Person-environment fit has been a subject of interest in personality psychology. In recent years, remote work has emerged as important workplace environment. This study examines the association between remote vs. in-person work and well-being, and how personality, age, and other socio-demographic factors moderate these associations. Over one month, 553 participants, who engage in both remote and in-person work, completed a daily diary. Using multilevel models, we examined intra-individual well-being differences between home and workplace days. Participants reported better mood, but greater loneliness on home-office vs. workplace days, while satisfaction levels were similar. HEXACO traits and socio-demographics accounted for some individual differences in well-being. Higher emotionality amplified loneliness on home-office days compared to workplace days. Age did not moderate well-being differences. Overall, findings indicate that work environments (remote vs. office) are related to within-individual well-being differences. Personality traits and socio-demographic characteristics, aside from living with children and working hours, played a limited role. These results suggest that well-being differences across working locations are generalizable across a large age range, different personality characteristics, and socio-demographic groups.
Plain language summary
Our goal was to understand how people feel on days when they work at home compared with days they work in the office. Over one month, 553 employees who worked both from home and in the office were asked to complete a short questionnaire each evening, indicating their well-being in terms of mood, loneliness and satisfaction.
What did we find?
- On days people worked from home, they reported a better overall mood, but felt lonelier than on office days.
- Satisfaction levels did not differ much between home and office days.
- People with higher emotionality felt lonelier on days when they worked from home.
- Living with children and total work hours also played a small role.
- Age was not related to well-being differences across working locations.
What does it mean?
Our study shows that people’s everyday well-being differs depending on whether they work at home or in the office. While some personality traits and personal situations matter a little, our findings suggest that these differences in well-being apply to many people, regardless of age and background.
AndersonA. J.KaplanS. A.VegaR. P. (2015). The impact of telework on emotional experience: When, and for whom, does telework improve daily affective well-being?European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 24(6), 882–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.966086
3.
AnglimJ.DunlopP. D.WeeS.HorwoodS.WoodJ. K.MartyA. (2022). Personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 148(5–6), 301–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000373
4.
AnglimJ.HorwoodS.SmillieL. D.MarreroR. J.WoodJ. K. (2020). Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(4), 279–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000226
5.
AntonucciT. C. (2001). Social relations: An examination of social networks, social support, and sense of control. In BirrenJ. E.SchaieK. W. (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging, (5th ed.). Academic Press.
6.
AreniC. S. (2008). (tell me why) I don’t like mondays: Does an overvaluation of future discretionary time underlie reported weekly mood cycles?Cognition & Emotion, 22(7), 1228–1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930701686107
7.
AreniC. S.BurgerM.ZlatevskaN. (2011). Factors affecting the extent of Monday blues: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Psychological Reports, 109(3), 723–733. https://doi.org/10.2466/13.20.PR0.109.6.723-733
8.
AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 340–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890902935878
9.
AshtonM. C.LeeK.de VriesR. E. (2014). The HEXACO honesty-humility, agreeableness, and emotionality factors: A review of research and theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 18(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314523838
BairdB. M.LucasR. E.DonnellanM. B. (2010). Life satisfaction across the lifespan: Findings from two nationally representative panel studies. Social Indicators Research, 99(2), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9584-9
13.
BaumeisterR. F.LearyM. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
14.
BeckelJ. L.FisherG. G. (2022). Telework and worker health and well-being: A review and recommendations for research and practice. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(7), 3879. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19073879
BirdittK. S.TurkelsonA.FingermanK. L.PolenickC. A.OyaA. (2021). Age differences in stress, life changes, and social ties during the COVID-19 pandemic: Implications for psychological well-being. The Gerontologist, 61(2), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaa204
17.
BlanchflowerD. G.OswaldA. J. (2019). Do humans suffer a psychological low in midlife? Two approaches (with and without controls) in seven data sets. In RojasM. (Ed.), The economics of happiness (pp. 439–453). Springer.
18.
BolgerN.LaurenceauJ.-P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. Guilford Press.
19.
BowlingN. A.EschlemanK. J.WangQ. (2010). A meta-analytic examination of the relationship between job satisfaction and subjective well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 915–934. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X478557
20.
