173 Summary and General Discussion to a between-person design. Indeed, considering a certain phenomenon as fluctuating – showing intraindividual variation – is conceptually different from approaching the phenomenon on a between-person level (i.e., as a trait, general phenomenon, or other stable construct). Moreover, it has been argued that between-person variation may not be used as a surrogate for within-person variation, and that the correlates and causes of between-person and within-person variation need to be analyzed as distinct phenomena (Brose et al., 2015; Molenaar, 2004). While variation at the betweenperson level may be attributed to more stable factors related to the person and their environment, as discussed above, intraindividual fluctuations are likely determined by situations and person by situation interactions (Brose et al., 2015). With regards to proactive vitality management, such determinants could be, for example, differences between workdays and tasks, the amount of physical and mental energy work requires, and varying personal needs. Nomological Network As part of the validation process, I explored the nomological network of proactive vitality management to examine how it relates to theoretically associated constructs. The findings, discussed in Chapter 2, show a pattern that is consistent with the conceptualization of proactive vitality management. First of all, the findings on the person-level indicated that proactive vitality management was moderately to strongly associated with higher levels of work engagement and cognitive liveliness, and lower levels of exhaustion. Moreover, findings on the day-level indicated that individuals experience more vigor and less fatigue when they had proactively managed their vitality for work that day, similarly indicated by moderate to strong correlations. So, while these measures of well-being represent the physical, affective, and cognitive states inherent in vitality, they share considerable overlap with proactive vitality management behavior. These findings correspond to the conceptualization of the construct, as an overarching behavioral construct comprising the proactive management of the physical, affective, and cognitive components inherent in vitality. Additional findings discussed in Chapter 2 showed that proactive vitality management shares conceptual overlap with other proactive constructs, further supporting its conceptualization. For example, individuals with a proactive personality were more likely to use proactive vitality management, as indicated by a moderate correlation 7
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw