International  Journal  of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Article
Mental Recovery and Running-Related Injuries in
Recreational Runners: The Moderating Role of
Passion for Running
Jan de Jonge 1,2,3,*
, Yannick A. Balk 4 and Toon W. Taris 2
1
Human Performance Management Group, Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513,
5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
2
Department of Social, Health and Organisational Psychology, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80140,
3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands; a.w.taris@uu.nl
3
School of Psychology, Asia Paciﬁc Centre for Work Health and Safety, University of South Australia,
P.O. Box 2471, Adelaide 5001, Australia
4
Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 19268,
1000 GG Amsterdam, The Netherlands; y.a.balk@uva.nl
*
Correspondence: j.d.jonge@tue.nl or j.dejonge@uu.nl; Tel.: +31-40-247-2243
Received: 10 December 2019; Accepted: 5 February 2020; Published: 6 February 2020


Abstract: This pilot study investigates the moderating role of passion for running in the relation
between mental recovery from running and running-related injuries (RRIs). We predict that the
relation between recovery and injuries is dependent on the level of passion. A cross-sectional survey
study was conducted among 246 Dutch recreational runners. Multivariate logistic regression analyses
revealed that the negative association between mental recovery after running and RRIs is moderated
(i.e., strengthened) by harmonious passion. Put diﬀerently, runners who are able to mentally recover
well after running were less likely to report RRIs in the case of harmonious passion. Additionally,
ﬁndings demonstrated that obsessively passionate runners were more likely to report RRIs. Passionate
runners may beneﬁt from education programs to help them integrate running more harmoniously
with other aspects of life, and to prevent injuries. In addition, they should be educated about the
crucial role of appropriate mental recovery from running. Considering mental aspects in running
such as mental recovery from running and passion for running seems to be worthwhile to gain a
better understanding of the incidence and/or prevalence of RRIs. Future (quasi-experimental) studies
should investigate the issues raised here more profoundly.
Keywords:mentalrecovery; mentaldetachment; harmoniouspassion; obsessivepassion; running-related
injury; recreational running
1. Introduction
Running is becoming an increasingly popular activity among participants of recreational sports
activities [1]. Although recreational running is in general considered a health-promoting activity
with associated beneﬁts such as social participation (e.g., through an increase in running groups
and running events [1,2]) and stress reduction [3], running-related injuries (RRIs) occur quite often
(e.g., [4]). Incidence and prevalence rates of RRIs reported in the literature are rather high (i.e., up to
80%; e.g., [5,6]). In The Netherlands, injury incidence is 6.1 injuries per 1000 sporting hours, which is
about three times higher than the national sports average (i.e., 2.1 injuries per 1000 sporting hours).
Speciﬁcally, Dutch runners suﬀer from 710,000 RRIs yearly, of which 220,000 are medically treated [7].
Next to soccer, running is the Dutch sport with the highest number of injuries. Forty percent of
RRIs are overtraining/overuse injuries, and approximately one-third concerns a recurrence. Male
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1044; doi:10.3390/ijerph17031044
www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1044
2 of 14
runners are more often injured but the injury risk is higher among female runners. Runners between
20 and 34 years old are more prone to RRIs, especially female runners. Main injury locations are
knees (29%), lower legs (25%), and ankles (17%) [7]. From a societal point of view, RRIs cost Dutch
society approximately 10 million euros a year expressed in medical costs and costs due to work-related
sickness absence and reduced work productivity [8]. Jungmalm and associates [9] concluded that RRIs
can be viewed as recreational runners’ primary enemy, and that the public health gains of keeping
runners active and healthy should not be underestimated.
Most researchers agree that the majority of RRIs are sustained as a consequence of structural
overtraining/overuse (e.g., [10]), or as a consequence of underrecovery (e.g., [11]). Yet, most existing
empirical research on injury prediction and prevention focuses heavily upon the physical aspects of
overtraining/overuse and underrecovery (e.g., [12]), and focuses less on their mental aspects, despite
the potential role of mental aspects in injury prediction and prevention mentioned in the literature
(e.g., [3,10,13,14]). As a result, evidence-based knowledge on the role of mental aspects in RRIs is
still in its infancy. For that reason, the aim of the present pilot study is to investigate the role of two
particular mental aspects in RRIs, namely mental recovery from running and passion for running.
Speciﬁcally, using the Dualistic Model of Passion [15,16] as a heuristic framework, this study explores
and tests the moderating role of passion in the mental recovery-injury relation.
1.1. Mental Recovery and Injuries
Runners are exposed to all kinds of running-related eﬀorts. Next to the plausible and logical
physical eﬀort, they have to face mental eﬀort as well [3]. For instance, runners often have to run focused
and concentrated during races. Research has shown that it is important to compensate running-related
eﬀorts with adequate recovery to prevent RRIs (e.g., [11]). Recovery can generally be deﬁned as a
dynamic process of restoration and unwinding in which a person’s functioning and eﬀorts return to
their initial levels before the eﬀorts took place [17]. From a physical and physiological perspective,
recovery reduces and prevents the accumulation of physical fatigue that leads to poor health. From a
psychological perspective, it allows the individual to prepare for current or new eﬀorts [18]. A large
body of research has investigated the role of a variety of strategies aimed at promoting physical and
physiological recovery from training and race eﬀorts (e.g., [19]). In contrast, studies investigating the
role of mental recovery in preventing RRIs are scarce [3,20].
In general, there are diﬀerent perspectives on recovery. It can be considered as an outcome and
a process [21]. Recovery as an outcome refers to a person’s physical, physiological and mental state
after a recovery or relaxation period. Recovery as a process refers to the activities and experiences
that may lead to a change in functioning and health status. As far as the latter is concerned, several
authors have argued that it is not the actual recovery activity which helps recovery (such as going for a
walk, watching TV, or taking a nap), but rather the psychological processes and mechanisms behind it
(e.g., [17,21,22]). In other words, persons may diﬀer with regard to preferred recovery activities while
the underlying psychological processes crucial for recovery may be uniform across persons [22]. These
psychological processes and mechanisms are called ‘recovery experiences’ (e.g., [22]). One experience
that seems to be very important for recovery to occur is mental detachment from running [3,20].
