Abstract
Annual usage of paid leave in America has been declining although employees are granted more time off than before. This study proposes that taking paid leave for a vacation is perceived as a violation of workplace norms, which could partly explain this phenomenon. This violation is presumed to pose a threat to an employee’s social self at work. The accompanying guilt from such a threat is hypothesized to lead to lower vacation intention and more reparative actions (e.g. apologizing and decreasing vacation length). These consequences align with social self preservation theory, which posits that individuals aim to preserve a positive social self. Empirical results indicate that guilt fully mediates the impact of threats to the workplace social self on travel intentions and partially mediates the effects of such threats on reparative actions. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Keywords
Introduction
The average American took 20.3 paid days off between 1976 and 2000 (Project: Time Off 2018). By 2018, however, this figure had declined to only 17.4 days, which is counterintuitive considering that employees are being given more time off than before (U.S. Travel Association 2019). The amount of unused paid time off has been estimated to represent US$151.5 billion in lost spending for the United States (US) economy that, if realized, could have supported two million jobs (U.S. Travel Association 2019).
One important purpose of paid leave is to take vacations. By not using their paid days off for vacations, employees are missing out on opportunities to benefit from vacations in numerous ways, from reducing job-related stress (Kühnel and Sonnentag 2011) and improving familial and other relationships (Durko and Petrick 2013) to increasing happiness and well-being (Nicolao, Irwin, and Goodman 2009; Haidt 2006). Use of paid time off for vacation purposes has often been a key indicator of workplace and personal health in research on organizational behavior and public health (NPR, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Harvard University 2016). Overworking has also been tied directly to mental and physical health problems, including depression (Virtanen et al. 2012) and coronary heart disease (Kivimäki et al. 2015). At the macro level, overworking could have profound public health implications if it becomes a sociocultural norm.
Employees’ demonstrated reluctance to take paid days off suggests that constraints inhibit what should be an entitled behavior, particularly since employees in the US regularly rank paid vacation leave as the second most-valued employment benefit, trailing only health care plan (e.g. Glassdoor 2017; Monster Insights 2012). Several industry reports have highlighted employees’ guilt over being away from work as a pertinent reason not to use paid time off (Expedia 2017; Glassdoor 2014) despite employees having earned it. One such report had as much as 25% of female and 20% of male respondents indicating that guilt would stop them from taking paid time off for vacations (Project: Time Off 2017).
To explain this phenomenon, we propose that taking paid time off could be perceived as a violation of workplace norms in some organizations, especially where the norm is one that expects employees to be constantly available for work (Williams, Blair-Loy, and Berdahl 2013). In line with studies involving work-family policies (Perrigino, Dunford, and Wilson 2018), this violation presumably threatens or potentially damages an employee’s social self at work as she or he could be perceived negatively by coworkers or supervisors as being less committed and hardworking (Kuykendall et al. 2020). With the “self” being a socially oriented one given that an individual takes on the perspective of others toward oneself and internalizes these perspectives as his or her own (Mead 1934, 1913) and with most individuals being concerned about the positive/negative portrayal of the social self as a means of maintaining social relationships necessary for survival and other reasons (Seeman 2000), employees are expected to be careful about how the social self is portrayed at work. When taking paid time off is perceived as a threat to the employee’s workplace social self, guilt is hypothesized to result such that it reduces the individual’s vacation intentions and increases reparative actions (e.g. taking a shorter vacation than intended or apologizing for making vacation plans). These consequences align with social self preservation (SSP) theory, which is built on the premise that individuals tend to take actions to preserve their social self when the primary goal of maintaining a positive social self is threatened (Gruenewald et al. 2004). Under the conceptualization of guilt as a vacation constraint, this study attempts to address current gaps in the literature by gathering empirical evidence from the working population to understand (i) whether and how guilt experienced at their workplace affects taking paid time off to go on a vacation, and (ii) the effect of such guilt on their vacation decisions.
Literature Review
Travel Constraints
An understanding of travel constraints is necessary to first contextualize guilt’s place in the tourism literature because this study theorizes guilt as a vacation constraint for the working population who needs to take paid time off to go on a vacation. Here, a vacation is defined as a leisure trip involving an overnight stay away from home (Ryan 2000). Research on travel constraints originated from the leisure constraints literature, with the latter defined as barriers or obstacles hindering one’s use of a recreation service (Iso-Ahola and Mannell 1985). Much recent research on tourism constraints has drawn from Crawford and Godbey’s (1987) leisure constraints model (LCM) and its subsequent expansion into the hierarchical LCM (HLCM) (Crawford, Jackson, and Godbey 1991). The HLCM posits that leisure participation can be achieved only in cases of successful sequential negotiation of intrapersonal (i.e. personal psychological states), interpersonal (i.e. social interactions) and structural (i.e. external conditions) constraints (Crawford, Jackson, and Godbey 1991).
The HLCM has been widely applied to study travel behavior. Overall, this body of research has unveiled the three distinct categories of intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural constraints (Hung, Bai, and Lu 2015) even though inconsistent findings persist regarding the categories’ sequential underpinnings (Walker, Jackson, and Deng 2007) and the relative importance of associated items and dimensions (Nyaupane and Andereck 2008). Although the HLCM provides a typological framework, it does not include specific constraints or clarify the role of each constraint type (Godbey, Crawford, and Shen 2010). Consequently, it remains unclear which constraint(s) operate under which circumstances. Moreover, many of these constraints were originally identified in leisure and recreation contexts and later applied as-is, arguably without sufficient consideration of travel and tourism as a unique consumption context.
Additionally, scholars have mapped out a fairly intuitive list of constraints, such as sociodemographic characteristics and a lack of travel information (Fendt and Wilson 2012; Hung and Petrick 2012). Yet not all such constraints are as applicable to the present-day context as when they were first identified. Comparatively, the guilt that employees feel for taking paid time off from work could be a potential constraint relevant to prevailing work environments.
Last but not least, much of the extant literature focuses on tourism constraints as brand-level considerations. These constraints (e.g. destination attributes) influence vacation-related options rather than product-level considerations, which influence a person’s decision about whether to go on vacation. We postulate that guilt, as a vacation constraint, directly determines whether an employed individual takes time off work to go on a vacation; without this commitment, brand-level considerations become inconsequential. To understand the constraining effect of guilt on vacation decisions, further understanding of the social self as perceived at the workplace is vital.
Social Self
According to Mead’s theory of the self, individual selves are the emergent product of social interactions and activities (Mead 1934, 1913). Social interactions via language, play and games communicate expectations that others have and rules of the activity (Mead 1934, 1913). Self-consciousness or the sense of self then arises when an individual takes the perspective of others toward oneself and internalizes these perspectives as his or her own; consequently, the “self” is essentially a social one (Mead 1934, 1913). This approach toward understanding individual selves parallels contemporary self-theory, for example, social acceptance and social dominance, in that the sense of self is continually negotiated and maintained through interpersonal relations (Baldwin and Baccus 2004). Nevertheless, these interpersonal relations vary across social units of comparison (e.g. at work vs. with friends) such that individuals tend to possess different versions of the social self (Brewer 1991). These different versions coexist within the same individual and could be activated at different times or under different contexts (Brewer and Gardner 1996). Considering that the workplace contains numerous social features that are either absent or different from that of other milieus (Fan et al. 2013) and that this study involves taking paid time off from work for a vacation, the social self under investigation herein comprises the social self at work or the workplace social self.
Guilt
Guilt is defined as negative self-evaluation and involves feelings of uncertainty, incompetence and anxiety (Baumeister, Reis, and Delespaul 1995). Guilt serves a feedback function by prompting individuals to (i) reflect on their wrongdoings and (ii) consider how to avoid similar adverse outcomes in the future (Baumeister et al. 2007; Tangney, Stuewig, and Mashek 2007) or to engage in reparative behavior (Tangney et al. 1996).
The concept of the individual self is central to guilt. In fact, guilt is categorized as a self-conscious emotion because like other self-conscious emotions, guilt involves projection of the self onto others and carries a self-evaluative component (Tracy and Robins 2004). Through self-awareness, self-representation, and reflexive self-evaluations, individuals go through cognitive appraisal processes to result in self-conscious emotions (Tracy and Robins 2004). Since the generation of these emotions involve the projection of self to others as well as an evaluative component, self-conscious emotions motivate people to interact in socially and/or morally acceptable ways (Baumeister, Stillwell, and Heatherton 1994). Such behavior helps avoid social disapprobation (Tangney, Stuewig, and Mashek 2007).
Guilt and Threats to the Social Self
Given the importance of the social self, SSP theory suggests that self-conscious emotions, for example, guilt, manifest when one’s primary goal of maintaining a positive social self is threatened (Gruenewald et al. 2004). After all, individuals are concerned about the positive/negative portrayal of the social self as a means of maintaining social relationships necessary for survival, reproduction, and mental and physical well-being (Seeman 2000). Threats to the social self “provide the potential for a loss of social esteem, social status or social acceptance” and can therefore evoke self-conscious emotions (Dickerson, Gruenewald, and Kemeny 2004, 1195). These emotions lead to a feedback loop wherein individuals act to preserve their social self (Dickerson and Kemeny 2004).
When applied to the workplace context, SSP suggests that how one’s social self is perceived at work by supervisors and/or coworkers is important to this individual’s maintenance of social relationships essential for survival, particularly for individuals who earn a living through paid employment. The positive workplace social self is presumably threatened when the individual feels that a particular action or behavior at work could potentially damage his or her social esteem, social status or social acceptance in that environment. As a result, employees are anticipated to experience self-conscious emotions, which in turn drive them to restore their positive social selves.
In this study, guilt is the focal self-conscious emotion. This focus on guilt is informed by elicitors of guilt. Guilt occurs when an individual judges himself or herself as having violated obligatory moral standards through personal behavior (Tangney and Dearing 2002; Keltner and Buswell 1996). Feelings of guilt are typically caused by interpersonal concerns, conflicts and problems due to direct harm to another, involving reasons such neglecting another, failing to reciprocate, not helping others, lying or cheating (Keltner and Buswell 1996; Baumeister, Reis, and Delespaul 1995). Our study theorizes that some employees or organizations could perceive taking paid time off for a vacation as a violation of social standards of how an ideal employee should behave. In accordance with Mead’s theory of the self (Mead 1934, 1913), these social standards are presumably communicated through social interactions and when internalized by an employee as his or her perspective as well, the violation of these very social standards trigger negative self-evaluation, thus resulting in guilt within the employee taking the vacation. In doing so, our study recognizes that not all employees or organizations would adopt this perspective, but when they do, guilt is expected to result.
Guilt aligns with SSP theory in that the potential violation of obligatory moral standards expected of an employee becomes a threat to the workplace social self. The employee determines that going on a vacation is not socially appropriate and that doing so would likely result in disapprobation of the social self at work. When the positive social self is threatened in this manner, the individual is presumed to feel guilty if he or she continues to pursue vacation plans. To preserve the workplace social self, the individual makes a decision about the intended vacation to alleviate associated guilt.
Guilt and Its Consequences
Consequences that are characteristic of guilt include avoidance of similar outcomes in the future and reparative actions (Baumeister et al. 2007; Tangney, Stuewig, and Mashek 2007; Tangney et al. 1996). Guilt can cause avoidance behavior as feelings of guilt signal that a particular behavior is unacceptable and therefore ought to be avoided (Baumeister, Stillwell, and Heatherton 1995). Guilt has also been shown to trigger avoidance of options that are perceived as irresponsible or immoral (Levav and McGraw 2009; Khan and Dhar 2006). Meanwhile, reparative actions are meant as atonement regarding the emotion-eliciting event (Miceli and Castelfranchi 1998) and include confessions, apologies and attempts to undo the wrongdoing or harm done (Tangney et al. 1996).
These consequences of guilt extend beyond individual-level behavioral psychology into organizational settings. Studies on work-family policies (e.g. child-care or elder-care leave) show that employees who feel guilty about taking paid time off for personal or family needs are actually less inclined to make use of such policies (Boren and Johnson 2013; Kirby and Krone 2002). Even when faced with job burnout, feelings of guilt continued to make employees avoid using benefits for which they are eligible (Boren and Johnson 2013). For those who eventually did utilize their benefits, they tended to overcompensate by doing more work than required (Kirby and Krone 2002). Overall, these consequences of guilt are in keeping with SSP theory in that they seek to restore the positive social self at the workplace.
Conceptualization and Hypotheses
This study focuses on the proposed constraining impact of guilt on using paid time off for a vacation. Our research model is therefore based on the premise that the individual is employed and given the employment benefit of paid time off in addition to salary.
In their conceptualization of SSP, Dickerson and Kemeny (2004) described threats to the social self as potential damage to social esteem, social status and social acceptance. Social esteem refers to others’ evaluations of oneself (Leary et al. 1987) and social status captures the extent to which an individual is respected or admired by others (Magee and Galinsky 2008). Social acceptance evolves via others’ signaling that they wish to include an individual in their groups and relationships (Leary 2010). With this study’s focus on the workplace social self, these aspects of the social self are contextualized to be within the employee’s organization.
Under certain circumstances, using paid time off to take vacation could be negatively evaluated when this choice is perceived as an unwillingness to sacrifice one’s personal interests for the benefit of the organization or group (Leary et al. 2014). This course of action may result in a loss of respect from colleagues, particularly because employees who work especially hard or devote extra effort to their jobs are often afforded higher status (Allen and Rush 1998; Podsakoff and MacKenzie 1997). Because these negative evaluations may threaten the positive workplace social self, individuals are hypothesized to experience guilt on violating obligatory norms around how an employee should behave:
Hypothesis 1: Threats to the workplace social self are positively related to feelings of guilt regarding plans to use paid days off for a vacation.
Work tenure may also matter in light of deservingness. Within an organization, deservingness perceptions are derived from employees’ assessment of an individual’s contributions and rewards (Leventhal 1976). The individual employee is deemed as deserving when he or she is evaluated as having earned or achieved the reward (Feather 1999). When extended to employee benefits, such as taking paid time off for a vacation, a newer employee risks being seen as less deserving given his or her briefer time with the organization. In other words, taking paid time off could pose a greater threat to the social self for new employees than for those who have been with the organization for a longer period. Consequently, new employees are anticipated to experience greater feelings of guilt:
Hypothesis 2: The relationship between threats to the workplace social self and guilt is negatively moderated by work experience at the current organization.
As guilt signals that a behavior is unacceptable (Baumeister, Stillwell, and Heatherton 1995), such offensive behavior—which, in this case, comprises taking paid time off to go on a vacation—is likely to be inhibited (Amodio, Devine, and Harmon-Jones 2007). Stated otherwise, guilt is anticipated to constrain vacation intention. Guilt is also expected to trigger reparative behavior (Tangney et al. 1996) intended to mitigate wrongdoings or to seek emotional relief by behaving in a socially and/or morally accepted way (Baumeister, Stillwell, and Heatherton 1994).
Hypothesis 3: Feelings of guilt are negatively related to an employee’s intention to use paid days off for a vacation.
Hypothesis 4: Feelings of guilt are positively related to an employee’s reparative actions regarding plans to use paid days off for a vacation.
Overall, in accordance with SSP theory, an employee is expected to experience guilt when the workplace social self is threatened by wanting to take paid time off for a vacation. In turn, feelings of guilt elicit actions to protect and/or restore one’s positive social self, for example, by decreasing or apologizing for the original vacation intention. Guilt is therefore thought to mediate threats to the workplace social self and behavior regarding vacation decisions:
Hypothesis 5: Guilt mediates the relationship between threats to the workplace social self and behavioral consequences, including intention to take paid time off for a vacation and actions to restore the positive social self.
Even when an employee does not experience guilt, transgressions of workplace norms could still threaten his or her workplace social self by affecting the employee’s place within the organization’s social group (Keltner and Buswell 1997). This outcome may arise when the organizational norm is generally unsupportive of using paid time off to take vacation. To avoid social rejection, appeasement or reparative actions to placate or pacify others become essential (Keltner and Buswell 1997); otherwise, the employee risks unpleasant reactions (e.g. anger and ostracism) from others (Gilbert 2007). This supposition aligns with organizational behavioral research demonstrating that strong organizational cultures often insist on subordination of personal beliefs to organizational beliefs so as to avoid sanctions (Schein 1992).
Hypothesis 6: Threats to the workplace social self are negatively related to intention to use paid days off for a vacation.
Hypothesis 7: Threats to the workplace social self are positively related to reparative actions regarding plans to use paid days off for a vacation.
Hypothesis 8: Intention to use paid days off for a vacation is positively related to reparative actions.
Hypothesis 9: Intention to use paid days off for a vacation mediates the relationship between threats to the social self and reparative actions.
We further propose that one’s extent of managerial responsibilities will moderate the relationship between threats to the social self and behavioral consequences. Employees with more managerial responsibilities may be more reluctant to use their vacation time as this could signal lower organizational commitment (Hochschild 1997; Bailyn 1993). Indeed, Maume (2006) found that male employees with supervisory duties took less vacation days than those without. Companies typically prefer committed employees as they are assumed to show higher effort and performance and lower turnover and absenteeism (Mowday, Porter, and Steers 2013). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 10: Relationships between threats to the workplace social self and the two outcomes of intention to use paid days off for a vacation and reparative actions are moderated by managerial responsibility, such that these relationships are stronger (weaker) with more (less) managerial responsibility.
Our complete research model and hypotheses are depicted in Figure 1.
Research Model.
Methodology
Given the exploratory nature of guilt as a travel constraint and the current lack of empirical data in a tourism context, a three-phase mixed-methods approach was employed in this study (Creswell and Clark 2017; Tashakkori and Teddlie 2010). In Phase 1, qualitative data were collected through interviews and analyzed to establish the existence of the vacation guilt phenomenon. This phenomenological approach of inquiry focused on describing the meaning of interviewees’ lived experiences (Creswell 2007). Phase 1 also enabled identification of survey items for Phase 2, during which quantitative data were gathered and analyzed. In Phase 3, additional interviews were conducted to facilitate the interpretation of survey results (Morgan 1996) and, similar to Phase 1, a phenomenological approach was likewise used by focusing on firsthand accounts of lived experiences.
Phase 1
Materials and Sample
An interview question guide was developed to gather information about how interviewees were made to feel guilty and their ways of coping with guilt. The purpose of this phase was to elicit as much detail as possible about vacation guilt. Therefore, only individuals who had experienced guilt as employees (vs. business owners) were interviewed.
Our procedure for purposive sampling began with the identification of potential interviewees through a LinkedIn (www-linkedin-com.web.bisu.edu.cn) discussion thread in July 2018. The original post comprised a news article on employees’ guilt over taking paid time off for vacations and was uploaded by an independent LinkedIn member for reasons unrelated to this study. Replies in the discussion thread thus provided spontaneous, unsolicited sharing of employee experiences with vacation guilt, which helped to decrease response bias.
Given the intended purpose of Phase 1, replies in the discussion thread were screened to identify those who had experienced vacation guilt firsthand. These individuals were then contacted privately regarding the purpose and academic nature of this study. All interviewees were either American or had worked in the US for at least ten years. Interview questions focused on their work experience in the US. Given the sensitivity of this topic and to reduce acquiescence bias, data confidentiality and interviewee anonymity were assured. Data quality was further ensured through interviewees’ voluntary, non-incentivized participation.
A total of seven phone/Skype interviews were conducted in July 2018. Each interview lasted 23–50 minutes with data saturation reached by the fifth interview. No new data and theme emerged (Fusch and Ness 2015) in the subsequent ones. Also, the number of interviews conducted fell within the ranges of three to ten (Creswell 2013) and six to eight (Kuzel 1999), as recommended for phenomenological qualitative studies. Interviews were audiotaped with interviewees’ consent and later transcribed verbatim. As LinkedIn is a social networking platform for professionals, interviewees’ online profiles (e.g. employment history and location) were cross-checked to validate participants’ credentials and details discussed during interviews. Interviewees were from different industries and represented various management levels, from administrative assistant to national head of sales. All participants (two men and five women) were at least college (i.e. university) graduates and ranged from 23 to 50 years old.
