksat the hospital so worried about her, my dad has an extremely poor immune system so worried about him. Most ofmy friends work in some form of hospitality so we are all keeping apart.
Health threat Manager I believe I had symptoms of COVID-19, starting almost 5 weeks ago. I isolated and currently still have chestissues although I think my symptoms have been what they term as mild. Mild however was still horrible. I feelnervous too. Nervous about the effects of this pandemic on those I love and care about. Not so nervous about myself.
Health threatPersonal time
Delivery driver My work continues as usual, although we’ve changed procedures a lot to help protect both the employeesand customers. Things do seem rather more tense at work than usual though as those changes in procedure are aconstant reminder of the situation. Outside of work, I spend more time talking to family than I did before.Perhaps the most distressing thing is how long this is likely to continue. Even if the level of restrictions changes,we’ll still be dealing with this until a vaccine is widely available, and that won’t be soon.
Table 3Summary of Hypotheses and Results of Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis Result summary
Employment change and health: Threat pathway1. Employees with work loss feel greater threat than those with no work loss Supported: Work loss → Job threat2. Job-related resource threat is negatively related to (a) psychological health and (b)physical health
(a) Partial support: Job threat → Negative affect (NA)a
(b) Not supported3. Employment change (work loss vs. no loss) has an indirect negative relationship viathreat on psychological (a) and physical (b) health
(a) Partial support: Work loss → Threat → NAa
(b) Not supportedEmployment change and health: Recovery pathway4. Employees with work loss have more recovery experiences (relaxation, mastery,exercise) than those with no work loss
Partially supported: Work loss → Relaxation; Exercise
5. Recovery (relaxation, mastery, exercise) is positively related to (a) psychologicalhealth and (b) physical health
(a) Partial support: Relaxation → NAa; Mastery → PA(b) Partial support: Relaxation → Symptoms; Mastery → Insomnia
6. Employment change (work loss vs. no loss) has an indirect positive relationship viarecovery on psychological (6a) and physical (6b) health
(a) Partial support: Work loss → Relaxation→NA(a) Partial support: Work loss → Relaxation → Symptoms
Note. N = 137. Results show that 11/36 hypothesized relationships are supported, based on a path model testing all paths simultaneously and controlling forfamily income loss (1, 0) and baseline health levels.a Also supported at p < .05 using health measures gathered 2 months after the first survey (n = 118), controlling for baseline levels.
BLESSING AND A CURSE 9
was negatively related to negative affect (estimate = −.24, p < .001,SE = .07, p < .001, 95% CI [−.37, −.11]) but not positive affect;while mastery was positively related to positive affect (estimate = .22,p = .001, SE = .07, p = .001, 95% CI [.09, .36]) but not negativeaffect. We also find partial support for Hypothesis 5b with the sametwo recovery experiences: Relaxation was negatively related tosomatic symptoms (estimate = −.11, p = .01, SE = .04, p = .01,95% CI [−.19, −.03]) but not to insomnia, while mastery was relatedto insomnia (estimate = −.22, p = .01, SE = .09, p = .01, 95% CI[−.40, −.05]) but not to symptoms.Finally, Hypothesis 6 proposed indirect effects for work loss on
psychological (6a) and physical (6b) health via recovery. In partialsupport of Hypothesis 6a, employment change was indirectlynegatively associated with negative affect through relaxation only(estimate = −.11, p = .03, 95% CI [−.24, −.04]), with no significantindirect effects on positive affect. In partial support of Hypothesis 6b,employment change was indirectly negatively related to somaticsymptoms through relaxation only (estimate = −.05, p = .046, 95%CI [−.12, −.01]), with no significant indirect effects on insomnia.
Follow-Up Analysis: Testing Model With Longer-TermHealth Outcomes
Above we report findings that employment change had counter-vailing effects on psychological distress and somatic symptoms viathreat and relaxation. Our reasoning and evidence focus on short-term effects of the pandemic, when the lockdown was a highlynovel, disruptive, and critical event (Morgeson et al., 2015). How-ever, one question is whether the immediate work loss has the samethreat and recovery pathways on longer-term psychological distressand physical symptoms (McKee-Ryan et al., 2005). To answer thisquestion, we conducted a follow-up survey in June, approximately3 months from the lockdown and 2 months from the prior survey(see Figure 1). We were able to collect this additional wave of
psychological and physical health data from 118 of the 137 (86%)participants; attrition did not vary by employment group and thefinal sample had similar demographics to the main study.