Mental detachment refers to the personal experience of leaving running behind, to mentally switch oﬀ
completely, and to forget about running immediately after the run training or race [3,17,20,22]. Mental
detachment goes beyond the pure physical absence from running and abstaining from running-related
eﬀorts. It implies leaving running behind oneself in psychological terms. We are aware of one recent
study among 161 recreational athletes showing that mental detachment was related to reporting less
sport injuries [20]. To conclude, a completely recovered runner is not only physically recovered, but is
also able to mentally detach from and mentally recover after running. If recovery through eﬀective
energy management is successful, health and performance will improve, and runners may report less
RRIs accordingly [3].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1044
3 of 14
1.2. Passion and Injuries
A mental aspect that has gained more and more attention in sport research is passion [15,16,23].
The Dualistic Model of Passion (DMP; [15,16,24]) deﬁnes passion as a strong inclination toward
a self-deﬁning activity that people like, value, and consider important, and in which they invest
considerable time and energy. The DMP suggests that diﬀerent individuals can be highly committed to
the same extent toward an activity such as running, and yet pursue it in qualitatively diﬀerent ways.
Accordingly, the DMP posits the existence of two speciﬁc types of passion: harmonious and obsessive.
Harmonious passion (HP) results from an autonomous internalization of an activity into one’s identity,
and is characterized by a strong desire to freely engage in the passionate activity [25]. With HP, the
passionate activity occupies a meaningful—but not overwhelming—place in one’s life and remains
in harmony with other aspects of a person’s life [26]. HP is assumed to lead to ﬂexible persistence:
one is in full control of the passionate activity, so that when conditions become harmful, involvement
in the activity should decline or even stop [27]. The second type of passion, obsessive passion (OP),
also refers to a strong desire to engage in the passionate activity [25]. However, OP overwhelms one’s
attention, and is postulated to result from an overcontrolled internalization of an activity into one’s
identity. OP is also assumed to lead to rigid persistence: one comes to be fully controlled by the
passionate activity at the expense of other activities [25,27]. OP leads the person to value the passionate
activity over and above all other important activities. This often leads to conﬂicts either between the
passionate activity and other activities, or with one’s partner and relatives [26]. Empirical ﬁndings
have been consistent with this conceptualization of passion (e.g., [16,24]). Where both types of passion
predict similar commitment to an activity and are part of someone’s identity, they have been found to
be diﬀerentially associated with various outcomes (e.g., [15,16,24]). There is considerable evidence that
HP is positively related to psychological outcomes (e.g., positive aﬀect, ﬂow, self-esteem), whereas OP
is either unrelated or negatively related to these (e.g., [16,28,29]). In addition, HP has been shown to
be positively associated, whereas OP is negatively associated, with experiences of conﬂict between
one’s passion and other life domains [15,30,31]. With regard to performance as an outcome, both types
of passion seem to be important. However, OP may at times lead to higher performance levels than
HP [16,25]. Furthermore, research on the DMP lends support for the model in sports and sport-related
injuries as well. For instance, a study among 80 student dancers showed that harmoniously passionate
dancers reported less acute injuries [27]. In addition, OP was associated with prolonged suﬀering
from chronic injuries as well as more rigid involvement in dance activities when injured, whereas HP
was unrelated to chronic injuries. Another study of Vallerand and colleagues [15] found that cyclists
with OP were still cycling in winter on icy roads, and thus engaged in risky (i.e., injury-promoting)
activities while they may be better abstain from such activities. Similar ﬁndings regarding the OP-risky
behavior relation were also found in a sample of swing dancers [16] and in a study with professional
dancers [32]. Finally, in their study of 170 competitive runners, Stephan and his team [33] found that
OP was positively associated with perceived susceptibility to sport-related injury.
1.3. Mental Recovery, Passion, and Injuries
The current pilot study investigates the moderating role of passion for running in the relation
between mental recovery and RRIs in a sample of recreational runners. First, in the case of HP, runners
feel engaged with running but remain in harmony with other important activities of life. They are in full
control of the passionate activity and are able to stop it whenever necessary. This implies that runners
with HP are able to cease running activities at any time, are able to engage in recovery from running,
mentally detach from running after a run, and feeling mentally recovered at the end. So, we expect
that mental detachment from running and mental recovery after running will be negatively related to
RRIs and that these relations are moderated (i.e., strengthened) by HP (Hypothesis 1). Put diﬀerently,
harmoniously passionate runners who are able to mentally detach from running and/or recover well
after running are less likely to report RRIs. Second, runners with OP have an uncontrollable urge
to engage in running, and they highly value it over all other important activities of life. They are
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1044
4 of 14
fully controlled by the passionate activity (rather than that they are in full control of this activity, as in
HP) and will persist in running despite the body and mind signals that recovery is necessary. Thus,
obsessively passionate runners will disregard their need for recovery and, hence, will be less able to
mentally detach from running as well as to mentally recover after running. Consequently, they may
negate minor RRIs and overtrain/overuse, or underrecover, themselves, leading to more serious RRIs
in the long run (cf. [10,11]). We expect that mental detachment from running and mental recovery after
running will be negatively related to RRIs, and that these relations are moderated (i.e., buﬀered) by OP
in such a way that the associations will be less negative (Hypothesis 2). In other words, the association
between (1) mental detachment from running and mental recovery after running and (2) RRIs will be
weaker in the case of obsessively passionate runners.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design, Data, and Procedure
A cross-sectional survey study was conducted in the Summer of 2017. Recreational runners were
recruited via all Dutch running associations (N = 371) that were mentioned on the website of the
Dutch Athletics Foundation (AU). The AU is the national umbrella organization of all Dutch athletics
and running clubs, and closely linked to the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)
and European Athletics (EA). Both novice and more experienced runners received a unique, secured
link to an online survey, where they had to ﬁll out their email address. All participants gave their
informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. They received information about
the aim of the study and voluntary participation, and were told that their data would be handled
conﬁdentially. This pilot study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the
American Psychological Association, and received institutional approval. Moreover, the Medical Ethics
Committee of the University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands has exempted our series of
survey research studies in runners from further ethical approval (reference number: NL64342.041.17).