Qualitative Results and Discussion
Transcript analysis revealed four key themes across the interviews.
Theme 1
Making employees feel guilty about taking paid days off for vacation was perpetuated as a form of unsupportive culture rather than a situational reaction to the employee’s leave application. Such perpetuation tended to come from immediate work supervisors and upper management although peer colleagues were also accountable. The following excerpts illustrate this theme: “That’s just not the way the culture here works.” (Interviewee 1, criticized by a company director who was not her immediate supervisor.) “Managers or upper management have looked down upon taking time off. . . . It’s kind of like an unspoken rule . . . standard HR practice.” (Interviewee 2) “Employees would get annoyed because that was the company culture, like—“Oh, you’re gonna take a vacation? Well, you’re like this high elite person who can afford to take a couple of days of vacation away” [mocking tone].”(Interviewee 3) “Oh, you have been traveling a lot this year. How do you get so many days off? [accusatory tone]” (Interviewee 5, asked by someone from the management team.)
Theme 2
Interviewees’ guilt manifested in numerous ways. Most often, they were made to feel guilty by requiring others to cover for them if they planned to take a vacation. Interviewee 3 was told, “Why do you need the time off? While you are off, somebody else is going to have to take your shift and they are gonna have to [work too much].”
Other ways of being made to feel guilty included the following: “[You’re] not a team player like you should be. . . . Not serious about the work or not pulling my weight. . . . People think that maybe you don’t—you’re not as invested in the job, shirking your duties or something. I don’t know if people actually do think that, but I always, like, I’m worried people are thinking that.” (Interviewee 4) “They think I am not so serious about my work.” (Interviewee 2) “[My] dedication to work was questioned.” (Interviewee 6)
Theme 3
To deal with experienced guilt, interviewees used multiple ways of alleviating the discomfort felt. Predominantly, interviewees felt as though they had to “have concrete plans that didn’t seem like [I] was just sitting around the house” (Interviewee 2), “justify [my vacation plan] to the fullest” (Interviewee 3) and “be proactive” (Interviewee 6) in planning for work before and during vacation.
Theme 4
All interviewees indicated that even if they could take a vacation, the trip would be shorter than they would prefer and the amount of paid time off they actually have. Taking briefer vacations was one strategy to make themselves feel better, as it helped reduce work-related issues, especially if the vacation involved the weekend or bank holidays.
Overall, this qualitative phase established vacation guilt as a social phenomenon within the workplace, identifying guilt as a vacation constraint. With vacation guilt perpetuated within participants’ overall organizational culture, the survey methodology in Phase 2 was justified. Analysis of Themes 1 and 2 further revealed specific ways whereby the workplace social self was threatened for wanting to take paid time off for a vacation. These threats were coded according to their impact on interviewees’ social esteem, social status and social acceptance, thus forming critical inputs for Phase 2’s survey instrument design. Unique threats not already identified through the existing scales used were incorporated as additional survey items and tabulated under “Descriptive Statistics.”
Consequences of such felt guilt were expressed through Themes 3 and 4. Actual vacation consumption was shown to be constrained through shorter vacations, provided that interviewees could even go on one. For interviewees who were unable to do so, they emphasized that this was because of the guilt they felt, as opposed to non-approval of their leave days. Moreover, the constraining effect of guilt extended into interviewees’ vacation days: unless doing so was physically impossible (e.g. being a dog trainer or a retail assistant), all interviewees were expected to work while on vacation. For instance, interviewee 7, who had been with his current company for more than five years, continued to feel guilt even while vacationing. Unless he traveled out of the US, he was constantly receiving messages from his company about how his teammates could not cope while he was away.
Phase 2
In this phase, we collected quantitative data that measured the constructs depicted in Figure 1. To do this, we developed our survey instrument using established scales as well as inputs from Phase 1. The data collected were analyzed using SPSS and Mplus.
Survey Instrument
Given that no scale has been established to measure threats to the social self, we adapted three scales: a ten-item scale assessing the need for self-esteem (Hill 1987), a seven-item scale assessing the need for social status (Flynn et al. 2006) and an eight-item scale assessing the need to belong (Leary et al. 2013). These scales were selected because, as proposed by the SSP theory, the goal of maintaining a positive social self is reflected in the preservation of social esteem, social status and social acceptance (Dickerson, Gruenewald, and Kemeny 2004). Critical inputs from Phase 1, which provided information not captured by these three scales, were also incorporated into survey items (e.g. SE7 under “Descriptive Statistics” section). Apart from the measurement of guilt using a three-item scale from the modified differential emotions scale (Galanakis et al. 2016), a three-item scale assessing vacation intention (Lam and Hsu 2006) and a four-item scale assessing reparative guilt actions (Tangney et al. 1996) were adapted for this study. All responses were measured on a scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree).
Several control variables were also used in our study. Sociodemographic and personality information was collected, as studies focusing on guilt in non-tourism domains have shown that demographic variables and personality traits influence the extent of individual guilt. For instance, previous research suggests that women (Borelli et al. 2017) and older people (Orth, Robins, and Soto 2010) tended to experience more guilt, as did those with lower income (Basil, Ridgway, and Basil 2008) and lesser education (Pedersen et al. 2004). The extent of guilt felt also varied significantly across culture (Johnson et al. 1987), which was measured as ethnicity in this study. Simultaneously, guilt proneness (i.e. individual propensity to experience guilt; Cohen et al. 2011) and susceptibility to interpersonal influence represents (i.e. an individual’s degree of influenceability by other people; Bearden, Netemeyer, and Teel 1989) were also measured as both traits relate to the constructs of guilt and threats to the social self. Respondents were further asked if they currently belong to a work union. Unionized employees have been shown to perceive higher job security than non-unionized employees (Meng 1990). This is likely due to the more formal protection of employee rights for unionized employees (Cornfield 1987), which could influence the level of guilt felt about taking paid time off for vacation. Finally, to control for the presence of other travel constraints, an 11-item scale was adapted from Pennington-Gray and Kerstetter (2002) and Huang and Hsu (2009).
As the actual survey was to be conducted using respondents from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a crowdsourcing platform, a pretest was conducted using 46 MTurk respondents in July 2018. This pretesting used a small sample of people who possessed characteristics similar to the final targeted population (Singleton and Straits 2010). This test enabled us to (i) conduct a final check of the survey language and flow, and (ii) test for initial scale reliability within a vacation guilt context. In doing so, the three items used to measure structural constraints on the travel constraints scale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.65 (<0.70; Nunnally and Bernstein 1994). An additional item measuring language spoken at the destination was adapted from Huang and Hsu (2009) and added to existing structural items measuring constraints on finances, weather, travel distance and ease of obtaining travel documents. This resulted in a travel constraint scale totaling 12 items, comprising five items for structural constraints, four items for intrapersonal constraints and three items for interpersonal constraints. No changes were made to other scales used, as pretest results indicated reliability values above 0.70.
