current issues in personality psychology · volume 10(1), doi: https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2021.108097

backgroundThe aim of the study was to assess the relationship be-tween performing remote work during the COVID-19 pan-demic and the level of job and life satisfaction, as well as the assumed, intermediary role of the level of perceived stress and such resources as self-efficacy and self-esteem.

participants and procedureThe study, implemented with the use of an internet ap-plication, included 283 employees. Data were gathered using a job and life satisfaction scale, the Short Scale for Measuring General Self-Efficacy Beliefs, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, Perceived Stress Scale PSS-4 and a de-mographic information form.

resultsThe results showed the existence of a relationship between performing remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic

and job and life satisfaction, and that the level of perceived stress, self-efficiency and self-esteem plays an intermedi-ary role in this relationship. Remote working is associated with life and job satisfaction, and this relationship is medi-ated by levels of experienced stress, self-efficacy and self-esteem.

conclusionsFindings indicate that remote working is associated with higher levels of job and work satisfaction. This relationship is mediated by levels of perceived stress, self-efficacy and self-esteem.

key wordsCOVID-19; home office; personal resources; stress; subjec-tive well-being

Satisfaction with job and life and remote work in the COVID-19 pandemic: the role of perceived

stress, self-efficacy and self-esteem

corresponding author – Blanka Kondratowicz, Ph.D., Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk, 8 Bażyńskiego Str., 80-309 Gdansk, Poland, e-mail: [email protected]

authors’ contribution – A: Study design · B: Data collection · C: Statistical analysis · D: Data interpretation · E: Manuscript preparation · F: Literature search · G: Funds collection

to cite this article – Kondratowicz, B., Godlewska-Werner, D., Połomski, P., & Khosla, M. (2022). Satisfaction with job and life and remote work in the COVID-19 pandemic: the role of perceived stress, self-efficacy and self-esteem. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 10(1), 49–60.

received 31.01.2021 · reviewed 01.04.2021 · accepted 29.06.2021 · published 21.09.2021

original article

Blanka Kondratowicz id 1 · A,B,C,D,E,F, Dorota Godlewska-Werner id 1 · A,B,C,D,E,F, Piotr Połomski id 1 · C,D,E, Meetu Khosla id 2 · E,F

1: Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland 2: University of Delhi, New Delhi, India

Satisfaction with job and life and remote work

50 current issues in personality psychology

Background

Over the past several dozens of years there have been numerous changes in the labor sphere, which have undoubtedly influenced the style of work and contributed to the emergence of new forms of fulfill-ing professional duties. Technological advances have contributed to changing working conditions, includ-ing the emergence of remote work. In order to keep their jobs, employees were forced to adapt to the sur-rounding reality (Rożnowski et al., 2006). One of the challenges that a modern employee has recently been faced with was the implementation of new solutions as a  result of the COVID-19 virus. Since March  11, 2020, when the WHO announced the outbreak of a pandemic as a result of the spread of SARS-CoV-2 disease, our functioning across all areas of life has changed. As indicated by various sources, the current epidemic situation requires personnel to make many changes in their previous behavior patterns (Finset et al., 2020). Due to the fear of an unknown disease and as a  result of introduced restrictions and con-straints, we had to learn to organize our personal and professional life differently than until now. One of the changes implemented by a number of employers was the transition to full-time or hybrid remote work. According to a  report from the website Pracuj.pl (2020) this is how 42% of respondents are currently performing their professional duties. In the wake of the current pandemic, it seems key to identify re-sources that will facilitate the transition of employ-ees, positively affect their satisfaction and reduce the costs borne by them. Given the need to adapt to new living and working conditions, the beliefs of an individual about himself and the surrounding world prove to be of paramount importance (Rożnowski & Kot, 2015). As emphasized by Bandura (1997), one of them is the belief in one’s self-efficacy; it also rep-resents one of the resources that allow an individual to cope with a  difficult situation. Due to the emer-gence of COVID-19, many people have developed negative emotions, stress, and decreased well-being (Grover et  al., 2020); fear, anxiety, apprehension as well as a  decline in the sense of control have also appeared (Finset et al., 2020). Anxiety related to the existing virus and a sense of solitude can trigger neg-ative thoughts and even depression, while the results of the most recent studies show that self-esteem pro-tects the individual against the effects of COVID-19, even in a  situation where a  high level of anxiety is accompanied by a  feeling of loneliness (Rossi et  al., 2020). It is precisely personal and social resources that are currently the key predictors of mental health understood as emotional, social, and psychological wellbeing (Super et  al., 2020). Therefore, the aim of the study is to determine the relationship between remote work performed in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic and satisfaction with life and work, taking

into account the intermediary role of the level of per-ceived stress, self-efficacy and self-esteem.

Job and life satisfaction

The construct of well-being has been a pertinent area of study in this regard. Well-being is theorized as the presence of a state of wellness, instead of mere absence of illness. Ryff and Keyes (1995) define well-being as striving for perfection represented by recognition of an individual’s true potential. Well-being is linked to two broad perspectives, i.e., hedonic (subjective well-being) and eudemonic (psychological well-being). The former deals with dimensions pertaining to phys-ical health, affect, and life satisfaction, to name a few (Diener &  Diener, 1995), whereas the latter includes constructs such as personal development, relating to the environment and self-actualization (Kashdan et al., 2008). Life satisfaction and subjective happiness are two broad areas studied under the framework of subjective well-being (Lyubomirsky, 2001). The for-mer refers to a  cognitive evaluation about one’s life (Diener et al., 2003), whereas the latter is a subjective evaluation about whether an individual is happy or unhappy (Lyubomirsky, 2001). High well-being has been reported to influence health (Seligman, 1998) and job satisfaction (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000). Subjective well-being is influenced by a constellation of various components of positive psychology such as self-efficacy, resilience, hope and optimism (Culbert-son et al., 2010; Luthans et al., 2007).