Initially 254 recreational runners who ran at least once a week returned the questionnaire. The ultimate
sample consisted of 246 runners due to some missing data. More than half of the participants were
male (53.7%) and 46.3% was female. Mean age was 47.2 years (SD = 13.4; range 19–77). Average
running experience was 14.4 years (SD = 12.0). On average, participants engaged in running activities
2.8 times a week (SD = 1.0). The average running distance was 26.5 kilometers per week (SD = 16.6),
whereas the average running time was 3.2 hours per week (SD = 1.8). Overall, the average running
speed was 10.1 km/h (SD = 18.8). Forty-two participants (17.1%) ran at least four times a week with an
average running distance of 47.6 kilometers per week and an average running speed of 9.3 km/h. Ten
people (4.1%) ran at least ﬁve times a week with an average running distance of 62.2 kilometers per
week and an average running speed of 9.5 km/h. Two-thirds of the runners ran in groups (68.0%), and
approximately half of the runners (45.5%) used an individualized training schedule for their training
activities. Of all participants, 51.2% self-reported RRIs over the past 12 months, such as knee, Achilles
tendon and foot injuries. These training and injury ﬁgures were comparable to other Dutch studies
among recreational runners (e.g., [3,5,34]).
2.2. Variables and Instruments
2.2.1. Mental Recovery
We used two scales for mental recovery reﬂecting the two diﬀerent perspectives mentioned
earlier; that is, mental detachment from running (‘recovery process’) and mental recovery after running
(‘recovery outcome’; cf. [21,22]). Scales are available from the ﬁrst author upon request.
Mental detachment from running was measured with a slightly adapted scale developed by De
Jonge and colleagues [35]. This scale had been used and well-validated in sports before (e.g., [3,36]).
Participants were asked if they could mentally switch oﬀ from running immediately after a run training
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1044
5 of 14
or race. The scale was measured with three items, e.g., “I could mentally distance myself from running
directly after a run”. Items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
Internal consistency of the scale expressed in Cronbach’s alpha was 0.90.
Mental recovery after running was assessed with an adaptation for running of the well-validated
recovery measure developed by Sonnentag and Kruel [37] to running. Participants were asked if they
feel mentally recovered a couple of hours after a run training or race. The scale consisted of three items,
scored on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). An example item
is: “A couple of hours after my running activities, I usually feel recovered mentally”. Cronbach’s
alpha was 0.90. The factor structure of mental detachment and mental recovery was investigated with
a factor analysis (PAF) with oblimin rotation. This factor analysis resulted in an obvious two-factor
solution with all detachment items loading on one factor and all recovery items loading on the other.
Eigenvalues were 3.50 and 2.15 respectively, explaining 80.7% of the variance. Pearson zero-order
correlation for the two scales was r = 0.22 (p = 0.001), showing that mental detachment after running
was positively but moderately related to mental recovery from running.
2.2.2. Harmonious and Obsessive Passion
Harmonious and obsessive passion were measured by the respective scales developed by Vallerand
and colleagues [15,16]. The scales were slightly adapted as the passionate activity used here is ‘running’.
Harmonious passion emphasized a strong inclination where the runner feels engaged and has full
control over running, and the activity is in harmony with the person’s other activities. An example item
is: “Running is well integrated in my life”. As one item of the original scale did not pass psychometric
scrutiny, our scale consisted of ﬁve items, with an internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of 0.79.
Obsessive passion reﬂected a strong inclination where the runner feels compelled to engage in running,
running takes a lot of space, the runner loses control over running, and experiences conﬂict with other
life activities. This scale consisted of six items, for instance: “I have almost an obsessive feeling for
running” (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90). Both scales were scored on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from
1 (do not agree at all) to 7 (completely agree). We tested the factor structure of both passion scales
with a factor analysis (PAF) with oblimin rotation. Results revealed a clear two-factor solution with
eigenvalues of 4.92 and 1.41, explaining 63.3% of the variance. All OP items loaded on the ﬁrst factor
and all HP items loaded on the second factor. The two scales were not signiﬁcantly related to each
other (r = 0.08, p = 0.222).
2.2.3. Running-Related Injuries
Running-related injuries were self-reported by runners, and consisted of a time frame of the past
12 months. Based on a consensus deﬁnition [38,39], RRIs were deﬁned as: “injuries, impairments
or wounds, whether or not associated with pain, caused by or developed during a running training,
that causes a restriction on running (in terms of duration, speed, frequency, distance, or intensity)
or stoppage of running for at least seven days or three consecutive scheduled training sessions”.
In line with other large-scale research studies in RRIs (e.g., [6,34]), we assessed RRIs by means
of a well-validated single question with a dichotomous response scale (0 = no; 1 = yes): “In the
past 12 months, have you suﬀered one (or more) sport injuries following the above deﬁnition as a
result of your running?”. Injuries were overall injuries; no diﬀerence was made in acute injuries or
overtraining/overuse injuries.
2.2.4. Control Variables
We controlled for gender (0 = female; 1 = male), age (years), use of an individualized training
schedule (0 = no; 1 = yes), running distance per week (kilometers), and running time per week (hours).
Past studies have shown that these characteristics could have a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on runners’
injuries (e.g., [3,5,34]). In addition, a recent meta-analysis showed that the remaining running-related
characteristics are less relevant as control variables [40].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1044
6 of 14
2.3. Statistical Analysis
Firstly, means, standard deviations, and Pearson zero-order correlations were calculated using
IBM SPSS Statistics 25 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Secondly, multivariate logistic regression analyses
were used to determine the associations between mental detachment, mental recovery, passion, and
RRIs. Multivariate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% conﬁdence intervals (CIs) were derived from the logistic
regression models. In all analyses, gender, age, training schedule use, running distance and running
time were controlled for. Postulated moderating eﬀects of passion (i.e., HP and OP) with recovery
(i.e., mental detachment and mental recovery) were tested by adding multiplicative interaction terms
(recovery × passion) of standardized recovery and passion scales into the regression model. Since
we expected diﬀerential eﬀects for the two passion scales, we performed two regression analyses
accordingly: one for HP and one for OP. Nagelkerke R2 was used as an approximation of the explained
variance of the logistic regression model.