BroseA.ScheibeS.SchmiedekF. (2013). Life contexts make a difference: Emotional stability in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 28(1), 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030047
21.
BueckerS.HorstmannK. T.LuhmannM. (2024). Lonely today, lonely tomorrow: Temporal dynamics of loneliness in everyday life and its associations with psychopathological symptoms. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 15(2), 170–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506231156061
22.
BueckerS.MaesM.DenissenJ. J. A.LuhmannM. (2020). Loneliness and the big five personality traits: A meta–analysis. European Journal of Personality, 34(1), 8–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2229
23.
CacioppoJ. T.HawkleyL. C.BerntsonG. G. (2003). The anatomy of loneliness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 71–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01232
24.
CarstensenL. L.FungH. H.CharlesS. T. (2003). Socioemotional selectivity theory and the regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and Emotion, 27(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024569803230
25.
CharlesS. T. (2010). Strength and vulnerability integration (SAVI): A model of emotional well-being across adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1068–1091. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021232
26.
CharlesS. T.MogleJ.UrbanE. J.AlmeidaD. M. (2016). Daily events are important for age differences in mean and duration for negative affect but not positive affect. Psychology and Aging, 31(7), 661–671. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000118
27.
CharlesS. T.ReynoldsC. A.GatzM. (2001). Age-related differences and change in positive and negative affect over 23 years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 136–151. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.136
28.
ChatterjeeK.ChngS.ClarkB.DavisA.De VosJ.EttemaD.HandyS.MartinA.ReardonL. (2020). Commuting and wellbeing: A critical overview of the literature with implications for policy and future research. Transport Reviews, 40(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2019.1649317
29.
ClarkL. A.KarauS. J.MichalisinM. D.ScrantonP. S. W. (2012). Telecommuting attitudes and the ‘Big Five’ personality dimensions. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 13(3), 31–46.
30.
CooperC. D.KurlandN. B. (2002). Telecommuting, professional isolation, and employee development in public and private organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 511–532. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.145
31.
CostaC.TeodoroM.MentoC.GiambòF.VitelloC.ItaliaS.FengaC. (2022). Work performance, mood and sleep alterations in home office workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(4), Article 1990. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19041990
32.
De CoomanR.VleugelsW. (2022). Person–environment fit: Theoretical perspectives, conceptualizations, and outcomes. In BerghD. D. (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of business and management. Oxford University Press.
33.
DelanoeijeJ.VerbruggenM.GermeysL. (2019). Boundary role transitions: A day-to-day approach to explain the effects of home-based telework on work-to-home conflict and home-to-work conflict. Human Relations, 72(12), 1843–1868. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718823071
34.
DienerE.ChanM. Y. (2011). Happy people live longer: Subjective well-being contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 3(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2010.01045.x
35.
DienerE.EmmonsR. A.LarsenR. J.GriffinS. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
36.
DienerE.SeligmanM. E. P. (2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 5(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00501001.x
37.
DienerE.SuhM. E. (1997). Subjective well-being and age: An international analysis. Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 17(1), 304–324. https://doi.org/10.1891/0198-8794.17.1.304
38.
du ToitA.ThomsonR.PageA. (2022). A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies of the antecedents and consequences of wellbeing among university students. International Journal of Wellbeing, 12(2), 163–206. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v12i2.1897
39.
EekF.AxmonA. (2013). Attitude and flexibility are the Most important work place factors for working parents’ mental wellbeing, stress, and work engagement. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 41(7), 692–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494813491167
40.
EtzelJ. M.NagyG. (2016). Students’ perceptions of person–environment fit: Do fit perceptions predict academic success beyond personality traits?Journal of Career Assessment, 24(2), 270–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072715580325
41.
EvansA.GrayE.ReimondosA. (2023). Having a partner or living with a partner: Differences in life satisfaction and mental health. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 18(5), 2295–2313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-023-10186-9
42.
EvansA. M.MeyersM. C.De CalseydeP. P. F. M. V.StavrovaO. (2022). Extroversion and conscientiousness predict deteriorating job outcomes during the COVID-19 transition to enforced remote work. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(3), 781–791. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211039092
43.