A mixed-model ANOVA with employment change conditionshowed that psychological health improved from post-event(MNA = 2.17, SDNA = .83; MPA = 2.38, SDPA = .72) to follow-up survey (MNA = 1.97, SDNA = .71; MPA = 2.67, SDPA = .71);while physical health did not change from post-event (MSymptoms =1.63, SDSymptoms = .52; MInsomnia = 2.99, SDInsomnia = 1.10) tofollow-up (MSymptoms = 1.62, SDSymptoms = .53; MInsomnia = 2.94,SDInsomnia = 1.06). Similar to post-event survey, neither the levelof follow-up psychological or physical health nor the changewas directly predicted by work loss group (see Figure 3 fordetails).
A CFA of the measurement model, which replaced the post-eventpsychological and physical health data with the follow-up psycho-logical and physical health data, fit the data well (χ2 (116) = 138.34,CFI = .98, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .05). The hypothesized pathmodel had similar fit to the data as the main study (CFI = .92,RMSEA = .09, SRMR = .09). As before, work loss is still relatedto job-related threat (estimate = 1.10, SE = .34, p = .001, 95% CI[.39, 1.74]), relaxation (estimate = .52, SE = .18, p = .003, 95%CI [.17, .86]), and exercise (estimate = .80, SE = .40, p = .04, 95%CI [.02, 1.57]). The similar findings with these same variables fromthe short-term model lend confidence that the smaller subsample isnot fundamentally different.
The original model showed significant indirect effects of work losson short-term changes to negative affect via threat and relaxation, andon short-term changes to somatic symptoms via relaxation. The focusof this follow-up health data was to determine if the conclusions aboutthe threat and recovery pathways changed when predicting longer-term health. We again controlled for baseline levels of health andpost-pandemic household income loss in the model.
Thisdocumentiscopyrightedby
theAmerican
Psychological
Associatio
nor
oneof
itsalliedpublishers.
Thisarticle
isintended
solely
forthepersonal
useof
theindividual
user
andisnotto
bedissem
inated
broadly.
Table 4Unstandardized Coefficients From Path Analysis Model Predicting Post-Lockdown Health Changes
Negative affect Positive affect Somatic symptoms Insomnia
Dependent variable Est. SE 95% CI Est. SE 95% CI Est. SE 95% CI Est. SE 95% CI
Negative affect (baseline) .54*** .08 [.40, .70] — — — — — — — — —
Positive affect (baseline) — — — .43*** .08 [.27, .56] — — — — — —
Somatic symptoms (baseline) — — — — — — .50*** .06 [.39, .62] — — —
Insomnia (baseline) — — — — — — — — — .57*** .07 [.43, .71]Income loss .05 .12 [−.18, .27] −.10 .11 [−.31, .12] .10 .08 [−.05, .26] .38* .16 [.07, .69]Work loss −.13 .12 [−.35, .11] −.15 .11 [−.38, .07] .03 .08 [−.11, .19] −.04 .16 [−.36, .28]Job threat .17*** .03 [.11, .23] .03 .03 [−.03, .09] .01 .02 [−.03, .05] .02 .04 [−.06, .11]Relaxation −.24*** .07 [−.37, −.11] .06 .07 [−.08, .19] −.11** .04 [−.19, −.03] −.01 .10 [−.21, .17]Mastery −.02 .06 [−.15, .10] .22** .07 [.09, .36] −.05 .03 [−.11, .02] −.22* .09 [−.40, −.05]Exercise .03 .02 [−.02, .07] .04 .02 [−.01, .08] −.01 .02 [−.04, .02] −.02 .04 [−.09, .05]
R2 .49 — — .39 — — .43 — — .41 — —
Indirect effect Est. 95% CI Est. 95% CI Est. 95% CI Est. 95% CI
Work loss →Job threat→ .20** [.08, .35] .03 [−.03, .12] .01 [−.04, .06] .03 [−.07, .13]Work loss →Relaxation→ −.11* [−.24, −.04] .03 [−.03, .12] −.05* [−.12, −.01] −.01 [−.11, .08]Work loss →Mastery→ −.01 [−.06, .02] .05 [−.01, .15] −.01 [−.05, .003] −.05 [−.16, .01]Work loss →Exercise→ .02 [−.01, .09] .03 [−.003, .11] −.01 [−.05, .01] −.02 [−.11, .04]
Note. Income loss coded such that 0 = No loss; 1 = Income loss. Work loss coded such that 0 = No loss; 1 = Work loss. N = 137.* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
10 GRANDEY, SAYRE, AND FRENCH
Threat Pathway: Work Loss to Longer-Term Distress
Regarding the previously supported threat pathway fromwork lossto negative affect, job-related threat was still significantly related tonegative affect measured 2 months later (estimate = .08, SE = .03,p = .004, 95%CI [.03, .13]). Further, the significant indirect effect ofemployment change on negative affect via job resource threat re-mained in this longer-term model (indirect effect estimate = .09,SE = .04, p = .04, 95% CI [.02, .19]). Thus, the threat pathway wassupported for longer-term changes in negative affect. No new signifi-cant effects of threat on longer-term health outcomes emerged.