Sample
Data for the actual survey were collected on MTurk in July and August 2018. Only American adults (>21 years old) employed in a full-time position were recruited since part-time employees tend not to be granted paid leave. No legal definition of full-time employment exists in the US. We thus referred to the Affordable Care Act (Internal Revenue Service 2018), which defines ‘full-time work’ as involving a minimum of 30 hours per week. Labor laws in the US do not mandate paid days of leave; hence, employees who do not receive such benefits were screened out. Individuals who were self-employed or worked in industries with vacation-friendly policies (e.g. education and government/public administration service) were also screened out.
Several checks were implemented to ensure response quality. Two attention check questions were used in the survey with 80 complete responses rendered unusable for failing either one or both questions. In terms of total time taken for survey completion, another 11 respondents were removed for having used an inordinately short amount of time. This was followed by screening for straight-lined answers, which removed another two responses. IP addresses were finally checked for their uniqueness and no responses were rendered unusable at this point.
A total of 860 usable responses (47.5% men, 52.5% women) were eventually collected from participants with a mean age of 35.0 years. As indicated in Table 1, 90.5% of the sample had at least a college/university education, and 62.6% earned an annual household income of more than US$75,000. Respondents averaged 11.3 years of full-time work experience, 5.8 years of which were with their current employer. Respondents also reported an estimated 49.8% of managerial responsibilities in their present positions.
Profile of Survey Respondents (N = 860).
Quantitative Results and Discussion
Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics for the study variables appear in Table 2. The standard deviation for each item was reasonably high, ranging between 1.52 and 1.98, which suggests sufficient data variation to discriminate respondents. Skewness and kurtosis values were smaller than 2 and 7 respectively, indicating no normality distribution problems (West, Finch, and Curran 1995).
Descriptive Statistics a of Study Variables.
N = 860 responses.
Items measured on seven-point scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree.
Unique item inserted based on Phase 1 interviews.
Reverse coded.
Overall approach
To assess the stability of factor structure within each construct covered, a cross-validation approach was adopted (Anderson and Gerbing 1988; Cudeck and Browne 1983). The data were randomly split into two subsamples. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was carried out on 427 responses to assess the underlying factor structure of the constructs (Fabrigar et al. 1999). Using the dimensions identified through EFA, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the remaining 433 responses helped to assess if the measurement model specified the expected relationships between the observed reflective variables represented as latent variables (Kline 2016).
Covariance-based structural equation modeling (SEM) was next performed using the full sample of 860 responses. SEM was deemed suitable because the constructs of interest (see Figure 1) represented latent variables. This technique allows for the testing of specific variables to identify their moderating and/or mediating effect(s) (Mikulić and Ryan 2018). As this study extended an established theory, that is, the SSP theory, to investigate the constraining effect of guilt within the tourism domain, the use of covariance-based SEM was selected over partial least squares, which is used primarily for exploratory research (Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2011).
Exploratory factor analysis and reliability
EFA was carried out in SPSS 25.0. While key metrics indicated good suitability of the data set for EFA (KMO = 0.979, Barlett’s test at p < 0.001; Cerny and Kaiser 1977), the emergence of one main factor (eigenvalue = 16.81, total variance explained = 68.26%) with high factor loadings (>0.75), high inter-item correlations (>0.60), and a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.97 (Hulin, Netemeyer, and Cudeck 2001) for the construct of threats to the social self-suggested item redundancy. To maximize the breadth of the construct measurement, items with high factor loadings and low inter-correlations were retained, given that all items exhibited face validity (Boyle 1991; Kline 1979). Our final measure for threats to the social self consisted of 11 items (Table 3) with a reliability value of 0.96.
Results of EFA and CFA.
Note: EFA = exploratory factor analysis; CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; CR = composite reliability.
N = 427 responses.
N = 433 responses.
For the constructs of guilt (three items) and intention to take paid days off for a vacation (three items), EFA extracted one-factor solutions with eigenvalues larger than 1 while accounting for 82% and 87% of variance respectively (Table 3). For reparative actions, EFA also extracted a one-factor solution; however, because one of the four items demonstrated a low factor loading of 0.28 (<0.50; Comrey and Lee 2013), it was dropped from further analysis.
Measurement model
Our measurement model was initially assessed using CFA to determine how well the observed reflective variables represented latent variables. Mplus was used for both measurement and structural model assessment. The software’s comparative strength in having an integrated modeling framework that handled a mix of continuous, categorical and latent variables (Narayanan 2012) was deemed useful to this study.
Goodness-of-fit indices related to the measurement model demonstrated a good fit with a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of 0.064 (<0.08; 90% confidence interval [0.057, 0.071]), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) of 0.027 (<0.08), comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.966 (>0.90) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) of 0.961 (>0.90) (Hu and Bentler 1998). Although the chi-square value of the model was significant (χ2 = 454.83, df = 164, p < 0.001), this test is very sensitive to sample size. Here, the ratio of chi-square to degrees of freedom (χ2/df = 2.77) remained below the recommended cut-off of 3 (Bagozzi and Yi 1988).
Cronbach’s alpha of all scales exceeded the threshold of 0.70 (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994), indicating high internal consistency (Table 3). Internal validity of the measurement model was adequate. Average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) were higher than 0.50 and 0.70 respectively (Table 3; Fornell and Larcker 1981); therefore, the convergent validity of the model was deemed adequate. Additionally, the square root of AVE values exceeded that of bivariate correlations between the constructs, indicating discriminant validity (Table 4; Fornell and Larcker 1981). As a further indication of discriminant validity, heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratios were lower than the threshold of 0.90 (Table 4; Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2015).
Discriminant Validity Measures a of Constructs.
Note: Italicized diagonal values are the square root of AVE, upper triangle of the matrix indicates HTMT ratios; and lower triangle of the matrix represents inter-construct correlations.
N = 433 responses.
The variance inflation factors of variables ranged from 1.12 to 3.04, well below the reference of 10, indicating that multicollinearity was not a concern (Myers 2003). To assess common method variance (CMV), CFA was used with all 20 items loaded onto a single common factor (e.g. So et al. 2013). A chi-square difference test determined that the measurement model fit the data significantly better than the single-factor model (Δχ2 = 454.83, df = 6, p < 0.0001), alleviating any concerns about CMV in this study.