FranssenT.StijnenM.HamersF.SchneiderF. (2020). Age differences in demographic, social and health-related factors associated with loneliness across the adult life span (19–65 years): A cross-sectional study in the Netherlands. BMC Public Health, 1118(1), 1118. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09208-0
44.
GaineyT. W.ClenneyB. F. (2006). Flextime and telecommuting: Examining individual perceptions. Southern Business Review, 32(1), 13–21.
45.
GajendranR. S.HarrisonD. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524–1541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524
46.
GeldhofG. J.PreacherK. J.ZyphurM. J. (2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods, 19(1), 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032138
47.
GötzF. M.EbertT.RentfrowP. J. (2018). Regional cultures and the psychological geography of Switzerland: Person–environment–fit in personality predicts subjective wellbeing. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(517), 517. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00517
48.
GrünjesC. E.MacdonaldB.HülürG. (2024). The role of social interaction modality for well-being in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 39(4), 364–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000816
49.
HaddadH.LyonsG.ChatterjeeK. (2009). An examination of determinants influencing the desire for and frequency of part-day and whole-day homeworking. Journal of Transport Geography, 17(2), 124–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.11.008
50.
HagendijkM. E.ZipfelN.MellesM.Van Der WeesP. J.HulshofC. T. J.ZwaanE.Van Der Burg-VermeulenS. J.HovingJ. L. (2024). Patients’ needs regarding work-focused healthcare: A qualitative evidence synthesis. Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 35(3), 450–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-024-10225-8
51.
HarterJ. K.SchmidtF. L.KeyesC. L. M. (2003). Well-being in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the gallup studies. Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 205–224). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10594-009
52.
HartungJ.SpormannS. S.MoshagenM.WilhelmO. (2021). Structural differences in life satisfaction in a U.S. adult sample across age. Journal of Personality, 89(6), 1232–1251. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12654
53.
HawkleyL. C.BueckerS.KaiserT.LuhmannM. (2022). Loneliness from young adulthood to old age: Explaining age differences in loneliness. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 46(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025420971048
54.
HawkleyL. C.CacioppoJ. T. (2010). Loneliness matters: A theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine: A Publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, 40(2), 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-010-9210-8
HilbrechtM.ShawS. M.JohnsonL. C.AndreyJ. (2008). ‘I’m home for the kids’: Contradictory implications for work–life balance of teleworking mothers. Gender, Work and Organization, 15(5), 454–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00413.x
57.
HoffmanC. L. (2021). The experience of teleworking with dogs and cats in the United States during COVID-19. Animals: An Open Access Journal from MDPI, 11(2), 268. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020268
58.
HollandJ. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments. Psychological Assessment Resources.
59.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
60.
HülshegerU. R.UitdewilligenS.ZijlstraF. R. H.WalkowiakA. (2022). Blue Monday, yellow Friday? Investigating work anticipation as an explanatory mechanism and boundary conditions of weekly affect trajectories. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 27(4), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000330
61.
IngenfeldJ.WolbringT.BlessH. (2019). Commuting and life satisfaction revisited: Evidence on a non-linear relationship. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(8), 2677–2709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0064-2
62.
JayawickremeE.TsukayamaE.KashdanT. B. (2017). Examining the effect of affect on life satisfaction judgments: A within-person perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 68, 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.04.005
63.
JohnsT.GrattonL. (2013). The third wave of virtual work. Harvard Business Review, 91(1), 66–73.
64.
JoinerR. J.BergemanC. S.WangL. (2018). Affective experience across the adult lifespan: An accelerated longitudinal design. Psychology and Aging, 33(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000257
65.
JoshanlooM.JovanovićV. (2021). Similarities and differences in predictors of life satisfaction across age groups: A 150-country study. Journal of Health Psychology, 26(3), 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105318819054
66.
JudgeT. A.HellerD.MountM. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530–541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530
67.
KafetsiosK.ChatzakouD.TsigilisN.VakaliA. (2017). Experience of emotion in face to face and computer-mediated social interactions: An event sampling study. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 287–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.033
68.
KlineR. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (5th ed.). Guildord publications.
