International Journal of Occupational Safety and

Ergonomics

ISSN: 1080-3548 (Print) 2376-9130 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tose20

The role of physical exercise as a personal

resource against job stress

Silke Heuse, Babette Gekeler & Daniel Fodor

To cite this article: Silke Heuse, Babette Gekeler & Daniel Fodor (2020): The role of physical
exercise as a personal resource against job stress, International Journal of Occupational Safety
and Ergonomics, DOI: 10.1080/10803548.2020.1732648

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2020.1732648

Published online: 24 Apr 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tose20
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE), 2020
https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2020.1732648

The role of physical exercise as a personal resource against job stress

a∗
Silke Heuse , Babette Gekelerb and Daniel Fodorb
a University of Applied Sciences Europe, Germany; b Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Germany

Purpose. The prevention of burnout symptoms is an essential goal in occupational health promotion. Physical exercise
provides health-promotion benefits. This study aimed to verify physical exercise and its planned preparation as additional
predictors of employees’ burnout symptoms next to job demands and resources. We used the job demands–resources model
as a theoretical framework. Method. In this longitudinal online study, 342 employees completed two questionnaires at an
interval of 4 weeks. Results. Moderation and moderated mediation analyses confirmed vigorous physical exercise as a
relevant personal resource, revealing that it buffers the detrimental effects of job demands on burnout symptoms. Planning
strategies strongly predicted physical exercise and supported the debilitating effects of job resources on burnout symptoms.
Especially in employees with medium levels of job stress, coping planning supported the enactment of vigorous physical
exercise. Physical exercise did not mediate the association between job demands, job resources and burnout symptoms.
Conclusions. This study enriches our knowledge about occupational health prevention. It points to a pressing topic for the
near future, i.e., how work conditions (e.g., job stress) and leisure time (e.g., physical exercise) can be successfully combined
to keep individuals’ job stress to a minimum and to prevent burnout symptoms.
Keywords: job stress; burnout; physical exercise; action planning; coping planning; job demands–resources model

1. Introduction
Prevention of physical and mental disorders is the essen-
tial goal in occupational health promotion. Stress affects
our everyday life at work or in leisure time and is known
as an antecedent of burnout [1] and physical and men-
tal disorders [2]. In line with the transactional idea [3],
stress emerges if events are appraised as exceeding one’s
personal resources. In the context of job stress, this idea
was taken up in the job demands–resources (JD-R) model
and was transferred to the interplay of job demands and
job resources. Knowing that not only job-specific but also
personal resources influence employees’ stress experiences
[4], the purpose of this study was to identify additional
personal resources which can be used preventively to
reduce employees’ stress and burnout symptoms. There-
fore, we asked whether self-regulatory resources (i.e., plan-
ning strategies and health behavior) usually investigated in
the preventive context will also impact in the context of
work.
1.1. The JD-R model
The JD-R model was originally developed to understand
the impact of work stress, especially on burnout [5] and
work engagement [6]. The model proposes that specific
physical, psychological, social or organizational factors are
associated with job stress [5]. These factors which help
to achieve personal and work goals directly or indirectly
(e.g., control, autonomy or social support) are referred to
as ‘job resources’ [5]. Those factors which are associ-
ated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs
(e.g., time pressure, emotional demands or work–home
conflict) are referred to as ‘job demands’ [5]. Job demands
and resources directly affect burnout or work engagement,
respectively. In a transactional sense, an imbalance of job
demands and job resources increases the likelihood of
experiencing job stress, which in turn is a risk factor for
burnout. Next to direct effects on burnout, job resources
also have a buffering effect which attenuates detrimental
effects of job demands on the development of job stress [7]
(for a review, also see [8]).
The JD-R model has been extended by including per-
sonal resources in addition to job resources [9]. Mean-
while, a long list of personal resources are investi-
gated such as beliefs (e.g., self-efficacy [10]), personality
traits [11] and stress-reducing competences (e.g., mindful-
ness [12]). To our knowledge, only a few studies have
investigated whether health behaviors such as healthy
nutrition or physical exercise interact with job stress
[13,14]