Recovery Pathway: Work Loss to Longer-Term Distressand Symptoms
Previously we found a recovery pathway of work loss on short-term negative affect and symptoms via relaxation. In the newmodel, relaxation immediately after lockdown still significantlypredicted negative affect measured 2 months later (estimate = −.15,SE = .07, p = .04, 95% CI [−.28, −.01]); however, the indirecteffect of work loss on negative affect via relaxation was no longersignificant (estimate = −.08, SE = .05, p = .12, 95% CI [−.21,−.01]). Further, relaxation no longer predicted somatic symptoms inthis longer-term model (estimate = −.05, SE = .05, p = .39, 95%CI [−.16, .06]). Thus, the recovery pathways for work loss were nolonger supported for the longer-term effect changes. Further, otherpreviously significant direct effects of recovery on health becamenon-significant with the longer-term health measures: mastery onpositive affect (estimate = .11, SE = .07, p = .15, 95% CI [−.04,.24]) and insomnia (estimate = .06, SE = .10, p = .55, 95% CI[−.13, .25]). No new significant direct or indirect effects emerged inthe follow-up health model, other than exercise having a trendingeffect on somatic symptoms (estimate = −.03, SE = .02, p = .09).See summary of these effects in Table 1.
Discussion
The 2020 novel coronavirus pandemic is clearly a health threat,but recent evidence has shown that its indirect influence on healthis more complicated than it may seem (Wanberg et al., 2021;Zacher & Rudolph, 2020). We focus on changes in psychologicaland physical health from before to immediately after the lockdownfor hospitality workers, who are particularly vulnerable to job-related threats during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., Bick et al.,2020). Similar to mixed evidence found in other studies, psycho-logical health worsens in the short-term, but physical health actuallyimproves. As shown in Figure 1, we argue these health effects areinfluenced by the secondary event of employment changes after thelockdown, and employee perceived threat and adaptation to thechange.
Theoretical Implications
Consistent with event systems theory (Morgeson et al., 2015),global pandemic and national lockdown events have trickledowneffects on employment for employees, who have to adapt to thesechanges for better or worse. During the economic threat of thelockdown, the majority of our respondents saw temporary workloss which is common as a short-term response during economic
downturns (Barnes et al., 2016). COR theory is highly relevant forexplaining how objective changes to employment can have benefits orcosts to health, depending on how one perceives and responds to thosechanges. In fact, though work gives many resources (Hobfoll, 1989;Jahoda, 1982), work loss did not directly explain changes in psycho-logical and physical health, when measured at the same time or 2months later. Work loss is usually framed as a chronic threat (Shoss,2017; Sverke et al., 2002), with the research focusing on cumulativecosts to health depending on duration of unemployment (McKee-Ryanet al., 2005), and most studies assessing costs across years (e.g.,De Witte et al., 2016; Sverke et al., 2019). Thus, our study offersnovel data about the short-term effect of work loss on health, whichwe find is only indirect through competing threat and recoverypathways.
In terms of the threat pathway, those with work loss had greaterperceived job and financial threat than those who kept working duringthe pandemic, and threat linked work loss to psychological distresspost-lockdown and even several months later. At the same time, workloss increases leisure time (compared to continuing towork), and suchtime gains tend to be invested in personally rewarding behaviors(Barnes et al., 2016; Fritz et al., 2010; Sonnentag et al., 2017).Specifically, we found that those with work loss had increasedrecovery experiences of relaxation and exercise. Beyond the effectof threat, relaxation accounted for the indirect benefit of work loss onboth psychological distress and somatic symptoms immediately post-lockdown only, not beyond that time frame. Results of this modeloffer novel evidence that work loss elicits both threat and recoverypathways in the short-run, helping to explain the mixed findings inother COVID-19 research that has found both costs (Sibley et al.,2020; Wan, 2020; Wanberg et al., 2021) and null effects or gains tohealth (Sullivan, 2020; Zacher & Rudolph, 2020).