69.
KniffinK. M.NarayananJ.AnseelF.AntonakisJ.AshfordS. P.BakkerA. B.BambergerP.BapujiH.BhaveD. P.ChoiV. K.CrearyS. J.DemeroutiE.FlynnF. J.GelfandM. J.GreerL. L.JohnsG.KesebirS.KleinP. G.LeeS. Y.M. V. (2021). COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. American Psychologist, 76(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000716
70.
Koch-InstitutR. (2021). Fragebogen zur Studie Gesundheit in Deutschland aktuell: GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS. Journal of Health Monitoring, 6(3), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.25646/8560
71.
KortschT.RehwaldtR.SchwakeM. E.LicariC. (2022). Does remote work make people happy? Effects of flexibilization of work location and working hours on happiness at work and affective commitment in the German banking sector. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(15), 9117. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159117.(15).
72.
KrekelC.WardG.NeveD (2018). Work and well-being: A global perspective. Global Happiness Policy Report.
73.
Kristof-BrownA. L.ZimmermanR. D.JohnsonE. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
74.
KrummS.GrubeA.HertelG. (2013). No time for compromises: Age as a moderator of the relation between needs–supply fit and job satisfaction. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 22(5), 547–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.676248
75.
LandmannH.RohmannA. (2022). When loneliness dimensions drift apart: Emotional, social and physical loneliness during the COVID -19 lockdown and its associations with age, personality, stress and well-being. International Journal of Psychology: Journal International de Psychologie, 57(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12772
76.
LangvikE.KarlsenH. R.Saksvik-LehouillierI.SørengaardT. A. (2021). Police employees working from home during COVID-19 lockdown: Those with higher score on extraversion miss their colleagues more and are more likely to socialize with colleagues outside work. Personality and Individual Differences, 1379, 110924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110924
77.
LewinK. (1951). Field theory in social science. Harper & Row.
78.
LitchfieldP.CooperC.HancockC.WattP. (2016). Work and wellbeing in the 21st century. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(11), 1065. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13111065
79.
LuhmannM.HawkleyL. C. (2016). Age differences in loneliness from late adolescence to oldest old Age. Developmental Psychology, 52(6), 943–959. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000117
80.
LuseA.McElroyJ. C.TownsendA. M.DeMarieS. (2013). Personality and cognitive style as predictors of preference for working in virtual teams. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1825–1832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.007
81.
LyubomirskyS.KingL.DienerE. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success?Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803–855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803
82.
MacdonaldB.LuoM.HülürG. (2021). Daily social interactions and well-being in older adults: The role of interaction modality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(12), 3566–3589. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211052536
83.
MaesM.QualterP.VanhalstJ.Van den NoortgateW.GoossensL. (2019). Gender differences in loneliness across the lifespan: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 33(6), 642–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2220
84.
MartinL.HauretL.FuhrerC. (2022). Digitally transformed home office impacts on job satisfaction, job stress and job productivity. COVID-19 findings. PLOS ONE, 17(3), Article e0265131. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265131
85.
Martín-MaríaN.MiretM.CaballeroF. F.Rico-UribeL. A.SteptoeA.ChatterjiS.Ayuso-MateosJ. L. (2017). The impact of subjective well-being on mortality: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies in the general population. Psychosomatic Medicine, 79(5), 565–575. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000444
86.
MaruyamaT.TietzeS. (2012). From anxiety to assurance: Concerns and outcomes of telework. Personnel Review, 41(4), 450–469. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481211229375
87.
MatthewsG.JonesD. M.ChamberlainA. G. (1990). Refining the measurement of mood: The UWIST mood adjective checklist. British Journal of Psychology, 81(1), 17–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1990.tb02343.x
88.
McAdamsK. K.LucasR. E.DonnellanM. B. (2012). The role of domain satisfaction in explaining the paradoxical association between life satisfaction and age. Social Indicators Research, 109(2), 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9903-9
89.
MergenerA. (2020). Berufliche Zugänge zum Homeoffice. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 72(Suppl 1), 511–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-020-00669-0
90.