*Corresponding author. Email: silke.heuse@ue-germany.com

© 2020 Central Institute for Labour Protection – National Research Institute (CIOP-PIB)
2 S. Heuse et al.
1.2. Physical exercise and stress
Physical exercise can be understood as an individual cop-
ing strategy [15] which reduces stress [16,17] and protects
from adverse consequences of stress [18–20]. The World
Health Organization (WHO) [21] recommends that adults
should do at least 75 min of vigorous-intensity aerobic
physical exercise (VPE) or alternatively at least 150 min
of moderate-intensity aerobic physical exercise (MPE)
throughout the week, or an equivalent combination of both
activities. Since moderate (e.g., hiking) and vigorous (e.g.,
running) physical exercise differ in intensity and resource
consumption, in the present study we distinguish between
these two kinds of physical exercise.
1.3. Planning strategies to enhance health behavior
Physical exercise helps to reduce stress and to support
mental health [22]. But job stress also affects the interface
between work and home, e.g., whether employees succeed
in combining work and leisure time demands [23]. This
is supported by findings that high job demands [24,25] or
unfavorable combinations of high job demands and low job
resources [26] are associated with reduced physical exer-
cise. Planning strategies are additional personal resources.
As proposed by the health action process approach [27] or
other health behavior theories, these self-regulatory strate-
gies mediate between intention and enactment of health
behavior and, in this, counteract detrimental stress effects.
In the context of stress, planning strategies can also be
understood as proactive coping strategies which shield goal
pursuit from barriers. They can be subdivided into action
planning and coping planning [28]. Action planning is a
goal-oriented strategy which links a good opportunity for
behavior enactment with details of the intended behav-
ior (e.g., ‘If I return home after work, then I will do
my exercises on the ergometer for 30 minutes’ [28]; orig-
inal emphases). Complementarily, coping planning is a
barrier-focused strategy which specifies a suitable coping
response for anticipated barriers (e.g., ‘If we have guests
in the evening, then I will do my exercises already in
the morning’ [28]; original emphases). Planning strategies
are proposed to enhance perceptual accessibility of situa-
tional cues specified in ‘if’ parts as well as to automatize
goal-directed responses specified in ‘then’ parts [29,30].
Consequently, action initiation is assumed to be under
direct control of the specified situational cue rather than
conscious control [29]. Planning has been established as
a successful strategy to enhance physical exercise [31,32],
even under stress [13,33].
1.4. Aims of the study
Focusing on occupational health prevention, we aimed to
identify personal resources in the context of job stress
which might help to reduce employees’ risk of developing
burnout symptoms. Referring to the JD-R model, personal
resources can be considered in five ways: as an addi-
tional predictor next to job demands and resources; as a
moderator of the job characteristics–burnout/work engage-
ment association; as a mediator of the job characteristics–
burnout/work engagement association; as an antecedent
influencing the perception of job characteristics; as a ‘third
variable’ explaining the relationship of job characteristics
and burnout/work engagement [9]. We assumed that per-
sonal resources might serve as additional moderators in
the two-way interaction with job demands or in the three-
way interaction with both job demands and job resources,
or as mediators in the association of job demands, job
resources and burnout symptoms. Since physical exer-
cise may either strengthen the robustness against stress or,
as a recreational activity, allows coping with stress, we
tested MPE and VPE as either a moderator which buffers
detrimental effects of job demands or unfavorable combi-
nations of job demands and job resources, or as a mediator
between potentially stressing job conditions and placed
burnout symptoms as a distal outcome. Because plan-
ning strategies are antecedents of health behavior, action
planning and coping planning were considered as addi-
tional resources and predictors of physical exercise in the
mediation process:
H 1a : MPE moderates the association between job demands
and burnout symptoms.
H 1b : VPE moderates the association between job demands
and burnout symptoms.
H 2a : MPE moderates the association between the job
demands–job resources interaction and burnout symptoms.
H 2b : VPE moderates the association between the job
demands–job resources interaction and burnout symptoms.
H 3a : MPE mediates the association between the job
demands–job resources interaction and burnout symptoms.
H 3b : VPE mediates the association between the job
demands–job resources interaction and burnout symptoms.
H 4a : Action planning moderates the mediation effects of
physical exercise in the relationship of the job demands–
job resources interaction with burnout symptoms.
H 4b : Coping planning moderates the mediation effects of
physical exercise in the relationship of the job demands–
job resources interaction with burnout symptoms.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants and procedure
A total of 1483 German employees followed the invi-
tation for study participation through the SoSci Panel,1
an open scientific questionnaire panel. The initial invi-
tation email informed employees about the study’s aim
and procedure, and was followed by an internet link
leading to the baseline questionnaire (first measurement
 International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE)
point [t1]). Four weeks later, participants received a sec-
ond questionnaire (second measurement point [t2]). The
study was checked and approved by the national ethics
commission.
A total of 871 participants completed the study. Of
these, 342 met the inclusion criteria (no restrictions for
physical activity within the 8 weeks of retrospective assess-
ment, employment with at least a 20-h average working
week as well as no missing data on moderate or vigor-
ous physical exercise and less than 10% of overall missing
data). This met the required sample size calculated in an
a priori power analysis with an assumed power of 0.80
and an α value of 0.05. Participants’ age ranged from 22
to 67 years with an average of 41.370 years (SD 10.769),
and 63.50% were female. The participants worked an aver-
age of 42.342 h per week (SD 14.601; range 20–70) at
t1 and 42.651 h per week (SD 12.933; range 20–70) at
t2; variables were truncated, limiting working hours to no
more than 70 h per week. The sample covered a broad
range of job types, including employees from the health-
care sector, science, service industry, banking sector and
many more. Analyses revealed that employees meeting
the inclusion criteria were younger in age (p < 0.001) and
reported higher job resources (p < 0.05) and less burnout
symptoms (p < 0.05) than those who did not meet the
criteria.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Job demands and job resources
Job demands were assessed at t1 in terms of ‘time pressure’
using five items (e.g., ‘How often did you work under time
pressure?’) from the validated instrument for stress-related
job analysis (Instrument zur stressbezogenen Taetigkeits-
analyse [ISTA] [34]). Items were framed to the previous
week. Responses could be rated from 1 = rarely/never
to 5 = very often. A mean score was calculated, with
higher values representing more job demands (Cronbach’s
α = 0.867).
Job resources were measured as a combination of two
5-item scales from the ISTA, ‘time control’ (e.g., ‘How
much were you able to determine your pace of work
on your own?’) and ‘control at work’ (e.g., ‘How much
influence did you have on the type of work that was
assigned to you?’). Again, items were framed to the pre-
vious week. The response formats ranged from 1 = not
at all to 6 = more than one hour and 1 = less than five
minutes a day to 6 = more than two hours a day, respec-
tively, or from 1 = not at all to 5 = all results of work. We
transformed 6-point scales into 5-point scales [34] in order
to compute a mean score with higher values represent-
ing more job resources (Cronbach’s α = 0.851). Because
the ISTA scales are comparable to JD-R scales, we chose
them for reasons of comparability with our own previous
studies.
3
2.2.2. Burnout symptoms
Burnout symptoms were assessed using two subscales
of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) [35]: both
‘emotional exhaustion’ (Cronbach’s α = 0.877 at t1 and
α = 0.892 at t2) and ‘cynicism’ (Cronbach’s α = 0.881 at
t1 and α = 0.91 at t2) consist of five items and range from
1 = never to 6 = very often. A mean score was computed,
with higher values representing more severe symptoms of
burnout (Cronbach’s α = 0.893 at t1 and α = 0.909 at t2).
2.2.3. Physical exercise
At t1 and t2, moderate (MPE) and vigorous (VPE) physical
exercise were assessed by an open-response item indicat-
ing the average time per week spent on physical exercise.
Participants were asked ‘How many minutes have you
been physically active on average per week within the
last 4 weeks?’ accompanied by a definition of and exam-
ples for the two different levels of physical exercise (e.g.,
for VPE: ‘rapid heartbeat, e.g., intense swimming, run-
ning, cycling’). This assessment is an adaption of the
widely used Godin and Shephard leisure-time physical
activity questionnaire (GSLTPAQ) [36]. Participants were
instructed to report exercises which were performed for at
least 10 min per bout.
2.2.4. Action planning and coping planning
Planning strategies were assessed at t1 by widely used
action planning and coping planning scales [28]. For action
planning, participants were asked to indicate on six items
whether they have planned what, when, where, how often,
for how long and with whom they will perform physical
exercise (e.g., ‘For the upcoming four weeks I made a spe-
cific plan where I will perform physical exercise.’). The
response formats ranged from 1 = completely disagree
to 5 = completely agree. A mean score was computed
(Cronbach’s α = 0.944). Participants were also asked to
indicate on five items the extent to which they have used
coping planning strategies (e.g., ‘For the upcoming four
weeks I made a specific plan what to do when some-
thing unexpected comes up.’). A mean score was computed
(Cronbach’s α = 0.923).
The means, standard deviations and correlations of all
variables are reported in Table 1.
2.3. Analytical procedure
Regression analyses were conducted to test our assump-
tions using the PROCESS macro for SPSS version 23
[37]. Models aimed at the prediction of burnout symp-
toms at t2, controlled for burnout symptoms at t1. To
test hypotheses H 1a and H 1b , moderation models consid-
ering two-way interactions of job demands and physical
exercise at t1 in the prediction of burnout symptoms at
t2 (Models 1 and 2) were calculated using PROCESS
 4
Table 1. Means, standard deviations and correlations for all study variables.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. JD t1 3.118 0.925
2. JR t1 3.692 0.706 −0.300***
3. MBI t1 2.969 1.043 0.331*** −0.408***
4. MBI t2 2.942 1.089 0.362*** −0.406*** 0.843***
5. MPE t1 82.652 111.504 −0.018 0.086 −0.073 −0.056