Structural model
Using the full sample of 860 responses, the structural model was next assessed to verify the research model in Figure 1 while including control variables (see section on “Control Variables”). Goodness-of-fit indices for the structural model were acceptable with an RMSEA of 0.060 (<0.08; 90% confidence interval [0.057, 0.064]), SRMR = 0.014 (<0.08), CFI of 0.932 (>0.90) and TLI of 0.921 (>0.90) (Hu and Bentler 1998). Overall, the proposed model was found to fit the data well.
Direct effects
Structural path coefficients appear in Figure 2 and the first block of Table 5. Threats to the social self were positively and significantly related to guilt (β = 0.75, p < 0.001) and reparative actions (β = 0.51, p < 0.001), supporting hypotheses 1 and 7 respectively. Conversely, although threats to the social self were negatively related to intention to take paid days off for vacation, this effect was not significant (β = −0.09, p = 0.270), indicating that hypothesis 6 was unsupported.
Results for Direct Effects of Structural Model.a
Relational Paths in Structural Model.
N = 860 responses.
Bias-corrected bootstrapped results based on 10,000 resamples reported.
Significant at p < 0.01.
Significant at p < 0.05.
Guilt significantly reduced vacation intention (β = −0.32, p < 0.001), thus supporting hypothesis 3. Guilt also increased reparative actions significantly (β = −0.24, p < 0.001), supporting hypothesis 4. Unexpectedly, while vacation intention significantly influenced reparative actions, the effect was opposite to the direction anticipated in hypothesis 8 (β = −0.11, p = 0.003).
Mediated effects
Mediation analysis was then conducted to test the indirect effects stated in hypotheses 5 and 9 using bias-corrected bootstrapping of 10,000 resamples and maximum likelihood estimation in Mplus. Results appear in the second and third blocks of Table 5.
Taking guilt as the mediator, the indirect effect between threats to the social self and intention to take paid days off for vacation was significant (β = −0.24, p < 0.001); the direct effect between threats to the social self and vacation intention was not (β = −0.09, p = 0.270). Together, our findings suggest that the relationship between these two variables was fully mediated by guilt. This pattern confirms hypothesis 5a, resulting in a total effect of −0.33.
Comparatively, the direct effect between threats to the social self and reparative actions was significant (β = 0.51, p < 0.001). Therefore, the relationship between threats to the social self and reparative actions was only partially mediated for hypothesis 5b (guilt as the only mediator; β = 0.18, p < 0.001) and hypothesis 5c (guilt and intention as serial mediators; β = 0.03, p = 0.029). The mediated effect of intention on threats to the social self and reparative actions was not significant (β = 0.01, p = 0.304), failing to support hypothesis 9.
Moderated effects
To test the effects among observed moderators and continuous latent variables identified in the research model (Figure 1), an analysis was conducted using “TYPE=GENERAL” with random intercepts and random slope estimations in Mplus. Low and high values of work experience (hypothesis 2) and managerial responsibilities (hypothesis 10) at the current organization, representing the 25th and 75th percentile values of the respective variables, were also applied. Table 6 summarizes the results of moderating effects.
Moderating Effects of Work Experience and Managerial Responsibility.
Note: N = 860 responses.
Significant at p < 0.01. ** Significant at p < 0.05.
The moderating effect of the number of years of work experience at one’s current job on threats to the social self and guilt was not significant (β = 0.002, p = 0.468, R2 = 0.04%); hence, hypothesis 2 was not supported. Managerial responsibility was found to significantly moderate three of the six paths: guilt → reparative actions (β = −0.005, p = 0.002, R2 = 0.99%), threats to social self → intention (β = 0.004, p = 0.038, R2 = 0.40%) and threats to social self → reparative actions (β = 0.005, p < 0.001, R2 = 1.14%). Accordingly, only hypotheses 10c, 10d, and 10e were supported; hypothesis 10a, 10b, and 10f were not.
Control variables
The effects of control variables were evaluated as independent variables that were regressed on the constructs of guilt, intention to take time off for vacation and reparative actions. Doing so takes into account each construct’s association with the control variables (Jeon 2015). Results showed that age, gender and travel constraints did not significantly influence any constructs in our analysis of direct, mediated and moderated effects. For brevity, only significant results are reported in Table 7.
Results a of Control Variables.
Includes only significant results.
Reference groups for categorical control variables: education = college (i.e. university), ethnicity = Caucasian and annual household income = $25,000–$49,999.
Significant at p < 0.01. ** Significant at p < 0.05.
Phase 3
The limited extent of significant results associated with the two moderators of work experience and managerial responsibilities prompted our inclusion of a third phase in this study. Phase 3 was therefore designed as a qualitative approach to elicit rich details about the relationships of concern.
Materials and Sample
A second round of qualitative interviews was conducted in August 2019. This qualitative follow-up was intended to facilitate interpretation of Phase 2 survey results (Morgan 1996), particularly the limited extent of significant results associated with the two moderators. Such follow-up approach is typically used for purpose of clarifying results that are not well-understood (e.g. Wolff, Knodel, and Sittitrai 1993; Morgan 1989; Knodel, Chamratrithirong, and Debavalya 1987), which is unsurprising given the exploratory nature of the phenomenon of interest herein.
Questions posed in Phase 3 were adapted and expanded from Phase 1. Procedure-wise, interviewee recruitment mirrored that in Phase 1 except that we targeted respondents on a different LinkedIn discussion thread about vacation guilt, initiated in July 2019. Data from interview recordings and transcripts were gathered through the same steps as in Phase 1. Eight phone/Skype interviews were conducted in this phase, with each lasting between 18 and 42 minutes. The number of interviews conducted here was within the recommended sample range of three to ten (Creswell 2013) and six to eight (Kuzel 1999) for phenomenological qualitative studies. All interviewees (two men and six women) were Americans with at least two years of full-time work experience and between 25 and 64 years old. They came from different industries (e.g. hospitality and printing) and possessed varying levels of workplace seniority.
Qualitative Results and Discussion
Managerial responsibility did not moderate two of the three paths involving guilt, namely, those in hypotheses 10a (threats → guilt) and 10b (guilt → intention). As five of the interviewees explained, their guilt was associated with not having someone who could take over their work while they were on vacation as opposed to the extent of managerial responsibility they held. Essentially, they felt guilty because of their self-perceived neglect of work despite acknowledging that they had clearly earned their days off: “I was the only person in that company good to do what I do.” (Interviewee 13) “You are pretty much responsible for doing all that kind of stuff yourself.” (Interviewee 11)
Managerial responsibility positively and significantly moderated the path in hypothesis 10c (guilt → reparative actions). Interviewees 10 and 14 explained this moderation effect in terms of the accountability they felt toward their team and toward doing their jobs well rather than how they would be perceived by their supervisors or coworkers.