Given prior evidence on unemployment and insecurity, it mayseem surprising that job threat had no direct association withimmediate physical health (McKee-Ryan et al., 2005). One possi-bility is that sustained threat is the mechanism that contributes tobodily symptoms (Charles & Almeida, 2006; Ganster & Rosen,2013), and in fact a review of longitudinal studies noted that costsof job insecurity on physical health appear to be cumulative overtime (e.g., De Witte et al., 2016). Another possibility that offersnuance to COR theory is that it is actual resource loss, rather thanthe threat, that explains short-term physical health. In our study,actual household income loss (from pre- to post-event) directlypredicted higher insomnia in the short-term (with a trendingbut nonsignificant effect at the follow-up). This is consistent withother work showing job insecurity had indirect effects on physicalhealth through financial losses (Vander Elst et al., 2016). We positthat for these lower-income workers, income loss may result inproblem-solving or budgetary planning activities taking the placeof sleep.
It is also interesting to note that recovery from pandemic stress wassimilarly related to short-term psychological and physical health whencompared to recovery fromwork stress evidence (Bennett et al., 2018;Demsky et al., 2019; Steed et al., 2019). Relaxation during lockdownhad a direct relationship with distress and symptoms measured at thesame time and with distress later in time, similar to meta-analyticevidence.Mastery (i.e., hobbies, growth) during lockdown was linkedto immediate positive mood and insomnia, consistent with priorevidence (Ong et al., 2017), but did not predict health measured later,after the novelty of the lockdown had faded. After controlling for
Thisdocumentiscopyrightedby
theAmerican
Psychological
Associatio
nor
oneof
itsalliedpublishers.
Thisarticle
isintended
solely
forthepersonal
useof
theindividual
user
andisnotto
bedissem
inated
broadly.
BLESSING AND A CURSE 11
baseline health and other recovery activities, exercise did not predictimmediate psychological or physical health changes though we seesuggestive evidence that exercise is starting to improve physical healthconsistent with prior evidence (Calderwood et al., 2016). Overall, wesee short-term recovery benefits with pandemic-induced uncertaintyand (likely involuntary) work breaks, thus contributing new under-standing to recovery and detachment models of stress (Fritz &Sonnentag, 2005).
Practical Implications
Public health announcements during lockdown encouraged peopleto engage in stress-reducing and personally gratifying activitiesduring lockdown (e.g., National Health Service, 2020). We soughtto compare the likelihood and efficacy of three activities that alignwith the recovery literature (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015; Sonnentaget al., 2017): relaxation, mastery, and exercise. Hospitality workerswho were employed the same post-lockdown had less leisure timethan those with work loss, and were less able to engage in relaxationand exercise. However, regardless of employment change, hospitalityworkers with more relaxation experiences had lower negativeaffect immediately and several months later, while those withmore mastery experiences felt and slept better immediately, butnot later in time. Our study provides backing that relaxation andmastery help buffer the potential psychological and physicalramifications related to COVID-19 lockdown in the short-term.Specifically, this study sheds light on the benefit of relaxation (e.g.,television shows, daily naps, leisurely walks) as a way to offset thenegative psychological and physical health effects of job threat duringthe pandemic. This adds to the list of empirically backed strategiesidentified by previous research, such as active coping, emotionalsupport, and religion (Zacher & Rudolph, 2020). Finally, exercise didnot show immediate changes in health, but may have longer-termhealth benefits beyond the time frame of our study (Calderwoodet al., 2016).
Limitations and Future Recommendations
A strength of our study is assessing changes in employment andpsychological and physical health before and after the pandemic’slockdown orders. However, this approach limited the sample size (tothose who responded to both surveys) and the health variables wecould compare (only those in the initial study). The sample sizereduces our ability to detect differences based on type of work loss(paid vs. unpaid leave, job loss vs. temporary leave), which wemight expect based on prior evidence (e.g., Selenko et al., 2011).Instead, in all analyses we included a covariate to represent house-hold income loss (or not) from pre- to post-pandemic. However, wenote that this measure had wide income categories that might not befine-grained enough or may be obtained too soon to see howfinancial losses matter to this lower-income sample. Despite thesemeasurement concerns, we see that 29% had a loss to householdincome from pre- to post-pandemic, and they had significantlygreater threat and insomnia than those who do not see a loss,extending the evidence on financial resources and pandemic stress(Wanberg et al., 2021).Given that the COVID-19 virus first emerged in late 2019, it is
possible that the participants’ psychological and physical healthwere affected prior to our first survey, thus reducing the differences
that could be found in the second. We addressed this concern byfocusing on the lockdown as our primary stressor event andrestricting our sample to employees who responded to the surveyprior to the lockdown order in their nation. Further, ourpost-lockdown perceived threat and recovery experiences are mea-sured at the same time as health in our main study. We addressed theconcern of shared method variance explaining relationships bycontrolling for prior levels of psychological and physical health,so that our analyses account for the person-level tendencies forpsychological and physical health. The concurrent data collection ofthreat, recovery and health might also result in concerns about causaldirection, but results are generally similar when using healthmeasures gathered several months later as a follow-up.We acknowl-edge that while about 60% remained in the same employmentcategory (work loss or not) at the follow-up survey, about a thirdgained work while a handful had new work loss. These changes aremeaningful to the employees experiencing them, but we lacked thesub-sample sizes to effectively model how further employmentchanges affected follow-up psychological and physical health out-comes. Future researchers should explore the dynamic shorter- andlonger-term effects of employment changes.