MinerA. G.GlombT. M.HulinC. (2005). Experience sampling mood and its correlates at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(2), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X40105
91.
MorrisM. G.VenkateshV. (2000). Age differences in technology adoption decisions: Implications for a changing work force. Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 375–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00206.x
92.
MoshagenM.HilbigB. E.ZettlerI. (2014). Faktorenstruktur, psychometrische Eigenschaften und Messinvarianz der deutschsprachigen Version des 60-item HEXACO Persönlichkeitsinventars. Diagnostica, 60(2), 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000112
93.
MroczekD. K.SpiroA.III (2005). Change in life satisfaction during adulthood: Findings from the veterans affairs normative aging study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.189
94.
NakaiY.ChangB.SnellA. F.FluckingerC. D. (2011). Profiles of mature job seekers: Connecting needs and desires to work characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.697
95.
NeubauerA. B.ScottS. B.SliwinskiM. J.SmythJ. M. (2020). How was your day? Convergence of aggregated momentary and retrospective end-of-day affect ratings across the adult life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(1), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000248
96.
NicolaisenM.ThorsenK. (2014). Who are lonely? Loneliness in different age groups (18–81 years old), using two measures of loneliness. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 78(3), 229–257. https://doi.org/10.2190/AG.78.3.b
97.
NiebuhrF.BorleP.Börner-ZobelF.Voelter-MahlknechtS. (2022). Healthy and happy working from home? Effects of working from home on employee health and job satisfaction. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031122
98.
NijpH. H.BeckersD. G. J.Van De VoordeK.GeurtsS. A. E.KompierM. A. J. (2016). Effects of new ways of working on work hours and work location, health and job-related outcomes. Chronobiology International, 33(6), 604–618. https://doi.org/10.3109/07420528.2016.1167731
O’NeillT. A.HambleyL. A.GreidanusN. S.MacDonnellR.KlineT. J. B. (2009). Predicting teleworker success: An exploration of personality, motivational, situational, and job characteristics. New Technology, Work and Employment, 24(2), 144–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2009.00225.x
101.
PaganR. (2020). Gender and age differences in loneliness: Evidence for people without and with disabilities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(24), 9176. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249176
Perelli-HarrisB.HoherzS.AddoF.LappegårdT.EvansA.SasslerS.StyrcM. (2018). Do marriage and cohabitation provide benefits to health in mid-life? The role of childhood selection mechanisms and partnership characteristics across countries. Population Research and Policy Review, 37(5), 703–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-018-9467-3
105.
PerlmanD. (1990). Age differences in loneliness: A meta-analysis. Annual convention of the American Psychological Association. ERIC. https://eric.gov/?id=ED326767
106.
PerryS. J.RubinoC.HunterE. M. (2018). Stress in remote work: Two studies testing the demand-control-person model. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 27(5), 577–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1487402
107.
PfundG. N.BastaracheE. D.WillrothE. C.HuismanM.SpiroA.LuoJ.GrahamE. K.MroczekD. K. (2024). Lifespan trajectories of negative and positive affect: A coordinated analysis of 14 longitudinal studies. European Journal of Personality, 08902070241293967(5), 747–769. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070241293967
108.
PilchI. (2023). Comparison of the big five and the HEXACO models of personality in the prediction of emotional wellbeing: An experience sampling study. Trends in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43076-023-00311-w
109.
PreacherK. J.CurranP. J.BauerD. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986031004437
RauvolaR. S.RudolphC. W.EbbertL. K.ZacherH. (2020). Person–Environment fit and work satisfaction: Exploring the conditional effects of Age. Work, Aging and Retirement, 6(2), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waz011
112.
R Core Team (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
113.
RealoA.DobewallH. (2011). Does life satisfaction change with age? A comparison of Estonia, Finland, Latvia, and Sweden. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(3), 297–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.03.004
114.
RedmanT.SnapeE.AshurstC. (2009). Location, location, location: Does place of work really matter?British Journal of Management, 20(s1), S171–S181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00640.x
115.
ReedA. E.ChanL.MikelsJ. A. (2014). Meta-analysis of the age-related positivity effect: Age differences in preferences for positive over negative information. Psychology and Aging, 29(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035194
116.