3. Results
Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and Pearson zero-order correlations for the diﬀerent
variables are displayed in Table 1. A ﬁrst inspection of the Pearson zero-order correlations shows
that our control variables were moderately but signiﬁcantly related to several predictor variables and
outcome variables. For instance, age was signiﬁcantly related to mental detachment from running
(r = 0.24, p = 0.000), mental recovery after running (r = 0.21, p = 0.001), HP (r = 0.21, p = 0.001), and RRIs
(r = −0.13, p = 0.046). Next, gender was signiﬁcantly associated with both running distance (r = 0.23,
p = 0.000) and running time (r = 0.20, p = 0.002), while age was signiﬁcantly related to running time
(r = 0.19, p = 0.003). Interestingly, mental detachment from running was signiﬁcantly and negatively
linked to running distance (r = −0.24, p = 0.000) and running time (r = −0.21, p = 0.001) as well. Finally,
both HP (r = −0.15, p = 0.022) and OP (r = 0.14, p = 0.026) as well as the interaction between mental
recovery after running and HP (r = −0.13, p = 0.048) were moderately associated with RRIs.
Table 2 depicts the logistic regression results for RRIs, which showed support for an interaction
model in the case of HP and, hence, a moderating eﬀect of mental recovery after running and HP.
Speciﬁcally, the negative association between mental recovery after running and RRIs is moderated
(i.e., strengthened) by HP. Put diﬀerently, harmoniously passionate runners who are able to mentally
recover well after running were 0.72 times (or 28%) less likely to report RRIs (OR = 0.72; 95% CI =
0.54–0.96; p = 0.031). However, ﬁndings did not show an interaction eﬀect of mental detachment
from running and HP, and did not show direct negative associations between mental recovery after
running, mental detachment from running and RRIs as well. Overall, the predictor variables were
able to explain 10.4% of the variance in RRIs. At the end, the classiﬁcation accuracy shows that this
prediction was correct 62.2% of the time. With respect to OP, logistic regression results showed a main
eﬀect-only model rather than an interaction model. Findings demonstrated that obsessively passionate
runners were 1.36 times (or 36%) more likely to report RRIs (OR = 1.36; 95% CI = 1.03–1.85; p = 0.047)
than others. Again, ﬁndings did not show direct negative associations between mental recovery after
running, mental detachment from running and RRIs. Nagelkerke R2 shows that the predictor variables
together were able to explain 7.9% of the variance in RRIs. Finally, the classiﬁcation accuracy shows
that this prediction was correct 59.2% of the time.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1044
7 of 14
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and Pearson zero-order correlations among study variables (n = 246).
Variables
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1. Gender (0 = female; 1 = male)
0.54 #
0.50
2. Age (years)
47.15
13.41
0.26 **
3. Training schedule (0 = no; 1 = yes)
0.46 #
0.50
−0.07
−0.01
4. Running distance (km)
26.53
16.56
0.23 **
0.08
0.14 *
5. Running time (hours)
3.20
1.82
0.20 **
0.19 **
0.08
0.69 **
6. Mental detachment from running
2.84
1.19
0.01
0.24 **
−0.11
−0.24 **
−0.21 **
7. Mental recovery after running
5.67
1.16
0.11
0.21 **
0.04
0.02
0.05
0.22 **
8. Harmonious passion (HP)
2.60
1.35
−0.01
0.21 **
−0.10
−0.34 **
−0.26 **
0.32 **
0.17 **
9. Obsessive passion (OP)
3.41
1.50
−0.05
−0.10
0.13 *
0.37 **
0.29 **
−0.43 **
−0.17 **
0.08
10. Mental detachment × HP
0.32
1.10
0.06
−0.14 *
0.12
0.23 **
0.09
−0.06
−0.04
−0.25 **
0.05
11. Mental recovery × HP
0.17
1.00
0.05
−0.01
0.07
0.11
0.09
−0.05
−0.17 **
−0.09
0.05
0.13 *
12. Mental detachment × OP
−0.43
0.99
0.05
0.11
−0.06
−0.17 **
−0.09
−0.07
0.02
0.05
−0.04
−0.43 **
−0.11
13. Mental recovery × OP
−0.17
0.96
0.07
0.06
−0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.29 **
0.05
0.05
−0.12
−0.55 **
0.20 **
14. RRIs (0 = no; 1 = yes)
0.51 #
0.50
0.07
−0.13*
−0.07
0.05
0.10
−0.11
−0.04
−0.15 *
0.14 *
0.05
−0.13 *
−0.06
0.04
* Signiﬁcant at p < 0.05; ** signiﬁcant at p < 0.01 (two-tailed); # these are dichotomous variables, their means can thus be interpreted as a percentage.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1044
8 of 14
Table 2. Logistic regression models of running-related injuries with detachment, recovery and passion as predictor variables (n = 246).