Finally, our sample is comprised of employees who work in thehospitality industry, which is part of the service-providing sector.We specifically focused on this industry given the unique elementsthat made these employees at risk and deserving of focused attentionduring the pandemic. The hospitality industry had one of the largestand most sustained unemployment rates in the U.S. and the U.K.during the time of this study (Partington, 2021). Due to industry-level economic uncertainty, job-related threat—regardless ofwhether one actually had work loss or not—was particularly salientcompared to other industries that maintained steady employmentlevels across the pandemic (e.g., Paul & Moser, 2009). Relatedly,this industry tends to be low-income (in our sample 79% ofthe sample had household incomes of less than $60,000/year),and lower economic status is linked to less healthy behaviors andcoping strategies (Matthews & Gallo, 2011). Thus, the low-incomesample may mean that recovery is less able to have long-term healthbenefits and job-related threat is more salient and consumingcompared to higher income employees. Finally, as a service-providing industry those who continued working during the pan-demic are likely to have faced stressors not faced by other types ofindustries (Gamio, 2020; Mull, 2020). Thus, the stress and uncer-tainty whether facing work loss or continuing to work may havereduced the direct effect of employment condition on health,whereas other samples we may see a larger effect for work loss.We note, however, that the mixed findings for health mirror otherstudies using national samples that cut across employment contexts.
Overall, our main findings show that work loss has both costs andbenefits on short-term psychological distress through threat andrecovery. It is interesting to note that the COVID-19 lockdown eventwas costly to psychological health but that was rebounding within afew months, and physical health actually improved. These healthindicators represent primary or initial stage stress responses, but theallostatic load of chronic pandemic stress likely needs more time toemerge (Ganster & Rosen, 2013). Organizational scholars shouldcontinue examining how this pandemic affects worker health in thelong-term, taking into account employment changes and personaladaptation to them.
Thisdocumentiscopyrightedby
theAmerican
Psychological
Associatio
nor
oneof
itsalliedpublishers.
Thisarticle
isintended
solely
forthepersonal
useof
theindividual
user
andisnotto
bedissem
inated
broadly.
12 GRANDEY, SAYRE, AND FRENCH
References
ADP. (April 2020).National Employment Report. https://adpemploymentreport.com/2020/April/NER/NER-April-2020.aspx
Aguiar, M., Hurst, E., & Karabarounis, L. (2013). Time use during the greatrecession. The American Economic Review, 103, 1664–1696.
Allas, T., Canal, M., & Hunt, V. (2020). COVID-19 in the United Kingdom:Assessing jobs at risk and the impact on people and places. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-and-social-sector/our-insights/covid-19-in-the-united-kingdom-assessing-jobs-at-risk-and-the-impact-on-people-and-places#
Anicich, E. M., Foulk, T. A., Osborne, M. R., Gale, J., & Schaerer, M.(2020). Getting back to the “new normal”: Autonomy restoration during aglobal pandemic. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(9), 931–943.https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000655
Armon, G., Shirom, A., Shapira, I., & Melamed, S. (2008). On the nature ofburnout–insomnia relationships: A prospective study of employed adults.Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 65(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2008.01.012
Bapuji, H., Patel, C., Ertug, G., & Allen, D. G. (2020). Corona Crisis andInequality: Why management research needs a societal turn. Journalof Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320925881
Barnes, C. M. (2012). Working in our sleep: Sleep and self-regulation inorganizations. Organizational Psychology Review, 2(3), 234–257.
Barnes, C.M., Lefter, A., Bhave, D. P., &Wagner, D. T. (2016). The benefitsof bad economies: Business cycles and time-based work-life conflict.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21(2), 235–249.
Bennett, A. A., Bakker, A. B., & Field, J. G. (2018). Recovery from work-related effort: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39,262–275.