ReichertM.TostH.ReinhardI.ZipfA.SalizeH.-J.Meyer-LindenbergA.Ebner-PriemerU. (2016). Within-Subject associations between mood dimensions and non-exercise activity: An ambulatory assessment approach using repeated real-time and objective data. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 124–134. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00918
117.
RevelleW. (2025). Psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and personality research (version r package version 2.3.3)computer software.
118.
RevelleW.ZinbargR. E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: Comments on sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z
119.
RichterD.WeinhardtM. (2013). Mwv medizinisch Wissenschaftliche verlagsges. In KemperC. J.ZengerM.BrählerE. (Eds.), Psychologische und sozialwissenschaftliche Kurzskalen: Standardisierte Erhebungsinstrumente für Wissenschaft und Praxis. LS-S: Loneliness Scale-SOEP.
120.
RobertsB. W.RobinsR. W. (2004). Person-Environment fit and its implications for personality development: A longitudinal Study. Journal of Personality, 72(1), 89–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00257.x
121.
RotheP.LindholmA.HyvönenA.NenonenS. (2012). Work environment preferences – Does age make a difference?Facilities, 30(1/2), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632771211194284.(1/2).
122.
ScheibeS. (2021). Employee age moderates within-person associations of daily negative work events with emotion regulation, attention, and well-being. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 30(6), 872–886. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2021.1873772
123.
SchimmackU.GrobA. (2000). Dimensional models of core affect: A quantitative comparison by means of structural equation modeling. European Journal of Personality, 14(4), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0984(200007/08)14
124.
SchneiderB.SmithD. B.TaylorS.FleenorJ. (1998). Personality and organizations: A test of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 462–470. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.462
125.
SchulteV.SteinebachC.VerkuilA. (2021). Effects of home office on employees’ working conditions during covid 19 crisis in Switzerland. In GerberA.HinkelmannK. (Eds.), Proceedings of the first international conference on Society 5.0, Switzerland, 22 June 2021. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5203113
126.
SeligmanM. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Simon & Schuster.
127.
ShaoY.FangY.WangM.ChangC.WangL. (2021). Making daily decisions to work from home or to work in the office: The impacts of daily work-and COVID-related stressors on next-day work location. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(6), 825–838. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000929
128.
ShovestulB.HanJ.GermineL.Dodell-FederD. (2020). Risk factors for loneliness: The high relative importance of age versus other factors. PLoS One, 15(2), Article e0229087. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229087
129.
ShresthaS.SigdelK.PokharelM.ColumbusS. (2024). Big five traits predict between- and within-person variation in loneliness. European Journal of Personality, 08902070241239834(1), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070241239834
130.
SmithS. A.PatmosA.PittsM. J. (2018). Communication and teleworking: A study of communication channel satisfaction, personality, and job satisfaction for teleworking employees. International Journal of Business Communication, 55(1), 44–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415589101
131.
SparksK.CooperC.FriedY.ShiromA. (1997). The effects of hours of work on health: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(4), 391–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997.tb00656.x
132.
StanekK. C.OnesD. S. (2023). Meta-analytic relations between personality and cognitive ability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 120(23), Article e2212794120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2212794120
SteelP.SchmidtJ.ShultzJ. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 138–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.138
135.
SteigerJ. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180.
136.
StoneA. A.SchneiderS.HarterJ. K. (2012). Day-of-week mood patterns in the United States: On the existence of ‘Blue Monday’, ‘Thank God it’s Friday’ and weekend effects. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(4), 306–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2012.691980
SukH. W.ChoiE.NaJ.ChoiJ.ChoiI. (2021). Within-person day-of-week effects on affective and evaluative/cognitive well-being among Koreans. Emotion, 21(5), 1114–1118. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000930
139.
TahlyanD.SaidM.MahmassaniH.StathopoulosA.WalkerJ.ShaheenS. (2022). For whom did telework not work during the pandemic? Understanding the factors impacting telework satisfaction in the US using a multiple indicator multiple cause (MIMIC) model. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 155, 387–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.11.025
ThielmannI.MoshagenM.HilbigB. E.ZettlerI. (2022). On the comparability of basic personality models: Meta-analytic correspondence, scope, and orthogonality of the big five and HEXACO dimensions. European Journal of Personality, 36(6), 870–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211026793
142.