S. Heuse et al.
6. VPE t1 50.389 74.006 0.012 0.040 −0.029 −0.034 0.339***
7. MPE t2 86.754 96.726 0.020 0.070 −0.197† −0.092† 0.529*** 0.294***
8. VPE t2 43.591 65.625 0.007 0.082 −0.031 −0.036 0.344*** 0.599*** 0.265***
9. AP t1 3.525 1.307 0.052 0.054 −0.126* −0.088 0.298*** 0.345*** 0.319*** 0.359***
10. CP t1 2.656 1.273 −0.006 0.102† −0.112* −0.075 0.282*** 0.353*** 0.249*** 0.385*** 0.666***
11. WH t1 42.342 14.601 0.291*** 0.080 −0.014 −0.014 0.199† 0.155** 0.006 0.146** 0.082 0.101†
12. WH t2 42.651 12.933 0.313*** 0.041 0.049 0.085 0.050 −0.014 0.024 0.063 0.046 0.042 0.535**
13. Gendera – – −0.082 0.091† −0.032 −0.090 −0.129* −0.040 −0.087 −0.014 −0.139* −0.067 0.114* 0.113*
14. Age 41.370 10.769 −0.046 0.093† −0.083 −0.041 0.045 −0.038 0.027 −0.039 0.062 0.124* 0.017 −0.027 0.132*