Remote woRk and Job and life satisfaction

Until recently, telework was treated as a benefit be-cause it offered employees freedom in the organiza-tion of work. As demonstrated by research from the beginning of the 21st century, the remote implemen-tation of professional duties may increase employee satisfaction and productivity (e.g., Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Lipińska-Grobelny, 2014). Moreover, it is as-sociated with less role conflict, work-role stress and fatigue resulting from work, and the experienced sense of freedom affects job performance (Gajen-dran &  Harrison, 2007). It also has a  positive effect on the employees’ well-being (Anderson et al., 2015), increases the quality of life and the sense of security (Filardí et  al., 2020) and lowers job-induced stress (Hayman, 2010). Control and autonomy, flexibility and the ability to concentrate seem to be the factors most significantly influencing the overall quality of life of a  remote worker (Van Sell &  Jacobs, 1994). That said, not all studies have confirmed the effect of such a  working mode on the overall satisfaction with life, and it is even indicated that the partners

Blanka Kondratowicz, Dorota Godlewska-Werner, Piotr Połomski, Meetu Khosla

51volume 10(1), 

of employees have experienced reduced satisfaction (Vittersø et  al., 2003). In Norwegian studies, remote employees displayed an increased sense of belong-ing understood as being in a  safe and familiar en-vironment (physical belonging), satisfaction with relationships (social belonging) and satisfaction with access to events and the possibility of participating in educational and professional activities (community belonging) (Vittersø et  al., 2003). Certain discrepan-cies in the assessment of remote work may be attrib-uted to the frequency of contacts with the supervi-sor and colleagues, the received technical assistance and boundary management support (Oakman et  al., 2020), as well as whether remote work is voluntary or imposed (Kaduk et al., 2019).

stRess duRing the pandemic and Job and life satisfaction

The COVID-19 pandemic was surprising for every-one and impacted not just our professional function-ing but also satisfaction in various areas of life and ways of coping with a difficult situation. The evalu-ation of the situation as stressful is associated with the experience of suffering harm or loss, a  percep-tion of threat or a challenge, and depends on the cur-rent characteristics of the event, i.e., novelty, con-trollability and predictability (Lazarus &  Folkman, 1984). These elements are undoubtedly determinants of what the pandemic situation has brought us – it has disturbed the balance between the needs of the individual and the conditions for their implementa-tion. An individual may find it stressful to introduce changes in work procedures, as well as to perform tasks inconsistent with his expectations and values (Schultz & Schultz, 2002). A large share of these stress-ors have emerged from the need to continue working from home during the pandemic. Perceived stress re-duces satisfaction with life (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and self-esteem, and worsens somatic problems and emotional discomfort (Schultz & Schultz, 2002). However, the severity of a stressor is influenced not only by its harmfulness, but also by the individual’s resources and properties, and the support received, conditioning the reaction to the stressor and the pro-cess of coping with a difficult situation, as well as the individual’s attitude and experience.

During the pandemic, over 74% of respondents re-ported an average level of stress, and well-being de-creased by over 71% (Grover et al., 2020). Stress and the accompanying negative emotions increased with increasing duration of isolation (Grover et al., 2020), and satisfaction with life deteriorated especially in March and May 2020, when many countries intro-duced lockdowns (Zacher &  Rudolph, 2021). This is understandable, as staying in isolation for even a few days can lead to anxiety, fear, loneliness, anger, and

symptoms of depression (Reynolds et  al., 2008), as well as boredom and sadness (Droit-Volet et al., 2020).

Experiencing the threat of fear of coronavirus transmission has an impact on the assessment of health-related quality of life. The most common manifestations are pain and discomfort, as well as depression and anxiety, which increase with age, es-pecially in people with a reduced income, chronically ill, or facing the consequences of the pandemic (Ping et  al., 2020). However, research shows that the im-posed quarantine was conducive to the improvement of family relations (Grover et al., 2020), which can be a springboard from difficulties and thus increase our comfort.

On the other hand, continuing remote work was associated with an increase in motivation, satisfac-tion and greater enjoyment, which ultimately trans-lated into productivity (Susilo, 2020). This could have been partly due to less fear of job loss as well as an increased sense of control over one’s life. Moreover, access to technology can help to overcome the nega-tive symptoms of the experienced difficult situation related to social isolation (Smith et al., 2018). There-fore, it can be assumed that telework will have posi-tive effects on overall satisfaction, even though em-ployees may experience technostress due to the need to use information and communication technologies. Interestingly, there is a  correlation between tech-nostress and behavioral stress and role conflict, but in the case of remote work, paradoxically, this cor-relation was negative (Molino et al., 2020). However, research shows that there are considerable differ-ences between the levels of perceived stress depend-ing on culture and living conditions. Research con-ducted during the lockdown among representatives of the French population demonstrated that working from home was associated with lower levels of stress, while in China remote work actually increased stress (Droit-Volet et al., 2020).

self-efficacy and Job and life satisfaction

The ability to exercise control over the nature and quality of one’s life is the essence of humanity (Ban-dura, 1977, 2001). Self-efficacy begins with the con-cept of Albert Bandura (1977) and plays a  key role in socio-cognitive theory. Following this theory, the variability of an individual’s behavior is caused by changes taking place in the environment. It is as-sumed that the belief in self-efficacy influences the adaptation of the individual and the changes made by him (Bandura, 2001). In line with the approach of Bandura (1997), self-efficacy means how an individual perceives their ability to cope with certain situations. Moreover, it concerns the belief of an individual about having the ability to carry out certain actions that