Running-Related Injuries
Harmonious Passion
Obsessive Passion
B
SE
OR (95% CI)
B
SE
OR (95% CI)
Control variables
Gender
0.46
0.29
1.59 (0.90, 2.81)
0.49
0.28
1.63 (0.92, 2.88)
Age
−0.02
0.01
0.98 * (0.96, 0.99)
−0.03
0.01
0.96 * (0.94, 0.98)
Training schedule use
−0.40
0.28
0.67 (0.39, 1.15)
−0.37
0.27
0.69 (0.41, 1.17)
Running distance
−0.01
0.01
0.99 (0.96, 1.02)
−0.01
0.01
0.99 (0.96, 1.02)
Running time
0.17
0.13
1.18 (0.92, 1.51)
0.16
0.12
1.17 (0.92, 1.48)
Predictor variables
Mental detachment from running
−0.03
0.15
0.97 (0.72, 1.32)
0.02
0.16
1.02 (0.75, 1.39)
Mental recovery after running
−0.02
0.14
0.98 (0.74, 1.30)
0.03
0.14
1.02 (0.78, 1.35)
Harmonious passion (HP)
−0.31
0.17
0.73 (0.53, 1.02)
Obsessive passion (OP)
0.32
0.15
1.36 * (1.03, 1.85)
Moderating variables
Mental detachment × Passion (HP)
0.02
0.16
1.02 (0.81, 1.36)
Mental recovery × Passion (HP)
−0.32
0.14
0.72 * (0.54, 0.96)
Model test
χ2 = 19.37, df = 10, p = 0.036
χ2 = 15.89, df = 8, p = 0.044
Nagelkerke R2
10.4%
7.9%
Classiﬁcation accuracy
62.2%
59.2%
* Signiﬁcant at p < 0.05 (two-tailed).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1044
9 of 14
4. Discussion
The general purpose of this pilot study was to investigate the moderating role of passion for
running in the relation between mental detachment from running, mental recovery after running
and running-related injuries (RRIs). Based upon scientiﬁc literature and preliminary evidence, we
formulated and tested two hypotheses accordingly. First, we hypothesized that both mental recovery
components (i.e., mental detachment from running and mental recovery after running) will be
negatively related to RRIs, and that this relation is moderated (i.e., strengthened) by HP. Findings do
show the expected interaction eﬀect between mental recovery after running and HP in the prediction of
RRIs. In other words, there is only a negative association between mental recovery after running and
RRIs in the case of being a harmoniously passionate runner. This supports Hypothesis 1. However,
ﬁndings did not show the expected interaction eﬀect of mental detachment from running and HP in
the prediction of RRIs, which is not in support of Hypothesis 1. Second, we hypothesized that both
mental recovery components will be negatively related to RRIs, and that this relation is moderated
(i.e., buﬀered) by OP in such a way that the associations will be weaker. Results do not show the
proposed interaction eﬀect between mental recovery and OP in the prediction of RRIs. Instead, they
only demonstrate a main eﬀect of OP in the prediction of RRIs. In other words, obsessively passionate
runners are more likely to report RRIs. These ﬁndings do not support Hypothesis 2. Finally, the
predictor variables were able to explain about 8% to 10% of the variance in RRIs, and the predictions
were correct in approximately 60% of the time. Although these eﬀects are not very strong, they are
interesting and promising.
4.1. Theoretical Implications
Findings with regard to the two mental recovery components (i.e., mental detachment from
running and mental recovery after running) and RRIs are interesting. Although mental recovery after
running is in general considered as being beneﬁcial for injury prevention (e.g., [3,20]), this study shows
that this may particularly be the case with harmoniously passionate runners. HP is characterized by
a more ﬂexible psychological state that should lead the runner to focus and to concentrate better, to
experience less pressure, and to relax better accordingly (cf. [15,16]). In addition, mental recovery
research showed that mental recovery potential is highest in cases where the need for recovery is
intrinsically motivated [41]. HP could be such an intrinsic motivator.
The present study extends the work of Balk and associates [20] who showed that mental detachment
from running was related to athletes’ report of less injuries. In our study, however, it is not mental
detachment from running but mental recovery after running in harmoniously passionate runners which
seems to be negatively associated with RRIs. As both recovery measures are self-report instruments, an
explanation for this ﬁnding is that recovery outcome measures seem to be more sensitive and concrete
mental recovery measures than recovery process measures [21]. While the recovery outcome is related
to the recovery process, it is the concrete mental recovery state directly after running which matters
most for harmoniously passionate runners in the prediction of their RRIs. Moreover, if one moves
beyond self-report ratings in the direction of more objective data (e.g., psycho-physiological data),
disentangling the recovery process from the recovery outcome will be more diﬃcult, or even not
possible at all [21]. To conclude, this study shows that, for harmoniously passionate runners, mental
recovery after running as an outcome of a successful recovery process is more important than mental
detachment from running as part of the process itself to predict less RRIs.
The ﬁndings for passion for running are consistent with previous research on the concept of
passion and the Dualistic Model of Passion [15,16]. The two types of passion demonstrate the way
running has been internalized into a runner’s identity: HP in which the person controls the activity, and
OP where the activity controls the person [15]. In line with earlier passion research [16,27,33], it might be
that harmoniously passionate runners are being able to detect early warning signals related to injuries
and to adopt precautionary behavior such as taking a mental break in time. Conversely, obsessively
passionate runners cannot stop running even when positive returns are no longer forthcoming and
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1044
10 of 14
running has become harmful to them [15]. The non-existence of interaction eﬀects between mental
detachment, mental recovery and OP could be explained by the fact that obsessively passionate runners
are not capable of detecting early warning signals related to injuries as well as adopting precautionary
behavior such as taking a mental break in time. In other words, they will disregard their need for
recovery and, hence, will not be able to mentally detach from running as well as to mentally recover
after running. Thus, while such rigid persistence to running may initially lead to beneﬁts such as
improved performance, it may also come at personal costs such as RRIs in the end.
Finally, since obsessive passion is considered to be one of the key predictors for exercise
addiction [42], our results are also consistent with research on exercise and running addiction
(e.g., [42–45]). Exercise addiction can be deﬁned based on the same criteria used to deﬁne other
addictive behaviors including tolerance, withdrawal, lack of control, time, reduction in other rewarding
activities, and continuance despite negative outcomes [46]. Of all the types of sports studied, endurance
sports such as long-distance running are those showing the greatest risk of addiction [42,43]. For
example, runners who ﬁnd they need to run more to experience the same positive neuropsychological
eﬀects (e.g., runners high), experience irritability or even depression when unable to run, ﬁnd that
running time interferes with responsibilities in other domains (e.g., work or family), or exercise despite
RRIs may have an addictive-like relation with exercise [47]. In a literature review of 25 empirical studies,
Nogueira and associates [42] concluded that excessive practice may indeed cause the appearance of
addictive behaviors and serious health problems. A recent study of Martin and her team [47] has
highlighted the fact that endurance runners with high levels of exercise addiction pressed on in spite
of the negative consequences brought about by not running, because the compensation they derive is
greater than any rewards from not doing so.