Bick, A., Blandin, A., & Mertens, K. (July 2020).Work from home after theCovid-19 outbreak. CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP15000, Available atSSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3650114
Bono, J. E., Glomb, T. M., Shen, W., Kim, E., & Koch, A. J. (2013). Buildingpositive resources: Effects of positive events and positive reflection on workstress and health. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1601–1627.
British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic. (2020). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_government_response_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic&oldid=989052318
Brosschot, J. F., Pieper, S., & Thayer, J. F. (2005). Expanding stress theory:Prolonged activitation and perseverative cognition. Psychoneuroendocri-nology, 30, 1043–1049.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. (2020). The employment situation—April2020. https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/economicdata/empsit_05082020.pdf
Calderwood, C., Gabriel, A. S., Rosen, C. C., Simon, L. S., & Koopman, J.(2016). 100 years running: The need to understandwhy employee physicalactivity benefits organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(7),1104–1109.
CARES act. (2020). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CARES_Act&oldid=989102345
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, C. (2020).Coronavirus Disease2019 (COVID-19): Stress and Coping.
Charles, S. T., & Almeida, D. (2006). Daily reports of symptoms and negativeaffect: Not all symptoms are the same. Psychology & Health, 21(1), 1–17.
COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. (2020). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States&oldid=989255914
Creed, P. A., &Macintyre, S. R. (2001). The relative effects of deprivation of thelatent and manifest benefits of employment on the well-being of unemployedpeople. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 324–331.
Davidson, O. B., Eden, D., Westman, M., Cohen-Charash, Y., Hammer, L.B., Kluger, A. N., Krausz, M., Maslach, C., O'Driscoll, M., Perrewé, P. L.,Quick, J. C., Rosenblatt, Z., & Spector, P. E. (2010). Sabbatical leave:Who gains and how much? Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 953.
Davidson, P. (2020, September 3). Coronavirus pandemic likely to leavelegacy of fear and uncertainty that holds back economy for decades.USAToday. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/09/03/economy-covid-19-pandemic-long-term-economic-effects/5696187002/
De Witte, H., Pienaar, J., & De Cuyper, N. (2016). Review of 30 years oflongitudinal studies on the association between job insecurity and healthand well-being: Is there causal evidence? Australian Psychologist, 51,18–31.
Demsky, C. A., Fritz, C., Hammer, L. B., & Black, A. E. (2019). Workplaceincivility and employee sleep: The role of rumination and recoveryexperiences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 24, 228–240.
Etzion, D., Eden, D., & Lapidot, Y. (1998). Relief from job stressors andburnout: Reserve service as a respite. Journal of Applied Psychology,83(4), 577–585.
Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Recovery, health, and job performance:Effects of weekend experiences. Journal of Occupational Health Psy-chology, 10(3), 187.
Fritz, C., Sonnentag, S., Spector, P. E., & McInroe, J. A. (2010). Theweekend matters: Relationships between stress recovery and affectiveexperiences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(8), 1137–1162.
Frone, M. (2018). What happened to the employed during the GreatRecession? A U.S. population study of net change in employee insecurity,health, and organizational committment. Journal of Vocational Behavior,107, 246–260.
Frone, M. R., & Brown, A. L. (2010). Workplace substance use norms aspredictors of employee substance use and impairment: A survey of U.S.workers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 71, 526–534.
Fryer, D. (1986). Employment deprivation and personal agency duringunemployment: A critical discussion of Jahoda’s explanation of thepsychological effects of unemployment. Social Behaviour, 1, 3–23.
Gamio, L. (2020). The workers who face the greatest coronavirus risk.The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/15/business/economy/coronavirus-worker-risk.html
Ganster, D. C., & Rosen, C. C. (2013). Work stress and employee health:A multidisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 39, 1085–1122.
Hahn, V. C., Binnewies, C., Sonnentag, S., & Mojza, E. J. (2011). Learninghow to recover from job stress: Effects of a recovery training program onrecovery, recovery-related self-efficacy, and well-being. Journal of Occu-pational Health Psychology, 16(2), 202.
Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J.-P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman,M. (2014). Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources inconservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5),1334–1364.
Haworth, J. T., & Ducker, J. (1991). Psychological wellbeing and access tocategories of experiences in unemployed young adults. Leisure Studies,10, 265–274.
Hoare, P. N., & Machin, M. A. (2010). The impact of reemployment onaccess to the latent and manifest benefits of employment and mentalhealth. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83,759–770.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at concep-tualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524.
Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J.-P., & Westman, M. (2018).Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality ofresources and their consequences. Annual Review of OrganizationalPsychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 103–128.