Satisfaction with job and life and remote work

52 current issues in personality psychology

are necessary to achieve a concrete result (Bandura, 1977, 1997), as well as to engage in problem-solving behavior and strategies that help in coping with life changes. Further, the sense of self-efficacy represents one of the resources that allow an individual to cope with a  challenging situation (Bańka &  Orłowski, 2014) and stress at work (Maggiori et al., 2016); it also influences whether an individual thinks optimisti-cally or pessimistically (Bandura, 2001). In the con-text of work, self-efficacy is particularly important because it gives employees confidence in taking con-trol over various aspects of life (Bargsted et al., 2019), including professional life. Self-efficacy plays a  vital role in examining the functioning of employees in an organization, assuming a predictive function in con-nection with various aspects of professional activity and job satisfaction (cf. Stajkovic &  Luthans, 1998). People characterized by a  high level of self-efficacy enjoy better health (Bandura, 1997) compared to indi-viduals with a low level of self-efficacy. High self-ef-ficacy has been reported as a predictor of well-being (Bandura, 2006). Results of numerous studies indicate that self-efficacy increases the level of perceived job satisfaction (Judge et  al., 2005; Mishra et  al., 2016; Peng &  Mao, 2015). Evidence also demonstrated the intermediary role of self-efficacy in the relationship between personality traits and satisfaction (Maggiori et al., 2016), person-job fit and job satisfaction (Peng & Mao, 2015), perceived work environment and lack of job satisfaction (Zhang et  al., 2020). There exists a negative relationship between perceived stress and self-efficacy, and a positive relationship between self-esteem and self-efficacy (Rayle et al., 2005).

self-esteem and Job and life satisfaction

Self-esteem is another important aspect of one’s emo-tional health and plays a vital role in subjective well-being. It refers to one’s sense or assessment of one’s own value and worth. Self-esteem can be understood as the degree to which individuals appreciate, approve of or even values themselves (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991). Rosenberg (1965) defined self-esteem as an at-titude that an individual has towards their own self, which may be positive or negative. It is the evaluation part of the self-concept, and a broad representation of one’s self which includes behavioral, cognitive, emo-tional and evaluative aspects (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991). Self-esteem has considerable implications for mental health and well-being due to its association with happiness (Diener & Diener, 1995). Furthermore, it is correlated with subjective well-being, namely high positive affect, low negative affect, and high life satisfaction (Diener & Diener, 1995). Many stud-ies conducted to date indicate a positive relationship between the level of self-esteem and satisfaction with

life and work (Liu et al., 2017; Rossi et al., 2020). In-dividuals with high self-esteem have reported fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety (Solomon et al., 1991). In sum, both self-efficacy and self-esteem are constituents of core self-evaluation, which has been shown to increase the level of employee satisfaction with life and work (Judge et al., 2005). Therefore, this study consisted in testing the significance of these two internal resources of employees.

cuRRent study

The implementation of remote work as a way to cope with a difficult situation, such as the threat of a new virus, was a trying challenge for employees and or-ganizations. It required flexibility and the ability to quickly adapt to new solutions. The experience of a new situation influenced various areas of our lives and our satisfaction with them.

The conducted research aimed to provide an an-swer to the question: How did the level of perceived stress, self-efficacy and self-esteem mediate the re-lationship between remote work during the corona-virus pandemic and satisfaction with work and per-sonal life?

Taking into consideration the previous research, it can reasonably be assumed that teleworking posi-tively affects employees’ well-being (e.g., Anderson et  al., 2015; Bailey &  Kurland, 2002) and reduces stress (cf. Hayman, 2010); however, this relationship can be modified by the share of perceived stress (e.g., Lazarus &  Folkman, 1984), self-efficacy (e.g., Judge et  al., 2005) and self-esteem (e.g., Baumeister et  al., 2003; Diener &  Diener, 1995) as variables affecting satisfaction. That said, teleworking was a  solution resulting from necessity, so its impact on employee satisfaction may be limited (cf. Kaduk et al., 2019).

Based on the literature, the following research hy-potheses were advanced:

H1: The level of perceived stress and self-efficacy constitute the intermediary variables of the relation-ship between remote work and satisfaction with life and work.

H2: The level of perceived stress and self-esteem constitute intermediary variables in the relationship between remote work and satisfaction with life and work.

ParticiPants and Procedure

paRticipants

The study covered 283 employees (aged M = 30.86, SD = 11.33). The youngest respondent was 19 years old and the oldest was 62. The typical subject was be-tween 23 and 40 years old, with a median age of 25.

Blanka Kondratowicz, Dorota Godlewska-Werner, Piotr Połomski, Meetu Khosla

53volume 10(1), 

Women were in the majority, with 195 employees (ap-prox. 69%), while the number of men was 88 (approx. 31%). The majority of participants were employees working under an employment contract – 58.1%. In-dividuals employed on the basis of a  civil law con-tract accounted for 29.2%, under a contractual agree-ment 5%, while the self-employed represented 7.6%. 54.5% of the respondents had never worked remotely before, 34.8% rarely, while 10.7% worked in remote mode occasionally.

pRoceduRe

The study was conducted online using the MS Office package. It was voluntary and anonymous. The link to the questionnaires was made available to people employed in various industries and organizations. The study lasted from the end of March to the end of April 2020, during the total national lockdown intro-duced in Poland.

measuRes

The following were used:A self-designed questionnaire used to measure sat-

isfaction with professional and personal life. The basis for the construction of the tool is the results of ex-ploratory factor analysis carried out with the SPSS 26 package, which allowed us to identify 3 factors: job satisfaction (e.g., relations with the supervisor and colleagues), satisfaction with employment conditions (e.g., employment stability, salary level and personal development opportunities) and satisfaction with per-sonal life (e.g., personal/family life, health status, rela-tionship with a partner/spouse). These factors explain more than 40% of the total variance. The test consists of 12 items. The respondents answered on a  scale from 0 to 10 regarding their satisfaction (0 – dissatis-fied and 10 – satisfied) with particular areas of life in accordance with the assumptions of Cantril’s Ladder (1965). The tool proved to be reliable (Cronbach’s α for all factors above .7) and accurate.