4.2. Limitations and Future Research Directions
Besides its valuable insights, this study has several limitations. A ﬁrst limitation concerns its
cross-sectional design which does not permit any causal conclusions for the variables under study.
However, this was due to the pilot character of this study. A two-wave cross-lagged panel study
by Carbonneau and associates [48] in a non-sports sample showed that passion leads to changes
in outcomes, but not the other way around. Further research using longitudinal study designs is
needed to replicate and corroborate current ﬁndings (cf. [3]). Such studies would also contribute
to the understanding of sports-related, social and psychological factors that promote or hinder the
development of one type of passion over the other [27]. A second limitation is that common method
variance due to using self-report data may have played a role, although recent research studies have
shown that this inﬂuence is not as strong as sometimes believed (e.g., [49]). This risk was minimized
by measuring our self-report scales as objective as possible (‘facts’) with clear instructions to ﬁll out,
accompanied with concrete and diﬀerent response rates as well as profound tests on validity and
reliability. The risk was further reduced by assessing the outcome measure with a diﬀerent response
format and anchors compared to the predictor variables, as suggested by Podsakoﬀ, MacKenzie, and
Podsakoﬀ [50]. A third limitation is that self-reported RRIs were used. This implies that the runners
had to judge the injuries themselves, without a formal diagnosis from a medical practitioner. This is
partly solved by providing the runners with a clear consensus deﬁnition of RRIs as well as using the
same survey question as used in other, large-scale, empirical research (e.g., [6,34]). Furthermore, the
quality of RRIs was not taken into account. For instance, RRIs due to overuse or overtraining might be
qualitatively diﬀerent in their genesis than RRIs due to trauma. Similarly, the seriousness of RRIs might
vary greatly and could have an impact on recovery schemes. It is also recommended to add more
formal and comprehensive diagnostic information of RRIs by practitioners, which could enhance a
study’s validity in future research. Fourth, although we found direct associations between passion and
RRIs, we do not know if some runners in our sample were physically predisposed to RRIs. A physical
screening program at forehand would be recommended in this respect. Fifth, our logistic regression
models have been adjusted for various control variables. Nevertheless, the question remains which
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1044
11 of 14
other control variables such as participation in competition or extent performance level are associated
with HP and OP. Future research might therefore consider assessing similar questions in diﬀerent
groups of runners. Sixth, current ﬁndings are likely to be valid for all types of recreational runners.
However, it is plausible that the associations are underestimated due to the absence of elite runners (i.e.,
restriction of range eﬀect). Finally, given the current sample of recreational runners, its sample size and
pilot character, future research is needed whether or not the current results will hold in other samples of
recreational and elite athletes as well. An example of such research is a randomized controlled trial with
a 12-month follow-up [3]. After completing a web-based baseline survey, 425 half and full marathon
runners were randomly assigned to either an intervention group or a control group. Participants of
the intervention group obtained access to an online injury prevention programme, consisting of a
running-related smartphone application and activity trackers. The smartphone application provided
the participants of the intervention group with information on how to prevent overtraining/overuse
and RRIs with special attention to mental aspects such as mental recovery, passion and mental fatigue.
Due to a wait list control group design, participants in the control group got access to the application
and related preventive information after the ﬁrst follow-up measurement as well. Data collection and
analysis is in progress, and will be published elsewhere (cf. [3]).
4.3. Practical Implications
The present study demonstrates the important role of passion in the relation between mental
recovery and RRIs. Because many runners are devoted to and passionate about their sports, it is
important to help them understand that there are two diﬀerent types of passion: harmonious passion
and obsessive passion. HP entails control over running and a harmonious co-existence of running with
other activities in life, such as adequate mental and physical recovery. In contrast, OP entails little or
even lack of control over running, rigid persistence, and conﬂict with other activities in a runner’s life.
So, HP seems to be a more desirable type of passion than OP in the case of RRIs, and runners should
be encouraged to develop a more harmonious passion in this respect (cf. [26,27]). However, this does
not mean that OP is negative. It may not lead to outcomes as adaptive as those derived from HP, but
OP is still more adaptive than being amotivated [15]. For instance, beneﬁts from OP are reﬂected by
the immediate positive consequences associated with increased performance (e.g., [16,25]). Further,
OP may lead to long-term commitment and persistence in running, despite its potential countereﬀects
on RRIs. Passionate runners may beneﬁt from education programs in order to help them integrate
running more harmoniously with other aspects of life. In addition, they should be educated about the
crucial role of appropriate recovery from and after running. Moreover, run coaches and trainers should
be aware of the two types of passion as well, and how they characterize diﬀerent ways running has
been internalized into a runner’s identity. Periodized training schemes and smartphone applications
could then be adapted to the individual runner (cf. [3]), and ideally should take into account how to
take mental breaks next to regular physical breaks (cf. [20]). Our study shows that this is particularly
relevant for obsessively passionate runners.
5. Conclusions
This pilot study in recreational runners suggests that particularly the combination of harmonious
passion for running and mental recovery after running is important to predict and prevent RRIs.
Moreover, it suggests that obsessive passion for running is a mental risk factor for RRIs itself. So,
considering mental aspects in running seems to be valuable to gain a better understanding of the
incidence and/or prevalence of RRIs. Preventing and/or reducing RRIs will facilitate runners to remain
active, which in turn may contribute to their health, vitality and sustainable performance—not only in
sports but also in work and private life activities [51]. This can reduce medical costs and costs due to
absence from work as well. Further research on the issues raised here would be rather promising.
Author Contributions: J.d.J. designed and carried out this particular study. He also conducted the logistic
regression analysis. Y.A.B. and T.W.T. contributed to interpreting the ﬁndings, and collaborated on the diﬀerent
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1044
12 of 14
drafts of the manuscript. All authors approved the ﬁnal manuscript’s submission for publication. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The work of all authors has not been funded by outside partners but was part of their ordinary activities
at their respective institutes.
Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.
References
1.
Scheerder, J.; Breedveld, K.; Borgers, J. Running across Europe: The Rise and Size of One of the Largest Sport
Markets; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2015.
2.
Hulteen, R.M.; Smith, J.J.; Morgan, P.J.; Barnett, L.M.; Hallal, P.C.; Colyvas, K.; Lubans, D.R. Global
participation in sport and leisure-time physical activities: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev. Med.
2017, 95, 14–25. [CrossRef]
3.
De Jonge, J.; Van Iperen, L.; Gevers, J.; Vos, S. Take a mental break study: Role of mental aspects in
running-related injuries using a randomised-controlled trial. BMJ Open Sport Exerc. Med. 2018, 4, e000427.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
4.
Videbæk, S.; Bueno, A.M.; Nielsen, R.O.; Rasmussen, S. Incidence of running-related injuries per 1000 h
of running in diﬀerent types of runners: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2015, 45,
1017–1026. [CrossRef]
5.
Van Gent, R.N.; Siem, D.; Van Middelkoop, M.; Van Os, A.G.; Bierma-Zeinstra, S.M.A.; Koes, B.W. Incidence
and determinants of lower extremity running injuries in long distance runners: A systematic review. Br. J.
Sports Med. 2007, 41, 469–480. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6.
Van Poppel, D.; Scholten-Peeters, G.G.M.; Van Middelkoop, M.; Verhagen, A.P. Prevalence, incidence and
course of lower extremity injuries in runners during a 12-month follow-up period. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports
2014, 24, 943–949. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7.
Stam, C. Hardloopblessures: Blessurecijfers 2014; VeiligheidNL: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016.
8.
Valkenberg, H.; Stam, C. Sportblessures 2016: SEH Bezoeken; VeiligheidNL: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017.
9.
Jungmalm, J.; Grau, S.; Desai, P.; Karlsson, J.L.; Nielsen, R.O. Study protocol of a 52-week Prospective
Running INjury study in Gothenburg (SPRING). BMJ Open Sport Exerc. Med. 2018, 4, e000394. [CrossRef]
10.
Soligard, T.; Schwellnus, M.; Alonso, J.M.; Bahr, R.; Clarsen, B.; Dijkstra, H.P.; Gabbett, T.; Gleeson, M.;
Hägglund, M.; Hutchinson, M.R.; et al. How much is too much? (Part 1) International olympic committee
consensus statement on load in sport and risk of injury. Br. J. Sports Med. 2016, 50, 1030–1041. [CrossRef]
11.
Kellmann, M.; Bertollo, M.; Bosquet, L.; Brink, M.; Coutts, A.J.; Duﬃeld, R.; Erlacher, D.; Halson, S.L.;
Hecksteden, A.; Heidari, J.; et al. Recovery and performance in sport: Consensus statement. Int. J. Sports
Physiol. Perf. 2018, 13, 240–245. [CrossRef]
12.
Kluitenberg, B.; Van Middelkoop, M.; Diercks, R.; Van der Worp, H. What are the diﬀerences in injury
proportions between diﬀerent populations of runners? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med.
2015, 45, 1143–1161. [CrossRef]
13.
Ivarsson, A.; Johnson, U.; Andersen, M.B.; Tranaeus, U.; Stenling, A.; Lindwall, M. Psychosocial factors and
sport injuries: Meta-analyses for prediction and prevention. Sports Med. 2017, 47, 353–365. [CrossRef]
14.
Johnson, U.; Ivarsson, A. Psychosocial factors and sport injuries: Prediction, prevention and future research
directions. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2017, 16, 89–92. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15.
Vallerand, R.J.; Blanchard, C.; Mageau, G.A.; Koestner, R.; Ratelle, C.; Léonard, M.; Gagné, M.; Marsolais, J.
Les passions de l’âme: On obsessive and harmonious passion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 85, 756–767.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
16.
Vallerand, R.J. The Psychology of Passion: A Dualistic Model; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
17.
Sonnentag, S.; Venz, L.; Casper, A. Advances in recovery research: What have we learned? What should be
done next? J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2017, 22, 365–380. [CrossRef]
18.
Colombo, V.; Cifre Gallego, E. The importance of recovery from work: A review of where, how and why.
Pap. Psicólogo 2012, 33, 129–137.
19.
Hausswirth, C.; Mujika, I. Recovery for Performance in Sport; Human Kinetics: Leeds, UK, 2013.
20.
Balk, Y.A.; De Jonge, J.; Oerlemans, W.G.M.; Geurts, S.A.E. Physical recovery, mental detachment, and sleep
as predictors of injury and mental energy. J. Health Psychol. 2019, 24, 1828–1838. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1044
13 of 14
21.
Sonnentag, S.; Geurts, S.A.E. Methodological issues in recovery research. In Current Perspectives on Job-Stress
Recovery; Sonnentag, S., Perrewé, P.L., Ganster, D.C., Eds.; Emerald: Bingley, UK, 2009; pp. 1–36.
22.
Sonnentag, S.; Fritz, C. The recovery experience questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for
assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2007, 12, 204–221. [CrossRef]
23.
Martin, E.M.; Horn, T.S. The role of athletic identity and passion in predicting burnout in adolescent female
athletes. Sport Psychol. 2013, 27, 338–348. [CrossRef]
24.
Vallerand, R.J. On passion for life activities: The Dualistic Model of Passion. In Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology; Zanna, M.P., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010; Volume 42, pp. 97–193.
25.
Bélanger, J.J.; Lafrenière, M.K.; Vallerand, R.J.; Kruglanski, A.W. Driven by fear: The eﬀect of success and
failure information on passionate individuals’ performance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 104, 126–147.
[CrossRef]
26.