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; † p < 0.10; a 1 = male; 2 = female.
Note: AP = action planning; CP = coping planning; JD = job demands; JR = job resources; MBI = burnout symptoms; MPE = moderate physical exercise; t1 = first measurement
point, t2 = second measurement point; VPE = vigorous physical exercise; WH = working hours.
 International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 5

model 1. To test hypotheses H 2a and H 2b , moderation mod- Table 2. Moderated models predicting burnout symptoms
(PROCESS model 1 [37]).
els considering three-way interactions of job demands, job
resources and physical exercise at t1 in the prediction of Model 1 Model 2
burnout symptoms at t2 (Models 3 and 4) were calculated (DV = burnout t2) (DV = burnout t2)
using PROCESS model 3. To test hypotheses H 3a and H 3b , Predictor B SE B SE
moderated mediation models with job demands and job
resources at t1 as well as their interaction as predictors Gender −0.067* 0.030 −0.069* 0.030
and physical exercise at t1 as a mediator in the prediction Age 0.040 0.029 0.040 0.029
WH (average) 0.018 0.032 0.022 0.032
of burnout symptoms at t2 (Models 5 and 6) were calcu- MBI t1 0.810*** 0.031 0.817*** 0.031
lated using PROCESS model 8. To test hypotheses H 4a JD t1 0.081* 0.033 0.070* 0.034
and H 4b , planning strategies at t1 as additional moderators MPE t1 −0.017 0.029 – –
and their respective two-way and three-way interactions VPE t1 – – −0.017 0.031
with job demands and job resources at t1 (Models 7–10) JD × MPE t1 −0.034 0.032 – –
JD × VPE t1 – – −0.060† 0.033
were included in these moderated mediation models, using R² 0.724*** – 0.726*** –
PROCESS model 12. All models were controlled for age,
gender, average working hours and burnout at t1. Z scores *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001; † p < 0.10.
were used to allow a comparison of effect sizes. Signifi- Note: Z-standardized variables. DV = dependent variable;
cant interactions were qualified by estimating the size of JD = job demands; MBI = burnout symptoms;
MPE = moderate physical exercise; t1 = first
the conditional effects of the predictor at combinations of measurement point, t2 = second measurement point;
high and low values of the moderators (M ± 1SD) in terms VPE = vigorous physical exercise; WH = working hours.
of simple slope analyses [38].

3. Results (hypothesis H 2a ), job demands were again positively

Because physical exercise is known to prevent burnout
symptoms, we considered physical exercise as a personal
resource in the prediction of burnout symptoms. Bivari-
ately, MPE but not VPE was associated with less burnout
symptoms. Action planning and coping planning are com-
monly known as predictors of health behavior. Here, they
were bivariately associated with MPE and VPE, but not
bivariately related to job demands and job resources. All
correlations are presented in Table 1.
3.1. Extended JD-R model prediction of burnout:
physical exercise as a moderator
Testing Model 1 (hypothesis H 1a ), i.e., the prediction of
burnout by job demands, MPE and the respective inter-
action term, only job demands were positively associated
(β = 0.081, p = 0.016) with more burnout symptoms at
t2 (see Table 2, Model 1). Testing Model 2 (hypothesis
H 1b ), i.e., the prediction of burnout by job demands, VPE
and the respective interaction term, a marginal significant
two-way interaction (β = −0.060, p = 0.071) was found
(see Table 2, Model 2). Simple slope analyses revealed
that in individuals with less VPE, job demands were pos-
itively associated with burnout (β = 0.111, p = 0.003),
whereas for individuals reporting higher amounts of
VPE, job demands were not related to burnout symp-
toms (β = 0.015, ns). Thus, only VPE rather than MPE
buffers the detrimental effects of job demands. Hypothe-
sis H 1a had to be rejected, but hypothesis H 1b could be
retained.
Testing Model 3 with the interaction of MPE and both
job demands and job resources in the prediction of burnout
associated with more burnout symptoms and addition-
ally a marginal significant interaction of job demands
and job resources (β = −0.52, p = 0.066) was found
(see Table 3, Model 3). Simple slope analyses revealed
that in individuals with a low amount of job resources,
job demands were positively associated with burnout
(β = 0.121, p = 0.007), whereas for individuals report-
ing a high amount of job resources, job demands were not
related to burnout symptoms (β = 0.015, ns). The same
marginal interaction of job demands and job resources
(β = −0.051, p = 0.071) was also found in Model 4
(hypothesis H 2b ), i.e., the prediction of burnout by job
demands, job resources, VPE and the respective interac-
tion terms (see Table 3, Model 4). In addition, job demands
and VPE again interacted significantly in the same way
as already described. Models 3 and 4 did not show
three-way interactions of job characteristics and physical
exercise. Therefore, hypotheses H 2a and H 2b had to be
rejected.
3.2. Extended JD-R model prediction of burnout:
physical exercise as a mediator
Moderated mediation Models 5 and 6 considered physical
exercise as a mediator of the association of job demands
and job resources as well as their interaction with burnout
symptoms. Neither job demands, job resources nor their
interaction predicted physical exercise, and the latter also
did not predict burnout symptoms. Consequently, neither
MPE nor VPE functioned as a mediator (see Table 4, Mod-
els 5 and 6). Therefore, hypotheses H 3a and H 3b were
rejected.
6 S. Heuse et al.

Table 3. Moderated models predicting burnout symptoms Table 4. Moderated mediation models predicting
(PROCESS model 3 [37]). burnout symptoms (PROCESS model 8 [37]).

Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

(DV = burnout t2) (DV = burnout t2)
Predictor B SE B SE
Predictor B SE B SE
DV = MPE t1 DV = VPE t1
Gender −0.070* 0.030 −0.072* 0.030 Gender −0.120* 0.050 −0.045 0.054
Age 0.038 0.029 0.033 0.029 Age 0.030 0.049 −0.034 0.052
WH (average) 0.034 0.033 0.035 0.032 WH (average) 0.008 0.054 0.043 0.058
MBI t1 0.789*** 0.033 0.797*** 0.032 MBI t1 −0.058 0.054 −0.015 0.058
JD t1 0.067* 0.034 0.056 0.035 JD t1 0.011 0.057 0.002 0.061
JR t1 −0.044 0.034 −0.047 0.033 JR t1 0.065 0.056 0.022 0.060
MPE t1 −0.003 0.033 – – JD × JR t1 0.023 0.047 0.035 0.050
VPE t1 – – −0.009 0.032 R² 0.032 0.008
JD × JR t1 −0.052† 0.028 −0.051† 0.028
JD × MPE t1 −0.034 0.032 – – DV = burnout t2 DV = burnout t2
JR × MPE t1 −0.055 0.034 – – Gender −0.069* 0.030 −0.069* 0.030
JD × JR × MPE t1 0.035 0.032 – – Age 0.045 0.029 0.044 0.029
JD × VPE t1 – – −0.067* 0.034 WH (average) 0.030 0.032 0.030 0.032
JR × VPE t1 – – −0.039 0.037 MBI t1 0.797*** 0.032 0.797*** 0.032
JD × JR × VPE t1 – – −0.005 0.033 JD t1 0.067† 0.034 0.067† 0.034
R² 0.732*** – 0.733*** – JR t1 −0.047 0.034 −0.047 0.034
MPE t1 −0.007 0.033 – –
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; † p < 0.10. VPE t1 – – −0.014 0.030
Note: Z-standardized variables. DV = dependent variable; JD × JR t1 −0.050† 0.028 −0.049† 0.028
JD = job demands; JR = job resources; MBI = burnout R² 0.729*** 0.728***
symptoms; MPE = moderate physical exercise; t1 = first
measurement point; t2 = second measurement point; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; † p < 0.10.
VPE = vigorous physical exercise; WH = working hours. Note: Z-standardized variables. DV = dependent
variable; JD = job demands; JR = job resources;
MBI = burnout symptoms; MPE = moderate physical
exercise; t1 = first measurement point; t2 = second
measurement point; VPE = vigorous physical exercise;
3.3. Extended JD-R model prediction of burnout: WH = working hours.
planning strategies as an additional moderator
In the following Models 7–10, planning strategies were
included as an additional moderator. In Models 7–10, Interestingly, in Models 7–10, planning strategies sig-
action planning or coping planning were positively related nificantly interacted with job resources, predicting burnout
to increased MPE or VPE. In Model 10, the three-way symptoms at t2 (e.g., see Figure 1, Model 10). Simple slope
interaction of coping planning with job demands and job analyses revealed that in individuals with less use of plan-
resources was found in the prediction of VPE (β = 0.144, ning strategies, job resources were not related to burnout
p = 0.004). Simple slope analyses revealed that cop- symptoms (β = 0.046, ns), whereas for individuals report-
ing planning was associated with increased VPE for all ing a higher use of planning strategies, job resources
combinations of job demands and job resources, with were negatively associated with burnout (β = −0.168,
the strongest associations for combinations of high job p < 0.001).
demands and high job resources (β = 0.495, p = 0.001)
or low job demands and low job resources (β = 0.585,
4. Discussion
p = 0.001). Additionally, job demands were positively
associated with VPE in the presence of both high coping 4.1. Explaining the results
planning and high job resources (β = 0.197, p = 0.073), Stress affects our everyday life at work or in leisure time.
and were negatively associated if coping planning was The present longitudinal study was designed to exam-
not complemented by high job resources (β = −0.214, ine whether physical activity is able to reduce stress and
p = 0.064). However, neither MPE nor VPE predicted therefore protect against burnout symptoms. In addition,
burnout symptoms, i.e., no mediation could be detected. we assessed planning strategies known to support physi-
Figure 1 shows Model 10 to represent all of the moder- cal exercise performance. For this purpose, we used the
ated mediation models. Given the lack of both mediation JD-R model as a theoretical framework, including use
and the moderating role of action planning, hypothesis of planning strategies and physical exercise as additional
H 4a was rejected and hypothesis H 4b was only partially resources for the prevention of burnout symptoms next to
accepted with regard to the moderating role of coping job demands and job resources. The findings partially sup-
planning. port our assumption that physical exercise and planning
 International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE) 7

Figure 1. Moderated mediation models predicting burnout symptoms, considering vigorous physical exercise as a mediator
(PROCESS model 12 [37]).
**p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; † p < 0.10.
Note: Z-standardized variables, controlled for gender, age, working hours, VPE t1 and MBI t1. CP = coping planning; JD = job
demands; JR = job resources; MBI = burnout symptoms; t1 = first measurement point; t2 = second measurement point;
VPE = vigorous physical exercise.