The Short Scale for Measuring General Self-Efficacy Beliefs (Atroszko et al., 2017), which contains 2 state-ments – “Usually, I  am able to cope with what hap-pens to me” and “I  can solve most problems if I put enough effort into it”. The research provided answers to what extent the statements were true on a  scale from 1 to 9 (1 – no and 9 – yes).

Self-Esteem Scale (SES; Rosenberg, 1965, in the Polish adaptation by Dzwonkowska et al., 2008). The scale consists of 10 statements regarding beliefs about oneself, and the respondent’s task is to determine on a 4-point scale (from 1 – strongly agree to 4 – strongly disagree) how much they agree with them. The scale is a one-dimensional method.

Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4; Cohen et al., 1983, in the Polish adaptation of Atroszko, 2015). Here, the questions concern recent feelings and thoughts, and the respondent’s task is to determine the frequency of their occurrence on a 5-point scale from 1 (never) to 5 (very often).

The particulars contained demographic questions and included questions about the consequences of experiencing a  pandemic situation, including the implementation of remote work and previous expe-rience related to it. The respondents answered the question about frequency of remote work on a five-point scale (1 – not at all, 2 – seldom, 3 – sometimes, 4 – often, 5 – always).

results

The means, standard deviations and reliabilities for all the tested variables are shown in Table 1.

To verify the models regarding the hypotheses on the relationship between performing remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic and the level of sat-isfaction with life and work among the respondents, as well as the assumed, intermediary role in this re-spect, the level of perceived stress and the sense of self-efficacy and self-esteem, we conducted an analy-sis of direct and indirect effects in SEM models using the Amos 26 package.

The obtained results of the strength of the rela-tionship between the variables as well as the fit of the models are presented in Figures 1 and 2.

The assumed free-form models for the dependent variable “subjective well-being” proved to be accept-ably fitted to the data (Konarski, 2010) and interpre-table (Tables 2 and 3). All relations were statistically significant.

It was determined that the mere fact of performing remote work (Figures 1 and 2) is statistically signifi-cantly (β = .20, B = .19, p < .01) and positively related to

Table 1

Means, standard deviations and reliabilities for the tested variables

Variables M SD α

Job satisfaction 7.36 1.94 .89

Satisfaction with employment conditions

6.02 2.29 .81

Life satisfaction 7.38 1.58 .73

Perceived stress 11.33 2.98 .75

Self-efficacy 13.35 1.97 .82

Self-esteem 25.76 3.54 .88

Satisfaction with job and life and remote work

54 current issues in personality psychology

aspects of job and life satisfaction. Therefore, respon-dents who work remotely more often display a higher level of general satisfaction (direct effect). That said, through the outcomes of analyses of direct and indi-rect effects for both models of dependence (indirect

effect), this result turned out to be significantly (di-rectly) mediated by the level of perceived stress and (indirectly) by the sense of self-efficacy and self-es-teem. For both models, the intermediary relationship turned out to be complete mediation (Tables 4 and 5).

Figure 1

Resulting path diagram of the stress and self-efficacy model as mediators between remote work and aspects of job and life satisfaction

Figure 2

Resulting path diagram of the model of stress and self-esteem as mediators between remote work and aspects of job and life satisfaction

Stress

Self-efficacy

Remote workJob and life satisfaction

Job satisfaction

Satisfaction with employment conditions

Life satisfaction

e2e1

e6

e5

e3

e4

–.12 –.33

.93

.64

.28

.20 –.43

.12 .14

Stress

Self-esteem

Remote workJob and life satisfaction

Job satisfaction

Satisfaction with employment conditions

Life satisfaction

e2e1

e6

e5

e3

e4

–.12 –.30

.92

.64

.29

.19 –.40

.12 .23

Table 2

Goodness of fit indices for the assumed system of variables “remote work – stress, self-efficacy – job and life satisfaction”

CMIN (df) RMSEA (90% CI) GFI CFI RMR

17.50 (6) .082 (.039-.139) .980 .959 .198

p = .008 p = .091Note. CMIN – chi-square statistic; RMSEA – root mean square error of approximation; GFI – goodness of fit index; CFI – com-parative fit index; RMR – root mean square residuals.

Table 3

Goodness of fit indices for the assumed system of variables “remote work – stress, self-esteem – job and life satisfaction”

CMIN (df) RMSEA (90% CI) GFI CFI RMR

26.29 (6) .091 (.059-.154) .971 .930 .238

p = .001 p = .011Note. CMIN – chi-square statistic; RMSEA – root mean square error of approximation; GFI – goodness of fit index; CFI – com-parative fit index; RMR – root mean square residuals.

Blanka Kondratowicz, Dorota Godlewska-Werner, Piotr Połomski, Meetu Khosla

55volume 10(1), 

Therefore, the respondents who work remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic show a certain level of satisfaction with their work and aspects of assess-ing their lives, but this relationship should be inter-preted through the prism of how the level of stress perceived during the last month is assessed, which also indirectly affects the sense of self-efficacy and self-esteem of the respondents. Severe stress experi-enced during the lockdown along with the resulting, decreased self-esteem and level of self-efficacy could reduce satisfaction with work and the aspects of one’s life. In such a case, the direct relation between performing remote work and the aspects of job and life satisfaction ceases to be relevant in favor of the intermediary variables included.

Therefore, all the assumed hypotheses were con-firmed.

discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine the re-lationship between performing remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic and the level of job and life satisfaction. Furthermore, we tested the assumed, intermediary role in this respect of the level of per-ceived stress and such resources as the sense of self-efficacy and self-esteem. From the perspective of the still prevailing COVID-19 pandemic, the most impor-tant result is the demonstration of the role of the em-ployees’ internal resources: the level of self-efficacy and self-esteem in the relationship between remote work and job and life satisfaction.