Lalande, D.; Vallerand, R.J.; Lafrenière, M.A.K.; Verner-Filion, J.; Laurent, F.A.; Forest, J.; Paquet, Y. Obsessive
passion: A compensatory response to unsatisﬁed needs. J. Personal. 2017, 85, 163–178. [CrossRef]
27.
Rip, B.; Fortin, S.; Vallerand, R.J. The relationship between passion and injury in dance students. J. Danc.
Med. Sci. 2006, 10, 14–20.
28.
Schellenberg, B.J.I.; Bailis, D.S. Can passion be polyamorous? The impact of having multiple passions on
subjective well-being and momentary emotions. J. Happiness Stud. 2015, 16, 1365–1381. [CrossRef]
29.
Stenseng, F.; Forest, J.; Curran, T. Positive emotions in recreational sport activities: The role of passion and
belongingness. J. Happiness Stud. 2015, 16, 1117–1129. [CrossRef]
30.
Vallerand, R.J.; Paquet, Y.; Philippe, F.L.; Charest, J. On the role of passion in burnout: A process model. J.
Personal. 2010, 78, 289–312. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31.
Caudroit, J.; Boiché, J.; Stephan, Y.; Le Scanﬀ, C.; Trouilloud, D. Predictors of work/family interference and
leisure-time physical activity among teachers: The role of passion towards work. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol.
2011, 20, 326–344. [CrossRef]
32.
Akehurst, S.; Oliver, E.J. Obsessive passion: A dependency associated with injury-related risk behavior in
dancers. J. Sport Sci. 2013, 32, 259–267. [CrossRef]
33.
Stephan, Y.; Deroche, T.; Brewer, B.W.; Caudroit, J.; Le Scanﬀ, C. Predictors of perceived susceptibility to
sport-related injury among competitive runners: The role of previous experience, neuroticism, and passion
for running. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 2009, 58, 672–687. [CrossRef]
34.
Van Poppel, D.; De Koning, J.; Verhagen, A.P.; Scholten-Peeters, G.G.M. Risk factors for lower extremity
injuries among half marathon and marathon runners of the Lage Landen Marathon Eindhoven 2012: A
prospective cohort study in the Netherlands. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2016, 26, 226–234. [CrossRef]
35.
De Jonge, J.; Spoor, E.; Sonnentag, S.; Dormann, C.; Van den Tooren, M. “Take a break?!”: Oﬀ-job recovery,
job demands and job resources as predictors of health, active learning, and creativity. Eur. J. Work Organ.
Psychol. 2012, 21, 321–348. [CrossRef]
36.
Balk, Y.A.; De Jonge, J.; Geurts, S.A.E.; Oerlemans, W.G.M. Antecedents and consequences of perceived
autonomy support in elite sport: A diary study linking coaches’ recovery and athletes’ performance
satisfaction. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2019, 44, 26–34. [CrossRef]
37.
Sonnentag, S.; Kruel, U. Psychological detachment from work during oﬀ-job time: The role of job stressors,
job involvement, and recovery-related self-eﬃcacy. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2006, 15, 197–217. [CrossRef]
38.
Yamato, T.P.; Saragiotto, B.T.; Lopes, A.D. A consensus deﬁnition of running-related injury in recreational
runners: A modiﬁed Delphi approach. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2015, 45, 375–380. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39.
Theisen, D.; Malisoux, L.; Gette, P.; Nührenbörger, C.; Urhausen, A. Footwear and running-related
injuries—Running on faith? Sports Orthop. Traumatol. 2016, 32, 169–176. [CrossRef]
40.
Van Poppel, D.; Scholten-Peeters, G.G.M.; Van Middelkoop, M.; Koes, B.W.; Verhagen, A.P. Risk models for
lower extremity injuries among short- and long distance runners: A prospective cohort study. Musculoskelet.
Sci. Pract. 2018, 36, 48–53. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41.
Ten Brummelhuis, L.L.; Trougakos, J.P. The recovery potential of intrinsically versus extrinsically motivated
oﬀ-job activities. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2014, 87, 177–199. [CrossRef]
42.
Nogueira, A.; Molinero, O.; Salguero, A.; Márquez, S. Exercise addiction in practitioners of endurance sports:
A literature review. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1484. [CrossRef]
43.
Sachs, M.L.; Pargman, D. Running addiction. In Running as Therapy: An Integrated Approach; Sachs, M.L.,
Buﬀone, G.W., Eds.; University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln, NE, USA, 1984; pp. 231–252.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1044
14 of 14
44.
Hausenblas, H.A.; Downs, D.S. Exercise dependence: A systematic review. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2002, 3,
89–123. [CrossRef]
45.
Freimuth, M.; Moniz, S.; Kim, S.R. Clarifying exercise addiction: Diﬀerential diagnosis, co-occurring
disorders, and phases of addiction. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011, 8, 4069–4081. [CrossRef]
46.
Landolﬁ, E. Exercise addiction. Sports Med. 2013, 43, 111–119. [CrossRef]
47.
Martin, L.E.; Sisante, J.F.; Wilson, D.R.; Moody, A.A.; Savage, C.R.; Billinger, S.A. Pilot study of endurance
runners and brain responses associated with delay discounting. Int. J. Exerc. Sci. 2017, 10, 690–701.
48.
Carbonneau, N.; Vallerand, R.J.; Fernet, C.; Guay, F. The role of passion for teaching in intrapersonal and
interpersonal outcomes. J. Educ. Psychol. 2008, 100, 977–987. [CrossRef]
49.
Spector, P.E.; Rosen, C.C.; Richardson, H.A.; Williams, L.J.; Johnson, R.E. A new perspective on method
variance: A measure-centric approach. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 855–880. [CrossRef]
50.
Podsakoﬀ, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoﬀ, N.P. Sources of method bias in social science research and
recommendations on how to control it. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 2012, 63, 539–569. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51.
De Jonge, J.; Peeters, M.C.W. The vital worker: Towards sustainable performance at work. Int. J. Environ.
Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 910. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Mental Recovery and Running-Related Injuries in Recreational Runners: The Moderating Role of Passion for Running.
de Jonge, Jan,Balk, Yannick A,Taris, Toon W