strategies function as additional moderators, whereas we
failed to confirm physical exercise as a mediator between
job demands and job resources and burnout symptoms.
Incorporating physical exercise as a personal resource
into the JD-R model, VPE rather than MPE was identi-
fied as an important personal resource. While VPE did
not protect against adverse effects of stressful job condi-
tions stemming from an unfavorable combination of job
demands and job resources in general, it was able to buffer
detrimental effects of job demands specifically. Such dose–
response relations are still known in the context of physical
exercise [39], e.g., regarding third variables like cogni-
tive functioning [40] or personality [41]. In summary, VPE
might not only function as a personal resource in the work
context, but also strengthens further influencing factors to
buffer job demands.
Although other personal resources like work ability
have been established as a mediator [42], contradictory to
our mediation assumptions, physical exercise did not medi-
ate the relationship between job conditions and burnout
symptoms. An explanation might be the present selective
sample that was characterized by a low to moderate sever-
ity of burnout symptoms. Understanding physical exercise
as a recreational strategy used to decrease detrimental
effects of potentially harmful job conditions and the devel-
opment of burnout symptoms, individuals did not use it
to cope with job stress in the present sample or, in other
words, did not feel obliged to counteract the development
of more severe burnout symptoms.
Regarding the use of planning strategies, our study con-
firmed their important role in the enactment of physical
exercise. This is in line with previous studies introduc-
ing the use of action planning and coping planning to
support health behavior change [43]. Additionally, cop-
ing planning rather than action planning also interacted
with job characteristics. The use of coping planning was
even associated with increased VPE in individuals who
reported balanced combinations of job demands and job
stress, resulting in medium amounts of stress [8]. This dif-
ferential effect might be explained by the fact that high
stress conditions consume many resources. Under these
conditions, employees are less likely to engage in physical
exercise [24], or even plan to exercise, because integrat-
ing VPE into everyday life is time-consuming and also
affords self-regulatory effort [44]. On the contrary, the least
stressful job conditions might not afford coping planning
in order to support physical exercise. Consequently, espe-
cially individuals experiencing medium levels of job stress,
i.e., who are still capable and willing to use job-external
resources to reduce stress, might benefit from coping plan-
ning, which helps to anticipate and deal with barriers and
difficulties.
Planning strategies were also shown to strengthen the
debilitating effect of job resources on burnout symptoms.
This underlines the understanding of spontaneously used
action planning and coping planning as an additional per-
sonal resource. Spontaneous use of planning strategies is
already known as an important self-regulatory strategy
[45], which also supports coping with stress. The find-
ings highlight the importance of encompassing a holistic
perspective (e.g., job-specific and unspecific resources) to
effectively prevent burnout symptoms [4].
8 S. Heuse et al.
4.2. Limitations
There are a number of strengths and shortcomings with
the present study that require additional commentary. It
can be assumed that study participation was influenced
by individuals’ job stress. Although this online assessment
was easily applicable and required less time and resources,
especially if time pressure was high, study participation
might be burdensome and would likely influence individu-
als’ decisions to participate. As a consequence, the sample
comprised employees working under lower or medium
job stress conditions. Dropout analysis points to a selec-
tive sample regarding age and job stress. Thus, beneficial
effects of planning might be overestimated. This represents
a central weakness of this study and affords future studies
to replicate these findings in more stressed and overworked
samples.
The present sample was very heterogeneous, covering
jobs from a number of different sectors. However, in con-
trast to the assumptions of the JD-R model [8], we did not
test the specific job demands and job resources of each job
type, although time pressure and control are considered
as general factors influencing job stress across all indus-
tries. Previous findings suggest that different job demands
and resources influence stress experiences and health in
specific ways [46], and therefore future research should
take different job-specific demands and resources [23] as
well as expert ratings [5] or external assessments [47] into
account.
Follow-up assessments of the present longitudinal
study were limited. Covering a 4-week period will hardly
suffice to detect clinically significant changes in burnout
symptoms. Therefore, future studies should cover a longer
period of time, including further follow-up assessments.
4.3. Conclusion
Despite these limitations, the present study introduces
physical exercise and use of planning strategies as personal
resources, which can be considered worthy candidates for
enhancing employees’ stress management [19] and for the
prediction of health-related outcomes [48]. Physical exer-
cise is known as a recreational strategy to improve overall
physical and mental health in general, and to reduce job
stress, i.e., to support coping with job demands, specifi-
cally. However, depending on the type of physical exercise,
the enactment is more or less challenging [44]. The prepa-
ration of such behavior is recommendable, especially if
medium to high job stress is experienced, which in turn
might be accompanied by limited resources, e.g., time
control, social support or cognitive functioning. Planning
strategies have been proven successful as a resource-