Remote work increases job and life satisfaction, which is consistent with the results of previous stud-

ies (cf. Anderson et al., 2015; Bailey & Kurland, 2002). Interestingly, the obtained outcomes show that de-spite the fact that remote work is imposed from above, it leads to an increase in the level of satisfaction (cf. Kaduk et al., 2019). It is possible that employees who have made a shift to remote work felt a greater sense of safety and stability, as well as belonging (cf. Fílardí et  al., 2020; Vittersø et  al., 2003). This could be due to the perception of the situation as a  prophylaxis against coronavirus infection. In addition, performing one’s professional duties, even if remotely, as well as staying busy, allowed them to avoid persistent think-ing about COVID-19, which protects against anxiety and trauma effects (cf. Skalski et  al., 2020). On top of that, telework is associated with the assumption that the greater the possibility of controlling one’s working time, the greater the satisfaction (Lipińska-Grobelny, 2014). The advantage of the home office is also saving time, which can be used to build relation-ships with loved ones. This in turn translates into sat-isfaction with this area of life (cf. Grover et al., 2020).

Additionally, attention should be given to the fact that the present economy is based on a flexible employment system, and not on a long-lasting rela-tionship with the company as before. Perhaps that is why the need to switch to remote work during the pandemic did not decrease the level of employee life satisfaction. Bańka (2002) also draws attention to the fact that a  modern employee feels little attachment to the workplace; he can perform his duties both at home or in a restaurant, on a train or a plane. Conse-quently, he does not feel discomfort associated with staying outside of his workplace.

The results obtained in our research confirmed that remote work reduces stress and increases self-

Table 4

Stress and self-efficacy mediation parameters in the relation of the independent and dependent variable in the assumed model

Hypothesis Direct effect (SE) Indirect effect (SE) Mediation

Remote work → Stress, Self-efficacy → Job and life satisfaction

.20** (.05) .06 (.02) Full mediation

90% CI (.101-.286) 90% CI (.018-.097)Note. **p < .01.

Table 5

Stress and self-esteem mediation parameters in the relation of the independent and dependent variable in the assumed model

Hypothesis Direct effect (SE) Indirect effect (SE) Mediation

Remote work → Stress, Self-esteem → Job and life satisfaction

.19** (.05) .07 (.03) Full mediation

90% CI (.095-.273) 90% CI (.031-.117)Note. **p < .01.

Satisfaction with job and life and remote work

56 current issues in personality psychology

efficiency and self-esteem. Previous research drew attention to the fact that remote work reduces stress (e.g., Hayman, 2010), which could be the re-sult of functioning at home, i.e., in familiar, favor-able conditions but also, despite isolation, it allows one to maintain contact with others through the use of modern technology (cf. Smith et al., 2018). More-over, the home office may be associated with the possibility of keeping a number of resources that are important from the perspective of the conservation of resource theory, such as the possibility of achiev-ing goals, having permanent employment, a sense of control over one’s life, the ability to organize work or a sense of independence (cf. Hobfoll, 2006). Working from home, the individual does not experience the risk of losing the above, and therefore he does not feel threatened. Moreover, the greater sense of free-dom and autonomy translates into the manner of or-ganizing working time and increases self-confidence (cf. Gajendran &  Harrison, 2007; Van Sell &  Jacobs, 1994). The result showing that the level of perceived stress weakens the level of self-efficacy and self-es-teem is consistent with prior reports (cf. Rayle et al., 2005). It is related to the fact that as a  result of the perceived stress, the individual loses faith in the hope of success (Kivimäki & Kalimo, 1996).

In line with the expectations, the results of the de-scribed research show that the level of stress weak-ens, and self-efficacy and self-esteem strengthen the relationship between remote work and satisfaction with life and work. Self-efficacy is a  quintessential construct impacting subjective well-being (Bandura, 2001). It is defined as an individual’s belief in their ability to work in a direction that helps them achieve their goals (Bandura, 1997), which impacts the kind of activities and efforts that an individual engages in to fulfill their goals (Pajares, 2002). People with low self-efficacy often tend to avoid tasks, anticipating that they will fail, while those with high self-efficacy are more likely to attempt difficult tasks (Bandura, 1997). Given the above, we can deduce that self-efficacy will strengthen the relationship between the need to work remotely, treating it as a challenge, and satisfac-tion in various areas of life will increase. Lower self-efficacy tends to be related to lower subjective well-being (Bandura, 2006) as well as more symptoms of depression and anxiety. Hence, individuals with high self-efficacy have reported higher levels of subjective well-being as compared to those with a low propen-sity to believe that they can influence the outcome of their actions (Ryan & Deci, 2001). As mentioned ear-lier, the possibility of performing work remotely re-quires taking control over one’s organization of time and pursuing effective action. Self-efficacy influences how an individual thinks and the behaviors they are likely to indulge in, as well as their judgements about how individuals act in stressful situations and cope with adversities (Bandura, 1997). Well-being, on the

other hand, is a  subjective experience that emerges out of different perceptions pertaining to one’s emo-tional states or quality of life, according to individuals themselves (Diener, 1984). Higher self-efficacy also helps individuals mediate the stressors faced at work in a  more adept manner (Çakar, 2012). On the other hand, a switch to remote work could be stressful due to the coexistence of several stressors simultaneously. Individuals with lower self-efficacy can easily feel overwhelmed at work when faced with harsh situ-ations that tend to increase anxiety and stress, thus narrowing down their problem-solving abilities (Paja-res, 2002). Lyubomirsky et al. (2005) found that char-acteristics such as self-efficacy and optimism encour-age more active involvement in pursuing one’s goals. Having high self-efficacy corresponds to better well-being, stress regulation, higher self-esteem as well as greater physical health (Bandura, 1997).