Managerial influence was a key point of emphasis across Phase 3 interviews. Managers contributed to vacation guilt mainly in how they shaped the immediate team culture around taking paid time off for vacation. All interviewees indicated that their team culture ultimately set the tone for whether an employee felt guilty. Having accumulated more years of experience at the company did not help in alleviating guilt because: “It all depends on whoever is overseeing that management, that team . . . who makes the team either feel good about taking your vacation and excited. Or it’s gonna make you feel so bad, and that’s all on the manager.” (Interviewee 9) “It was one of the [company] culture.” (Interviewee 12) “It was always from a boss or a[n organizational] culture in that that culture is usually with the boss anyway.” (Interviewee 14)
In particular, employees who had been made to feel guilty reported being conscious of not wanting to make their subordinates feel the same. For instance, Interviewee 10 indicated that “leadership should encourage you to take vacation. I always told my people, you know, I would approve their vacation.”
Although not directly related to the moderating effect of managerial responsibility and work experience, an important theme in Phase 3 involved how negatively vacation consumption was perceived in some organizations. Four interviewees noted occasions when they were made to feel guilty but such feelings did not stop them from utilizing their paid days off to take vacation. These interviewees purposefully decided to proceed with their vacations to spend time with family or friends (Interviewees 11 and 13) or to relieve work stress (Interviewees 14 and 15). However, they strongly believed that by doing so, they were penalized through poor performance evaluations despite using an earned employment benefit. Interviewee 14, who was then working for a multinational company, explained, “There were times where I was told I was not fit for a promotion. There were times where, you know, my job quality was questioned, and I truly do believe it is because I was taking time for myself. No matter what it was, but I wasn’t in the office so therefore, I was seen as weak.”
Discussion and Implications
Theoretical Implications
The main objective of this study was to explore the presence and effect of vacation guilt by proposing a theoretical model. The model was then tested empirically using qualitative and quantitative methods involving respondents who were employed in full-time jobs at point of participation. Overall, results support the sequence of threats to the workplace social self, self-conscious emotion and behavior to restore the positive social self, thus corroborating the SSP theory.
To begin, this study identified threats to the workplace social self as a significant antecedent of vacation guilt. This antecedent is useful in understanding vacation decisions in terms of the restraining effects of how others at work perceive the decision. When vacation-taking is seen as a violation of ideal employee behavior, whether by coworkers and/or supervisors, the social self is threatened or potentially damaged by negative evaluation (Dickerson, Gruenewald, and Kemeny 2004). This happens because the “self” is a social one (Mead 1934, 1913) such that social perceptions at the workplace regarding an employee’s use of paid time off for a vacation would influence how the employee himself or herself feels about it. Simultaneously, as this threat involves the violation of obligatory model standards through personal behavior, the employee experiences the self-conscious emotion of guilt (Tangney et al. 1996).
Significant findings of the quantitative study also established the validity of vacation guilt as a travel constraint, particularly a product-level constraint wherein guilt directly influenced whether employees went on vacation. This constraint was demonstrated through (i) significant reduction in intention to take paid leave to go on vacation, (ii) significant increase in reparative actions, and (iii) non-significance of other travel constraints. Both (i) and (ii) are actions that an employee can take to restore his or her positive social self (Dickerson, Gruenewald, and Kemeny 2004) as they inhibit (Amodio, Devine, and Harmon-Jones 2007) or make amends for the offensive behavior (Baumeister et al. 2007; Tangney, Stuewig, and Mashek 2007). These results complement past studies that investigated avoidance and/or atonement actions taken by individuals to alleviate feelings of guilt in non-tourism domains (e.g. Baumeister et al. 2007; Tangney et al. 1996) as well as within organizational settings (e.g. Boren and Johnson 2013; Kirby and Krone 2002).
In terms of vacation guilt’s mediating effect, the non-significant relationship between threats to the workplace social self and intention showed that guilt played a full mediation role. Therefore, vacation guilt accounts for the observed relationship between threats and intention, which aligns with the SSP theory. In comparison, the relationship between threats to the social self and reparative actions was only partially mediated by guilt. These varying extents of mediating effects suggest that the same self-conscious emotion does not necessarily explain equally all types of behavior undertaken to restore the positive social self.
This study further investigated the moderating impact of work experience at current organization and extent of managerial responsibilities held. Interestingly, tenure did not significantly impact the extent of guilt felt. In other words, contrary to the concept of deservingness (Feather 1999; Leventhal 1980, 1976), unsupportive expectations regarding vacation leave do not lessen even as an employee becomes more entitled through accumulated tenure with the organization.
Meanwhile, the extent of managerial responsibilities significantly moderated three of the six hypothesized paths. Notably, when their workplace social selves were threatened, those with more managerial responsibilities did not feel more guilt. However, even though they did not feel more vacation guilt, they were still significantly different in terms of actions taken to restore the positive social self: they demonstrated lower intention to take paid days off for vacation and took more reparative actions to make amends. This finding parallels earlier research that shows those with supervisory duties taking less vacations than those without (Maume 2006). It also suggests that with increasing managerial responsibilities, employees became increasingly concerned about portrayal of the positive social self when it comes to taking paid time off for a vacation.
Practical Implications
For tourism practitioners, non-use of paid time off for vacation represents a loss of tourism demand, which then negatively affects tourism revenue and employment. Understanding how vacation guilt operates as a travel constraint can enable tourism practitioners to develop more targeted strategies to help potential travelers overcome this constraint. Such mitigating efforts would likely be most effective when enacted through joint initiatives with non-tourism partners since the antecedent of threats to the workplace social self is embedded within an organization and, hence, is typically beyond the direct control of tourism practitioners. Tourism practitioners could work together with different associations (e.g. corporate health and wellness, human resource and trade associations) to support the cultivation of healthier workplace norms that encourage using paid time off for vacation. An example of this is the U.S. Travel Association’s initiatives of “National Plan for Vacation Day” and free online vacation planning tools, both of which are aimed at encouraging Americans to map out their paid time off and vacation plans for the year (U.S. Travel Association 2020).
Similar efforts could also be focused on showing organizations that it is not only employees who stand to benefit from better employee mental health and well-being. The organization stands to benefit too. This point is recognized by managers in the US who identified the creation of a more positive work environment as the single most important benefit to the organization, followed by having employees feeling more valued and showing increased productivity (Project: Time Off 2015). Ideally, all these benefits of going on vacation would in turn lead to the bolstering of businesses’ bottom lines although this is, ironically, part of what deters some organizations from embracing a more supportive stance toward vacation time.
In addition to efforts toward building healthier workplace norms regarding vacation leave, tourism practitioners could also work with other non-tourism partners to help employees learn ways of coping with vacation guilt or to have better work-life balance. These potential non-tourism partners could include health care professionals (e.g. psychologists), career counselors and life coaches.