consuming means to support goal achievement even under
stress due to their automaticity in behavioral enactment
[28,47]. This qualifies the use of planning strategies as an
effective tool to cope with the negative effects of job stress;
especially because planning strategies can easily be taught
to employees in short planning interventions [49].
Using health-psychological and occupational approa-
ches for the clinical context, the present study provides
insight into action fields which are equally important for
employees, health professionals and decision-makers in
companies and management. Shedding light on the inter-
face of job conditions (e.g., job stress) and leisure-time
activities (e.g., recreation in terms of physical exercise), the
study points to a pressing topic for the near future [50], i.e.,
how work and family or leisure time can be successfully
combined in order to keep individuals’ stress to a minimum
and to promote mental health.
Note
1. The SoSci Panel is an open online scientific questionnaire
panel of 90,317 individuals (as of January 2015). Depending
on the aimed sample size, an invitation is sent to individuals
of the panel meeting the inclusion criteria.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Silke Heuse http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0673-5692
References
[1] Sun J-W, Lin P-Z, Zhang H-H, et al. A non-linear
relationship between the cumulative exposure to occu-
pational stressors and nurses’ burnout and the poten-
tially emotion regulation factors. J Ment Health;27(5):1–7.
doi:10.1080/09638237.2017.1385740
[2] Hannigan B, Edwards D, Burnard P. Stress and stress
management in clinical psychology: findings from a
systematic review. J Ment Health. 2017;13:235–245.
doi:10.1080/09638230410001700871
[3] Lazarus RS. Psychological stress and the coping process.
New York (NY): McGraw-Hill; 1966.
[4] Viotti S, Martini M, Converso D. Are there any job
resources capable of moderating the effect of physi-
cal demands on work ability? A study among kinder-
garten teachers. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2017;23:544–552.
doi:10.1080/10803548.2016.1267976
[5] Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, et al. The job
demands–resources model of burnout. J Appl Psych.
2001;86:499–512. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
[6] Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB. Job demands, job resources,
and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a
multi-sample study. J Organ Behav. 2004;25:293–315.
doi:10.1002/job.248
[7] Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Euwema MC. Job resources
buffer the impact of job demands on burnout. J Occup
Health Psych. 2005;10:170–180. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.
10.2.170
[8] Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The job demands–resources
model: state of the art. J Manag Psychol. 2007;22:309–328.
doi:10.1108/02683940710733115
[9] Schaufeli WB, Taris TW. A critical review of the job
demands–resources model: implications for improving
 International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics (JOSE)
work and health. In: Bauer GF, Hämmig O, editors. Bridg-
ing occupational, organizational and public health. Dor-
drecht: Springer; 2014. p. 43–68.
[10] Xanthopoulou D, Heuven E, Demerouti E, et al. Work-
ing in the sky: a diary study on work engagement among
flight attendants. J Occup Health Psych. 2008;13:345–356.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.13.4.345
[11] Bakker AB, Boyd CM, Dollard M, et al. The role of person-
ality in the job demands–resources model. Career Dev Int.
2010;15:622–636. doi:10.1108/13620431011094050
[12] Grover SL, Teo ST, Pick D, et al. Mindfulness as
a personal resource to reduce work stress in the job
demands–resources model. Stress Health. 2016;33:426–
436. doi:10.1002/smi.2726
[13] Fodor D, Wiedemann AU, Antoni C, et al. Healthy eat-
ing at different risk levels for job stress: testing a moder-
ated mediation. J Occup Health Psych. 2014;19:259–267.
doi:10.1037/a0036267
[14] Payne N, Jones F, Harris P. A daily diary investiga-
tion of the impact of work stress on exercise inten-
tion realization: can planning overcome the disruptive
influence of work? Psychol Health. 2010;25:111–129.
doi:10.1080/08870440903337622
[15] Wickramasinghe V. Work-related dimensions and job stress:
the moderating effect of coping strategies. Stress Health.
2010;26:417–429. doi:10.1002/smi.1314
[16] Clark MM, Jenkins SM, Hagen PT, et al. High stress and
negative health behaviors: a five-year wellness center mem-
ber cohort study. J Occup Environ Med. 2016;58:868–873.
doi:10.1097/JOM.0000000000000826
[17] Nguyen-Michel ST, Unger JB, Hamilton J, et al. Associa-
tions between physical activity and perceived stress/hassles
in college students. Stress Health. 2006;22:179–188.
doi:10.1002/smi.1094
[18] Fang YY, Huang CH, Hsu MC. Effectiveness of a phys-
ical activity program on weight, physical fitness, occupa-
tional stress, job satisfaction and quality of life of over-
weight employees in high-tech industries: a randomized
controlled study. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2019;25(4):621–
629. doi:10.1080/10803548.2018.1438839
[19] Moreira-Silva I, Santos R, Abreu S, et al. The effect of a
physical activity program on decreasing physical disabil-
ity indicated by musculoskeletal pain and related symptoms
among workers: a pilot study. Int J Occup Saf Ergon.
2014;20:55–64. doi:10.1080/10803548.2014.11077028
[20] Toker S, Biron M. Job burnout and depression: unrav-
eling their temporal relationship and considering the
role of physical activity. J Appl Psych. 2012;7:699–710.
doi:10.1037/a0026914
[21] World Health Organization. Global recommendations on
physical activity for health [Internet]; 2010 [cited 2016 Oct
12]. Available from: http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity
/publications/9789241599979/en/.
[22] Tyson P, Wilson K, Crone D, et al. Physical activity and
mental health in a student population. J Ment Health.
2010;19:492–499. doi:10.3109/09638230902968308