Previous studies show that self-esteem is an in-termediary variable between the sense of stress and mental health (Kivimäki &  Kalimo, 1996), and that perceived stress has a  negative impact on the feel-ing of happiness (Schiffrin &  Nelson, 2010). Lastly, there is a  very substantial contribution from the strong relationship of self-esteem with well-being (Bosson et al., 2000) and happiness (Baumeister et al., 2003). Both well-being and self-esteem are important constructs with regard to positive health. It can fur-thermore be concluded that self-esteem is a quintes-sential part of one’s notion about the quality of life and thus strongly related to life satisfaction (Diener 1984). The obtained results are in line with previous observations showing that high self-esteem is associ-ated with the feeling of being the right person in the right place (cf. Rossi et  al., 2020; Schultz &  Schultz, 2002). Therefore, it can be considered that an employ-ee with high self-esteem will be better able to accept the necessity to work remotely and will show greater satisfaction. He will have a positive attitude towards himself and his competences, and employ more ef-fective strategies of self-regulation in a difficult situ-ation or be quicker in implementing alternative so-lutions if the previous ones have not been effective (cf. Baumeister et al., 2003). Self-esteem protects the individual from the effects of COVID-19, even when a  high level of anxiety is accompanied by a  feeling of loneliness (Rossi et al., 2020) and related anxiety.

conclusions

The research results described above demonstrate that remote work is associated with higher job and work satisfaction. This dependence is mediated by the level of perceived stress, self-efficacy and self-esteem. Probably due to the positive impact of home office work on life and job satisfaction and reduc-ing the level of stress, as many as 87% of employees

Blanka Kondratowicz, Dorota Godlewska-Werner, Piotr Połomski, Meetu Khosla

57volume 10(1), 

would like to continue this mode of work after the end of the pandemic (Pracuj.pl, 2020) for employees; despite the pandemic and the need to work from home, remote work brings benefits both to the indi-vidual and the company.

Because the feelings of self-efficacy and self-esteem have a  major impact on job satisfaction, it would be worthwhile implementing psychologi-cal procedures amplifying their level and strength among employees (cf. Bandura, 1977), especially as self-esteem is a predictor of life success (Orth & Rob-ins, 2014), while self-efficacy can help in increasing enthusiasm at work (cf. Laguna et al., 2017) or gain-ing an advantage against competitors (cf. Mishra et  al., 2016). High well-being has been reported to influence health (Seligman, 1998). On the other hand, job satisfaction is also related to a  number of vari-ables important for the business, including identifica-tion with the company, employee effectiveness and readiness to leave the organization (cf. Zhang et al., 2018). It has a negative effect on the phenomenon of organizational silence and a positive impact on com-mitment (Peplińska et al., 2020). The strengthening of these variables by the organization is particularly im-portant during the COVID-19 pandemic, when many companies are struggling with problems resulting from the restrictions and are afraid of further conse-quences for their functioning.

limitations and diRections foR fuRtheR ReseaRch

The study group was heterogeneous – because of the lockdown it was difficult to test more specific groups. That is why we could not compare such variables as types of employment or previous experience of re-mote work. In the future, account must also be taken of demographic variables such as gender, role and age, as we observe differences in the assessment of a  difficult situation and the manner of coping with problems depending on gender, the roles performed (see Alon et al., 2020; Harth & Mitte, 2020), and age (cf. Beam & Kim, 2020).

In the future, it would be worth broadening the analyzed variables and considering examining the intermediary role of characteristics of job design in the relationship between self-efficacy and job satis-faction (cf. Bargsted et  al., 2019). It would be worth considering the frequency of contacts with the su-pervisor and colleagues during remote work (cf. Oak-man et al., 2020).

References

Alon, T., Doepke, M., Olmstead-Rumsey, J., &  Ter-tilt, M. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on gen-

der equality. CEPR COVID Economics, 4, 62–85. https://doi.org/10.3386/w26947

Anderson, A. J., Kaplan, S. A., &  Vega, R. P. (2015). The impact of telework on emotional experience: When, and for whom, does telework improve daily affective well-being? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 882–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.966086

Atroszko, B., Swarra, A., & Sendal, L. (2017). A com-parison of general education students and special education students in terms of self-efficacy and hopelessness. In M. McGreevy &  R. Rita (Eds.), CER Comparative European Research 2017: Pro-ceedings, Research Track of the 7th Biannual CER Comparative European Research Conference (pp. 124–127). Sciemcee Publishing.

Atroszko, P. A. (2015). The structure of study addiction: Selected risk factors and the relationship with stress, stress coping and psychosocial functioning (Unpub-lished doctoral thesis). University of Gdansk.

Bailey, D., & Kurland, N. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new directions, and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organization-al Behavior, 23, 383–400. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.144

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a  unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of con-trol. W. H. Freeman Company.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: an agen-tic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1

Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a  psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006. 00011.x

Bańka, A. (2002). Społeczna psychologia środowisko-wa [Environmental social psychology]. Scholar.

Bańka, A., &  Orłowski, K. (2014). Makiawelizm na-uczycieli jako przyczyna i skutek kryzysu zawo-dowego oraz funkcjonalnego szkoły [Machia-vellianism of teachers as a  cause and effect of professional and functional school crisis]. In K. Po-piołek, A. Bańka, & K. Balawajder (Eds.), Społecz-na psychologia stosowana. Człowiek w obliczu za-grożeń współczesnej cywilizacji [Applied social psychology. Human being in the face of threats of contemporary civilization] (pp. 196–209). Stowa-rzyszenie Psychologia i Architektura.

Bargsted, M., Ramírez-Vielma, R., &  Yeves, J. (2019). Professional self-efficacy and job satisfaction: The mediator role of work design. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 35, 157–163. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2019a18

Baumeister, R., Campbell, J., Krueger, J., &  Vohs, K. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better per-

Satisfaction with job and life and remote work

58 current issues in personality psychology

formance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.01431

Beam, C., &  Kim, A. (2020). Psychological sequelae of social isolation and loneliness might be a larger problem in young adults than older adults. Psy-chological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12, 58–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000774

Blascovich, J., &  Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of social psy-chological attitudes, Vol. 1. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 115–160). Academic Press.