Jahoda, M. (1982). Employment and unemployment. Cambridge Books.Jenkins, C. D., Stanton, B.-A., Niemcryk, S. J., & Rose, R. M. (1988). Ascale for the estimation of sleep problems in clinical research. Journal ofClinical Epidemiology, 41(4), 313–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(88)90138-2
Jiang, L., & Lavaysse, L. M. (2018). Cognitive and affective job insecurity:A meta-analysis and a primary study. Journal of Management, 44(6),2307–2342.
Thisdocumentiscopyrightedby
theAmerican
Psychological
Associatio
nor
oneof
itsalliedpublishers.
Thisarticle
isintended
solely
forthepersonal
useof
theindividual
user
andisnotto
bedissem
inated
broadly.
BLESSING AND A CURSE 13
Kachanoff, F. J., Bigman, Y. E., Kapsaskis, K., & Gray, K. (2020).Measuring realistic and symbolic threats of COVID-19 and their uniqueimpacts on well-being and adherence to public health behaviors. SocialPsychological & Personality Science, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620931634
Kelly, J. (2020). Furloughed workers don’t want to return to their jobs asthey’re earning more money with unemployment. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/04/28/furloughed-workers-dont-want-to-return-to-their-jobs-as-theyre-earning-more-money-with-unemployment/?sh=608cc82e6b76
Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance ofRMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods& Research, 44, 486–507.
Keown, C., &Mitchell, A. (2020).U.K. government to keep paying wages offurloughed workers until end of October as jobs program extended.Market Watch.
Kreidler, M. (2020, May 17). Pandemic nation: sick leave in limbo for manyservice workers. Fast Company. https://www.fastcompany.com/90477967/pandemic-nation-sick-leave-in-limbo-for-many-service-workers
Lades, L. K., Laffan, K., Daly, M., & Delaney, L. (2020). Daily emotionalwell-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. British Journal of HealthPsychology, 25(4), 902–911.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). Toparcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits.Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151–173.
Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Whythe items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. PsychologicalMethods, 18(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033266
Matthews, K. A., & Gallo, L. C. (2011). Psychological perspectives onpathways linking socioeconomic status and physical health. AnnualReview of Psychology, 62, 501–530.
McKee-Ryan, F. M., Song, Z., Wanberg, C. R., & Kinicki, A. (2005).Psychological and Physical Well-Being During Unemployment: A Meta-Analytic Study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 53–76.
Morgeson, F. P., Mitchell, T. R., & Liu, D. (2015). Event system theory: Anevent-oriented approach to organizational sciences. The Academy ofManagement Review, 40, 515–537.
Mull, A. (2020). The coronavirus customer-service crisis. The Atlantic.Accessed online at https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/customer-service-workers-are-charge-pandemic/607801/
National Health Service. (2020).Coronavirus (COVID-19): 10 Tips to help ifyou are worried about coronavirus. https://www.nhs.uk/oneyou/every-mind-matters/coronavirus-covid-19-anxiety-tips/
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). An overview of psychological measurement.Clinicaldiagnosis of mental disorders, 97–146.
Ong, A. D., Kim, S., Young, S., & Steptoe, A. (2017). Positive affect andsleep: A systematic review. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 35, 21–32.
Osborne, H. (2020, April 23). Hotels, restaurants and pubs have furloughed80% of staff, ONS finds. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/2023/hotels-restaurants-and-pubs-have-furloughed-2080-of-staff-ons-finds
Otto, K., & Dalbert, C. (2013). Are insecure jobs as bad for mental healthand occupational commitment as unemployment? Equal threat ordownward spiral. Psihološka Obzorja/Horizons of Psychology, 22,27–38.
Palan, S., & Schitter, C. (2018). Prolific.ac—A subject pool for onlineexperiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004
Partington, R. (2021). The U.K.’s COVID-19 unemployment crisis in sixcharts. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/03/the-uks-covid-19-unemployment-crisis-in-six-charts
Price, R. H., Choi, J. N., & Vinokur, A. D. (2002). Links in the chain ofadversity following job loss: how financial strain and loss of personal
control lead to depression, impaired functioning, and poor health. Journalof occupational health psychology, 7(4), 302–312.
Quinn, R. W., Spreitzer, G. M., & Lam, C. F. (2012). Building a sustainablemodel of human energy in organizations: Exploring the critical role ofresources. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 337–396.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling.Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.
Selenko, E., & Batinic, B. (2013). Job insecurity and the benefits ofwork. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,22(6), 725–736. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.703376
Selenko, E., Batinic, B., & Paul, K. (2011). Does latent deprivation lead topsychological distress? Investigating Jahoda’s model in a four-wave study.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, 723–740.