This study is also practically meaningful in demonstrating how vacations are perceived in the workforce, namely, by the very people who would benefit from taking vacations. The belief that taking vacations violates workplace norms suggests that tourism consumption in certain societies is still often perceived as unnecessary or indulgent irrespective of documented benefits. Employees thus experience emotional stress in the form of guilt while attempting to utilize the very employment benefit intended to support their mental, emotional and physical well-being. Consequently, for employees to truly benefit from vacations, it could be insufficient to just provide paid time off for vacations. Strategies to change social and organizational perceptions of tourism consumption should be considered.
First, such strategies could focus on educating the general public and organizations on the associated benefits of taking vacations. A better understanding of the benefits of vacations beyond its economic contributions could help change how vacations are perceived (Petrick and Huether 2013) by both employees and employers, thus creating a more conducive culture for vacation travel. According to a 2017 study, Americans reported returning from their vacation happier (96% of respondents), closer to their partner or family (90%) and having a better attitude when returning to the office (60%) (Expedia 2017). Results of such personal and professional benefits could be more widely disseminated and publicized in order to change perceptions about vacations.
Second, strategies could also focus on specific perceptions about not going on vacations. The importance of recognizing, understanding and addressing such societal and organizational perceptions regarding tourism consumption cannot be overstated for these perceptions could eventually lead to the formation of sociocultural norms regarding harmful work habits, which in turn have deleterious public health implications. In the case of Japan, not utilizing paid vacation leave is traditionally taken as an unwritten rule by employees as it represents serious commitment to a company (Igusa 2014) and exemplary employee behavior (Nishiyama and Johnson 1997). This cultural norm, together with other social and economic factors, have made karoshi (or “death by overwork”) a compensable occupational cause of death in Japan since the 1970s (Nishiyama and Johnson 1997). The prevalence of karoshi reached such an alarming rate that in April 2019, a new law was passed, mandating employers to ensure that employees with ten or more days of paid vacation take at least five days off per year (Gatayama 2018). While the US is still very far away from the situation that Japan now faces, empirical evidence from this study is indicative of poor psychosocial work health that could form the beginning roots of more harmful workplace norms.
Third, legislation could also be considered. Legal regulations directly protect employee well-being and could simultaneously change social meanings attached to regulated behavior (Bilz and Nadler 2014). Our study was conducted in the US, which is the only advanced economy that does not have any legal minimum on number of paid vacation days (Maye 2019) although granted by many employers. Consequently, in 2018, close to one-quarter of the American workforce continue to not have any paid vacation days (Maye 2019), a proportion that remains unchanged compared to mid-2000s (Ray and Schmitt 2007). Those who were given paid vacation leave averaged ten days for the year (Maye 2019). In contrast, the European Union (EU) has a minimum requirement of 20 working days with a number of countries (e.g. France, Denmark, the United Kingdom and Austria) implementing legal standards well in excess of this (Maye 2019). It is also worthwhile noting that unlike the US, all EU countries, except the United Kingdom, further offer paid public holidays (e.g. Christmas and New Year) on top of paid vacation days (Ray and Schmitt 2007). Other than setting a minimum requirement, legislation could also be used to support employee usage of paid vacation leave. For example, provisions could be made to ensure that paid vacation days are utilized instead of being cashed out (Ray and Schmitt 2007). Provisions could also be implemented to guarantee employee rights regarding the use of some of their paid vacation days during peak vacation season (Ray and Schmitt 2007). Since the social meaning attached to a behavior depends on the social norms that relates to that behavior (Sunstein 1996), such legislation could possibly help to shift perceptions of paid vacation leave to being seen as a right, as opposed to being subjected to interpersonal evaluations.
Limitations and Future Research
Given the exploratory nature of this study, several limitations remain to be addressed in future work. First, our study explores individual-level factors and has not considered the potential impacts of organization-level variables, such as organizational culture, organizational policy and leadership characteristics. These organizational considerations would be in line with the findings from Phase 3 of our study. Future research on considering such organization-related factors could be conducted to address this limitation. Furthermore, the generalizability of our research model can be increased by testing it in non-workplace settings. In this study, threats to the social self were limited to a workplace context. Yet because individuals tend to have different versions of the social self, the applicability of this model to other social contexts (e.g. with friends or family) should be evaluated. Also, it is not yet clear where to draw boundaries for the hypothesized relationships, particularly under what circumstances and contexts vacation guilt and its associated impacts will occur. For instance, the impact of national culture was not analyzed because our sample consisted of respondents in one country. We recognize that culture varies widely from place to place and many studies have identified the effect of cultural background on organizational behavior and practices. Nevertheless, our study serves as a pilot for subsequent cross-cultural research to further validate our research model.
Conclusion
We have attempted to define and explain what vacation guilt is, which we believe represents an important notion that appears to be under-addressed in tourism literature. The observation of feeling guilty when taking a vacation is not new; however, to our best knowledge, this study is the first in providing a theory-based explanation of the phenomenon and its root causes. In doing so, our empirical study is grounded in sociology, organizational behavior and psychology. A research model was first proposed on the basis of SSP theory and guilt. An interpersonal perspective to the study of guilt was incorporated by showing threats to the workplace social self to be an antecedent of vacation guilt. The study also demonstrated that vacation guilt not only constrained employees’ intention to take paid time off for vacations. Vacation guilt also influenced greater reparative behavior (e.g. apologizing for going on vacation) that are meant to alleviate the very feelings of guilt.
The phenomenon of vacation guilt has obvious implications that extend beyond the tourism industry into public health, particularly that which involve the workforce population. By taking into account contemporary work circumstances from an employee’s perspective, this study shows how workers are ironically guilted into not using an employment benefit that is meant to help them cope with workplace stress and maintain good mental health (NPR, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Harvard University 2016). Clearly, not all employees feel guilty about using their paid time off for a vacation and our study shows that when they do, vacation guilt can be interpreted as a reflection of the prevailing work culture in the US. For these employees, instead of providing respite from work-related stress, paid time off for vacations has evolved to become a potential source of emotional and/or psychological distress when going on a vacation is perceived negatively by supervisors and coworkers. Such harmful psychosocial work condition, which is also commonly referred to as “job stressor” (Memish et al. 2017), conceivably increases mental and physical health risks for individuals while decreasing workplace productivity, all of which would in turn lead to greater health care problems and costs. Mental health issues are often assumed to develop outside of the workplace, for which employers are not held responsible (Memish et al. 2017) but our research on vacation guilt shows otherwise. As an indication of the potential scale of this issue, in 2019, there were 131 million full-time employees in the US (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2020), comprising approximately 40% of the country’s total population (U.S. Census Bureau 2020). This is a very sizeable segment of the overall population that could feel guilty at having to take paid time off for a vacation. If vacation guilt is prevented or reduced, well-being at all levels—individual, organizational, and societal—could be improved.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the inaugural Seed Funding Forum, Fox School of Business, Temple University.