Bosson, J. K., Swann, Jr, W. B., &  Pennebaker, J. W. (2000). Stalking the perfect measure of implicit self-esteem: The blind men and the elephant revisited? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 631–643. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.631

Çakar, F. S. (2012). The relationship between the self-efficacy and life satisfaction of young adults. In-ternational Education Studies, 5, 123–130. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v5n6p123

Cantril, H. (1965). Pattern of human concerns. Rutgers University Press.

Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., &  Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404

Connolly, J. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: a  meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 265–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00192-0

Culbertson, S., Fullagar, C., &  Mills, M. (2010). Feel-ing good and doing great: The relationship be-tween psychological capital and well-being. Jour-nal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020720

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542

Diener, E., & Diener, C. (1995). The wealth of nations revisited: Income and quality of life. Social Indica-tors Research, 36, 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01078817

Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personal-ity, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403–425. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145056

Droit-Volet, S., Gil, S., Martinelli, N., Andant, N., Clin-champs, M., Parreira, L., Rouffiac, K., Dambrun, M., Muguet, P., Dubuis, B., Pereira, B., COVISTRESS network, Bouillon, J. B., & Dutheil, F. (2020). Time and COVID-19 stress in the lockdown situation: Time free, “dying” of boredom and sadness. PLoS

One, 15, e0236465. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236465

Dzwonkowska, I., Lachowicz-Tabaczek, K. &  Łagu-na, M. (2008). Samoocena i jej pomiar. Polska ada-ptacja skali SES M. Rosenberga [Self-esteem and its measurement. Polish adaptation of Rosenberg’s SES scale]. Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych.

Fílardí, F., de Castro, R. M., & Zaníní, M. T. F. (2020). Advantages and disadvantages of teleworking in Brazilian public administration: Analysis of SER-PRO and federal revenue experiences. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 18, 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395174605x

Finset, A., Bosworth, H., Butow, P., Gulbrandsen, P., Hulsman, R. L., Pieterse, A. H., &  van Weert, J. (2020). Effective health communication – a  key factor in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient Education and Counseling, 103, 873–876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.03.027

Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and in-dividual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 92, 1524–1541. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1524

Grover, S., Sahoo, S., Mehra, A., Avasthi, A., Tripa-thi,  A., Subramanyan, A., Pattojoshi, A., Rao, G., Saha, G., Mishra, K., Chakraborty, K., Rao, N., Vaishnav, M., Singh, O., Dalal, P., Chadda, R., Gupta, R., Gautam, S., Sarkar, S., & Rao, T. (2020). Psychological impact of COVID-19 lockdown: an online survey from India. Indian Journal of Psychia-try, 62, 354–362. https://doi.org/10.4103/psychiatry.IndianJPsychiatry_427_20

Harth, N. S., &  Mitte, K. (2020). Managing multiple roles during the COVID-19 lockdown: Not men or women, but parents as the emotional “loser in the crisis”. Social Psychological Bulletin, 15, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.4347

Hayman, J. (2010). Flexible work schedules and em-ployee well-being. New Zealand Journal of Em-ployment Relations, 35, 76–87.

Hobfoll, S. E. (2006). Stres, kultura i społeczność. Psy-chologia i filozofia stresu [Stress, culture and com-munity. Psychology and philosophy of stress]. Gdańskie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., &  Locke, E. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.257

Kaduk, A., Genadek, K., Kelly, E. L., & Moen, P. (2019). Involuntary vs. voluntary flexible work: Insights for scholars and stakeholders. Community, Work & Family, 22, 412–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2019.1616532

Kashdan, T. B., Biswas-Diener, R., & King, L. A. (2008). Reconsidering happiness: The costs of distinguish-

Blanka Kondratowicz, Dorota Godlewska-Werner, Piotr Połomski, Meetu Khosla

59volume 10(1), 

ing between hedonics and eudaimonia. The Jour-nal of Positive Psychology, 3, 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760802303044

Kivimäki, M., &  Kalimo, R. (1996). Self-esteem and the occupational stress process: Testing two al-ternative models in a sample of blue-collar work-ers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.1.2.187

Konarski, R. (2010). Modele równań strukturalnych. Teoria i praktyka [Structural equation models. The-ory and practice]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Laguna, M., Razmus, W., &  Żaliński, A. (2017). Dy-namic relationships between personal resources and work engagement in entrepreneurs. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90, 248–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12170

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. Springer.

Lipińska-Grobelny, A. (2014). Psychological determi-nants of portfolio workers’ satisfaction with life. Health Psychology Report, 2, 280–290. https://doi.org/10.5114/hpr.2014.46696

Liu, H., Zhang, X., Chang, R., & Wang, W. (2017). A re-search regarding the relationship among intensive care nurses’ self-esteem, job satisfaction and sub-jective well-being. International Journal of Nurs-ing Sciences, 4, 291–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnss.2017.06.008

Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measure-ment and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00083.x

Lyubomirsky, S. (2001). Why are some people happier than others? The role of cognitive and motivation-al processes in well-being. American Psychologist, 56, 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.239

Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The ben-efits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803

Maggiori, C., Johnston, C. S., &  Rossier, J. (2016). Contribution of personality, job strain, and oc-cupational self-efficacy to job satisfaction in dif-ferent occupational contexts. Journal of Career Development, 43, 244–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845315597474

Mishra, U. S., Patnaik, S., & Mishra, B. B. (2016). Aug-menting human potential at work: an investigation on the role of self-efficacy in workforce commit-ment and job satisfaction. Polish Journal of Manage-ment Studies, 13, 134–144. https://doi.org/10.17512/pjms.2016.13.1.13