Shoss, M. K. (2017). Job insecurity: An integrative review and agenda forfuture research. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1911–1939.
Shoss, M. K., Horan, K. A., DiStaso, M., LeNoble, C. A., & Naranjo, A.(2021). The conflicting impact of COVID-19’s health and economic criseson helping. Group & Organization Management, 46(1), 3–37.
Shoss, M. K., Jiang, L., & Probst, T. M. (2018). Bendingwithout breaking: Atwo-study examination of employee resilience in the face of job insecurity.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(1), 112.
Sibley, C. G., Greaves, L. M., Satherley, N., Wilson, M. S., Overall, N. C.,Lee, C. H., : : : Vickers-Jones, R. (2020). Effects of the COVID-19pandemic and nationwide lockdown on trust, attitudes toward govern-ment, and well-being. American Psychologist, 75(5), 618–630.
Sonnentag, S. (2018). The recovery paradox: Portraying the complex inter-play between job stressors, lack of recovery, and poor well-being.Research in Organizational Behavior, 38, 169–185.
Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2008). “Did you have a niceevening?” A day-level study on recovery experiences, sleep, and affect.Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 674.
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The Recovery Experience Questionnaire:Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperationand unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,12(3), 204–221.
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2015). Recovery from job stress: The stressor-detachment model as an integrative framework. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 36, S72–S103.
Sonnentag, S., Venz, L., & Casper, A. (2017). Advances in recoveryresearch: What have we learned? What should be done next? Journalof Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 365.
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-reportmeasures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale,organizational constraints scale, quantitative workload inventory, andphysical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health Psychol-ogy, 3, 356–367.
Steed, L. B., Swider, B. W., Keem, S., & Liu, J. T. (2019). Leaving work atwork: A meta-analysis on employee recovery from work. Journal ofManagement, 47(4), 867–897.
Sullivan, M. (2020, May 1). Fitbit data shows we’re sleeping better duringthe COVID-19 lockdown. Fast Company. https://www.fastcompany.com/90499017/fitbit-data-shows-were-sleeping-better-during-the-covid-19-lockdown
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Näswall, K. (2002). No security: A meta-analysisand review of job insecurity and its consequences. Journal of Occupa-tional Health Psychology, 7(3), 242.
Sverke, M., Låstad, L., Hellgren, J., Richter, A., & Näswall, K. (2019). Ameta-analysis of job insecurity and employee performance: Testingtemporal aspects, rating source, welfare regime, and union density asmoderators. International journal of environmental research and publichealth, 16(14), 2536.
Trougakos, J. P., Hideg, I., Cheng, B., & Beal, D. (2014). Lunch breaksunpacked: The role of autonomy as a moderator of recovery during lunch.
Thisdocumentiscopyrightedby
theAmerican
Psychological
Associatio
nor
oneof
itsalliedpublishers.
Thisarticle
isintended
solely
forthepersonal
useof
theindividual
user
andisnotto
bedissem
inated
broadly.
14 GRANDEY, SAYRE, AND FRENCH
Academy of Management Journal, 57, 405–421. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.1072
Vander Elst, T., Näswall, K., Bernhard-Oettel, C., De Witte, H., &Sverke, M. (2016). The effect of job insecurity on employee healthcomplaints: A within-person analysis of the explanatory role of threatsto the manifest and latent benefits of work. Journal of OccupationalHealth Psychology, 21(1), 65–76.
Wan, W. (2020). The coronavirus pandemic is pushing America into amental health crisis. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/04/mental-health-coronavirus/
Wanberg, C. R., Csillag, B., Douglass, R. P., Zhou, L., & Pollard, M. S.(2021). Socioeconomic status and well-being during COVID-19: Aresource-based examination. Journalof Applied Psychology. Advanceonline publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000831
Watson, D. (1988). Intraindividual and interindividual analyses of positiveand negative affect: Their relation to health complaints, perceived stress,and daily activities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6),1020–1030.
Westman, M., & Eden, D. (1997). Effects of a respite from work on burnout:Vacation relief and fade-out. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4),516–527.
Zacher, H., & Rudolph, C. W. (2020). Individual differences and changes insubjective wellbeing during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.American Psychologist, Advance online publication.
Received August 25, 2020Revision received February 20, 2021
Accepted February 25, 2021 ▪
Thisdocumentiscopyrightedby
theAmerican
Psychological
Associatio
nor
oneof
itsalliedpublishers.
Thisarticle
isintended
solely
forthepersonal
useof
theindividual
user
andisnotto
bedissem
inated
broadly.
BLESSING AND A CURSE 15