UNESCO (2012). International standard classification of education (ISCED) 2011. UNESCO.
143.
van RoekelE.VerhagenM.EngelsR. C. M. E.ScholteR. H. J.CacioppoS.CacioppoJ. T. (2018). Trait and state levels of loneliness in early and late adolescents: Examining the differential reactivity hypothesis. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 47(6), 888–899. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2016.1146993
144.
Van VianenA. E. M. (2018). Person–environment fit: A review of its basic tenets. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 75–101. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104702
145.
Van VianenA. E. M.ShenC.ChuangA. (2011). Person–organization and person–supervisor fits: Employee commitments in a Chinese context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(6), 906–926. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.726
146.
Van ZoonenW.SivunenA. E. (2022). The impact of remote work and mediated communication frequency on isolation and psychological distress. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 31(4), 610–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2021.2002299
147.
VenkateshV.GansterD. C.SchuetzS. W.SykesT. A. (2021). Risks and rewards of conscientiousness during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(5), 643–656. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000919
148.
Vukasović HlupićT.ButkovićA.PocrnićM.BratkoD. (2023). The relationship between three basic psychological needs and big five personality traits: A meta-analysis. Current Psychology, 42(35), 31559–31578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-04158-9
149.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.McIntyreC. W.HamakerS. (1992). Affect, personality, and social activity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 1011–1025. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.63.6.1011
150.
WeberC.GoldingS. E.YarkerJ.TeohK.LewisR.RatcliffeE.MunirF.WheeleT.WindlingerL. (2023). Work fatigue during COVID-19 lockdown teleworking: The role of psychosocial, environmental, and social working conditions. Frontiers in Psychology, 14(11), Article1155118. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1155118
151.
WeissH. M.CropanzanoR. (1996). Affective Events Theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In StawB. M.CummingsL. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (18, pp. 1–74). Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
Weziak-BialowolskaD.BialowolskiP.SaccoP. L.VanderWeeleT. J.McNeelyE. (2020). Well-being in life and well-being at work: Which comes first? Evidence from a longitudinal study. Frontiers in Public Health, 8, 103. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00103
WillrothE. C.JohnO. P.BiesanzJ. C.MaussI. B. (2020). Understanding short-term variability in life satisfaction: The individual differences in evaluating life satisfaction (IDELS) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(1), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000261
156.
WilmotM. P.OnesD. S. (2019). A century of research on conscientiousness at work. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(46), 23004–23010. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908430116
157.
WiltshireJ.BourdageJ. S.LeeK. (2014). Honesty-humility and perceptions of organizational politics in predicting workplace outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(2), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9310-0
158.
WundtW. (1897). Grundriss der Psychologie (3rd ed.) W Engelmann.
159.
XiaoY.Becerik-GerberB.LucasG.RollS. C. (2021). Impacts of working from home during COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental well-being of office workstation users. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(3), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002097
160.
Young SeongJ.Kristof-BrownA. L. (2012). Testing multidimensional models of person-group fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(6), 536–556. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941211252419
161.
ZacherH.FeldmanD. C.SchulzH. (2014). Age, occupational strain, and well-being: A person-environment fit perspective. The role of demographics in occupational stress and well-being (Vol. 12, pp. 83–111). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-355520140000012002
162.
ZacherH.SchmittA. (2016). Work characteristics and occupational well-being: The role of age. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1411. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01411
163.
ZemanT.JoossM.SitumM. (2021). Changes in internal communications through the “Home Office” working model. In SchneckenleitnerP.ReitbergerW.Brunner-SperdinA.HallerA. (Eds.), Conference proceedings trends in business communication 2020 (pp. 85–101). Springer Fachmedien.
164.
ZettlerI.HilbigB. E. (2010). Honesty–humility and a person–situation interaction at work. European Journal of Personality, 24(7), 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.757
165.
ZinbargR. E.RevelleW.YovelI.LiW. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and McDonald’s ω H: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70(1), 123–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