Molino, M., Ingusci, E., Signore, F., Manuti, A., Gian-caspro, M. L., Russo, V., Zito, M., &  Cortese, C. G. (2020). Wellbeing costs of technology use during COVID-19 remote working: an investigation us-

ing the Italian translation of the Technostress Creators Scale. Sustainability, 12, 5911. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155911

Oakman, J., Kinsman, N., Stuckey, R., Graham, M., & Weale, V. (2020). A rapid review of mental and physical health effects of working at home: How do we optimise health? BMC Public Health, 20, 1825. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09875-z

Orth, U., &  Robins, R. W. (2014). The development of self-esteem. Current Directions in Psychologi-cal Science, 23, 381–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414547414

Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning. Theory into Practice, 41, 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_8

Peng, Y., & Mao, C. (2015). The impact of person-job fit on job satisfaction: The mediator role of self-efficacy. Social Indicators Research, 121, 805–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0659-x

Peplińska, A., Kawalec, K., Godlewska-Werner, D., & Połomski, P. (2020). Work engagement, organi-zational commitment and the work satisfaction of tax administration employees: The intermediary role of organizational climate and silence in the organizations. Human Resources Management, 3–4, 127–151. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0014.1678

Ping, W., Zheng, J., Niu, X., Guo, C., Zhang, J., Yang, H., & Shi, Y. (2020). Evaluation of health-re-lated quality of life using EQ-5D in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One, 15, e0234850. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234850

Pracuj.pl. (2020). Pół roku nowej normalności. Pra-cownicy i kandydaci o rynku pracy [Six months of a new normal. Workers and candidates on the la-bour market]. Retrieved from https://prowly-up-loads.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/uploads/4091/assets/244900/original-b2ad8a15654b658a9a3f-5e09c22c505d.pdf

Rossi, A., Panzeri, A., Pietrabissa, G., Manzoni, G. M., Castelnuovo, G., &  Mannarini, S. (2020). The anx-iety-buffer hypothesis in the time of COVID-19: When self-esteem protects from the impact of loneliness and fear on anxiety and depression. Fron-tiers in Psychology, 11, 2177. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02177

Rożnowski, B., Biela, A., &  Bańka, A. (2006). Praca i organizacja w procesie zmian [Work and organi-sation in the change process]. Stowarzyszenie Psychologia i Architektura.

Rożnowski, B., & Kot, P. (2016). Przenoszenie przeko-nania o własnej skuteczności w nową rolę życio-wą: model moderacyjny i mediacyjny [Projecting self-efficacy beliefs to a new role in life: mediation model]. Czasopismo Psychologiczne, 22, 205–218. https://doi.org/10.14691/CPPJ.22.2.205

Rayle, A. D., Arredondo, P., & Kurpius, S. E. R. (2005). Educational self-efficacy of college women: Im-plications for theory, research, and practice. Jour-

Satisfaction with job and life and remote work

60 current issues in personality psychology

nal of Counseling and Development, 83, 361–366. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2005.tb00356.x

Reynolds, D. L., Garay, J. R., Deamond, S. L., Mo-ran,  M.  K., Gold, W., &  Styra, R. (2008). Under-standing, compliance and psychological impact of the SARS quarantine experience. Epidemiology and Infection, 136, 997–1007. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268807009156

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedon-ic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141

Ryff, C. D., &  Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719

Schiffrin, H., & Nelson, S. (2010). Stressed and happy? Investigating the relationship between happiness and perceived stress. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902- 008-9104-7

Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2002). Psychologia a wy-zwania dzisiejszej pracy [Psychology and the chal-lenges of today’s work]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1998). Building human strength: Psychology’s forgotten mission. APA Monitor, 29, 2.

Skalski, S., Uram, P., Dobrakowski, P., &  Kwiat-kowska, A. (2020). Thinking too much about the novel coronavirus. The link between persistent thinking about COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 anxiety and trauma effects. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 8, 169–174. https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2020.100094

Smith, B. G., Smith, S. B., & Knighton, D. (2018). So-cial media dialogues in a crisis: a mixed-methods approach to identifying publics on social media. Public Relations Review, 44, 562–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.07.005

Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (1991). Terror management theory of self-esteem. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health perspective (pp. 21–40). Pergamon Press.

Stajkovic, A. D., &  Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: a  meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240

Super, S., Pijpker, R., & Polhuis, K. (2020). The relation-ship between individual, social and national coping resources and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands. Health Psychol-ogy Report, 9, 186–192. https://doi.org/10.5114/hpr.2020.99028

Susilo, D. (2020). Revealing the effect of work-from-home on job performance during the COVID-19

crisis: Empirical evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business & Government, 26, 23–40. https://doi.org/10.47750/cibg.2020.26.01.002

Van Sell, M., &  Jacobs, S. M. (1994). Telecommuting and the quality of life: a review of the literature and a model for research. Telematics and Informatics, 11, 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/0736-5853(94)90033-7

Vittersø, J., Akselsen, S., Evjemo, B., Julsrud, T. E., Yttri, B., & Bergvik S. (2003). Impacts of home-based telework on quality of life for employees and their partners. Quantitative and qualitative results from a European survey. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4, 201–233. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024490621548

Zacher, H., & Rudolph, C. (2021). Individual differenc-es and changes in subjective wellbeing during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. American Psychologist, 76, 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000702

Zhang, L. F., Fu, M., & Li, D. T. (2020). Hong Kong aca-demics’ perceived work environment and job dis-satisfaction: The mediating role of academic self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112, 1431–1443. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000437

Zhang, W., Meng, H., Yang, S., & Liu, D. (2018). The influence of professional identity, job satisfac-tion, and work engagement on turnover inten-tion among township health inspectors in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15, 988. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15050988

Copyright of Current Issues in Personality Psychology is the property of Termedia PublishingHouse and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listservwithout the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,download, or email articles for individual use.