[23] Bakker AB, ten Brummelhuis LL, Prins JT, et al.
Applying the job demands–resources model to the
work–home interface: a study among medical residents
and their partners. J Vocat Behav. 2001;79:170–180.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.12.004
[24] Fransson EI, Heikkilä K, Nyberg ST, et al. Job strain
as a risk factor for leisure-time physical inactivity: an
individual-participant meta-analysis of up to 170,000 men
and women. The IPD-Work Consortium. Am J Epidemiol.
2012;176:1078–1089. doi:10.1093/aje/kws336
9
[25] Morassaei S, Smith PM. Examining the relationship
between psychosocial working conditions, physical work
demands, and leisure time physical activity in Canada.
J Occup Environ Med. 2011;53:1099–1105. doi:10.1097/
JOM.0b013e3182307863
[26] Payne N, Jones F, Harris P. The impact of working life on
health behavior: the effect of job strain on the cognitive pre-
dictors of exercise. J Occup Health Psych. 2002;7:342–353.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.7.4.342
[27] Schwarzer R, Luszczynska A. Health Action Process
Approach. In: Conner M, Norman P, editors. Predicting
health behaviours. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill Open Univer-
sity Press; 2015. p. 252–278.
[28] Scholz U, Sniehotta FF, Burkert S, et al. Increasing physical
exercise levels: age-specific benefits of planning. J Aging
Health. 2007;19:851–866. doi:10.1177/089826430730
5207
[29] Gollwitzer PM, Schaal B. Metacognition in action:
the importance of implementation intentions. Pers Soc
Psychol Rev. 1998;2:124–136. doi:10.1207/s15327957
pspr0202_5
[30] Hagger MS, Luszczynska A. Implementation intention and
action planning interventions in health contexts: state of the
research and proposals for the way forward. Appl Psychol-
Hlth We. 2014;6:1–47.
[31] Bélanger-Gravel A, Godin G, Amireault S. A meta-
analytic review of the effect of implementation intentions
on physical activity. Health Psychol Rev. 2013;7:23–54.
doi:10.1080/17437199.2011.560095
[32] Carraro N, Gaudreau P. Spontaneous and experimen-
tally induced action planning and coping planning for
physical activity: a meta-analysis. Psychol Sport Exerc.
2013;14:228–248. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.10.004
[33] Gerber M, Lindwall M, Brand S, et al. Longitu-
dinal relationships between perceived stress, exercise
self-regulation and exercise involvement among physi-
cally active adolescents. J Sport Sci. 2015;33:369–380.
doi:10.1080/02640414.2014.946072
[34] Semmer NK, Zapf D, Dunckel H. Instrument zur stressbezo-
genen Taetigkeitsanalyse [Instrument for stress-related job
analysis; ISTA]. In: Dunckel H, editor. Handbuch psychol-
ogischer Arbeitsanalyseverfahren [Analytical instrumenta-
tion handbook]. Zürich: VdF Hochschulverlag; 1999. p.
179–204. German.
[35] Maslach C, Jackson SE. The Maslach Burnout Inventory
(manual). 2nd ed. Palo Alto (CA): Consulting Psychologists
Press; 1986.
[36] Godin G, Shephard RJ. A simple method to assess exer-
cise behavior in the community. Can J Appl Sport Sci.
1985;10:141–146.
[37] Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and con-
ditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New
York (NY): Guilford Press; 2013.
[38] Aiken LS, West SG. Multiple regression: testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park (CA): SAGE;
1991.
[39] Proper KI, van den Heuvel SG, De Vroome EM,
et al. Dose–response relation between physical activ-
ity and sick leave. Br J Sports Med. 2006;40:173–178.
doi:10.1136/bjsm.2005.022327
[40] Esteban-Cornejo I, Tejero-Gonzalez CM, Sallis JF, et al.
Physical activity and cognition in adolescents: a sys-
tematic review. J Sci Med Sport. 2015;18:534–539.
doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2014.07.007
[41] de Bruijn G-J, de Groot R, van den Putte B, et al. Con-
scientiousness, extroversion, and action control: comparing
10 S. Heuse et al.
moderate and vigorous physical activity. J Sport Exercise
Psy. 2009;31:724–742. doi:10.1123/jsep.31.6.724
[42] Viotti S, Guidetti G, Loera B, et al. Stress, work abil-
ity, and an aging workforce: a study among women
aged 50 and over. Int J Stress Manage. 2017;24:98–121.
doi:10.1037/str0000031
[43] Sheeran P, Milne SE, Webb TL, et al. Implementation inten-
tions. In: Conner M, Norman P, editors. Predicting health
behaviour. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2005. p.
276–323.
[44] Winters ER, Petrosa RL, Charlon TE. Using social cogni-
tive theory to explain discretionary, ‘leisure-time’ physical
exercise among high school students. J Adolescent Health.
2003;32:436–442. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(03)00046-6
[45] Burkert S, Knoll N, Scholz U, et al. Self-regulation fol-
lowing prostatectomy: phase-specific self-efficacy beliefs
for pelvic-floor exercise. Brit J Health Psychology.
2012;17:273–293. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8287.2011.02037.x
[46] Lazaridis K, Jovanović J, Jovanović J, et al. The
impact of occupational stress factors on temporary work
disability related to arterial hypertension and its com-
plications. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2017;23:259–266.
doi:10.1080/10803548.2016.1179524
[47] Brandstätter V, Lengfelder A, Gollwitzer PM. Implemen-
tation intentions and efficient action initiation. J Pers
Soc Psychol. 2001;81:946–960. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.
5.946
[48] Airila A, Hakanen JJ, Schaufeli WB, et al. Are job and
personal resources associated with work ability 10 years
later? The mediating role of work engagement. Work Stress.
2014;28:87–105. doi:10.1080/02678373.2013.872208
[49] Hagger MS, Luszczynska A, de Wit J, et al. Implementa-
tion intention and planning interventions in health psychol-
ogy: recommendations from the synergy expert group for
research and practice. Psychol Health. 2016;31:814–839.
doi:10.1080/08870446.2016.1146719
[50] Guha M. The changing nature of work, leisure and involve-
ment in society: some possible ideas from an old philoso-
pher. J Ment Health. 2017;27:1–3. doi:10.1080/09638237.
2017.1417572