(© kieferpix - stock.adobe.com)
Looking Forward to Work Is Tied to Calmer Bedtime Thoughts
In A Nutshell
- Employees who dreaded the workday before it began were less likely to reach flow, a fully absorbed state of focus, that day.
- Less flow was tied to more bedtime replaying of work worries, though the link was small.
- Looking forward to the day was tied to more flow and, through flow, to calmer bedtime thoughts.
- Flow was not tied to evening energy, and the study cannot prove that morning mood causes any of this.
That pit-in-the-stomach feeling when the alarm goes off on a work morning may follow some all the way to bed that night. In a diary study of 102 employees, days that began with dread about the job were less likely to include flow, the locked-in, time-flies state of being fully absorbed in a task. Days with less flow were then followed by more bedtime replaying of stressful work thoughts.
Published in the Journal of Happiness Studies, the research from Canada and Germany followed workers through two weeks of brief daily surveys. Researchers wanted to know whether a worker’s mindset before the first task could predict who got absorbed in work and who carried it into the night.
Looking forward worked in the other direction. Workers who woke up looking forward to the day reached flow more often, and flow was the middle link to calmer bedtime thoughts. Anyone who has replayed a tense meeting while trying to fall asleep will recognize why that middle step matters.
Morning Work Dread Tracked in 102 Employees Across Ten Workdays
Participants were recruited online through social media. To qualify, they worked at least 20 hours a week and did not do shift work. Average age was about 38, roughly 30 percent were men, and nearly half held a university degree. Administration and public service, health and social work, and research, education, and science were the biggest job categories. A raffle for gift prizes worth up to 100 euros each, plus personalized feedback on their answers, encouraged people to take part.
Over two working weeks, each person answered three short surveys on every workday: one after waking and before work, one shortly after work ended, and one in the evening. Bedtime worry was measured the next morning, inside that day’s first survey. Asking at bedtime, the authors noted, could stir up the very thoughts being studied.
Morning questions covered four ways of viewing the day ahead. Positive outlook was gauged by agreement with “I am looking forward to a pleasurable workday.” Dread, which the paper calls threat, was measured with items such as “My work today is going to have a negative impact on me.” The other two views were seeing the day as a challenge worth tackling and expecting work to block success.
After work, participants rated how intensely they had felt “completely absorbed in the activity” and able to concentrate effortlessly, on a scale from 1 to 100. Evening energy was rated with a battery icon, from empty to fully charged. On average, participants completed surveys on about 8.5 of the 10 days, and together they produced more than 2,000 measurements.
Dread Went With Less Flow at Work, While Looking Forward Went With More
Looking forward to a pleasurable day was linked to more flow in both versions of the study’s analysis, and dread was linked to less. Seeing the day as a challenge landed in between, reaching a clear result in one version and a borderline one in the other. Expecting work to block success showed no reliable connection with flow either way. Researchers speculated that expecting a challenging day may not be enough on its own, since flow tends to arise only when people feel their skills match the demands. Expecting an obstructive day may stir less emotional intensity than expecting harm, they added, which could make it less likely to disrupt flow.
Differences were modest, worth roughly 4 points on the 100-point flow scale for each one-step change on a five-point agreement rating. Small nudges, in other words, not dramatic swings.
Morning Work Dread Linked to Bedtime Worry Through Lost Flow
Absorbed work may leave fewer unfinished “open loops” to chew on at night, the authors speculate. Flow’s measured tie to bedtime worry was small, though. Dread by itself did not reliably predict more bedtime worry on any single day. The link showed up only through lost flow. Across the whole group, workers who dreaded work more often also reported more bedtime worry overall.
One hoped-for payoff never appeared. Flow was not linked to evening energy, even though earlier studies had found such a link. The authors note that energy naturally slides as bedtime nears, and that the missing link should not be read as a lack of recovery. They propose that flow helps people mentally “switch off” rather than recharge.
A few cautions apply. Workers reported their own moods and thoughts, and nobody’s morning outlook was changed on purpose, so cause and effect remain unproven. The bedtime measure also captured work thoughts, not sleep itself. Sleep quality was tracked separately, and accounting for the previous night’s sleep did not change how morning outlook related to flow.
Evening habits that help workers mentally clock out, such as writing a to-do list for the next day, are one route the authors raise toward a better morning outlook, though this study tested none of them.
Morning dread belongs in the conversation about job stress, alongside deadlines and workloads, because the start of the workday may help set how much of the job follows a person to bed.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and is not medical, psychological, or professional advice. The study reports associations, not proof of cause and effect, and its findings may not apply to every workplace or person. Anyone struggling with ongoing work stress, anxiety, or sleep problems should speak with a qualified health professional.
Paper Notes
Limitations
All measures came from self-reports, which can inflate how strongly variables appear connected, though the authors note that anticipation, flow, and rumination (repetitive, upsetting thoughts about work) are personal experiences best captured by asking people directly. The design cannot establish cause and effect because no conditions were experimentally manipulated. Positive anticipation was measured with a single survey item rather than a fuller set of questions. Each type of morning outlook was analyzed separately, even though a person could see the same day as both challenging and obstructive. The sample of 102 is typical for day-by-day diary research, but it was recruited online and consisted mostly of well-educated employees from specific job sectors, which may limit how broadly the findings apply. No calculation of the needed sample size was done before data collection, and the sleep-quality analyses were not part of the plan registered publicly before the study began. Rumination was measured the morning after, as a recollection of the previous evening.
Funding and Disclosures
According to the authors, no funding was received for conducting the study. They certified that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization with a financial or non-financial interest in the subject matter of the paper. Open access publishing was enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ethics Committee of the University of Lübeck, and participants gave informed consent. The study plan was registered in advance at the Open Science Framework, where the data are also publicly available.
Publication Details
Kirsten Handschuch of the Beedie School of Business at Simon Fraser University in Canada, Christine Syrek of the University of Applied Sciences Bonn-Rhein-Sieg in Germany, and Corinna Peifer of the University of Luebeck in Germany wrote the study, titled “Waking Up to the Working Day Ahead: A Diary Study on the Role of Flow in Linking Morning Anticipatory Appraisals to Recovery.” It was published in the Journal of Happiness Studies (Springer) in 2026, volume 27, article 146, with online publication on November 5, 2026. The paper’s DOI is 10.1007/s10902-026-01112-5.







